NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm posting this as a new topic because it combines the thoughts of several threads.

I think that we need to keep in mind the purpose of NationStates:
"NationStates is a nation simulation game."

Whenever we have a question about the design of NS or NS2, we should always ask ourselves: "What Would Real-life Do?" and refer back to the over-riding point that NationStates is a nation simulation game, that is, it's meant to copy what real nations do.

------------------------

That being said, I'll ponder a bit about Regions. (Important statements are in bold, in case you want to skip a bit.)

Regions are a collection of sovereign nations. (Sovereign means it can govern itself... it wouldn't be much fun if when you joined a region someone else gets full control of your nation.) In NS1, a region is simply a separated list of Nations, and each can have a UN Delegate that has special powers in the UN, like proposal approval.

In real life, what would regions correspond to? I believe it is one or both of international alliances or physical groupings. The European Union would definately be a region. North America would definately be a region (both physically and because of the border and trade agreements between Canada, the US, and Mexico). Africa might also be a region, just because they're all collected together physically, but don't necessarily have a lot of treaties or a governing organization.

So now we really have two types of regions - Physical and Political. In NS1, this is represented by the fact that not everyone in a region has to be a UN member, and not all regions have to have a UN delegate.

Max Barry's thoughts about regions from http://www.nationstates.net/ns2thoughts.html:

Do we still call them regions? Or go more realistic and make them more like international alliances? Either way, allow more control over who's in a region: nations can boot out nations they don't want there by vote, etc. Expanded regional bulletin board, allow intra-regional polls, all that obvious stuff.

This ties into what we just thought... Physically there may be separate regions, but politically there can be alliances, or even regional governments, as first suggested I believe by Tekdude on the "A hundred thousand players x $5 a month. for eternal war?" thread.

For NS2, perhaps we should keep the idea of regions, but solely as physical groupings. If we're going for the map idea, then regions can simply be carved out of a map as continents or otherwise. No one can be in charge of a region absolutely, but certain countries may have more economic, military, or political power within a region. This way smaller countries don't necessarily have to listen to larger countries in their region, but they still exist there. The only way to switch regions would be to abandon your country and make a new one. This is how it is in real life.

As far as treaties, these could be between two or more countries and simply be international agreements. Additionally, there can be alliances such as the EU, which have two or more member countries, and basically exist to enforce treaties.

Example 1: Josholand and Christmas Day may have signed a treaty which states: "We both agree to honor December 25th as a holiday." This is only enforceble by us. If I stop recognizing Dec 25th, Christmas Day is the only one that really cares, and could impose trade sanctions against me, or invade me, or whatever. (Of course military action is not the point, but one option if severe enough.)

Example 2: Nixonstan, Christmas Day, and Britannia have an alliance called "The Tri-Nation Alliance". As a part of this alliance, they each can vote and adopt treaties. Within the game, these treaties would be the same as non-alliance treaties, except that they must be adopted by the whole alliance (or maybe 1/2 vote?) and are marked and searchable under the specific alliance. If an alliance nation violates such a treaty, the other nations in that alliance can act together to bring the nation into compliance. Whether this can or will be automated in some way depends upon the design of treaties and the game. (i.e. an option that says "If any treaties are broken with me, stop trade with that nation." How to determine whether a treaty is broken may be role-play, or may depend upon what laws are enacted in other nations.)

Example 3: Keeping the examples set up before, if Josholand breaks the Dec25 treaty with Christmas Day, whether or not The Tri-Nation Alliance will act together against Josholand is a decision left to the alliance. Sometimes if may, sometimes it won't. This is international politics. In some situations, an alliance could be split due to differences of opinions. That type of thing makes the game interesting. :)

I don't think nations should be allowed to be a part of more than one alliance, for the sole reason that it could quickly become REALLY complicated, and for our purposes, an alliance is acting as a meta-governing organization.

An idea for Alliance membership: New members can only be added with approval or 1/2 or 3/4 vote of existing members (whichever could be an option), and same thing for kicking out members. This way say Nixonstan clicks the button to form new alliance, and invites Christmas Day and Britannia. The only member initially is Nixonstan, and he approves the other two by invitation. If Josholand wants to join, I may go the the alliance page and click Apply to Join. Then, that alliance could approve or deny me after debating and reviewing my application. If I was approved, I would also have to be bound by all the treaties they already signed. This is also good because then there isn't any set person that has control of the alliance (like real life). Alliances can still have single UN delegates, if they want to and are a part of the UN, but like the real UN, the delegates just speak or act on behalf of the alliance.

I think that this system is somewhat more complex than NS1, but definately managable, and would definately add a lot to the interaction between nations. Roleplaying is still possible and required, except there is a way to organize it and write down all of the agreements, and forums to debates things, and votes to decide things.

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to get this idea out there. I've been thinking over it for a while.

Thoughts?

I don't think there should be physically region in Nationstates it would make a game like simcountry (www.simcountry.com) and i hate it.

So now we really have two types of regions - Physical and Political.

Yeah, I just mentioned that in another thread, before reading this one. I'd always assumed the regions were supposed to be physical, albeit outside the realms of plausibility (being able to just uproot and move somewhere new, for example). But it seems some people see them as purely political ones. That's a big difference, though. I mean, myself, I'd always imagined countries within a region fighting one another (politically or physically) to become top dog of that area. If they're political alliances, then it's a completely different basis of play. Personally, I prefer the former. It just seems more realistic, in a self-serving kind of way. :)

The only way to switch regions would be to abandon your country and make a new one. This is how it is in real life.

So would you pick which region to start in as part of the country creation process? Or would you be randomly assigned a starting location somewhere in the world? The latter would be very cool, I think, but might also be annoying to some. I think it's more realistic, since not many countries have the luxury of choosing where to live in the world. Also, details like the country's main export are random, and presumably are a result of the country's location (e.g. a country with huge rainforests is gonna have an enormous lumber industry. so if the industry is randomly picked, it'd make sense for the location to be random too). That said, if your start location is random and also hinders war or trade with your friends, who randomly started the other side of the world, then it's probably a bad idea. So the alternative is you pick a region when you make your country, and you're stuck with it for the rest of the game?


As for the treaties stuff, I definitely agree on that one. I'd really like to be able to set up pacts between small groups of nations. They'd essentially work like UN resolutions, but only between the nations of your choosing. And, of course, they'd be breakable. I wholeheartedly agree they should be in the game, and should work roughly how you described.

I don't think nations should be allowed to be a part of more than one alliance, for the sole reason that it could quickly become REALLY complicated, and for our purposes, an alliance is acting as a meta-governing organization.

Hmm. I do agree it could get very complicated very quickly, but 1 seems a bit limiting. I'd imagine there could be a lot of times when I want to be allied with two nations who don't want to be allied to one another. That would mean I'd have to be a part of two separate alliances. You could say that to ally with one, I'd have to break the alliance with the other, but that wouldn't be too realistic, as countries remain impartial all the time in the real world.


