I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest poll on abandoned countries.

It just seemed to me that too many abandoned countries littered the worlds, so I thought it might be cool to put them in a "pool" when they're abandoned to allow other players to continue them. It could really keep the game more interesting and dynamic.

I honestly was expecting most people to vote against it, though.

If I allow abandoned countries to be claimed by other players, one thing I could definitely see happening is a small country resigning and claiming an abandoned country if it's larger and wealthier.

I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing, though. I suppose a player grabbing a larger country is more likely to keep playing than if he stayed as a small country.

Ummm... I'm not sure about others, I read the poll as countries are abandoned (as in completely gone) vs. country capitals and bases remaining in play even if controlled territory disappears.

May just be me though...

Are we still waiting 37 days for this to happen? Most countries won't be around in one piece if they're inactive for that long.

My 2 cents:

It does not make sense for a country's lands suddenly switch owners. A large part of GT is diplomacy -- if agreements you have with other players could suddenly become null and void just by chance of someone taking over the area I think this could have a hugely negative impact on game play. Sure treaties would stay, but often treaties include other bits (border definition, common enemy etc.). Right now having the capitals stay around is kinda cool -- it creates important strategic points on the map, but does not cause additional massive shifts in the game play (besides the area becoming open, which of course can have a major impact.)

Two thoughts :

If it's the current 37 days, then unless a country is completely issolated, it's going to be halfway ripped apart anyways. Not sure how often this would be used.

Secondly, I do have a concern about someone "trading up" by taking over a bigger, abandoned country from whatever situation they have. I don't think it's going to benefit new players, but only current ones who are ready to pounce on countries that are about to become available.

I will agree that it could make the game more complex and dynamic, and for some people that would be more interesting, but the important question is "would that be more fun?". I can only see 3 scenarios in which a country would be abandoned in the first place:

A) The player has ended up on the losing side of a war to the point of not seeing a way to turn it around. Because of the long-term nature of GT, the actual loss (where you have no units and no income) might still be weeks away, but it is still obvious who the winner is going to be even if they have to start paying attention to another front. Who would really want to take over in this situation? At the very least, if this kind of take-over situation were allowed, the potential new regent ought to be given a brief of the current status of the country.

B) The player is simply trading up to a better country (larger, farther away from rivals, closer to friends...). I do not see any problems with allowing a new player to enter in this case, although potential new managers might appreciate knowing that this is a low-problem (if likely smaller) state. Even so, you might want to eliminate the country if it has not reached a certain minimum size.

C) The player is bored and quit. Their country may have no problems at all, but may also be of significant size, in an alliance, or otherwise pose a significant hazard to its immediate neighbors if suddenly under new management (especially if now run by a RL friend or spy of said neighbors).

As such, if take-overs are permitted, I would suggest two features be included along with that:
#1) I would suggest a simple tally of the number of attacks received in the past day, past week, and past month, and who they were by, as well as treaties (since we can already see alliances). This would permit a new player new ruler to enter the situation knowing who the countries current friends and enemies are.

#2) Drop the country into a state of anarchy lasting a minimum of at least a week, and continuing until the country is under new management or has had X losses (50% territory, capital, *shrug*). During this state of anarchy, the country cannot be taken over, is removed from any alliance, all its treaties are dropped, its units will not move (though they will defend themselves), and everyone in the world is notified that the country is in anarchy. This would give the state's neighbors time to adjust defences, make a land grab, or talk with potential takers.

The suggestions themselves might not be the best, but the point is that a truly new entrant should have some idea of what they are jumping into, and there should be some limited protection against sudden back-stabbing by the new management of a neighboring state.

I think a third option should be added, and the poll re-done.

1) Be destroyed
2) Allow a new player to take control
3) Leave the bases, etc intact, but otherwise destroyed.

I think it might make a difference.

My plan would be to implement it as follows.

- A country whose leader hasn't played the world for 30 days would be "abandoned" and be able to be claimed. All perpetual attacks are immediately stopped.

- A separate "Claim a Country" page would be added where a list of all claimable countries (and the country's statistics, including amount of cash, treaties, etc.) would be listed.

