Sanctions!

[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

[Fangz]

a good use for this would be netting nations with lots of players in top 20-top 50. if two nations start warring who have players in top 10-top20, you could sanction both to prevent your states losing tons of land to states who are stonewalling.

i can see how it could/would be abused, but it adds a new element to the game which should make it more fun. i say add it to the game, let the community take care of abusers, and work out the kinks over time.

i don't like the name sanctions, but i can't think of anything better.

[-Z-]

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.

some sort of PM sanctions would be good.... and it is also what came to my mind 1st.

but like the other men stated.... its not balanced...

Unless...

all National Banks use $ to Buy units. (indy nations less, but still some)

what if we found a way to balance the Indy NA/Bank isssue,

and Used sanctions on the NA?

meh, i dunno

Z

[Mr President]

a good use for this would be netting nations with lots of players in top 20-top 50. if two nations start warring who have players in top 10-top20, you could sanction both to prevent your states losing tons of land to states who are stonewalling.

i can see how it could/would be abused, but it adds a new element to the game which should make it more fun. i say add it to the game, let the community take care of abusers, and work out the kinks over time.

i don't like the name sanctions, but i can't think of anything better.

I have thought about this all day and i think making it so you can't attack is the best way to go. When we get into the % then we have to tie it all in with the GB and well it's a ton of work.. Making it so it can't attack is easy and i already have it done that way ..

I don't think the abuse is going to be as bad as you think. it's not like you declare sanctions on someone and nobody knows it. I have it set up the same way as when you declare Retaliation or War.. It will show up in the exterior news, interior news and also it notifies each member of each nation. And if someone is declaring sanctions against another nation for no reason, then i'm sure it will be handled the way it needs to be. (ie war)

Basically sanctions will be used for those nations who want to help a friend or ally in some ways other then warring. Now you can publicly show your distaste of the conflict and do something other then warring..

If nations with top states try to use it to protect there top states, then they risk the chance of getting warred and losing all there states..

Just to be clear, a war declaration over rides sanctions..

04:39:25-2008/11/11 America [USA]has declared Sanctions on World Liberation Front[WLF]

[Cape]

Simple, said nation just declares war on everyone and continues to grab happily until they decide to suicide on the top states of the sanctioning nations near the end of set problems solved I'm sure

[-Z-]

Simple, said nation just declares war on everyone and continues to grab happily until they decide to suicide on the top states of the sanctioning nations near the end of set problems solved I'm sure

but then the entire game would do war attacks on that nation, im sure they would not last that long.


Z

[Missionary]

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.

what if nation A has the top spot by miles and has 6 members. Nation B has the other top 9 states, is lagging behind, with no hope of catching the top state but has 15 members. Nation B imposes the sanction giving them a huge chance to catch the top guy.

your pretty much encouraging smaller nations to have to join bigger ones, or get annoyed with not being able to hold the top spot like they deserve and suicide the bigger nation.

i think thats to much of a step backwards from what weve been trying to achieve recently just to add another reason to war.

[piraco]

thats a fine idea! but a world embargo on a nation early, would create a major damage to that nation, too big to keep this game even.