Oh, and...

Josholand and Christmas Day may have signed a treaty which states: "We both agree to honor December 25th as a holiday."

Silly Josho. EVERY day is christmas in the People's Republic of Christmas Day.

I'd always imagined countries within a region fighting one another (politically or physically) to become top dog of that area. If they're political alliances, then it's a completely different basis of play. Personally, I prefer the former. It just seems more realistic, in a self-serving kind of way. :)

Now, what you were describing is what I was thinking as well, competing for control of a continent or however regions are delineated. The alliances could be sub-groups of a region, or super-sets of regions. Example: The European Union is only a certain subset of the countries in Europe. Politically, they all are trying to come to agreements in which more countries join the EU, as a bunch voted to join today. This is essentially what you wanted, I believe -- countries or alliances competing to gain control of a (physical) region. Of course, one way to play is if you're a war-monger, start an alliance called "WARLAND IS KING" and run it such that if they don't join, you smite and annex the country, and when they do join, they have to agree with you or be kicked out, and smitten. That's the only way ONE country could end up controlling a whole region.

The point about regions being physical is that trade and war would mostly happen within that region, especially if a country is landlocked. You'd have to start treaties and alliances to get along.

In short, we agree, regions are physical, just alliances should also be implemented to help out.

So would you pick which region to start in as part of the country creation process? Or would you be randomly assigned a starting location somewhere in the world?

I was going to address this part more specifically in another post dealing with Nations and Creation of Nations. Either option would be feasible, for the reasons you said, random would be cool for some and realistic, but making a region with friends you all want to choose the same region.

Hmm. I do agree it could get very complicated very quickly, but 1 seems a bit limiting. I'd imagine there could be a lot of times when I want to be allied with two nations who don't want to be allied to one another. That would mean I'd have to be a part of two separate alliances. You could say that to ally with one, I'd have to break the alliance with the other, but that wouldn't be too realistic, as countries remain impartial all the time in the real world.

I disagree. Again, I imagined alliances like the EU. (EU is the perfect example for everything.) A country couldn't be a part of the EU, and the Asian Union, and the African Union. My response above about alliances being mostly sub-regional takes care of this. The part about it being complicated is if you join two alliances, and one makes a treaty that violates or conflicts with the other one, you couldn't uphold both, and thus would have to risk conflict or leaving one. Also, multi-alliances would allow nations to have more than one UN delegate, giving extra representation in the UN. If you could have multiple alliances, could a group of nations each form an alliance and join each others, so there are four alliances or more for the same four countries, the sole purpose being to get extra UN delegates or whatever other advantages such a scheme may have?

As far as multiple impartial alliances, just form treaties with those countries. You don't need an alliance per se.

Silly Josho. EVERY day is christmas in the People's Republic of Christmas Day.

Ok, I'm amending our treaty to state: "In the People's Republic of Christmas Day, the date is December 25th indefinately."

Ahh, sorry, I think I was misunderstanding the exact distinctions between treaties and alliances. I thought you were suggesting that nation's should only be allowed one TREATY, not one ALLIANCE. My bad. I was also thinking of alliances in the more traditional, military sense, as in allying against a common foe. I'm so old-fashioned.

So to recap, in case I've still got it wrong:

A region is a purely physical, geographical area of the gameworld. Countries within that area can be at war with one another or ally or whatever the hell they want. The only common link, at least when they begin the game, is that they share the same area of the planet.

A treaty is an agreement or pact between two or more countries to achieve a common goal, be it research, no fly zones, outlawing slavery or whatever. The treaty has predetermined conditions, such as duration and possibly consequences and so on.

An alliance is an ongoing union or federation between a collection of nations, who will continually pass and update treaties amongst themselves. All treaties are law, and so all nations within the alliance must comply at all times or risk the consequences (be it expulsion from the alliance, trade sanctions imposed, or even war).

Okay, so that's what you're suggesting for NS2, right? Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating you, I just wanted to make sure I've got it right.

If so, then I don't think I could possibly agree more. Those definitions are almost exactly what I was imagining.

Just a couple of questions:
1) Presumably countries can form treaties and alliances with countries anywhere in the world? Hopefully they wouldn't be limited to your physical region.
2) Can you leave an alliance at any time? Presumably if you terminate a trade contract before the given expiry date, you have to pay the other party compensation, but what about alliances? Let's say I enter into an alliance with you, Nixonstan and Britannia. Everything is going great, until the three of you pass a law stating the alliance is going to pursue a strict nuclear-disarmament program. I'm located in a very tense geographical region where each nation has equal footing, including nukes, and it is only this precarious balance which stops all out war. If I disarm, the chances are I'd be attacked, so I'm obviously reluctant. Presumably I'd openly plead my case to the three of you, but if you still refused, what then? Would I be able to take my leave of the alliance, willingly, or what? If so, how do we stop countries just making alliances for short term gains, with no intention whatsoever of sticking around? Or were you intending for that kind of fickle attitude to be perfectly acceptable? Personally, whilst the above scenario would be a hell of a lot of fun to be involved with, I think it's only because it would be a genuinely tough decision to make. If I suffered no penalty for just ditching your alliance and finding another one that wasn't pro-disarmament, then the decision would be a lot easier, and thus the scenario would be less fun. Perhaps there are two ways of voluntarily leaving an alliance: amicably and unamicably. If you leave amicably, then fair enough. No harm done. But an unamicable separation leads to your political reputation dimishing slightly. Perhaps you get a black mark next to your name whenever it comes to signing treaties and alliances in future? I'm imagining a system like eBay's feedback system, but obviously slightly different. For example, if I ditched your stupid anti-nuke alliance, the other members could take a quick vote on whether or not I left amicably or unamicably. If you vote for the latter, then whenever I attempt to sign a treaty or alliance with someone else, the game will inform them "Christmas Day has previously abandoned (1) alliance", with the number obviously increasing the more I do it. Ditto treaties. That way you're less likely to be accepted for treaties and alliances the more you scrap them, and thus there's more of an incentive to stick with them, instead of just using them for the ride. What do you think? The system could obviously backfire, and has its drawbacks, but I think those could be worked around.

Man, that was a long question. Sorry about that.