- Any country that isn't claimed with 7 (or possibly 14) days would then be removed from the game.

Alliances are actually assigned by user, so an abandoned country would not automatically be part of any alliance. Treaties, however, would have to be broken by the new leader.

In most cases, a country who hasn't logged in in 30 days would be pretty badly damaged. However, there's also 30 days of income piling up, which could make it worthwhile. Right now, if a larger player gets bored and stops playing the game, his neighbors just get lucky and never have the battle. That's not very fun in a war game.

Also, it seems to me that players often stop playing they're losing (which often leads to larger countries blowing through neighbors unopposed and growing exponentially). So, I could see some players just wanting to claim abandoned countries for last hoorahs and then abandoning or leaving the country again. It lets players participate in the game short-term instead of having to commit to running a country from start to finish. It also definitely means a lot more unexpected action, but if a leader simply abandons his country, that's probably not too surprising!

I think I'd also replace the "resign" option with "abandon." If no one takes your abandoned country after 7 (or 14) days, then it's removed.

But the player taking over would be required to abandon his own country? Hopefully it wouldn't add.

I'll be honest, I don't think this is a good idea. For example, in Cerato, the country of Zanzabar will probably be considered abandoned in a few days. This is a huge country. I think it's still in the top 20, even with three other players chewing at it. If another player took over, they'd have the benefit of 20-25 days income of one of the largest countries on the map. That could literally destroy two or three of the attacking countries overnight. My country is about 1/3 the size of Zanzabar and I can still buy a nuke every turn if I wanted. I can only imagine how much damage would be done with 20-30 nukes.

Anyway, this is a wargame. Allowing the switching of sides, teams, etc would really ruin the game in my opinion.

I'm all for letting the everything remain intact (as it is) until the country is abandoned through lack of play. It actually let's me try out a few different tactics with minimal chances of dramatic failure if I mess up. The ability to take over bases does create a very nice strategic flavor to the game (a race for an abandoned base complex).

My thoughts are leave it as is. Like I said, I misinterpreted the poll. I'd vote to leave it as is now.

Thanks

Yes, a player could still only run one country in a world at a time. So, if he had an existing country in the world, he'd have to abandon his to claim the other.


<i>For example, in Cerato, the country of Zanzabar will probably be considered abandoned in a few days.</i>

This is exactly why I'd like to modify the game. Instead of all the work Zanzabar's leader spent growing his country going to waste, someone can now make use of that (minus 30 days of no expansion and other countries rushing in, at least with the new setup). With the current setup, instead of actually having to fight Zanzabar, the countries around him are simply going to race and grab his land. They grow like mad simply because someone nearby decided he didn't want to play anyway, while other countries on the other side are still pinned in fighting for survival.

The winners now seem to be decided by who gets bored and stops playing rather than actual battles. That's something that's really bugging me.

Speeding up transports would help a LOT ;)

I don't know if its just you that keep posting but it makes me chuckle that everyone wants this.

if you increase transports anymore then they already are you completely skew the game. I mean they already out run land units and with base skipping (not hopping cause hopping cheating) you can move 20+ squares a day (expensive) but you can do it.

One thing I'm concerned with this new change is that let's say country x quits, with no warning. Let's say I have a 3 week treaty with them. I might notice they are gone after a week, cancel the treaty, and not even have a chance to do anything before a near-by country would have a months supply of cash...

I wish I knew the difference between hopping and skipping.

Didn't Johnny close all the "cheats"?

There is no way that a transport with a TC is faster than a land unit.

a transport without cargo moves at 17.
a transport with same-level or lower-level cargo moves at 15.
a transport with higher-level cargo moves lower than 15 (depending on difference in levels)

fastest land unit is a jeep, at 12. All other land units are 8 (or 9?)


and the hopping/skipping business goes like this:
a transport with a CT on it leaves its sea base (transport get free 5-10 movement) then uses up ~15 movement. the destination is next to a land sector. The CT gets off the transport.
Next Daily Cycle
the CT makes a sea base, gets on the transport, and gets the free 5-10 movement by moving transport away from the sea base, then use up the ~15 movement again, ending next to a land sector. The CT gets off transport.
Next Daily Cycle
Repeat

Basically, with this method a transport really has twice its movement by doing this. (though it'll cost you 2.5k a pop for the sea base, or 1.5k if you sell it right afterwards)

I sometimes do this, but mainly because I want to establish radar bases to get 100% coverage.

