UN Games should not give SP.

I really think that UN games should get a 75% sp penalty, if not a 100%.
is too easy to get sp in those games.

it only encourages me to get bored, and farm sp.

Turn 41:

And makes noobs not fight and sit on their asses not fighting for 10s of TURNS.

I liked this Mexico wall. lol

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 15:57

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

Contrary to popular belief special rules for UN games are nonexistent.

作者： VRIL, 11.03.2013 at 16:26

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 15:57

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

Contrary to popular believe special rules for UN games are nonexistent.

I think he expressed himself wrong, i think he wanted to say "create". D:

作者： Madrox1, 11.03.2013 at 16:58

作者： VRIL, 11.03.2013 at 16:26

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 15:57

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

Contrary to popular believe special rules for UN games are nonexistent.

I think he expressed himself wrong, i think he wanted to say "create". D:

Yeah, the creators of the UN scenario need to have a list of written rules for this scenario.

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 23:23

作者： Madrox1, 11.03.2013 at 16:58

作者： VRIL, 11.03.2013 at 16:26

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 15:57

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

Contrary to popular believe special rules for UN games are nonexistent.

I think he expressed himself wrong, i think he wanted to say "create". D:

Yeah, the creators of the UN scenario need to have a list of written rules for this scenario.

Not everyone will listen.

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 01:36

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 23:23

作者： Madrox1, 11.03.2013 at 16:58

作者： VRIL, 11.03.2013 at 16:26

作者： NoOne, 11.03.2013 at 15:57

What we need is to change rules of the UN game play. The UN games should allow large wars and the option for a player's allies to actually help in a war.

Contrary to popular believe special rules for UN games are nonexistent.

I think he expressed himself wrong, i think he wanted to say "create". D:

Yeah, the creators of the UN scenario need to have a list of written rules for this scenario.

Not everyone will listen.

But at least there are written rules now

作者： Cpt.Magic, 11.03.2013 at 17:34

RULES OF THE UN GAME

1 oil field on water is free game
2 oil fields a countries land belong to that country
3must declare war on a nation in game chat in caps with a reason an wait for un acpt or decline
4 swiss bank will auction land or un will split it evenly between the nations of that region
5 nations can not enter a nother nations air space or land. nations can declare war for this reason un cant deline the war!!!
6 allies can support other allies by defending their land giving money but they cant help invade
7 if a nation make a threat to a nother nation that is a reason to declare war un cant decline the war
8 un can not cancel international wars. Ex usa declare war iran for some reason so iran allies back up iran and usa allies back up usa un can not decline these wars
9 the international community can veto things like if un declare a nation rouge or if un acpt an unjust war or to declare un rouge it takes 15 out of 20 to over turn a un
10 the un can not take nation nukes unless that nation has use a nuke with out the un saying so
11 the un can not stop ww3 :-)
I thing thats it add any other rules you want to see ill see if ill add it



Approve by Cpt.magic one of the creators of the UN

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 09:57

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

But that´s the way it works in international rights, any oil field inland or in this nation seashore is of exclusive property of the active government, then they can sell it to anyone they want.

At least in theory that´s how it works.

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 11:49

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 09:57

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

But that´s the way it works in international rights, any oil field inland or in this nation seashore is of exclusive property of the active government, then they can sell it to anyone they want.

At least in theory that´s how it works.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how it's interpreted though.
Perhaps taking a neutral oil field in other nation does not make a country rogue, but can be a reason for war.

I do like how rule 6 gives a purpose for allies now.

作者： NoOne, 12.03.2013 at 13:52

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 11:49

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 09:57

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

But that´s the way it works in international rights, any oil field inland or in this nation seashore is of exclusive property of the active government, then they can sell it to anyone they want.

At least in theory that´s how it works.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how it's interpreted though.
Perhaps taking a neutral oil field in other nation does not make a country rogue, but can be a reason for war.

