Sanctions!

[Mr President]

I started to put this in the december thread, but i felt it needed it's own seeing i'm seeking opinions..

Another thing that MAY be implemented next set (depending on public opinion) will be another new declaration called "Sanctions". Any nation who has enough members to operate properly will be able to use this feature..

How this works is, let's say WLF is being very wild and another nation or even the community is not happy. Instead of having to go to war, a nation or some nations may impose sanctions. What this does is not allow any WLF states to attack any states from a nation that imposed the sanction against them. So if USA imposes sanctions against WLF, no WLF state can attack a USA state.. Unless they declare war and that will override it all. Yes every nation in the game could impose these sanctions and literally prevent WLF from making any grabs.. But chances of all nations doing this are slim.. But, if it did happen, the WLF would either have to go to war, or pretty much work things out to get the sanctions removed.

Now the flip side to this, to keep it from being abused, the nation that declares the sanctions can NOT attack any sanctioned nation state.. So with the example from above, a USA state wouldn't be able to hit a WLF state either.. Which makes less grabs.. So this tool would need to be used wisely..

Basically all this is, is another tool to help bring a new era to the game and make it a little more fun by having more options other then warring..

Opinions on this please......

[pron]

It's interesting, but I can see it being abused by netting nations. All they'd have to do is sanction every nation in the game and then expand/build their way to net. Any way to make it so it's percentage based? Like, 20% less on grabs if sanctioned?

[Mr President]

possible on the % idea..

We could also make it so there is a limit on how many sanctions a nation could have.. Like 3-5.. that way a nation can't totally be shut down.
and make it so you can only declare 3-5 sanctions.. So you can't put them on every nation in the game.

There will always be loop holes in no matter what we do.. but this idea is a basic idea and i'm looking to improve it by suggestions from you all :-)

I would have put this in the suggestion sections, but i wanted everyone's full attention on this so we can figure this out as quickly as possible..

[northbabylon]

and make it so you have to keep it on a certain amount of days. So nation can't turn it on and off whenever they log off.

[Xavior]

and make it so you have to keep it on a certain amount of days. So nation can't turn it on and off whenever they log off.

And there must be a time delay before going into effect.

[-Z-]

Indeed.... this seems like a good idea!

and with the time limit/minimum, and the possibly % idea, it really limits abuses.

I think I approve of this Idea.


say it must be imposed for a minimum of 24 hours, and depending on how it works for the 1st set we could change it to no grabs, or a % on land lost.

With the % i could see abuse tho...

Like ex:

Nation A) Declares sanctions on nation B)

Now any states attacking the nations A and B get 40% (for ex) less land than they would from a normal SA.


this could be abused:


there is a friend in Nation A of a nation B state.

These guys could just trade GB massively, and actually turn it to an advantage.


So maybe the No grabs allowed would be better.



As for the time limits, or Min... We could work it all out after the 1st set,

I like experiments.


Z

[Mr President]

in just about every feature of this game there is a way to abuse it. this idea not only brings a whole new aspect to the game it also adds another war reason :-)

the release date is not set in stone. it could be next set or jan set or it could even be pushed back till a new version comes out.. i'll know more as i test it more. i also like the idea of the % when grabbing. i plan on trying to set that up and test it some to see which way is better. but overall i love this idea and think it will make the gameplay more entertaining..

[MAGGIO]

i thought it would be more of a PM thing too.

Here is one that concerns me. And this can happen and does.

Nation A owns 70-80% of the top then. Nation B has 10-20% of the top then, so they saction nation A so that the players ahead of them cannot land farm them down into the top 20.

[Tnova]

PM sanctions would only benefit Indy and Farmer nations only. Casher would be left out by not being able to sanction anyone effectively, but yet be sanctioned by everyone.

Nation A declares war on Nation B to retal sanctions imposed.

I don't really like the % idea. It needs to be no grabs between nations to work correctly, otherwise it will become a benefit between nations and not a sanction.

[-Z-]

PM sanctions would only benefit Indy and Farmer nations only. Casher would be left out by not being able to sanction anyone effectively, but yet be sanctioned by everyone.

Nation A declares war on Nation B to retal sanctions imposed.

I don't really like the % idea. It needs to be no grabs between nations to work correctly, otherwise it will become a benefit between nations and not a sanction.

Thats what I was trying to say.

If you get 4 GB on your from a nation with sanctions against u, its 20% or 50% or some% better than without.

anyone that fully understands GB, and how its acctually good to be grabbed in many cases, will see this.


Z