The "cheating" method doesn't work anymore, and would require you to already own the land sectors every time the transport move, which makes it utterly useless. You would be better off just establishing a sea base at the edge of your border either way.

I'm not sure I understand the issue you're describing.

Regardless, though, the new owner couldn't do anything that the old owner could not. The old owner could change his mind and cancel a treaty at any time, and the old owner could sit and do nothing and collect a month's worth of cash. The only difference is that the perpetual attacks are canceled while the country is listed for a new owner, which is a negative for the country.

In no way does allowing someone else to take over give the new owner an advantage. It's simply allowing someone else to take over something that already exists.

Just think of it as a coup d'etat.

Yes, I believe so. The only maneuver possible now is what Manaco described, which is perfectly legitimate.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way you could attack an inactive if you have a treaty with them before someone could come in and take over the new country. So if a member of your alliance goes inactive, there isn't a chance at all to take any of their land before a new player would get the land, with alot of cash.

If there's a way that the treaties could be cancelled for, say, a week or something before this happened, I think I would have less objection to it. Then the new player would get lots of cash, but probably not alot else.

if you allow people to absorb abandoned countries the map will fill up too fast ... they should be wiped clean to keep the map open longer for new players ... older players with bigger countries will suddenly gain too much power ... the land should be cleared to make room ... if you allow them to be absorbed you will find you have to make new worlds many times more frequently ... and what is to stop someone from building a country up to a certain point, then abandoning it with intent to register again with a new account and set up in range of the abandoned country with a new one ... like on an island that no one can reach ... it would be like skipping a rock across the Islands ... planned abandonment for rapid land expansion with new accounts over and over again ... it would ruin the game ... abandoned lands should be wiped clean to keep the game fair and make the world last longer.


also I am new so I don't fully understand things ... in any case a bunch of changes is not gonna make the game better ... the focus should be to fix the bugs, cuz I wanted to play today and I can't ... not fun ... anyway I dunno

I think it's actually the exact opposite. As it is now, older players are unopposed and bored players who abandon their countries just give countries more room to expand unopposed. If older countries could be claimed by new, interested players, expansion wouldn't be so wide open.

Also, it's very difficult for a new player to gain a foothold on a map that's been running for a while. Starting with a larger country that's abandoned would probably give them the fighting chance they never had.


<i>and what is to stop someone from building a country up to a certain point, then abandoning it with intent to register again with a new account and set up in range of the abandoned country with a new one</i>

The <a href="http://www.toomuchstupid.com/legal/terms/">Terms of Use</a>. Any user who creates multiple accounts will lose <i>all</i> of their accounts and countries.

I can sense problems with this as well, even though I'm not sure what form they'll take.

Perhaps if we wanted to try this, it could be implemented on the Sandbox as a test feature to see how it goes?

Sandbox is actually the one world where testing wouldn't help, since countries are automatically removed after 60 days. [/tng]

I think it might be tricky to implement on a world by world basis, too, since the change is very fundamental to country ownership. In the end, I can always take that route if need be. If I make it a per-world option, then I can enable it in the next new world and see how it plays out.

I think the existing worlds are very much suffering, though. I can certainly understand players getting bored or just deciding they don't want to play anymore and leaving, but players also seem to be quitting <i>constantly</i> whenever they start getting into a battle. (Just watch the YouTube videos and you'll see country after country pop away once a fight breaks out.) When that happens, the other country (which was likely larger to begin with) simply gets an open path and more land to grow even more. The constant giving up makes the game far too easy for the big countries. The game was supposed to be about war, not about drawing lines and grabbing pixels.

I think letting someone else take over could keep the worlds <i>far</i> more dynamic, balanced, and interesting. The Zanzabar example above is exactly why I think this change is badly needed.