Okay, and 3) you seem to be suggesting that each alliance has a UN delegate (at least if it wants to). Is this in place of a regional delegate, or as well as? If it's instead of, does that mean you have to be part of an alliance to have a voice in the UN? And if it's as well as, won't that cause problems if several regional UN delegates form an alliance? Would the UN delegate of the alliance (who is also the UN delegate of his or her region) have two votes in the UN, or would he have to relinquish control of his regional vote? What if the nations in the alliance collude to vote one way in UN proposals, thus manipulating the outcome? I know this happens in real life, but is it such a good idea in the game? It's possible that the other nations could threaten the alliance with force if they don't stop, but if they're all large, powerful nations, you could end up with a collaborative alliance who have a strangehold over the entire UN. Again, pretty much like real life, but not much fun. Of course, depending on how many regions and alliances there are, it might be ludicrously unlikely that any alliance will grow so full of UN delegates that it can manipulate proposals, but it's still a possible threat if they're actually REWARDED with another vote for forming alliances. Food for thought.

Alright, I think that's it. I can't think of anything else to say, and the vast majority of this is worthless anyway. :P

Ok, I'm amending our treaty to state: "In the People's Republic of Christmas Day, the date is December 25th indefinately."

Eeexcellent. You will be rewarded with many beautifally-wrapped gifts, sir.


[EDIT - thought of another question.

4) can treaties include mutual protection pacts? Or are those restricted to alliances? This goes back to my previous post, about being militarily allied to more than one nation. If treaties can include military protection, then everything's cool. But if not, and treaties are limited to policy-making, then picking the right alliance for you is going to be a game in and of itself. If you see what I mean.

Okay, so that's what you're suggesting for NS2, right? Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating you, I just wanted to make sure I've got it right. If so, then I don't think I could possibly agree more. Those definitions are almost exactly what I was imagining.

Yes, and excellent. Thanks for the good summary of definitions, I realize my initial description took a lot of reading. :)


Just a couple of questions:
1) Presumably countries can form treaties and alliances with countries anywhere in the world? Hopefully they wouldn't be limited to your physical region.

Of course! It's all free form. Treaties and alliances just help flesh out the role-playing a bit and make it easier, for example, for me to go find and read about an alliance and their beliefs and treaties without having to read every post on every thread.

2) Can you leave an alliance at any time? [...] Perhaps there are two ways of voluntarily leaving an alliance: amicably and unamicably. [...] Perhaps you get a black mark next to your name whenever it comes to signing treaties and alliances in future?

Definately! Excellent point and idea.

3) you seem to be suggesting that each alliance has a UN delegate (at least if it wants to). Is this in place of a regional delegate, or as well as? If it's instead of, does that mean you have to be part of an alliance to have a voice in the UN?

Interesting points in (3). I was thinking regions would just be physical groupings, nothing to do with UN. Just because we're in North America doesn't mean we have a North American UN delegate. If we had a North American Alliance, that would be worthy of a voice. So alliance delegate in place of regional.

We haven't discussed the UN yet (totally different topic!) or the role of Delegates though. It could be different than NS1.

You don't need to be in an alliance to have a voice in the UN, just need to be a UN member.

4) can treaties include mutual protection pacts? Or are those restricted to alliances? This goes back to my previous post, about being militarily allied to more than one nation. If treaties can include military protection, then everything's cool. But if not, and treaties are limited to policy-making, then picking the right alliance for you is going to be a game in and of itself. If you see what I mean.

Sure, you can have a treaty with whoever about whatever. Some things can be automated though (is war automated or role-played? another discussion), and some would require role-play. The thing about alliances is that they are meant to enforce treaties just like governments are meant to enforce laws. You and I on the kindergarden playground can agree not to stick our tounges out at each other (treaty), but if one of us does, the other can't do much about it. On the other hand, if a lot of us are playing kickball and you play unfairly or something (alliance), the rest of us can not let you play, or beat you up, or whatever.

So, about 'picking the right alliance', it's still a big part of it, because only alliance treaties have significant weight. There might be some mini-disputes or whatever over pairs of nations breaking treaties, but no one cares unless they're huge, in which case they're probably be alliance treaties or multi-nation treaties. You'd probably want to ally with your physical neighbors rather than the other side of the planet, just because the other side of the planet can't defend you as easily. Anything is possible though. That's the fun of it!

Excellent posts. As for automation, I say there should be options. eg: You have a treaty to give military support to a nation. To have it automated, you set options, such as:
Y/N: Prompt you to send things over
__% of soldiers to send over
__% of ammunitions/etc to send
Y/N: Automatically fight players enemy directly with __% of forces?
Ect, ect.

A region is a purely physical, geographical area of the gameworld. Countries within that area can be at war with one another or ally or whatever the hell they want. The only common link, at least when they begin the game, is that they share the same area of the planet.

A treaty is an agreement or pact between two or more countries to achieve a common goal, be it research, no fly zones, outlawing slavery or whatever. The treaty has predetermined conditions, such as duration and possibly consequences and so on.

An alliance is an ongoing union or federation between a collection of nations, who will continually pass and update treaties amongst themselves. All treaties are law, and so all nations within the alliance must comply at all times or risk the consequences (be it expulsion from the alliance, trade sanctions imposed, or even war).


Those definitions seem to make the most sense. As for delegates/alliances, I'd assume that delegates are simply elected and only pertain to alliances, and that the founder of the alliance can either kick out or have a poll to kick other nations. Both can be possible, with a small note of which alliance uses which method, to help determine which alliance you want to be in. Then there should also be disbanding options, which I stated in another thread. If the founder disbands an alliance, it's basically the same thing as everyone leaving. That basically means the founder leaves, any other kicks are via a poll, and once everyone leaves it it is gone.

I think "alliances" is a confusing term.

Although more accurate that regions, it appears its the same thing with a different name and more control over who enters the "Alliance"

The problem is that an "alliance" sounds like it could be better than a treaty.

Two nations can both own alliances and be powerful delagates. At the same time they cooperate together better than some of their alliance members.

So, although treaties don't give you UN votes, they can be just as influential as a UN delagate.

Correct me if I'm wrong

The problem is that an "alliance" sounds like it could be better than a treaty.

Better than a treaty? Not sure what you mean. Treaties are specific agreements between nations on a specific issues, with possible consequences if it is broken. An alliance is a group of nations that generally agree on many views and agree to a common treaties. They could be temporary like the Allies and Axis in WWII, or more permanent like the EU.

Two nations can both own alliances and be powerful delagates. At the same time they cooperate together better than some of their alliance members.

If they cooperate so well, they should join their alliances, or form a new one.

I think that people are overestimating the power that delegate would have. Everyone who is a UN member gets a vote. We haven't decided how the UN will work or what delegates will do, but with fewer griefer players there is less need for special members of the UN like with NS1.

I think the term "alliance" most closely defines a long-term military cooperation ("coalition" being short-term). NATO is an alliance, NAFTA is not.

