Colony maintenance?

How would everyone feel if we tried to devise a sort of colony maintenance system? Colonization could cost an annual maintenance to maintain the colony, which will decrease over time as the colony develops. Distance from the homeland could be calculated so that places farther away and more isolated would cost more to maintain and for a longer period. This would encourage people to keep their nations contiguous (all in one piece, instead of being broken up across distant plots) and would give a more realistic feel, since more economically powerful countries would be the only ones who could feasibly have distant colonies, sort of like the British, French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, and Italian Empires (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese and Viking Empires).

Ras, don't worry about that. I'm planning to actually make a rule which involves several factors EXCEPT defense where a percent of the country's military must stay in the land for certain period of time unless states such as Law and Order is high enough.

In short... I'm planning on making penalties for RPers for taking territories, since there is no bad thing about taking colonies nowadays.


And about your idea... the best I could say is to be realistic to people. Which many people will take lightly (Remember my complaint to KingIssac about how plagued cities cannot take territories? Went out the window. THE VERY NEXT DAY after the issue has been solved KI decided to take plot 10. Where is the recovery, I might add...).

So I'm just going to go with universal rule here... and I'll fiddle with rules. Anyone interested in giving me ideas are welcome.


Btw, I'm so far planning on using Law and Order, Religion and Spirituality, Social Welfare, Administration, and Public Transport as a factor for how much and how long must a certain % of the total military should stay. Although I see that there are not as fair way...

If anyone is willing to contribute to this new rule, feel free to contact me. I am still in the works, and the beta test will be run as soon as I finish the rules.





Bottom line: I AGREE WITH YOU RAS!!! But some people take reality lightly, and as SoC, I cannot tell everyone to "Face reality, bub!!!" every time, so I want to make a rule for this instance. And help would be appreciated.

Osc, I am very happy you take religion into account. It is one of three primary goals for expansion and our favorite tool.

lol.

I'm sorry. I just really want PLOT 10 to make more roleplay now I have uranium

Well... religion plays a KEY role in stability, because religion is a method bring people in one unity. If you all believe in one deity, you don't usually don't want to rebel.

Oscalantine wrote:

Well... religion plays a KEY role in stability, because religion is a method bring people in one unity. If you all believe in one deity, you don't usually don't want to rebel.

Aghhhh!! Double negative!

Especially if you believe your nation's deity considers your government a bastion among heathens.

Actually, religion causes instability. Another group creates another religion, and they end up killing each other.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In Canada, we have all kinds of religions worshipped by many different kinds of people, but there has never been ethnic strife here (except between the french and english, of course). The christians here are fine with the muslims, it would not be out of the ordinary to see a mosque, temple and church on the same block in one of the larger cities. There are also countless other religions worshipped here.

I would say religion, in the vast majority of cases, causes conflict and tension, but it can clearly be avoided in a proper society.

[Yes, I love this country ;D]

I say religion because while religion does cause conflicts, it could be a factor in brining people together... into one polarized view. I guess it depends on religion to religion, and there is no clear indication as to which religion mixed with which religion will help in certain way in stability, but I think I can say in the general rule of thumb that religious fundings by the government generally contribute to the stability of an area, because the more people agree on one religion, the less conflict that they will cause.

Another reason why I use religious funding as part of time it takes to completely dominate a territory is because religious fundings grows religious organizations, who in turn gets their own funding through donations. This will allow these religious organization to create... whatever they need to convince the people that the invaders are not all that bad. Religion, in a way, also acts as a "wall breaker." As more and more people in the region starts to follow the new religion that has moved from the invading territory, the fracture in the unity of rebel will occur, dispersing opinions and ultimately destroying the trust of the rebellions.

In short, I added religion partly because it unites the invaders to victims, and it disperses the potential unity in a rebellion. I do get the feel that it might be colonial perspective, but heck, modern era doesn't have this kind of example of religion going to the invaded territory.

Okay, update on the rules that I'm making... here's some gist.

Btw, if some of the rules look shallow... Look, I'm having trouble getting people to follow Isis's already simple rule of military numbers. I assume that people are not taking AP Calc BC, and I shall only use percentage, addition and subtraction. Plus... who wants to do math in a literary community? So anyone that is expecting masterpiece from me... please bear with me... I don't want to make this complicated for anyone.



First and foremost, Law and Order (LaO) plays CRUCIAL role in country's stability in the region. Heck, the name of the budget is Law and Order.

So here's what I did: I put that if your LaO is beyond 35% of your budget, you are free from military duties. Before anyone complains... guys, if more than third of your budget is going to ONE part, chances of their military being swell is slim. In other words... they already have a weak military to begin with, and let's not add insult to injury and make the poor nation cry.

So basically, you subtract whatever % your LaO budget is from 35. That is the % of your military that needs to stay in the territory to police the territory. So... if you have 3 million men but have... 5% LaO budget, it means that 30% of your military... 1 million... must stay in the given territory as a military police for a certain period of time. While this army CAN assist in defending the said territory that they are policing, they cannot contribute to any OTHER military actions. In short... you are screwed if you took over a country and your homeland is attacked. Of course, you can GIVE UP the territory, get your army police to retreat, and defend your country that way.

I think this simulates the military's role in policing the newfound areas where unrests happens REAL easily. I also think that this gives a good simulation of reality where if you overextend yourself with your military, you will be vulnerable, and you will have high chance of getting your butt whooped.




And how long is this "wait time" for you army to return? I got no clue. You see, every other factor that I mentioned is supposed to be part of this equation... all goes into how fast you can get the territory to stabilize. And after seeing Ras's post about distance, I need to add that in as well. I am a bit stuck here, but I'll let you know as soon as I get going.



Questions? Comments? Concerns? Let me know!

The relation between the LaO budget and the military budget seems a bit arbitrary, since the LaO would presumably fund a force independent from the military to keep order, but I still like this alot. It's a way to determine how many troops you can realistically deploy elsewhere.

I do have a question though. Why 35%? Is that just an example number?

Well... I chose LaO because of its budget's name. I thought that as you have more of this budget, you will have more readily armed police force that can contribute to new territory's law and order. In other words, you do not need military to already do what the police does best.

the 35% that I chose was from mainly from seeing everyone else's %. I originally was thinking 50%, but having half of your army going into one territory to stabilize the territory is tad bit... unrealistic. So.... 35% is just my belief of realistic number that will, while penalize almost all nations, will also reward someone who has big LaO budget.