I'd like to continue the discussion, though.

another thing, just in case you missed it,

a country without trucks or bases should not even be considered for "adoption" since you wouldn't even be able to do anything if you choose to take over an existing country.
Perhaps once a country that loses its capital, all trucks, and all land bases should automatically be removed?
On second thought, it's entirely possible to use what units that remain to reclaim a base...

Also, someone above mentioned some sort of a test world similar to Sandbox. I think that's not a bad idea, especially with the little fiasco with the invisibility stuff. It could be wiped clean everytime a new feature has been tested and tried, closed, (and then applied to all worlds, if approved) and then re-opened every time you come up with a new feature.

and psst; your picture of the three adorable kittens are soo... how do I put this?... 'effing heartwarming! I have 3 cats myself.

This is actually incorrect. A transport without cargo moves at 17 is true.

However, a transport of any size with any cargo moves at 11. I don't know if this is a bug or change, but all cargo ships that I have with any cargo (from INF-1 to CT-6) moves at 11.... which slower than a jeep, which explains why my front line passed a fleet of ships in Cerato.

A transport carrying a unit of equal or less strength will move at 15. If you have a unit that is moving less, please send me a note with the world and the sea unit ID and I'll take a look.

Thanks! I actually just raised them for the first year or so. They were abandoned by their mother, so I even had to bottle feed. haha The vet said they were very unlikely to survive, but they all made it! My parents now have two and my sister has the other, so I still get to visit.

Hmm, I've got an idea then. What about giving a defending player of a smaller country a little bit more of an advantage? Specifically, I think thinking that once a country has been attacked successfully and they have lost their land bases and construction trucks near the front, the rest will probably fall rather quickly without a chance for the defending player to do much other than lose pixels.

What if players were allowed to build turrets in owned cells without the need for a construction truck? Given the cost advantage of turrets, a defending player of a smaller nation would be able to out-compete the larger nation, but would not be able to use those resources to push back. Seeing more turrets and defences pop up would also give greater utility to missiles and bombs to punch through over-built defensive lines.

even if strength was attack power, all my level 1 transports carrying level 1 construction trucks move at 11. my level 2 transport carrying level 1 construction truck also moves at 11. i'll send you a note w/ where they're at

I'll just play the game however it is ... maybe you can implement changes in the next world you create and see how it goes for a few months.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's alright, but don't make the change in a current game, test it out in a medium-sized world first at the very least.

Maybe if you're moving diagonally... My transports are all moving at 15.

Just to clarify, a sea unit can be "moved" up to a distance of 11 without a land unit, or 9 with a land unit of equal or lower strength. (If the land unit strength is greater than the sea unit, then the move distance decreases further.)

The attack distance is 17 without a land unit, or 15 with a land unit of equal or lower strength.

The number "11" may have come from the sea unit's Info screen, which simply listed a "Range" value. This actually referred to the move distance of the unit. It's a poorly worded remnant of the game from back when units could move and attack in the same turn at any position, and before transport distances were weighted depending on their cargo. I've removed it for now, but I'll update it to provide more accurate information soon.

I voted in favor of removing the abandoned country entirely.

It just seems to make more sense (to me) from a game perspective. The alternatives would be needlessly complex and potentially 'cheesy' (players taking over a large abandoned country could 'magically' have a new powerful ally in the ideal spot.. overnight). I would think it's better to free up the space for new countries to be born.


Maybe the solution is to remove the abandoned county and also implement some sort of "new player protection" for people starting off in a mature game.

Just my 2 cents. I'm new to this game and really enjoying it so far!

My one argument in favor of something like this is Cerato will never end, big countries will get bored and quit, it just won't end... Sigh.

My concern isn't really about new players not having a fair chance, mainly because I don't think <i>anything</i> would change that. (They can play the existing map for fun and then try to win a future world, in my opinion.)

The problem I see is just the sheer number of people who quit instead of fighting once they're behind. Realistically, a country wouldn't just cease to exist. Instead, if a leader stepped down, someone else would step into his place. That could be bad or good for other countries, but it's exactly what happens in the real world, I think!


<i>Just my 2 cents. I'm new to this game and really enjoying it so far!</i>

I always appreciate feedback and opinions, and I'm glad you're enjoying it!