There are seperate economic "alliances", 5 of them, though I recall only four.
1) Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Just what it sounds like, no trade barriers between a few nations.
2) Customs Union, an FTA between nations who share a common policy on outside trade. So it would be like NAFTA, except that Canada, the US, and Mexico would all have the same tarrifs, red tape, quotas, etc. on trade from outside NAFTA.
3) Is the one I am forgetting...I believe it involves complete free movement of capital.
4) Economics Union, involves a single currancy (as per the EU) and free movement of labor (which the EU does not have yet).
5) Political Union...basically the nations merge into a larger nation.

I'm not sure anyone would want to reach #5, but there could be benifits (greater state wealth and power) to closer trade/economic "alliances" as well as game restricted soverignty (you could no longer completely control your own economics...you might have to put it to a vote, the same issue voted on by all members and passed by a simple majority). Then again, if a player leads a nation, and that nation becomes part of a larger nation, perhaps that leader could act out a civil war or rebellion to split from the larger state. Could be fun....

---------------

So overall, I think we could break it into:
1a: Forign bases, no true alliance.
1b: A true military alliance (people can drop of military units/groups into allied nations)
2a: Treaties (agreement to all vote the same way on the same issue).
2b: Economic "alliances", the list of 5 above.

---------------

NOTE: I am strongly against anyone ever loosing control over their nation because some other player took it over, they lost a national election, they were overthrown by the people, etc. Why? Because I tend to see the player as the will of the nation, and not as charicters in the nation. This allows a player to not loose all the work they put into a nation, but at the same time to RP political intrigue inside their own nation (and probably including forigners).

So overall, I think we could break it into:
1a: Forign bases, no true alliance.
1b: A true military alliance (people can drop of military units/groups into allied nations)
2a: Treaties (agreement to all vote the same way on the same issue).
2b: Economic "alliances", the list of 5 above.

1a: As you mentioned on War Thoughts, if you host a foreign base, you can just click "accept" when the other country requests it on the dossier-equivalent page. No need for anything complicated.
1b: Same thing, except countries auto-accept bases from each other. This could be an option for treaties -- "I agree to host bases from the other countries in this treaty, in return for being allowed to host theirs." and click the Military Base treaty option or whatever, and it auto-accepts from those countries.
2a: If you meant more than one treaty and agreement, then real alliance starts here. Any alliance treaties (i.e. treaties within the alliance countries, and treaties between all alliance countries and another country or alliance) must be approved by all, or a majority, or the alliance hegemon, which could be an option
2b: Hmm, again, I think at least some of those could be treaty options like 1b, but only alliances can have access to anything above a FTA. Open borders with another nation or free movement of capital or whichever can be a treaty option, which would have benefits and side-effects. The five different levels you posted are good. If two countries have any economic treaties, then their economies may benefit (if the rest of the country is managed correctly), but they might lose control of certain aspects. A country in an Economic Union would have to appeal to the rest of the alliance and get their approval before changing an economy issue within their country. They get the benefit of joint economies, free trade, but at the risk of depending upon the other countries, and not having the freedom to change certain things while in the agreement.

I just thought up a question: Would citizens be allowed to move from one country to another? It could be a policy issue, open borders or not, immigration, etc... But what happens if your alliance has free movement of trade and one country has better taxes or some other benefit to living there? In addition to working there, could they migrate? I suppose that'd have to be managed -- if an alliance's citizens all start migrating to one country with the lowest tax rate, or best healthcare, or whatever, they'd have to increase immigration restriction. This could be a percentage or number cap on the number of citizens that can enter your country.

NOTE: I am strongly against anyone ever loosing control over their nation because some other player took it over, they lost a national election, they were overthrown by the people, etc. Why? Because I tend to see the player as the will of the nation, and not as charicters in the nation. This allows a player to not loose all the work they put into a nation, but at the same time to RP political intrigue inside their own nation (and probably including forigners).

I see your point, however, if a player is the will of his or her nation, then everything would end up role-played, and then we lose the point of all of these features except as a glorified stat sheet. Also, god-modding nation morale and other stuff would become possible. The citizens morale, the economic strength, etc... I think it's better to be the absolute head of state, and deal with change management and such. I guess you are somewhat responding to my other thread. I didn't mean to say (and sorry if I didn't make it clear enough before) that a player could be kicked out of their country, but rather, if a country gets messed up enough, it'll just take a LONG time to fix it. In certain scenarios, like high political freedoms + democratic elections, if the citizens like you, you get auto-reelected. If they don't, then you could either voluntarily start over a new nation, or maybe even just lose control or some things for a term then get elected back in, or you just stay in power regardless (arration). If you stay in power, then the citizens may go absolutely berzerk on you! Morale and economy would suffer, and police would be stressed. It would take a while to get back to the way it was before.

As far as another player taking over, I like your idea about simply having them occupy your country. You would still be the leader of your people, but be in hiding or whatever, and some options would be out of your control until they leave or you overthrow them.

So, a player wouldn't ever be forced to lose their country, however, in certain situations players who don't necessarily want to deal with situations could just start over. Players who do, can, and role-play it through.

In short, we agree, but I think the player should be the head of state rather than the will of the nation. It's more of a challenge, and internal as well as external factors to consider when making a decision.

The Republic of Nameeka would like to create a new alliance called the 'Free for all Alliance' that will consist of superpowers that believe in capitalism, democracy, and rights for all people. Any nation willing to join this strong alliance, send Nameeka a telegram.
-Rebecca Smith
President of Nameeka

As far as another player taking over, I like your idea about simply having them occupy your country. You would still be the leader of your people, but be in hiding or whatever, and some options would be out of your control until they leave or you overthrow them.

I actually had an idea about this the other day. First I was gonna make a new thread about it, but then I decided there were too many new threads anyways. So then I wrote it out in Josho Thoughts 1, but figured it was too off-topic. So I'll write it here instead. Oh, ha, this is Josho Thoughts 1. Oh well.

Alright, yeah, anyway, I basically decided that a nice way of implementing war, and losing war, would be the ubiquitous 'regime change' of real life. By that I mean the process of invading and beating a country, changing its government to suit your own, and then leaving it again. This is what usually happens in real life, at least whenever America is involved, and I think it'd work in the game. Basically, the losing country wouldn't actually lose control of their country, but the government type would change to that of the invading country (or possibly the invading country could pick which government to install). It wouldn't be permanent, obviously, but perhaps your government type would be frozen for a certain amount of time. You could still make policy decisions and so on, naturally, but A) you'd have no military, B) you'd be suffering a recession, and C) you'd be stuck with this government type for at least a while. Once that period is over, every new decision you made on an issue, and every policy you set, would have an effect on changing the government type, as it would normally. Hopefully you see what I mean. It'd take a while even to get the government type back to what it was before, obviously.

