Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2013/12/24 23:26] p.p.a |
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2020/11/08 04:02] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| >>All right, I can live with that. I don't think this needs to be further specified in the rules then. What about players who run independent one-man settlements and are primarily active there, but are also citizens of a nation? I don't think they should be included counting towards the minimum 5 players either, since they aren't actually committed to the nation. Could this be exploited to allow a nation to effectively control land outside of its borders, if these settlements belong to their citizens but are not formally part of the nation? Should, in such a situation, the settlement be annexed to the nation the settlement leader is a citizen of? Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute? -P.P.A. | >>All right, I can live with that. I don't think this needs to be further specified in the rules then. What about players who run independent one-man settlements and are primarily active there, but are also citizens of a nation? I don't think they should be included counting towards the minimum 5 players either, since they aren't actually committed to the nation. Could this be exploited to allow a nation to effectively control land outside of its borders, if these settlements belong to their citizens but are not formally part of the nation? Should, in such a situation, the settlement be annexed to the nation the settlement leader is a citizen of? Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute? -P.P.A. | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>"Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute?" I vote for that, but if we had to decide I would WANT to say that active means active in the nation, but that's ridiculous and impossible to enforce. So I would just ignore the problem and <del>the politburo will hire some mercenary nation</del> let someone war them and when no one shows up to defend the nation then problem solved. -v | ||
| + | |||
| + | >I think that activity of citizens in nations are pretty unmeasurable, and I think making people living in the nation is somewhat unreasonably punishing. I think being in nation is more a connection between people, not binding people to clay. I try to think about situation that could abuse this system but I can't think about any. Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X. | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>"Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X." But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation, and is therefore easy to track. Deciding who is an actual citizen only then becomes important for wars. In that case they can drop in and out whenever anyway, so again, it doesn't matter. -v | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>"But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation," It is also problem when citizens leave country and it might be under 5 when you doesn't count citizens with double citizenship and it is over 5 when you count people with double citizenship. The point is we are supposed to want to know to know exact number of citizens any time. -r | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>>I really don't think it will be a problem because it never has been. Let's just make a ruling when or if it ever does become one. -v | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>>>Well, if we are going just to try out new things I am ok with it. I just wanted to predict possible problems -r~ | ||
| <hidden old shit> | <hidden old shit> | ||