I do like how rule 6 gives a purpose for allies now.

Not exactly, if for example, Britain, get his troops into, for example, Sweden without expressed authorization from its government to take anything from there, even if it is "neutral" (which means, not used or privately owned) it constitutes into casus belli (cause to war) and violation of international rights, the UN is hereby obligated to declare that nation "rogue", at least in theory.

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 15:19

作者： NoOne, 12.03.2013 at 13:52

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 11:49

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 09:57

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

But that´s the way it works in international rights, any oil field inland or in this nation seashore is of exclusive property of the active government, then they can sell it to anyone they want.

At least in theory that´s how it works.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how it's interpreted though.
Perhaps taking a neutral oil field in other nation does not make a country rogue, but can be a reason for war.

I do like how rule 6 gives a purpose for allies now.

Not exactly, if for example, Britain, get his troops into, for example, Sweden without expressed authorization from its government to take anything from there, even if it is "neutral" (which means, not used or privately owned) it constitutes into casus belli (cause to war) and violation of international rights, the UN is hereby obligated to declare that nation "rogue", at least in theory.

yeah but if you look at rule 5
"nations can not enter a nother nations air space or land. nations can declare war for this reason un cant deline the war!!!"
It says nations can declare over this, but it doesn't make them "rouge".

Anyway this is starting to get way off topic so let me get on topic.
I don't think that you should reduce or take away the sp you get in UN games for two reasons.
1. Programing that feature just for one scenario is kinda pointless.
2. Even if UN's farm, people usually or should know what they are getting into when they join a UN game.

Usually when I play a UN game and I am one of the UNs I will actually declare the other UN "rogue" if he's SP farming.
Perhaps no sp farming should be rule #12.

作者： NoOne, 12.03.2013 at 17:36

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 15:19

作者： NoOne, 12.03.2013 at 13:52

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 11:49

作者： Guest, 12.03.2013 at 09:57

Magic has no common sence. Read rule 2. It's shit rule.

But that´s the way it works in international rights, any oil field inland or in this nation seashore is of exclusive property of the active government, then they can sell it to anyone they want.

At least in theory that´s how it works.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how it's interpreted though.
Perhaps taking a neutral oil field in other nation does not make a country rogue, but can be a reason for war.

I do like how rule 6 gives a purpose for allies now.

Not exactly, if for example, Britain, get his troops into, for example, Sweden without expressed authorization from its government to take anything from there, even if it is "neutral" (which means, not used or privately owned) it constitutes into casus belli (cause to war) and violation of international rights, the UN is hereby obligated to declare that nation "rogue", at least in theory.

yeah but if you look at rule 5
"nations can not enter a nother nations air space or land. nations can declare war for this reason un cant deline the war!!!"
It says nations can declare over this, but it doesn't make them "rouge".

Anyway this is starting to get way off topic so let me get on topic.
I don't think that you should reduce or take away the sp you get in UN games for two reasons.
1. Programing that feature just for one scenario is kinda pointless.
2. Even if UN's farm, people usually or should know what they are getting into when they join a UN game.

Usually when I play a UN game and I am one of the UNs I will actually declare the other UN "rogue" if he's SP farming.
Perhaps no sp farming should be rule #12.

1.There´s another ways to farm sp, specially if you have premium.
2.That´s plain unjust with people who plays the game honestly.

And who are you to judge whos a sp farmer and who´s not? that´s subjective, i do not know if i would be so nice and neutral as a judge if the people like Malice or Skittzophrenic where in the same game as me, i do ot like´em, but that´s exactly the point, i would not do a good judgement if i do not like the player.

引句:

[Written by Madrox 1 3/12/13 15:52 ]
1.There´s another ways to farm sp, specially if you have premium.
2.That´s plain unjust with people who plays the game honestly.