The way I saw it, basically, was that say I'm running my communist utopia over in Tiamat, and Josholand is torturing his poor people with deluded capitalist injustice over in UVA. He decides I'm a threat to his corrupt plans of economic domination, because he's so surly, and decides to wage war on me. He invades and I LET HIM beat me, for the purposes of this example. When he beats me, he changes my government to a Capitalist Paradise. That status is frozen for, I dunno, 10 days. I can still make governmental decisions, but they don't count towards my government type. Once those 10 days are up, my decisions begin to count again, slowly, and it's another 20 days before I eventually get my beautiful country back to where it was when the evil Josho invaded. 30 days might seem like a long or a short time to different people, but in real-life terms it seems to be roughly equivalent to 30 years, which is a decent amount of time for a country to fully rebuild itself. Obviously there's the problem of Josholand just attacking me again as soon as I go back to my morally-superior socialistic ways, but I'm sure there's a way round that. Much greater civil unrest in his citizens, for example, or getting a black mark next to his name for unwarranted aggression. Whatever. This system, to me, seems like a nice mix of punishment and challenge, without actually losing all your hard work.

Though I'm sure you'll disagree.

Two nations can both own alliances and be powerful delagates. At the same time they cooperate together better than some of their alliance members.

If they cooperate so well, they should join their alliances, or form a new one.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be better to each become a delagate (i.e. Seperate groups)?

Boarderland,

Ok, I think I see what you were saying, that nations could already agree on something but stay in separate alliances for the benefit of multiple delegates.

Well, first, I don't think delegates really would matter that much. Every nation would have a say in the UN, the delegates may just have meta-powers like they do right now. Second, delegates probably would have as much say as the number of nations in their alliance. Therefore, if an alliance splits just to have two delegates, their power would consequently be halved, so there is no net gain.

As far as the benefits of having one alliance, certain treaty options would only be available within alliances, as Wazzu and I were discussing, like economic options. Nations who aren't in the same alliance can't get the benefit of joint economic treaties.

Excellent ideas here.

The physical regions vs alliances vs treaties concept is terrific. The only part I'm not sold on is why each nation should be limited to a single Alliance. It seems to me that there's a lot more flexibility and possibility if you can join as many Alliances as you want. Obviously an Alliance with lots of members but no real unity of philosophy or committment to the group wouldn't be very powerful; strong Alliances may have fewer members but be much more effective in getting what its members want.

It strikes me that the United Nations -- which will be comprised of many separate Councils or Arms -- can itself be an Alliance, or collection of Alliances. And every Alliance in the game can have UN-like powers, as in the ability to vote, to expel members by popular vote, to make decisions and enforce them on its members, etc. In fact, a sufficiently powerful Alliance could end up superseding the UN in some ways. :)

Also I love the idea of a "regime change" altering your government to your conqueror's! :D

]The only part I'm not sold on is why each nation should be limited to a single Alliance. It seems to me that there's a lot more flexibility and possibility if you can join as many Alliances as you want.

I think the biggest factor is just over-complication. If you're a member of a dozen alliances, each with their own laws and rules, the chances are you're going to get a contradiction sooner or later. So unless there's some way of checking each alliance's laws and making sure you're not conflicting with another one you're a member of, then limiting the player to one is probably the best bet. We've seen how hectic the UN can get, after all. :) Imagine being a member of six!

It strikes me that the United Nations -- which will be comprised of many separate Councils or Arms -- can itself be an Alliance, or collection of Alliances. And every Alliance in the game can have UN-like powers, as in the ability to vote, to expel members by popular vote, to make decisions and enforce them on its members, etc. In fact, a sufficiently powerful Alliance could end up superseding the UN in some ways. :)

Yep. That's pretty much exactly what Josh wants Alliances to be like, I think. Well, maybe not superceding the UN. We never got that far, heh. Certainly passing laws and expelling members and so on, is definitely what he was suggesting though.

Also I love the idea of a "regime change" altering your government to your conqueror's! :D

Hooray!! Now if you just implement the eBay-esque feedback system for nations reneging on treaties, thus lowering their global reputation, you'll have accepted 100% of my ideas! Huzzah! ;)

Ahh, but then wouldnt it be each Nation's responsibility to watch for conflicting issues and draft obtuse legislation appeasing all alliances to which it belongs?

Ok, now, seriously. Each nation should be allowed to join whatever alliances will accept it. When it comes to complying with treaties and such, the conflict should be presented to the player with which treaty to follow and perhaps a middle ground (if there can be one..). This is very much like the real world, where a nation can decide just how much it wishes to comply with the resolutions of it's respective alliances. This should also be an option of the U.N.

If a nation does not comply, the U.N. or alliance members (whichever created the law/rule/resolution) should have the right to invade, proceed w/a regime change, and enforce said resolutions.

Hmmm, yes, just leave it up to the player to not be stupid and join conflicting alliances might work.

Except.......
Then we get back the problem of alliances having UN representatives. If a country or a couple countries is a part of several alliances, then they will have proportionally more representation in whatever the Alliance UN representatives end up doing. If the representatives just debate things and present opinions, or serve on the inner UN councils, that'd probably be fine. If they get to vote on something important; however, then that can become a problem, especially if the amount of votes they have is proportional to the number of nations in their represented alliance.

How do we keep a group of say four nations (I posed this question earlier) from each starting an alliance and each joining the others' alliances, so there are four UN representatives representing the same countries four times?

Limiting to one alliance prevents all of this type of abuse, and reduces complexity. Countries can have all the treaties they want, remember, so they don't *have* to be in an alliance to have a bunch of treaties with other countries. What would the difference between a lot of treaties and a really weak alliance? I don't think there is much. Alliances as I described them were intended to be strong, more governing types (while respecting sovereignty), like the EU.

If you just want to be able to attach a name to a group of countries without any strong alliance features, just call them "The Axis of Whatever." A nation-group naming feature would be trivial, and useful to sort nations.

Remember that NS2 alliances are equivalent to NS1 regions. Think about how NS1 would change if you could join as many regions as you want.

I just think multi-alliances would be too complicated from a coding and administrative/gameplay standpoint.

If we can agree on how to solve these issues I stated, then multiple alliances would be fine, but right now the issues are unresolved.

Good idea with the treaties. That's definiately more workable then having the complexity of multiple alliances.

If NS2 does go with the alliances, there could be a way to keep any nations from being the majority in more than one alliance.

]The only part I'm not sold on is why each nation should be limited to a single Alliance. It seems to me that there's a lot more flexibility and possibility if you can join as many Alliances as you want.

I think the biggest factor is just over-complication. If you're a member of a dozen alliances, each with their own laws and rules, the chances are you're going to get a contradiction sooner or later. So unless there's some way of checking each alliance's laws and making sure you're not conflicting with another one you're a member of, then limiting the player to one is probably the best bet. We've seen how hectic the UN can get, after all. :) Imagine being a member of six!
I don't see over-complication as a problem when it's voluntary. There will be people who want to play NS2 a lot: these people should have the flexibility and power to get as complicated as they want. And yes, I agree with Neutered Sputniks that it will be up to players to determine if a treaty is broken (and how it should be punished); in fact, as a general principle of the game, almost everything will be determined by players.

