Influence

Influence is sort of a point system for cites, to go along with the revolt idea. I came up with the idea a few days ago but haven't had the chance to post it here till now. Influence points can continue to grow throughout the game, with no cap to how much a city can have per person. Anyway, here's the basic idea:

- Neutral cities start out with 0 influence
- Taking over a city adds +50 influence to the person who took it over in addition to battle victory influence (Note: Influence stays within the cities, so they are "non-transferable" so to speak)
- Battle Victory Influence is inversely proportional to the number of units lost in battle and how many started (e.g. if an enemy attacks one of your cities with 5 people and you have 8 defending, if you lose 5 people before killing the enemy's forces, you gain 3 influence in that city.) (Maybe Amok and Ivan could add something to do with how many units the opposing player attacked with or defended with to this formula)
- Taking over a capital of a country adds +100 influence to the person who took it over
- Taking over an opposing players home capital adds +250 influence to the person who took it over
- Occupying troops add +1 to a players influence per unit in a controlled city with a maximum of +10 per turn
- Occupying troops also decrease any other players influence in the city from when they formerly held it by -1 per two units with a maximum of -5 per turn
- If a player who does not own the city has more than 50% of the total amount of influence points in the city, they have as much of a chance as the ratio of reclaiming the city due to revolts. Max percentage is 75%. (e.g. if you take over a city from somebody and they have 120 influence points in the city and you have 60, they have a 66% chance of reclaiming the city on any given turn. But if they have 500 and you have 60, they still only have a 75% chance of reclaiming it.)(this may need to be tweaked as well.)
*EDIT Feb 9 1:18 AM ET*
- When creating a game, the creator will have the option to have chances of revolts be low (aforementioned formula with 50% reduction (66%->16%)), medium (formula with 25% reduction), high (formula), or off. Nonpremium users would be allowed to select low and off.

So that's pretty much how the influence idea I thought of with its various restrictions to make the game still fun would work. Reply with any questions, comments, or concerns. Please don't flame, though. If you don't like it, offer constructive criticism. If you don't have any, please leave the thread.

I can see how this might work, but i honestly don't like the idea of losing my cities to revolts. I already got enough micromanagement on my hands not to worry about leaving troops nearby to quell any rebellion

Still it is well thought out, so if it gets any support i guess i will get used to it XD

Well it could be cool.. also influence could be determined by size so it could be constantly changing maybe?

Written by Yoshika-Chan, 08.02.2012 at 14:41

Well it could be cool.. also influence could be determined by size so it could be constantly changing maybe?

Size of what exactly? Also, as long as you have troops in the city, the number is constantly changing on a turn by turn basis.

Sorry i forgot to write size of player's country. And yes it would change with every action you make. or you could just make a Revolt point system, where you have certain amout of points in each country that you have to surpass, in order to sustain it without revolting everywhere, but it would add up.

I may not be perfectly clear so i'll explain it here;
For Exampla Spain, Italy and France. You choose Spain and you have lets say for example 1000RP(RevoltPoints). In order for revolts to appear, you would need to have like 400RP.
So you decide to take both Caps in each countries(but only caps). You you have then total of 1200RP you need to surpass, but since you only get 2/10cities in theese two countries, you only get lets say 150RP for example. So you have 1150RP and so revolts will appear at random (or can be programmed where you have least units).


So yes, this could be interesting, but would tear the game strategy we know today (taking all china in 1 turn, fast expanding rush with only caps,etc.)

Would love this; reminds me of Civilization (culture, is it?). Dunno if it is technically feasible to include in game.

PS. revolts/influence could maybe be left as a game option, so those that dislike can turn the feature off.

Written by Guest14502, 08.02.2012 at 15:09

Would love this; reminds me of Civilization (culture, is it?). Dunno if it is technically feasible to include in game.

PS. revolts/influence could maybe be left as a game option, so those that dislike can turn the feature off.

That was actually my inspiration for this idea.

Lol now I think this might be interesting. But it also should be kept out of 1v1's. So I think it should be a feature you turn on while setting the game up?

Hmm. Idea! thread edited

Ivan read this, but didnt post his response. :c

Is there really that many uninterested people?

Written by Runway1R, 12.02.2012 at 15:17

Is there really that many uninterested people?

yes

Written by FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 12.02.2012 at 20:06

Written by Runway1R, 12.02.2012 at 15:17

Is there really that many uninterested people?

yes

:c

This is good and well thought-out. However, it would very much depend on how someone plays. It would make Iron Fist almost undefeatable, because militia cannot be moved out of cities. My play-style would be in shambles, for instance, because I more or less rely on the enemy doing stupid moves like leaving their cities open for attack and don't mind losing a few of my own, usually.

It doesn't always work, but basically I focus more on holding key cities that produce many troops to holding loads of them and it works against most players. Or rather, it's not so much about holding as it is about surprising the enemy by showing up outside their cap. It's pretty much manoeuvre warfare rather than attrition warfare in strategic terms.

Written by YOBA, 13.02.2012 at 09:03

This is good and well thought-out. However, it would very much depend on how someone plays. It would make Iron Fist almost undefeatable, because militia cannot be moved out of cities. My play-style would be in shambles, for instance, because I more or less rely on the enemy doing stupid moves like leaving their cities open for attack and don't mind losing a few of my own, usually.

It doesn't always work, but basically I focus more on holding key cities that produce many troops to holding loads of them and it works against most players. Or rather, it's not so much about holding as it is about surprising the enemy by showing up outside their cap. It's pretty much manoeuvre warfare rather than attrition warfare in strategic terms.

True, this would probably change the dynamic of the game, but, at least in my opinion, things need to get a little bit more complicated in the game for the game to get better. the game as it is seems to be the same thing over and over again.

Written by YOBA, 13.02.2012 at 09:03

This is good and well thought-out. However, it would very much depend on how someone plays. It would make Iron Fist almost undefeatable, because militia cannot be moved out of cities.

IF militia can be moved out of cities. You just need air transports.

Bump of more opinions.

I think it would be over-complicated and the game is meant to be focused on military strength mostly.

Written by Caulerpa, 26.02.2012 at 11:04

I think it would be over-complicated and the game is meant to be focused on military strength mostly.

Yep I agree with you there ~Caul.

Written by Deray YG, 08.02.2012 at 22:13

Lol now I think this might be interesting. But it also should be kept out of 1v1's. So I think it should be a feature you turn on while setting the game up?

Written by Deray YG, 26.02.2012 at 13:34

Written by Caulerpa, 26.02.2012 at 11:04

I think it would be over-complicated and the game is meant to be focused on military strength mostly.

Yep I agree with you there ~Caul.

Wat

Written by Caulerpa, 26.02.2012 at 11:04

I think it would be over-complicated and the game is meant to be focused on military strength mostly.

Military science applied, rather. But Caulerpa's right, it is too much.

Written by Runway1R, 26.02.2012 at 13:38

Wat

my views have changed