• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Governmental Systems

  • Thread starter DeletedUser116830
  • Start date

DeletedUser111359

Terrius said:
The point is that the pros and cons balance out, @Agent327 .
Click to expand...

Not they don't. Mil Dictatorship is broken as you describe it. Reducing the happiness would have virtually no effect, since anyone with an account that they want the combat boost on, will also have a large Traz making the happiness "penalty" completely meaningless.
 

DeletedUser99588

It is an interesting thought but I think the pros and cons would need to be looked at further. Also being able to change willy nilly doesn't seem to add to the strategy element of the suggestion. Maybe if you had to decide at the point of completing the first tech of a new era which government to implement for the whole of that era a little more thought would have to be put into it. Possibly have some milestone points in the tech tree where you could change but would have to pay a heavy price that consisted of a mixture of resources including diamonds.

Also I wouldn't make all the government systems available at the start of the game. Maybe they are something that is unlocked either in tech tree or through some other method that requires a little effort.

Not sure why this couldn't become an idea given a bit more time and balancing. You have to ask yourselves what is in it for Innogames as this would suck up resources to implement. There needs to be a return on investment from their perspective before they would entertain it.
 

DeletedUser113776

Terrius said:
This is a discussion to add governmental systems to Forge Of Empires. It may be turned into a suggestion later, but is only a discussion as of yet.
Proposal:
Add Governmental Systems to Forge of Empires.
Reason:
In Forge of Empires, the only governmental system is a kingdom(Because all the quests either refer to you as Tribal Chief, or Your Highness(Might not be exact words), or Your Grace.). This may have worked before CE was out, but imagining you hundreds of years into the future and still being king is ridiculous.
Therefore, I am proposing the following government systems that can be accessible after you reach Progressive Era;
——
Empire[Same as current system, default]
No effect.
——
Military Dictatorship
Pro:
Attack/Defence each adds 10%.
Con:
Happiness down by 20%.
——
Democracy
Pro:
Coin/ Supply bonus: 50%.
Con:
Attack down by 10% and has a negative effect of -100 Happiness within 6 hours of attacking another player.
——
Theocracy
Pro:
Happiness increase by 20%
Con:
Coin/Supply bonus down by 20%
——
Technocracy
Pro:
Forge Point production up by 20% in all buildings(Including GBs)
Con:
Attack down by 10%
——
Anarchy
Pro:
None
Con:
Coin/Supply Production down by 20%.
This only applies within 24 hours of changing governments. This is a cooldown government.
——

That is all so far. If you have anymore that are good I will add to this post and credit the original posters.
The quest headings would change of course. For example:
Democracy: Your Presidency! Or: Dictatorship: Your Excellency!
Conclusion:
This is to add a level of diversity into the game. Govermental Systems allow players to choose their governments with more freedom. There are pros and cons to each one, making it a large decision to make. The systems can be changed any time in game.
PS- Open to comments. *This is chosen by players. Guilds have no control over this.*
Click to expand...
I suspect, that the vast majority of stronger players would become military dictators, if they already are inclined to attack weaker players. As the dictator would already be quite strong and aggressive in nature, a decrease on city happjness would be ineffectual in the long run. This mod, would only encourage more active (bullying) from players already doing so, but would potentially greatly expand their number of targets.
For democracy, i would recommend a defense bonus of 12% as most genuine democracies in the real world, are not aggressive to their neighbours, but do maintain cost effective defensive forces, which are expected in time of war, to train new troops and be a nucleus of an expanded military. These are our professional soldiers and city defense should reflect this fact. They might also then be a more successful defense against roving dictators.
 
Agent327

Agent327

Overlord
Terrius said:
The point is that the pros and cons balance out, @Agent327 .
Click to expand...

Are they?

Military Dictatorship
Pro:
Attack/Defence each adds 10%.
Con:
Happiness down by 20%.

Obvious the choice of fighters. Fighters have a high Alcatraz and sets that give happiness on the side, so FAIL!

Democracy
Pro:
Coin/ Supply bonus: 50%.
Con:
Attack down by 10% and has a negative effect of -100 Happiness within 6 hours of attacking another player.

Coins are the easiest to get in the game so who cares
-100 happiness if you attack? Who cares?
Another FAIL!

Theocracy
Pro:
Happiness increase by 20%
Con:
Coin/Supply bonus down by 20%

Who rerally needs happiness boosted and if you do, could you not spare the coins?
Again FAIL!


Technocracy
Pro:
Forge Point production up by 20% in all buildings(Including GBs)
Con:
Attack down by 10%

Love the fp's
Will just put a building down to compensate the attack.
Major FAIL!

Anarchy
Pro:
None
Con:
Coin/Supply Production down by 20%.
This only applies within 24 hours of changing governments. This is a cooldown government.