Then we get back the problem of alliances having UN representatives. If a country or a couple countries is a part of several alliances, then they will have proportionally more representation in whatever the Alliance UN representatives end up doing. If the representatives just debate things and present opinions, or serve on the inner UN councils, that'd probably be fine. If they get to vote on something important; however, then that can become a problem, especially if the amount of votes they have is proportional to the number of nations in their represented alliance.

How do we keep a group of say four nations (I posed this question earlier) from each starting an alliance and each joining the others' alliances, so there are four UN representatives representing the same countries four times?
As you say, that's really only a problem if the UN is much like the current one, with the leader of regions/Alliances getting more influence. I'm not sure at all that the new UN will look anything like the current one. For one, there will be many different Councils: some nations will sit in high positions on some Councils but not others. So the process of getting there will necessarily be more complex than just getting endorsements in your own region: there will probably be elections, terms of office, etc.

If the UN is just an Alliance with moral legitimacy (and I do like that idea a lot), then there may be nothing intrinsically in being the leader of a regular Alliance that gives you more influence in the UN. However, a strong, politically-motivated Alliance might resolve to vote as a bloc in elections to boost the chances of one of its members (or allies, or whatever).

The other advantage of being able to join multiple Alliances is that players could form more minor, "single-issue" Alliances -- groups that may not agree on a lot, but do agree that world barriers to trade need to be lowered (for example). An single-issue Alliance like this wouldn't have any political interest or allegience -- that is, it wouldn't compel its members to vote any particular way on non-free-trade issues -- but it would be a very good way for like-minded nations to gather, plot, and communicate.

This would be a superior method of grouping to a simple treaty. A treaty sounds like it's basically a promise between nations: that will be essential to the game, yes, but won't be flexible or useful enough to work as a way to group nations of common philosophy.

]Also I love the idea of a "regime change" altering your government to your conqueror's! :D

Hooray!! Now if you just implement the eBay-esque feedback system for nations reneging on treaties, thus lowering their global reputation, you'll have accepted 100% of my ideas! Huzzah! ;)
Ooh, didn't see that one. Where is it?

]Ooh, didn't see that one. Where is it?

Hmm, somewhere in this thread. I'll cut and paste the relevant part.

Perhaps there are two ways of voluntarily leaving an alliance: amicably and unamicably. If you leave amicably, then fair enough. No harm done. But an unamicable separation leads to your political reputation dimishing slightly. Perhaps you get a black mark next to your name whenever it comes to signing treaties and alliances in future? I'm imagining a system like eBay's feedback system, but obviously slightly different. For example, if I ditched your stupid capitalist alliance, the other members could take a quick vote on whether or not I left amicably or unamicably. If you vote for the latter, then whenever I attempt to sign a treaty or alliance with someone else, the game will inform them "Christmas Day has previously abandoned (1) alliance", with the number obviously increasing the more I do it. Ditto treaties. That way you're less likely to be accepted for treaties and alliances the more you scrap them, and thus there's more of an incentive to stick with them, instead of just using them for the ride. What do you think? The system could obviously backfire, and has its drawbacks, but I think those could be worked around.

I still think it's a good idea. There needs to be some sort of lasting consequence of just bailing on alliances and treaties. It shouldn't necessarily hurt your country, but it should definitely harm your reputation. This way, if your 'permanent record' states you've left however many alliances and broken X number of treaties, it's still up to the other players to trust you or not. I think it'd work great. Sadly, I'm an idiot.

As for the alliances issue, I have to say that I'm still on Josh's side about that. At first I really didn't like the idea of being limited to one alliance, because it seemed very restrictive, but I quickly realised that treaties can do just about everything an alliance can do. If it's a case of treaties being slightly limited, then I'd much rather see them expanded slightly than alliances busted wide open.

Ok, so perhaps there's no delegate representing alliances. This would definately be more like real world UN. NATO doesnt have a UN representative...merely communication between member nations, resulting in collaborative votes that promote the overall welfare of the member nations.


As for councils, will there be nations elected to chair counsels? Perhaps site admins could be the permanent security council members - providing for the hegemonic action if necessary.

I think it is important to distinguish between a military alliance (like NATO) and an International Governmental Organization, IGO (like the IMF, UN, or the EU). Two nations may not have anything in common...except that they have agreed to defend each other. Similarly, two nations may wish to trade, but not get involved in defense.

Naturally, defense and trade will often occur together...but not always.

So I think it is important that NS2 distinguish between alliances and non-military IGOs...two seperate forms of non-regional (geographical) relationships.

Well, based on the original framework of all this stuff, I think that a treaty would cover that. Don't forget that you can set the terms of the treaty. It's not limited to trade or anything. You can make the treaty about whatever you want. So I could be in my usual alliance with all my pals, and then sign a pretty long-term treaty with you and Beth Gellert stating that we'd all protect one another. For all intents and purposes, that would be a military alliance. But in the framework of the game, it'd be a treaty. And I could sign as many treaties as I want. The only real difference between treaties and alliances is that the alliance can repeatedly pass and alter the dozens of treaties it has between its members. It's more of a community than it is an agreement, if you see what I mean.

Oh, and...

Josholand and Christmas Day may have signed a treaty which states: "We both agree to honor December 25th as a holiday."

Silly Josho. EVERY day is christmas in the People's Republic of Christmas Day.


Hahaha :lol:

It would indeed be great to formalize alliances and treaties in some way.

Except.......
Then we get back the problem of alliances having UN representatives. If a country or a couple countries is a part of several alliances, then they will have proportionally more representation in whatever the Alliance UN representatives end up doing. So don't give Alliance's UN representation. Reserve UN representation for individual countries. As things stand now with NS1, the UN, although I am a member, is almost irrelevant, because I am not a regional delegate, and therefore can't make any proposals.

One idea that was hashed out in a different topic was thus:


Rather than have regions, there are different UN councils that a member may belong to. A member may move from one council to another provided that the gaining counicl accapt the new member with at least a 2/3 vote.

Within each council are two councils - a Jr Council, and a Sr Council. New members to the council begin in the Jr Council. To become a member of the Sr Council, a Jr Council member must be nominated by any member of his council for promotion. Once nominated, there would be a 1 week discussion period allowed in the Jr Council forum/council board for Jr. Council member's to debate the promotion. If approved for promotion by a majority vote of the Jr Council, the promotion is then passed to the Sr Council for 1 week of debate, at the end of which a vote is held. If approved by a majority vote of the Sr. Council, the member is promoted. There is no penalty for not being promoted.



