Politician Archive

There are also some nice ideas here (and same in GCW Forum here). A Garrison in that proposal would be the same as a base as requirement, only much smaller and unattackable (which I think is bad - the unattackable, I mean).

I like the Senate ideas - all mayors of "declared" cities getting to vote on bonus for the players on said planet. Maybe you could add spice it up with whichever side has more senators gets better bonus, or gets FP or XP bonus (as the "which side is winning" thing should be giving).

My first point is that the 'liberating' of a city seems to have focused on combat, this seems like a lazy solution mimicing the existing gameplay for base capture. I think the Devs are capable of delivering a much better and more Political sub game which includes economic and social destabalisation of a target.

I'd like to see a complex sub-game evolve when a city declares to a faction.
A declared city would have:

1) separate military budget - all funds must come from taxes, deposits can only pay for gardens etc.
2) Ringfenced funding - sales taxes cannot be spent on defence (to avoid exploit of the sales tax)
3) special 'flags' in the city would have a 'vandalise' radial option
3b) The flags are attackable once per week, if the budget can't afford to replace then you go neutral.
4) Vandalising a 'flag' can be done by anyone but they get a 'city TEF' to all militia
5) Vandalised items would require cost to repair, based on how long it took a citizen to use the 'clean' radial option.
6) Factioned cities would get a 'none of the above' voting option for disgruntled citizens
7) The number of disgruntled citizens would cost the city money from its defence budget.
8) Citizens would be able to set alegence independantly, their taxes could be ringfenced against faction.
9) Mayor would be able to hire special NPCs
9a) Navy representative - enables commisioning of a shuttle for off world transport (very expensive)
9b) Military intelegence - Gives info on the treasury of another city (one city per NPC)
9c) Spynet operative - functions for player bounty missions.
9d) ordenance - enables the calling arial support, time and co-ordinates must be suplied (expensive)
9e) Quater master - acts as a junk vendor for all junk
9f) minesweeper - patrols city permieter removing minefields (actualy removes the plot)
9g) Drill seargent - enables an overt militia member to take control of a city squad for an hour
9h) military police - enables a covert militia member to take control of a squad

Methods of attack:
1) trade embargo - Obvioulsy setting up vendors near an enemy city to steal their trade would cut their tax revenu and undermine their Crafters ability to raise funds.
2) insurection - find unhappy citizens and get them to withold funding, pay them to vandalise stuff, vote against etc.
3) Physical attack - destruction of city factional facilities - this should only be posible once per week
4) coruption - bribe the mayor to sell out his town (best soften him up with 5...)
5) assassination - Player bounties should be posable on a city's special NPCs, factioned politicians and Smugglers (by a master politician). If a cities NPCs are killed they can simply be replaced by the Mayor but its a hastle and could wear down their resolve

Obviously this would need to be balanced but if a city were unable to pay its defence maintainance then it would cease to be factioned at the next update, its reserves would kick in and non factioned stuff would not be effected. More perks would become available the longer you remain factioned.

I think recruiters are a lazy way to put cities into CGW (a simple alternative is that action against the city gives you a 'city TEF' allowing militia to attack you) declaration should not be easy and is the only benefit of bases.

Some of these ideas could be extended to 'large bases'. Furthermore I think that each city should exert a zone of control, within which enemy harvesters should not be able to be placed or some other more significant economic infraction.

I strongly disagree with the requirement for having a base for a city to factionally declare. Nobody has come up with a policy of what to do if/when the base is destroyed.

My personal feelings are that we should be allowed to put in a recruiter without having a base. It seems crazy that we have to pay 16k-60k/week (base maint cost) JUST to have a destroyable recruiter.


So, instead, lets get recruiting stations, a 'structure' that contains a faction recruiter, and possibly 1-2 honor-guards (preferrably worth 1 fp each, to discourage farming). that costs say 20k/week this structure would NOT have a mission terminal as part of it, but one could be installed into it (with martial 4 as normal).

For sake of coding simplicity, it would be like a garden (ie not a building you enter) having recruiter and flags par normal recruiters. This allows mission terminal to be installed without having to change coding to allow terminal inside a structure.


