Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Regional/State Council
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Regional/State Council

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Regional/State Council
    Posted: 16 May 2017 at 22:20
Background: 
I am a graduate of Politics and thus find the addition of Politics to Illyriad giving a unique perspective to gameplay. I recognise that not everyone would agree with this but here is what I propose:

Regional/State Level

Each State or Area would have a council of members that would decide the benefits each state would have based on income generated by Tax. 

Areas of control: 
- Land Development -> An ability to increase caravan speeds in the state
- Food Bank Initiative -> An ability to help encourage 'Food' production in the state
- State Forestry Commission -> An ability to help encourage 'Wood' production in a state
- The Potters Society -> An ability to help encourage 'Clay' production in a state
- The Masons Guild -> An ability to help encourage 'Stone' production in a state
- The Ironmongers Association -> An ability to help encourage 'Iron' production in a state
- The University of 'STATE' (changed depending on the state) -> An ability to help encourage 'Research' production in a state
- The Camelot Act -> An ability to help encourage 'Magic/Arcane' production in a state

Each would have 4 options: 
% of State Budget Bonus (%)
NONE 0 0
LIGHT 25 5
MODERATE 50 10
HEAVY  75 15

How would a budget be raised?

Through taxation state wide, if the citizen is a member of the alliance they will shoulder the burden or if they are independent they will be required to pay directly. 

What would the tax rates be? 

To avoid enforcing poverty if a hostile alliance controls the council the maximum tax rate would be 5%.

How would a council be appointed?

Only players within a State area could apply and the top 5 players whom gain the highest vote would form a council. 

Note: Term length would be decided by the first council up to a maximum of 3 months and can be adjusted by every council thereafter following a 2/3s majority. 
Note: Only 2 members of the same alliance can be appointed as a councillor to maintain a balance. 

This is a provisional idea requiring a lot more work but I welcome feedback and encourage open dialogue regarding my suggestion.



Edited by NorthDakota - 16 May 2017 at 22:27
Back to Top
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2017 at 22:21
RESERVED
Back to Top
Hyrdmoth View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Status: Online
Points: 147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Hyrdmoth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2017 at 23:05
Well, you could implement most of this within the current game system by using alliance taxes to buy prestige, or resources.

Six of the top twenty alliances levy an alliance tax. Have you tried asking them what they use it for?
Back to Top
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2017 at 23:08
You offer a very good point,

But if it was 'alliance bound' that would only benefit those members thus maybe giving an unfair advantage to others? Whereas if it were 'region-wide' it would allow a balance for all those living within the area. 

I'd be interested to know what the Alliance Tax goes towards as it does interest me
Back to Top
Yitshak View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Yitshak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 01:12
No ! No political system for Illy please. There is enough in the way of diplomacy already.

I don't see the point of an "Illy EU", a layer of political BS with no apparent purpose except to raise taxes to provide something that can already be done.

Caravan speed can be increased by upgrading market (to level 20 max) and further accelerated with prestige if required.

All resource production can be increased by sovereign structures as well as specific buildings (carpenter - wood, kiln - clay etc). Besides, most fully grown cities produce more resources than they can use. 

Research takes a bit of patience - or capturing a city with some/most/all research already completed

As for where alliance tax goes - that is up to the leadership of the alliance.

So no - political talk is not allowed in global chat, don't bring it into the game Thumbs Down




Edited by Yitshak - 17 May 2017 at 01:17
How do you eat a VIRTUAL elephant ?
One BYTE at a time !
Back to Top
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 11:37
Originally posted by Yitshak Yitshak wrote:

No ! No political system for Illy please. There is enough in the way of diplomacy already.

I don't see the point of an "Illy EU", a layer of political BS with no apparent purpose except to raise taxes to provide something that can already be done.

Caravan speed can be increased by upgrading market (to level 20 max) and further accelerated with prestige if required.

All resource production can be increased by sovereign structures as well as specific buildings (carpenter - wood, kiln - clay etc). Besides, most fully grown cities produce more resources than they can use. 

Research takes a bit of patience - or capturing a city with some/most/all research already completed

As for where alliance tax goes - that is up to the leadership of the alliance.

So no - political talk is not allowed in global chat, don't bring it into the game Thumbs Down



Alternatively I don't offer a 'Illryiad EU'. I offer the chance for new members to be able to be directly benefited from regional bonuses. 

I am not suggestions political parties or anything of the sort but simply a regional bonus system. 

You said Sovereign land allows such upgrades, yes you'd be correct but only for that player. I have heard of countering arguments that state 'sov land' costs more than is worth on some occasions and is a complex mechanic. 

There would not be a double tax, simply the tax already gathered by Alliances would be used to benefit members directly avoiding any 'hoarding' of funds. This proposal would benefit not only Training alliances but everyone by giving a production bonus. 

When discussing research I didn't mean the research speed, but the amount of research produced. I believe the way the game balances in that regard avoids Pay-to-win players. 

My suggestions were simply that, suggestions. In regards to Caravan Speed it was a suggestion not a firm belief. 

So to summarise  I was not suggesting political union of any sort, but a way of improving the current tax systems to actually have a purpose other than funding wars. 

I value feedback and thank you for it :) 
Back to Top
Ruarc View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ruarc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 12:12
I think if you changed state to alliance this would be a significantly more interesting (and less radical) idea to build upon.
 
People in alliances already have an advantage over those who aren't - including access to resources, military support, training, the political environment, etc. It's not an unfair advantage, it's a question of whether those benefits outweigh the risks and costs involved in alliance membership. Implementing this through provinces rather than through alliances means that there's no choice for the player. He's simply subjected to it. That's not a good approach.
Back to Top
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 12:32
Originally posted by Ruarc Ruarc wrote:

I think if you changed state to alliance this would be a significantly more interesting (and less radical) idea to build upon.
 
People in alliances already have an advantage over those who aren't - including access to resources, military support, training, the political environment, etc. It's not an unfair advantage, it's a question of whether those benefits outweigh the risks and costs involved in alliance membership. Implementing this through provinces rather than through alliances means that there's no choice for the player. He's simply subjected to it. That's not a good approach.

Interesting idea, however in areas already 'claimed' by Alliances already exert a great deal of influence. I'd argue that making it alliances whom control regions would turn it into a 'Stronghold Kingdoms' approach. That's why I suggested having a balanced council to avoid domineering. 

That isn't radical it would allow balance :) 

But you did offer an interesting perspective :)
Back to Top
Ruarc View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Ruarc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 13:06
I think I may have been unclear. What I'm suggesting is that you consider adapting the suggestion so that alliances can invest in alliance-wide bonuses, and scrap the connection to the province system.
 
Up to you of course, but I think it'll be very hard to find agreement amongst the playerbase for province-wide bonuses and a provincial political structure given that there are no existing mechanics in the game for distinguishing provinces, and land claims (the only player-defined process that involves provinces) are quite controversial.
Back to Top
NorthDakota View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NorthDakota Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 13:09
Originally posted by Ruarc Ruarc wrote:

I think I may have been unclear. What I'm suggesting is that you consider adapting the suggestion so that alliances can invest in alliance-wide bonuses, and scrap the connection to the province system.
 
Up to you of course, but I think it'll be very hard to find agreement amongst the playerbase for province-wide bonuses and a provincial political structure given that there are no existing mechanics in the game for distinguishing provinces, and land claims (the only player-defined process that involves provinces) are quite controversial.

I did misunderstand! 

I actually quite like that idea. I do agree that it would require an overhaul of sorts to implement my suggestion but what you suggested seems to be rather simple in comparison. Would you be willing to create a proposal of sorts with me? 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.07
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.