Who cares if it is needed?
FAIL!
 
Emberguard

Emberguard

Legend
SirFrancis said:
Not they don't. Mil Dictatorship is broken as you describe it. Reducing the happiness would have virtually no effect, since anyone with an account that they want the combat boost on, will also have a large Traz making the happiness "penalty" completely meaningless.
Click to expand...
Maybe if it automatically made you unhappy regardless of city output except when tavern boost is activated?

Or even if it just negated the highest happiness producer in your city
 

DeletedUser116830

Emberguard said:
Maybe if it automatically made you unhappy regardless of city output except when tavern boost is activated?

Or even if it just negated the highest happiness producer in your city
Click to expand...
Changed so city would automatically be unhappy. Thanks!:)
 

DeletedUser116830

Emberguard said:
10% would probably be better as the base amount and then scale with age or something

Any ideas yourself on how it could be improved?
Click to expand...
Changed so it goes up by 5% per age. Progressive=10%, Modern =15%, and so on:)
 
Agent327

Agent327

Overlord
Emberguard said:
10% would probably be better as the base amount and then scale with age or something

Any ideas yourself on how it could be improved?
Click to expand...

It can not be improved. This is the imagenation of a player that obviously does not know the entire game like I showed for every system.

Even you are missing a point here. Your city's happiness also has an influence on your units. If your city is not happy, your units will be less strong. So you give something with one hand and take it away with the other hand.
 

DeletedUser99588

It's far too easy to pull apart someones idea but far more beneficial to take the good parts and suggest improvements for elements that might need improvement. The benefits/sacrifices for each political system need work. Sir Francis and Agent have quite rightly pointed out that some of the sacrifices are meaningless therefore an imbalance exists and ultimately in its current state the OP falls under making the game easier. As far as giving with one hand and taking with another, that is probably the definition of balance for this type of game so not sure why that is being used as an objection.

The OP needs to find an element in the idea that will produce revenue for Innogames.
 
Agent327

Agent327

Overlord
thanatos100 said:
As far as giving with one hand and taking with another, that is probably the definition of balance for this type of game so not sure why that is being used as an objection.
Click to expand...

Let me explain it to you in a way you might understand. A Ziggurat is a special building that gives population. Population requires happiness, but the Zigurat gives also happines so that is a good thing.

The Militairy Dictatorship gives attack and defence, but takes away all happiness. No happiness means less attack and defence on your units, so that is a bad thing.

Zigurat + +
Dictatorship + -

Get it?
 

DeletedUser116830

Agent327 said:
It can not be improved. This is the imagenation of a player that obviously does not know the entire game like I showed for every system.

Even you are missing a point here. Your city's happiness also has an influence on your units. If your city is not happy, your units will be less strong. So you give something with one hand and take it away with the other hand.
Click to expand...
thanatos100 said:
It's far too easy to pull apart someones idea but far more beneficial to take the good parts and suggest improvements for elements that might need improvement. The benefits/sacrifices for each political system need work. Sir Francis and Agent have quite rightly pointed out that some of the sacrifices are meaningless therefore an imbalance exists and ultimately in its current state the OP falls under making the game easier. As far as giving with one hand and taking with another, that is probably the definition of balance for this type of game so not sure why that is being used as an objection.

The OP needs to find an element in the idea that will produce revenue for Innogames.
Click to expand...
Hmm...
Any suggestions? I am open to them.
 

DeletedUser116572

Terrius said:
Hmm...
Any suggestions? I am open to them.
Click to expand...
focus on the concept not the details
if inno ever did implement something like this they would balance it according to their own design
any balancing you do in the proposal would be ignored by and large anyway
 

DeletedUser116830

Lemon Friend said:
focus on the concept not the details
if inno ever did implement something like this they would balance it according to their own design
any balancing you do in the proposal would be ignored by and large anyway
Click to expand...
Okay... Will consider.
 
Agent327

Agent327

Overlord
Lemon Friend said:
neither statement is true
happiness does not affect unit strength in any way
it does affect the amount of battle points rewarded
Click to expand...

@Lemon Friend just look at this.

Lemon Friend said:
focus on the concept not the details
if inno ever did implement something like this they would balance it according to their own design
any balancing you do in the proposal would be ignored by and large anyway
Click to expand...

Much better advice, but with only a concept and no details there hardly is anything to discuss, so rather than have Inno balance it, YOU balance it to their design. If Inno wants to change it, fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Not sure about this suggestion it sounds complex to implement and not very useful or something to avoid at all costs even.
 

Deleted member 109369

We took down a couple of posts as they were incorrect and its my error. Happiness does not affect unit strength, only points, LemonFriend is correct . I've re confirmed that as well with my fellow CM's. I was having grey haired moment. (that's my story and I'm sticking to it) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top