<begin edit>
For a resolution to pass to the rest of the UN, the resolution must first be proposed to the Jr Council for debate and approval (2/3 vote). If approved, it is then passed to the Sr Council for debate/approval (2/3 vote). If approved there, the resolution is then posted for debate/approval of the entire UN. Each step of the approval chain is allowed 1 week for debate/voting before it is passed to the next (if approved) or is deleted (if failed).

Councils could also (possibly) have the ability to pass laws/resolutions that apply only to Council Members. Those would require the same process as UN wide resolutions, minus the steps for approval of the UN.

Each Council and the sub-councils would elect a ChairNation to perform functions similar to that of the current UN Delegates (short of booting nations - a vote would be required within a certain time frame for that action). The ChairNation's votes would not count for anymore than any other Nation's votes. Another function of the ChairNation would be to manage the Council forum, etc...

]Excellent ideas here.

The physical regions vs alliances vs treaties concept is terrific. The only part I'm not sold on is why each nation should be limited to a single Alliance. It seems to me that there's a lot more flexibility and possibility if you can join as many Alliances as you want. Obviously an Alliance with lots of members but no real unity of philosophy or committment to the group wouldn't be very powerful; strong Alliances may have fewer members but be much more effective in getting what its members want.

It strikes me that the United Nations -- which will be comprised of many separate Councils or Arms -- can itself be an Alliance, or collection of Alliances. And every Alliance in the game can have UN-like powers, as in the ability to vote, to expel members by popular vote, to make decisions and enforce them on its members, etc. In fact, a sufficiently powerful Alliance could end up superseding the UN in some ways. :)

Also I love the idea of a "regime change" altering your government to your conqueror's! :D

Have you guys ever played Pax Britannica? It is an old board game that attempts to recreate the Colonial Period just prior to WWI. It has a somewhat sophisticated political system that, I think, can serve as an inspirational model.

For example, if there are going to be economic, political, and military models, then physical regions become a must, with each nation limited to one physical region. Beyond that, nations should be able to create or join whatever political blocs they choose; be they between 2 nations or 200 nations; in their region or out of it. Membership in political blocs would then, in turn, increase the number and variety of casi bellorum (cases for war) that a nation would receive if another member-nation violated the terms of a treaty. Naturally, a nation need not have a casus belli to launch an invasion; just to legitimize one.

As for players losing control of their nations due to invasions and such, this can be a real problem; imagine the regional super-power that quickly stomps any new nation that emerges in its region. Talk about abuse! There could, however, be government's-in-exile; if a player loses control of his nation, his government goes into exile and launches an underground resistance movement. The name of the game is neither "nation" nor "states", but "NationStates", which imply that the nation state is the optimal status. This does not necessarily mean that "nations", such as the Kurds or Palestinians, or multinational "states", such as China, cannot be an integral part of the game.

About people in multiple alliances having too much UN representation:

There is an immensely simple way to solve this, and to still allow people to remain in as many alliances as you want. Each UN member nation gets one endorsement they can hand out. You can give your endorsement to anyone, whether or not they are located within you region or are in an alliance with you. When you give someone an endorsment, that option is disabled untill you go and click the "Retract UN Endorsment" button. At that point in time, the option to endorse a new nation becomes available.

Edit: Also, how about instead of having to have a endorsement majority within an alliance or region to become a UN delegate, you simply have to have a certain number of endorsements. You could then also install different levels of the UN. Example:

4 or more endorsements~ Junior UN delegate~ 1 vote on whether or not proposals become UN issues
8 or more endorsements~ UN delegate~ 2 votes on whether or not proposals become UN issues
16 or more endorsements~ Senior UN delegate~ 3 or 4 votes on whether or not proposals become UN issues

Also, perhaps for proposals to become issues they need a certain number of votes instead a percentage of UN delegate votes.

And finally, perhaps when you get, say 50 endorsements, you are offered a chance to become a security council member, or something along those lines.

Thats all for now.

I agree with wazzu that the player should not be a character in the game but rather the will of the nation. in NS1 you're always an eternal dictator deciding over superficial high profile issues . I would like that when you start NS2 a starting nation would be created. Then you would decide everything that happens in your nation(creating it's history). maybe the exiled king would come back to to claim the throne or the anarchist workers would lead a revolution. What ever, it's up to you.

Another thought I had was that you would start with a nation(anti-globalizers nightmare?) like in the book and the player would mold his or her nation from that. I don't really know about this idea because I havent read the book, but I'm thinking of buying it.

I'd like to have more possibilities in the political system because in NS1 there is always the head of state or the leader and that doesn't really work with fe anarchy (that is based on individualism)

WAR :roll:


You should never win lose in NS, only ups and downs.
War should not be the only way to be powerful

about units: I guess there should be three unit classes

1-Land
2-Naval
3-Air

within unit classes the player shouldn't have all the gadgets and has to choose what type of units are needed.(attacking, defense, spying and so on) so there are different units in the three unit classes

fe if you need units for defending the mountains of your nation you'll choose what to use.

Combat shouldn't go by the attack, defense and such but by how good training and experience units have. So even a smaller nation could defend itself against aggressors.

I don't think that the game should affect aggressors instead it should be the other nations.(like trade embargos or other sanctions)

And nations that don't want to have an army could maybe buy protection for their nations

I think the game should be divided in to worlds each with their own UN and randomly generated terrain and shapes. Each world would have about 200 or more nations but not too much because it reduces gameplay if there is too much in one place. you should be able to change your world but not your location in the world. If divided in to worlds it also allows for more than one nation at a time because you can only have one nation in one world and the worlds arent related so you can't attack another world.

If your nation was a democracy freedom being important, going to war would face much criticism from the population and press

Can war ever be justified?

In the UN I don't like the idea about endorsements, when it comes to voting every nation should be equal and have only one vote.

Everything doesn't have to revolve around the UN.

So, basically, you didnt read all the posts in the stickied threads, but you want basically what's already been suggested...you just go as in depth...which is fine. Gives players somewhere to see all the concepts thrown together ;)

NationStates 2 should have:
-Show how much money you got
-Religion
-Show how many units you have
-Map
-and many more.. (i dont know)

---------------------------------------------------------

People´s President of Macee

These are my thoughts on alliances and regions:

First, regions may be real, an this is a simulation game, but don't give the regions too many physical aspects because that's where you can cet tangle in what's exaggerated, what's real, and what's simulation.

Second, for alliances, you would have to have disputes for treaties to exist, so what, war? No. What kind of "ALLIANCE CENTRAL" page would you use?

I'm all for the new swing of NS2, and I wouldn't be supprized if it became something like a CD-ROM game with internet connections (i.e. Runescape I think it's called, or Final Fantasy 11?)

Good luck with the production.

