Some Ideas

I had some ideas that might make gameplay more interesting. They're all based off some ideas I had on how to model real-life affairs in AtWar.

Of course, these will also revolutionize gameplay, and may seriously tick off many veteran players, as if these changes are implemented, they wouldn't be able to play the way they do now. This might actually be a good reason not to implement these changes. But I dream anyways.

1. Threat and Mobilization or "okay. Now we're scared."
Neutral countries does not sit waiting to be conquered. When things start getting dicey, they will prepare for the worst. This can be modeled by having a threat system. If a player conquers a neutral or another player's country, all the neutrals near the battlefield becomes "alert" and will generate militia/infantry at a higher rate, dependent on their size. Similarly, if an area has been very quiet and peaceful for a time, neutrals may disband the extra defensive units.

This can be modeled through a mechanic that keeps a "alertness" statistic for each neutral country. Each neutral country starts with 100% alertness, which means that they will have militia 100% of their reinforcements. For example, Paris is a 8-reinforcement city, so it will have 8*100% = 8 militia or infantry to start with. But if nearby neutrals are conquered, threat will be raised. For example, if a player captures Brussels, a size 3 city, then Paris will gain 30%, 10% for each reinforcement count, more alertness, causing their unit count to go up to 8*130% = 10.4 (rounded to 10) militia or infantry. For another example, the player captures Amsterdam (size 2) in the Netherlands. The Netherlands does not directly border France, but it is on the same region (these regions will need to be defined beforehand). Thus, the conquest of Amsterdam will only generate 5% alert per reinforcement, raising the alertness by 10%, for 140% total and causing Paris' unit count to go up again to 11. For a last example, the player conquers Shanghai. Different region, and no shared border, which means that the alert generation is halved again, to 2.5% per reinforcement. Shanghai's conquest will therefore raise Paris' alertness to 160%, raising Paris' unit count to 13. This alertness will decay at 2% per turn, so after 30 turns of no battles, Paris' unit count will be back down to 8.
Of course, all the numbers will have to be balanced, etc., but I used that as a crude example of how such a mechanic would work.

2. Dissent and Rebellion or "why are we ruled by those guys in that next country over again?"
Each player-owned city has a chance to revolt. Certain units, such as militia, reduces this chance when stationed there. Each unit will have a "policing" statistic that determines how useful it is in stopping revolts.

For example (again, these numbers are just for demonstration. Balancing will need to be done), let's say a player playing Germany conquers France, and draws 5 of Paris' 8 reinforcements.
Paris will have...
10% base chance, because it's occupied territory (home territory will have tiny base revolt chance),
1.625 multiplier on chance of revolt, because 62.5% of available reinforcements were used.
For a 16.3% chance of revolting per turn.
Now let's say that player stations twelve militia in Paris
12 (number of militia) * 5 (policing statistic of each militia) = 50 total policing power
60 (total power) / 8 (size of Paris) = 7.5% reduction in chance of revolt.
16.3 - 7.5 = 8.8, so Paris will have a 8.8 chance of revolting each turn. If Paris revolts, Paris will revert to a neutral city, all player units in Paris will be removed, and Paris will have 8 neutral infantry, since that's the size of the city. This revolt chance will be check-able in the city menu (maybe give cities with high revolt chance a red instead of grey icon?).
Lastly, it might be interesting to also give players the option to spend money to "fund rebels" in an enemy (or even an allied) city, giving said enemy city a multiplier to revolt risk. Policing power of that enemy player in that city will increase the chances of detecting this aid. This could be a nice way to backstab an unprepared enemy.

3. Internal Politics or "yeah, yeah. Politicians be bickering again"
If revolt is implemented, it may be possible to take things one step further and implement internal politics. This can be done in a couple of ways.

a. Jingoism and "let's just end this war already"
Each player empire has a "jingoism" statistic, which shows how pro-military and nationalistic their citizens are. Having high jingoism will have multiple benefits.

Jingoism start at 100% and slowly rises over time (about 1% a turn) to a certain hard maximum (150%?). Jingoism will be a simple multiplier on income and reinforcements, and will also decrease the revolt chance in home country cities. Other than the base 1% per turn rise, jingoism can also be increased mainly by capturing enemy and neutral cities, and a small secondary bonus by capturing enemy player capitals and winning battles against enemy players. Jingoism can be decreased, sometimes drastically, mainly by losing troops, but also slight secondary penalties from losing battles, especially over key cities and by having home country cities occupied. Signing peace and alliances with other players will increase jingoism when it is low, but decrease it when it is high.

b. Competing Ideologies
The player can choose (or the game chooses randomly for the player) a ruling ideology every few turns (15? 20?), that will have a slight bonus and penalty to the overall internal affairs of the player empire.

For example, being ruled by fascist ideology might increase jingoism at the cost of higher revolt risk in occupied territories, laissez-faire might bring in lower income and higher revolt risk, but also faster rate of income growth, etc., etc.

4. Limited Diplomacy and "why are you allying all of us?"
Basically, prevent alliance spamming. If two players are at war, a third player can't ally both unless those two sign up peace or alliance. When a player receives an alliance request from another player, he will be able to see right in that turn report screen how many allies that player already has. Players who have allied players equal to or more than half the total players will get a serious SP penalty.

The first one explains itself. The second one will hopefully warn players who spams alliances, and who makes a few key alliances. For the third one, the most allies a player has in a conventional game is in a 10v10 team game, where each player is allied to 9 of his 19 competitors. Almost, but not quite half. So penalizing players for having half or more of his competitors allied will essentially penalize SP from players that have more alliances then they would in a 2-team game. In this case, I think that that SP reduction will be much deserved.

That about sums it up.

1. It is interesting, but there is an issue. Country borders are not set up so that they know when they are bordering each other, they overlap but they are independent of each other. This would mean that such an update would have to do with range, and not with country borders. If enemy units are within a certain range, then the neutral nation increases its number of units. This would also have to be optional, as it would be disastrous for 3v3s.

2. Has been recommended before, I don't think it would be very good. It would make the game less strategy and more luck.

3. If it is a step further then 2, then I don't think I need to comment.

4.What if there was a 3-way alliance and two of the players in it break from each other, leaving one guy allied to both?

1, 2, and 4.

1 and 2 should be optional settings

लिखा द्वारा KYBL, 01.12.2014 at 16:47

1. It is interesting, but there is an issue. Country borders are not set up so that they know when they are bordering each other, they overlap but they are independent of each other. This would mean that such an update would have to do with range, and not with country borders. If enemy units are within a certain range, then the neutral nation increases its number of units. This would also have to be optional, as it would be disastrous for 3v3s.

Good point. I think you're right. It will have to be distance-based, and it will have to be optional.

लिखा द्वारा KYBL, 01.12.2014 at 16:47

2. Has been recommended before, I don't think it would be very good. It would make the game less strategy and more luck.

How about if "revolts" are not something that happens if one turn, but something that happens slowly? For example, a city with 5% revolt chance won't have a 5% chance to revolt, but would rather get 5% of the effects of revolt every turn.

लिखा द्वारा KYBL, 01.12.2014 at 16:47

3. If it is a step further then 2, then I don't think I need to comment.

Alright.

लिखा द्वारा KYBL, 01.12.2014 at 16:47

4.What if there was a 3-way alliance and two of the players in it break from each other, leaving one guy allied to both?

Probably in such a case, both alliances will automatically degrade to peace.