basically the idea is that there is a war thing where the "goverment" which basically gets all the land tax will periodically get into a "war" and would buy up large amounts of weapons a new product which would also have iron and wood as new products, as well as medicene, vaccines food and boost drinks
Every country has its own president (which is a player that the citizens of that country can vote to select as president). They can open war on other countries or ally with them. If a war is opened, the country with the most supplies (weapons, medicine, vaccines, food, boost drinks, citizens, ect.) will win the war after a while (maybe a month).
However, this will require much more online players and more countries and cities, because I don't think this idea would be fun when there are so less online players.
This is why, I think the best think to stimulate the game tight now is events, yes there is war, But maybe we can have natural disasters or more impact on the weather.
There is a lot of ideas to explore
Here’s an idea that blends the concepts with a bit more focus on how the in-game economy and gameplay could thrive, even with fewer players:
In this world, the government plays a central role in driving the economy and conflict. Every so often, a "War Event" is triggered, where the government of each country mobilizes to stockpile essential goods. This includes weapons, medicine, vaccines, food, boost drinks, and new resources like iron and wood.
The twist? During the event, demand for these items skyrockets, causing a temporary boom in the market. Players (citizens of each country) have to step up and produce or trade these resources to contribute to the war effort. Countries are ranked by how much they can supply, and the ones that provide the most will "win" the war — not through actual combat but through economic dominance.
Winning a war could grant the victorious country benefits like new territories or special resources, giving players a reason to strategically manage their country's production and alliances. This could also tie into local events like natural disasters or extreme weather that could impact certain resources, adding an extra layer of challenge.
Even with fewer players, this event could be fun because it stimulates the economy, gets players working together or against each other, and allows for some cool strategic decisions. Plus, there's always room to tweak the event with more dynamic factors like a shortage of specific goods or temporary weather events that could change the outcome.
Here’s an idea that blends the concepts with a bit more focus on how the in-game economy and gameplay could thrive, even with fewer players:
In this world, the government plays a central role in driving the economy and conflict. Every so often, a "War Event" is triggered, where the government of each country mobilizes to stockpile essential goods. This includes weapons, medicine, vaccines, food, boost drinks, and new resources like iron and wood.
The twist? During the event, demand for these items skyrockets, causing a temporary boom in the market. Players (citizens of each country) have to step up and produce or trade these resources to contribute to the war effort. Countries are ranked by how much they can supply, and the ones that provide the most will "win" the war — not through actual combat but through economic dominance.
Winning a war could grant the victorious country benefits like new territories or special resources, giving players a reason to strategically manage their country's production and alliances. This could also tie into local events like natural disasters or extreme weather that could impact certain resources, adding an extra layer of challenge.
Even with fewer players, this event could be fun because it stimulates the economy, gets players working together or against each other, and allows for some cool strategic decisions. Plus, there's always room to tweak the event with more dynamic factors like a shortage of specific goods or temporary weather events that could change the outcome.
I like that but the problem is most companies are in the U.S. so the U.S. would win most of the time.
I also had this in mind—what if the "war event" wasn't just about countries stockpiling resources, but also about dynamic world changes? Think of it as a global crisis cycle. Every so often, the world enters a period of heightened conflict where demand for iron, wood, medicine, vaccines, and food skyrockets. Governments scramble to secure supplies, and players can either capitalize on the chaos or try to stabilize things.
But here's the twist: war isn't the only crisis. Imagine a rotation of world events—war, pandemics, economic crashes, natural disasters—each creating different demands. A war event? Weapon prices spike, borders shift. A pandemic? Medicine and vaccines are king. A market crash? Stable resources become the lifeline. Players have to adapt and strategize.
It keeps things fresh and makes the economy way more dynamic. Instead of just one system, it's a cycle of events that force the world to change and react. Keeps players engaged and constantly thinking ahead.
[quote=Eram]Here’s an idea that blends the concepts with a bit more focus on how the in-game economy and gameplay could thrive, even with fewer players:
In this world, the government plays a central role in driving the economy and conflict. Every so often, a "War Event" is triggered, where the government of each country mobilizes to stockpile essential goods. This includes weapons, medicine, vaccines, food, boost drinks, and new resources like iron and wood.
The twist? During the event, demand for these items skyrockets, causing a temporary boom in the market. Players (citizens of each country) have to step up and produce or trade these resources to contribute to the war effort. Countries are ranked by how much they can supply, and the ones that provide the most will "win" the war — not through actual combat but through economic dominance.
Winning a war could grant the victorious country benefits like new territories or special resources, giving players a reason to strategically manage their country's production and alliances. This could also tie into local events like natural disasters or extreme weather that could impact certain resources, adding an extra layer of challenge.
Even with fewer players, this event could be fun because it stimulates the economy, gets players working together or against each other, and allows for some cool strategic decisions. Plus, there's always room to tweak the event with more dynamic factors like a shortage of specific goods or temporary weather events that could change the outcome.
I like that but the problem is most companies are in the U.S. so the U.S. would win most of the time.[/quote]