Advantages over base: can't be destroyed, can be searched for on world map ala basic trainers, smaller footprint, no lots. factionally apposed recruiters can be placed near each other

disadvantages: costs more than forward outpost, less/no troops for city defence, no other base perks (bank etc)


I'm thinking this would fit in well in Martial Policy 1 or 3 (prob 3)

A regular HQ just won't do! They are way to big. Mostcities on my server have their bases set up right outside the city limits, because they won't fit inside. This makes the Stronghold specialization useless because they can't use it to defend their bases because the bases are to big to fit inside the city. My city is built on very rough terrain, we are pretty cramped for housing as it is. There is no way we'd be able to fit a base within the city. I'm not even sure we'll be able to fit housing for 85 citizens so we can get to metropolis. So basically I can't declare my city as part of the GCW because we have so many fricking hills!?! That really sucks. The devs said at fanfest that we will not be able to to flatten out the terrain because it would be too server intensive. So unless they give us a specialized city base with a smaller footprint, my and many other cities built on less than favorable terrain, will not be able to declare as part of the GCW. It could function in exactly the same way as a normal base, it would just be smaller so that every city has the option to declare. Size really does matter here people!

I swear I've written this before, but cant' find it.

Assume you've declared city factional, and that it REQUIRES a base to have that status. What happens when that base is destroyed. Note that "You must replace is" means nothing.

Which of the following happens:

1. The system automatically deducts faction points from the Mayor and you buy smallest allowed base, which is placed where old base was

2. As 1, but buys same size base as previously existed.

Note: 1 and 2 have the problem of hwat happens if mayor/city runs out of faction points. Also, base is vunrable when first placed, so the base-destroying team nw gets to do it again (rince and repeat)


3. city IMMEDIATTKLY looses factional alignment

4. city loose factional alignment at next server pulse (of maint [roughly every 5m it seems]), if no base placed

5. City loooses factional alignment at next server restart(~1/day), if no base placed

6. city loose factional alignment at next city maint cycle (1/week) if no base placed

7. Nothing at al (base not required to KEEP alignment).



As you can see from the number of choices, "just drop another base" isn't enough of an answer

Actually "just drop another base" is the answer to your original question. What you did was raise a second question that is interesting and would be a good idea for the developer's to give input or for us via technical problems and for us to give input to the developers for personal player problems. It is a good question:

What amount of time is given before a city loses its factional alignment once the requirement fill in is destroyed?

Afterall acity would lose all the factional required structures that are placed (assuming any are implemented)beyond just the title of rebel/imperial outpost and the other intangible bonuses.However giving the city too much time would be a deterrent of an attack and leave the GCW lacking which is the opposite of what this revamp is supposed to be. Tough decision to pick. I personally would say that3-4 days, half a week,would be enough time since militia men are almost certainly going to be around within that amount of time to be able to drop a base yet make base raids a little bit less of a worrying debacle for the citizens.After all, if too long a wait is a deterence to the attackers too short a wait is a deterent to the defenders. Why bother declaringwhen you could lose so many credits of items thanks to a base raid taking place every night until you can't afford a replacement. Only sad thing is this thread seems to be a bit dead so it'll probably end up being picked between Pappi, Jester, and the devs. I'm kinda surprised that the activity level plateued out so quickly.

I love the idea of warning the mayor/citizens of overt activity, as well as the factional city ban. Mos Veris is a 100% dedicated Imperial town, declared stronghold since first able., we will ban all "smurfs" as well call them (lil blut dots) on sight if they are of a known rebel guild. Neutrals are questioned thorougly and it is up to the milita member as to weither or not they are banned. Our goal is to provide a city of Imperial Might, with RP air of arrogant, strong willed Imperials. Over the course of time it has become well known on our server and the rebels love to raid it. I think these two additions would only serve to improve this aspect of our game. Our merchants already have gigantic ban lists

Message Edited by DarkLordIce on 06-10-2004 12:27 AM

This sounds awesome!!!!

Of special interest are the walls and towers!

-Sans Sarif, Mayor
-Freedom, Talus
-Valcyn Server

thanks JEST3R

just so you guys know, in the fanfest the devs didn't like the walls idea very much, so I'm not sure how feasible that is. however, most of the other things I brought up with the devs and JEST3R were received well, so we'll see how that goes

---

PsychoticChipmunk wrote:

What didn't they like about the walls? I mean they themselves used a ton of walls in their cities after all.

---

um, exploits, I guess