This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:
Anyway, October is kind-of getting here, can we get a exact date when the Match starts?vex03 wrote:
That has yet to be officially established. Except to get some of the provinces in Afghanistan bordering Pakistan, and parts of Pakistan.SirAmerican wrote:
I have got one question, my friend: what territory will be mine (what provinces shall I control)?
GreatbigHippo wrote:
how would we distinguish the leader unit from all other units of the same type?
Not A Communist wrote:
I'd say no to the unit idea personally, doesn't really add to the RP and the Unit travel time is waaay too long. Kinda complicates it. Just my opinion , but RPing your leader is easier.
King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:
look at the map of 2000'sSirAmerican wrote:
I have got one question, my friend: what territory will be mine (what provinces shall I control)?
if he drew the Borders correctly..... (edit, I just noticed that you picked a "terrorist" state, welp...you will find out what your borders are)
SirAmerican wrote:
Also one question, the 7th rule tells: You must have a legitimate reason for war! ALWAYS resort to diplomacy first. I don't think terrorists have legitimate reason for war and I don't think they resort to diplomacy first. Do I need observe this rule?
vex03 wrote:
If you don't believe so, I encourage you to check out S1914's roleplaying section and see the successful roleplays, in which I modeled mine after.
Diabolical wrote:
I can understand that Supremacy has more interesting RP's, since the unit options and gameplay are simpler than CoW. But in CoW, just the fact of so many different units limits the amount of rules that can be used to alter the game without messing up the mechanics of the game. It's hollowed ground I wouldn't cross.vex03 wrote:
If you don't believe so, I encourage you to check out S1914's roleplaying section and see the successful roleplays, in which I modeled mine after.
Arstotzka1 wrote:
Shouldn't Not a Communist have a country?Or does he have one already?
vex03 wrote:
Okay, so we will be adding a in-game leader... to explain this idea alittle more, I will go much further in depth, now that it is planned on being added.
How will be able to tell a difference?
Well, quite frankly, you won't. Which is why I plan on making a unit in Cow exclusive to the leader. I will have a poll on what should be the "exclusive unit" that will act as the leader.
What's the purpose?
Personally, I see it as making the roleplay much more immersive. Imagine trying to track down the leader of La-Ida and kill him! Same goes for if (for example) the UN holds a meeting, your leader can actually ATTEND the meeting! It would make it much easier to roleplay as your leader, and honestly I feel like it would add a really cool spin.
Why now?
Well, as you know this roleplay is constantly morphing based off your guys feedback. I feel like little features like such are innovative and separate my roleplay from others. Two things I hold dearly. As a creator and a person I especially tend to hold innovation dearly.
Thank you guys
P.S. REMEMBER TO TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO JOIN. FASTER WE GET MAJORS FILLED THE FASTER WE START
purplepizza117 wrote:
Hey, I just wanted to tell my concern with this feature. Militias, or any unit, are terribly slow, and if there is a UN meeting in New York... And my leader is in Brazil... And more leaders are in Asia and Europe... It will take six, seven days in real time for everyone to get there.vex03 wrote:
Okay, so we will be adding a in-game leader... to explain this idea alittle more, I will go much further in depth, now that it is planned on being added.
How will be able to tell a difference?
Well, quite frankly, you won't. Which is why I plan on making a unit in Cow exclusive to the leader. I will have a poll on what should be the "exclusive unit" that will act as the leader.
What's the purpose?
Personally, I see it as making the roleplay much more immersive. Imagine trying to track down the leader of La-Ida and kill him! Same goes for if (for example) the UN holds a meeting, your leader can actually ATTEND the meeting! It would make it much easier to roleplay as your leader, and honestly I feel like it would add a really cool spin.
Why now?
Well, as you know this roleplay is constantly morphing based off your guys feedback. I feel like little features like such are innovative and separate my roleplay from others. Two things I hold dearly. As a creator and a person I especially tend to hold innovation dearly.
Thank you guys
P.S. REMEMBER TO TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO JOIN. FASTER WE GET MAJORS FILLED THE FASTER WE START
How about this: the militia represents the head of state for that country. If I'm Brazil, my militia can travel around the country and visit different cities. If I am invaded, and my leader unit is killed... So is the leader. But the leader shouldn't travel too far because that would take too long and be slightly unrealistic.
Then again, if a bunch of South American leaders are meeting in Rio de Jinero, for example, for a continental discussion, La-Ida could potentially kill all the leaders in a mock 'terrorist' attack by capturing the city and killing the militias.
Just some thoughts... A penny for your time.
purplepizza117 wrote:
Hey, I just wanted to tell my concern with this feature. Militias, or any unit, are terribly slow, and if there is a UN meeting in New York... And my leader is in Brazil... And more leaders are in Asia and Europe... It will take six, seven days in real time for everyone to get there.vex03 wrote:
Okay, so we will be adding a in-game leader... to explain this idea alittle more, I will go much further in depth, now that it is planned on being added.
How will be able to tell a difference?
Well, quite frankly, you won't. Which is why I plan on making a unit in Cow exclusive to the leader. I will have a poll on what should be the "exclusive unit" that will act as the leader.
What's the purpose?
Personally, I see it as making the roleplay much more immersive. Imagine trying to track down the leader of La-Ida and kill him! Same goes for if (for example) the UN holds a meeting, your leader can actually ATTEND the meeting! It would make it much easier to roleplay as your leader, and honestly I feel like it would add a really cool spin.
Why now?
Well, as you know this roleplay is constantly morphing based off your guys feedback. I feel like little features like such are innovative and separate my roleplay from others. Two things I hold dearly. As a creator and a person I especially tend to hold innovation dearly.
Thank you guys
P.S. REMEMBER TO TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO JOIN. FASTER WE GET MAJORS FILLED THE FASTER WE START
How about this: the militia represents the head of state for that country. If I'm Brazil, my militia can travel around the country and visit different cities. If I am invaded, and my leader unit is killed... So is the leader. But the leader shouldn't travel too far because that would take too long and be slightly unrealistic.
Then again, if a bunch of South American leaders are meeting in Rio de Jinero, for example, for a continental discussion, La-Ida could potentially kill all the leaders in a mock 'terrorist' attack by capturing the city and killing the militias.
Just some thoughts... A penny for your time.
vex03 wrote:
I see your concern. I will withdraw the leader feature.
purplepizza117 wrote:
You don't have to, I think the regional leader feature is better, but you don't need to remove the feature. After all it is your RP.vex03 wrote:
I see your concern. I will withdraw the leader feature.
For example La-Ida's leader can be killed. That is actually a really good idea. Also, small countries in a war with another country could really have a bit more realism with this feature. It makes countries really be concerned with security, as is realistic in the modern world with terrorist concerns.
1 Guest