Controlling a second nation

[Aquinas]

We have talked previously about the possibility of allowing players, at Moderation's discretion, to control two nations at a time, instead of just the one.

The thinking is that this could be allowed, providing the group does not feel, for example, that a player is "power-gaming", or that a nation is not being sufficiently role-played with when someone else might be interested in role-playing it more actively.

A procedure has already been introduced allowing players to place requests for interactions with NPC nations. Some may feel, for example, that this is sufficient enough to give a boost to RP across the game map, and that allowing players to control a second nation is not really necessary. Others may feel, for example, that the interaction requests procedure is helpful, but that allowing players to control a second nation would be more helpful still.

Please feel free to discuss these issues either here on this thread, or on the Discord server. And also, of course, please take part in the poll .

[doc]

My opinion is that in some cases it would be a good idea. I just dread the idea of some player who wants to be expansionistic making his second country right next to his intended target, then surrendering the sovereignty of the second country to the first so he can use the second country to attack a target that he would not have otherwise been able to.

If there was a way to make the stipulation that the person had to play both countries as entirely separate entities, the multi could go through, I'd be inclined to support this, to get more countries played. But if there was no way to enforce that rule, then I would vote no.

[maxington]

Jun 3, 2019 0:28:37 GMT doc said:

My opinion is that in some cases it would be a good idea. I just dread the idea of some player who wants to be expansionist making his second country right next to his intended target, then surrendering the sovereignty of the second country to the first so he can use the second country to attack a target that he would not have otherwise been able to.

If there was a way to make the stipulation that the person had to play both countries as entirely separate entities, the multi could go through, I'd be inclined to support this, to get more countries played. But if there was no way to enforce that rule, then I would vote no.

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment tbh. 

[enderprophet]

Jun 3, 2019 0:47:06 GMT maxington said:

Jun 3, 2019 0:28:37 GMT doc said:

My opinion is that in some cases it would be a good idea. I just dread the idea of some player who wants to be expansionist making his second country right next to his intended target, then surrendering the sovereignty of the second country to the first so he can use the second country to attack a target that he would not have otherwise been able to.

If there was a way to make the stipulation that the person had to play both countries as entirely separate entities, the multi could go through, I'd be inclined to support this, to get more countries played. But if there was no way to enforce that rule, then I would vote no.

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment tbh. 

Same here.

[Basileus]

Jun 3, 2019 1:20:31 GMT enderprophet said:

Jun 3, 2019 0:47:06 GMT maxington said:

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment tbh. 

Same here.

Same here lol.