And who are you to judge whos a sp farmer and who´s not? that´s subjective, i do not know if i would be so nice and neutral as a judge if the people like Malice or Skittzophrenic where in the same game as me, i do ot like´em, but that´s exactly the point, i would not do a good judgement if i do not like the player.

Ok where do I start?
1. It's pretty clear when one of the UNs is farming the players.
2. When you are UN you're not supposed to judge countries by how much you like the player. (Though I agree there always is some degree of biased feelings)
3. According to the new rules you need 3/4 of all players need to agree to declare a UN rogue.

引句:

Ok where do I start?
1. It's pretty clear when one of the UNs is farming the players.
2. When you are UN you're not supposed to judge countries by how much you like the player. (Though I agree there always is some degree of biased feelings)
3. According to the new rules you need 3/4 of all players need to agree to declare a UN rogue.

lol
you quoted wrong. anyway.

1.Im talking sp farming in general, is quite easy on AtWar, UN game is just the most obvious way.
2.I know, but that´s the point, no judge is absolutely unbiased, the only way to be absolutely neutral, is to be a machine (or functional sociopaths).
3.I agree with that, still, if the UN farmer do the right alliances, he could "buy" the votes of players. corruption at its best.

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 18:15

引句:

Ok where do I start?
1. It's pretty clear when one of the UNs is farming the players.
2. When you are UN you're not supposed to judge countries by how much you like the player. (Though I agree there always is some degree of biased feelings)
3. According to the new rules you need 3/4 of all players need to agree to declare a UN rogue.

lol
you quoted wrong. anyway.

1.Im talking sp farming in general, is quite easy on AtWar, UN game is just the most obvious way.
2.I know, but that´s the point, no judge is absolutely unbiased, the only way to be absolutely neutral, is to be a machine (or functional sociopaths).
3.I agree with that, still, if the UN farmer do the right alliances, he could "buy" the votes of players. corruption at its best.

Yeah, but this topic isn't about sp farming in general it's about UN game sp.
Personally I find to hard dislike people online especially those on afterwind most of them are just so awsome
In the UN game there are many players than can "buy" votes. UN1, UN2, Swiss bank, and any other players who have large amounts of money such as the US.

Maybe we should make a topic specifically for the rules of the UN game if were going to be talking about them so much here.

作者： NoOne, 12.03.2013 at 18:31

作者： Madrox1, 12.03.2013 at 18:15

引句:

Ok where do I start?
1. It's pretty clear when one of the UNs is farming the players.
2. When you are UN you're not supposed to judge countries by how much you like the player. (Though I agree there always is some degree of biased feelings)
3. According to the new rules you need 3/4 of all players need to agree to declare a UN rogue.

lol
you quoted wrong. anyway.

1.Im talking sp farming in general, is quite easy on AtWar, UN game is just the most obvious way.
2.I know, but that´s the point, no judge is absolutely unbiased, the only way to be absolutely neutral, is to be a machine (or functional sociopaths).
3.I agree with that, still, if the UN farmer do the right alliances, he could "buy" the votes of players. corruption at its best.

Yeah, but this topic isn't about sp farming in general it's about UN game sp.
Personally I find to hard dislike people online especially those on afterwind most of them are just so awsome
In the UN game there are many players than can "buy" votes. UN1, UN2, Swiss bank, and any other players who have large amounts of money such as the US.

Maybe we should make a topic specifically for the rules of the UN game if were going to be talking about them so much here.

1.Yes, but the topic, kinda of "extend" itself, to sp farming in general.
2.Yes, if you ignore the troll, flamers and other "species" of internet people who uses their anonymity, just to be an asshole. (and no, it is not off-topic, this has direct influence on UN 1/2 decisions ingame, and could affect everyone else).
3.This kind of lobby is extremely common in international relations and diplomacy, still, unjust when you see this objectively.

Yes, a agree, but that´s not exactly for me to decide, who´s is the original creator of the UN scenario?

Cronus created the best one. Cpt.Magic created the first one.