Dominions

[Electric Sheep]

Hello... This would be my very first post on these forums, ever. Browsed them for long enough, but never taken part.
I've been inspired by Zoro's post on multi-accounts/planets, and it really made me think...

Instead of having just one planet which you are the sole ruler of, how about having many planets, one of which is a capital and the others are subordinates of?

However, the only thing is, you don't control these other planets - other people do, other people you have attacked and taken control of. If you are under control by another player, it would be a bit like being in an alliance with them. If someone else successfully attacks and takes over the capital planet that you belong to, you would be either a) freed from servitude or b) your allegiance transferred to this new ruler..

It makes for alliances rather interesting...! people will no longer always belong to a specific alliance, players will constantly be changing allegiance.

It's very similar to a game played with many people, I forget what it's called - not an online game or anything, more like a party game.

This is all I've come up with so far, I wonder if anyones had the same idea before? It would mean a dramatic change to the structure of the game which may not be welcomed, but it would be great to test and see if it worked.

Now other people have got the basic idea, would anyone be willing to help me pad it out a bit?

[Gerbie]

It's a nice suggestion. I just don't see many advantages to such a system although there are a lot of disadvantages.

First of all it would lead to one side getting big very fast. So the game would be decided very fast. The end of the round being when there are no more planets to attack. Which might be within a matter of one or two weeks.

It would lead to people unwilling to be in a certain alliance become part of it. They can then no longer play with their friends. It will also lead to massive leaking of information (spying).

The idea deserves some thought imo, but there are a lot of problems to overcome.

[mist]

will the person who controls you have any direct influance over your planet?

if not, what's to stop people ignoring it?

could be an interesting idea

-mist

[Electric Sheep]

Oh yes. Taxes. That's another thing.
Each planet controlled must pay a small percentage of their income (something like... Oooh. 5%?) to the capital - this way, the capital is made rather large and therefore quite hard to take control of. Still possible though... probably the only way would be for one large capital to attack another, or as an empire-wide strike.

Maybe players should be given an option to rebel - I'm not quite sure how this would work though. Perhaps the capital player would be able to build central government control facilities to assist in keeping players under control - and subordinates may be able to attack these buildings (i.e. covertly) and weaken the communication links.

[Electric Sheep]

Would be slowed somewhat by making only the capital planet able to subvert new planets to an empire - and furthermore, ships would have to be left at a planet in order to keep it under control, weakening the capital planet's strength.
Free will may be limited somewhat, not allowed to attack planets in the same dominion - maybe even restricting players from defending others (capital can command your planet). And yes, it would mean massive information leaks! On to next idea...

Two kinds of empire allegiance - voluntary and forced.

Voluntary allegiance as in, you can join an empire out of your own free will, just like joining an alliance is now. This inner circle would be the core of the dominion, where the information leaking/spying is at it's minimal - advisers, enforcers - you name it. They also wouldn't be made to pay taxes, and they can also leave out of their own free will.

Forced allegiance, on the other hand, would be just like I've outlined in previous posts - These would be the planets that pay taxes, and who would be most unhappy with being owned by the capital. The slaves, as you might put it, would not be given the same level of information as other friends, and you can't leave unless you are freed by another player or subverted.

Forced planets can be freed by anyone except planets in their own dominion, if you want them to be (given an option when attacking). This means, making them free of any allegiance, and therefore able to start their own dominion, or join one (back to their old one maybe).

Voluntary planets cannot be "freed" as it were, since they are voluntary - they don't want to be freed, or they would have left by now. You cannot force a voluntary planet out of a dominion.
Voluntary planets don't need to be freed, only captured and forced to serve a new capital planet.

Capital planets, when captured, all voluntary planets are made slaves to the new capital and all former slaves are freed. This would mean, defend the capital at all costs!

I'm not sure how capturing would be implemented though. Any thoughts? Structure destroying? Ground troops taking control of security centres?

[Electric Sheep]

Sorry I've been throwing words like dominion, empire and alliance around randomly... I'm sure they have their subtle differences but to me at the moment they mean the same thing.

[Electric Sheep]

For clarification, thanks to AD for hosting pics!
Dominion 1
Dominion 2

[flikman]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

First of all it would lead to one side getting big very fast. So the game would be decided very fast. The end of the round being when there are no more planets to attack. Which might be within a matter of one or two weeks.

But everyone knew 1up were going to win this round from the start . The nature of the game means that one side will always be better than the others.

I think what PA really needs to see is some sort of handicap system. So the game constantly balances itself. I haven't given it much thought though yet.

[Zoro]

I think this is the perfect example of someone opening their mind to other possibilites - the only problem that I can envisage from the suggestions is that it is some far removed from the current game structure it could be considered a new game - sounds like a good game though.

Not sure it addresses one of the biggest problems facing PA which is numbers of planets. How to increase the number of players or planets is the biggest challenge that PA faces.

Maybe instead of actually taking over planets that are conquered it could be as u later suggested planets allying themselves to other planets.

Just had an idea

Maybe the game could be split in this way. For the first month planets from each cluster put themselves foward for election (in the same way GC's put themselves foward at the beginning of the game) Each cluster would have a in cluster war (if they want) and at the end of it a president would be elected. The President would receive bonuses in a similar way to a GC getting extra resources (much more resources though).
The job of the President would be to arrange trade deals and military pacts with other clusters

After the first month is over planets can attack anywhere in the universe - If ur president has done his job properly ur cluster would have a good standing in the universe and hopefully some good allies and trade agreements.

TRADE
Each player would have 5 planets instead of the one they normally get and each of these would be situated in the same cluster - one for each race and another of their choice
The 5th planet would be a trading planet and it would be the duty of the planet holder to keep it well stocked for the trade in cluster for the 1st month then after that for trade with other clusters.

The trade planets would reside in the far reaches of the cluster - so in each cluster it would be obvious were the trade planets where (maybe they could be coloured differently or something)

The would be a trade minister picked by the President and it would be his job to distribute the collected taxes from all of the planets in the cluster to the trade planets - so they can keep well stocked up with roids - organised clusters could draw up rotas to keep the flow of roids to the allies sensible (there would be no point everyone attacking at the same time)


There would be also nothing to stop a planet attacking any other planet in the universe (after the first month or two weeks) whether there is an agreement or not (much the same way it works now)

I believe the ideas outlined would firstly - address the lack of numbers problem in one fell swoop (5 times as many planets) - secondly push people more towards cluster alliances rather than the 4 or 5 who currently dominate atm in turn there could be as many as 20 - 30 strong alliances at the start of the game
Thirdly - newly introduced players could benefit from cluster protection - cluster may even get bonuses for begginers that progress etc.

Oh by the way alliances could all reside in the same cluster if they want or take the risk of being more spread out in a few clusters risking not being in full control in all the clusters

The main benefit would be that the game could last alot longer - be more political - and stay interesting to the end

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by flikman

But everyone knew 1up were going to win this round from the start . The nature of the game means that one side will always be better than the others.

I think what PA really needs to see is some sort of handicap system. So the game constantly balances itself. I haven't given it much thought though yet.

I didn't know. I hoped someone whould stop them. For a long time that seemed possible.

I don't believe in adding systems like that. It's hard to think of a system that is not open to abuse.