Elros Luinwe
Central Oregon Arts Council Chairman

PS: This is really for avid RPGers

These are my thoughts on alliances and regions:

First, regions may be real, an this is a simulation game, but don't give the regions too many physical aspects because that's where you can cet tangle in what's exaggerated, what's real, and what's simulation.

Second, for alliances, you would have to have disputes for treaties to exist, so what, war? No. What kind of "ALLIANCE CENTRAL" page would you use?

I'm all for the new swing of NS2, and I wouldn't be supprized if it became something like a CD-ROM game with internet connections (i.e. Runescape I think it's called, or Final Fantasy 11?)

Good luck with the production.

Elros Luinwe
Central Oregon Arts Council Chairman

PS: This is really for avid RPGers

Why do we have to have the UN in NS2?

When I think about the UN in the game, I think of an older suggestion that NS2 have an option for world wars. My thought then was that world wars should develop in the game as they did in real life: millions of generations of increasingly tangled alliances, allegiances, and antagonism.

Well, isn't the UN the same way? We think of it as obvious right now, but the UN simply wasn't needed for hundreds of years. In its stead were several international congresses (most notably the meetings among nations within the British Empire) and countless independent nations that controlled their own political destiny.

I don't necessarily think that the UN is a bad thing to have in NS, but we must recognize that in this world the UN developed out of a singular point in history, where the world was focused enough to form a single international body. After that, of course, we had the Warsaw Pact and NATO and now there's the G8 and so on. My point, poorly made, is that the UN is not alone. There have been hundreds of international organizations that pass rules to change their members' internal workings (as opposed to alliances, which mostly concern the members' actions).

I hope we see a similar system in NS2, where different organizations can be formed to draft legislation for their members.

Another thought: part of a bill should be the exact effects on the nations under the organization's jurisdiction. No more weak, moderate, or strong. I'd prefer numbered choices, 1 to 5 or other choices. We may never get rid of the current system, where every reform of every political stripe means democratic increase simply because the idiot drafter can't be bothered to look at the pull-down menu. Oh well; just like in real life, you can't blame the law-maker for the voter not demanding better.

Anyway, there's my rambling.

I for one am against the mulitple world thing; why not everyone compete for things in one world for their goals and dreams, rather than players having multiple accounts and such!

I also have additions; countries should also be able to indulge themselves in black market activities (look at North Korea and Afghanistan, even Iraq), and a map of the game should be made, with territories varying in size and resources depending on different types of terrain and location.

Plus, what type of land and area you recieve should be determined by a questionere in the beginning of the game which places you according to your answers.

I think having multiple worlds is a good idea.

thing is now, it's kinda hard for new players to get into the game 'cause the UN's already going and its all set up.

What if instead a new world was added every (say) 3 months or so, which would allow everyone who wanted it a 'fresh start'?

even if its not one every so often and there's like 5 world, they'd all be different, and you can pick the one that best suits the type of play you wanted.

right now, there's only one UN, and it's politics are decided even before I joined. I have no say in what happened pre my playing this game. If I had 'more options' of other worlds, I could pick a world where I liked the UN policy (I happen to like the current UN policy, but that's just me)

Don't slam me for being new to this game, you have to realise that any game (especially one with a paid subscription) needs to cater to some degree to the new player or it will stagnate and die (not if but WHEN).

That's a great idea. Only problem I see is how many worlds would there wind up being - and would it be manageable?

The more worlds, the more Mods needed - that means more individuals allowed access to the Mod Center - which is pretty damn powerful as far as this game is concerned.

I am very new to this game, so please don't stomp me if I say something completely stupid, but I find it difficult to accurately guage the world political landscape in NS1 because of the sheer number of nations. I mean, anyone can just start a new nation, so we end up with tens of thousands. Usually sims have fewer elements to deal with than the real world, not more.

My suggestion is that scarcity of land mass be built into every world of NS2, where there is a finite amount of real estate to deal with -- basically a finite number of countries, but also a limit on how large those countries can grow.

For instance, if you were the USA (just using real countries for example) and you wanted to expand your land mass (for resources, population, or just ego) you could invade and take over Canada or Mexico.

The loser of that war could either be booted from that world to have to start the game over again (war should be VERY difficult to win in that case) or, as was suggested earlier, become a "non-state" still with leadership, population, economy, military, etc., but with no official land mass (like Palestine).

***side note, this might open the possibility of moving a nation to a new physical region while still playing with a fixed world map***

"Palestine," in this case, could still play the game, but would not have many of the benefits that "land-owning" nations have (like natural resources) until they manage to re-acquire territory through diplomacy or warfare.

As far as the mechanics of the game go, for instance, say the "world" has 100 units of land. It starts with a limit of 100 nations, but it could possibly have 99 nations, one of which occupies 2 units of land. (Nation number 100 might have been defeated militarily, merged with another nation, or quit playing altogether). There could also be unclaimed land, which players could acquire by funding exploration.

Anyway, I digress. The big point I wanted to get across is that I think keeping the world small as far as number of nations would make the politics of the game more interesting. It's not like you can send telegrams to 15,000 nations to lobby against a moratorium on subliminal advertising, but 100-200 would at least be somewhat manageable.

There is a big technical problem problem for NS1's UN. The assumption, "All Nations in the UN, fully implement ALL resolutions that pass." Which is completely unreasonable. My nation is in the UN and is keeping its nukes :twisted:.

Modelling defiance of UN Resolutions really can't happen until NS2.

Tracking compliance would require a nation menu where you could mark "accept" or "refuse" for each resolution. Not too hard.

Nations need a method to react to nations who accept and/or reject UN Resolutions. Currently there are no game mechanics for:
I. Economic interaction (Trade and Trade Embargos), or
II. Military intervention (War, Blockades, etc.). Including the cost of war on the nations economy isn't easy. And it will be very hard to track military quality in addition to quantity. North Korea and China have military counts larger than the U.S., however their militaries are much less useful due to lower quality in terms of technology, doctrine, and morale.

For this to be realistic, there would need to be another grouping mechanism beyond nations in regions, perhaps regions grouping in alliances. For example:
----- 1st World "capitalist" group of nations [NATO] with strong economies that routinely tell the NS:UN General Assembly to go stuff itself 8).
----- 2nd World "socialist" group of nations [Warsaw Pact] which follow most UN Resolutions, and accept the burden on thier economies :(.
----- 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Worlds that accept some sub-group of UN actions while rejecting others :?:.

This will add to realism, becasue:
----- Weak nations who defy the UN by themselves (i.e. the NS equivelent of Iraq, Libya, or North Korea) will suffer greatly.
----- The NS:UN General Assmebly will be impotent :oops: when up aginst strong multi-nation alliances.

Just look at the real-world UN General Assembly. The UN:GA can't force the U.S. to pay its dues :!: They have a snowball's chance in H*** of enforcing something really upopular.