Global Triumph

If it's based on money to "upgrade" then the larger players will just have more tech, and continue to steam-roll smaller ones.

Agreed.  The game already favors the 'large'.

Though, if you wanted games to end quicker.. this would be one way to do it.

It is an interesting concept...but as stated it just wouldn't work with the current economic system. Larger countries already have the upper hand in this system. Providing them even with a limited tech system will only allow them to grow that much faster.

When I first started developing the game, my initial plans were for countries to have to select a certain number of objects they'll be able to develop.  So, for example, if the choices were infantry, jeeps, tanks, transports, carriers, frigates, warships, jets, missiles, and bombs (ten objects), a country would have to pick seven they are allowed to create.

Another idea I had was to make all objects accessible, but each country would have to select a few objects that were weaker.

I ultimately decided against both so that players get to experience all aspects of fighting in the game.

The speed for victory as pointed out is one of the concepts, however, the tech differential could be based on several different ideas, here's where it does get difficult though.  Just one off the top of my head, the Price per upgrade could be based on a percentage of the Economic power, thus allowing smaller econ's to develop these techs at a similar price percentage of larger ones.    Still think that digging in would help smaller countries survivability as well, until help was on the way. 

This game has a ton of potential, there could also be specific resource squares that help develop techs faster, but they would not be revealed in the beginning of the game, perhaps a special unit to discover the resources and mine it, it would also make it that a specific area or country would become far more desirable to attack.  For example, just say Iron mine to help develop Tank armor is found that would be a hot spot to own.  I know in other games, to draw more PvP fighting among the top players resources become a hot commodity (no pun intended)...it gives an advantage for end game results.  But it also makes the top players want to attack one another earlier rather than feed off the smaller ones til there's nothing left.

But with that said, the game is good as is, I am enjoying it, well done Johnny.....as I said just throwin out ideas to create differences in the existing units, allow for greater dynamics, strategy, thought of where you're going to spend your coin...and survivability for newer players that join after day one's establish themselves.  I also know these additions would take quite some time....especially for balancing.

I like these ideas too--- when one person discovered a uranium mine or something players would all race to own it.

I also think a kind of "experience points" system for units might be neat.  say you have a level 9 tank that wins a fight and you bring it back to full strength at a base, and then it wins again and again, making it "level 3".  Perhaps a bonus of some kind could be added to the attack/armor value for the experience the unit has gained in battle making it "battle hardened" or something.

This is not a E^4 game.  This is a wargame.  Let's keep it as such.

That being said, I'm all for the inclusion of additional strategic areas that players should have to fight over.  A uranium mine might be a useful one.  No one can build nukes until a player captures a uranium mine.  He can build nukes as long as he owns the mine.  If it is capttured by another player, then that player can build nukes.

Not very realistic, but maybe slightly more interesting.

I think the current game could easily support the ideas of cities.  It already has "raw materials".. which we largely don't care about, but they are there.

Johnny could dramatically "up" the values of certain squares (or areas) to represent cities or strategically important resources.  I don't know if the game *needs* this, but it's an option.

This is partially right.

I think it would be interesting to have sectors vary more dramatically in resources.

if each sector is roughly 60 square miles (per the original Ankylo map, and since units have the same movement on all maps), then a city would only occupy one sector.

which is basically a land base.

There are over 145 cities just in the US with land areas more than 60 miles^2.  Of those, 66 are larger than 120 miles^2 (2 sectors).  Of those, 43 are larger than 3 sectors.  Of those, 30 are larger than 4 sectors.

Dallas would be almost 6 sectors.  Houston almost 10.  The largest city in the CONUS (jacksonville, FL) would be almost 13 sectors.  If you include combined cities, Greater LA would be over 80 sectors in size.

If you look at cities over the world... the top 20 metropolitan areas, the smallest (in Pakistan) would be 18 sectors, while the largest (New York) would be 298 sectors.

I think that this would be viable. 

I would also suggest a giant defensive bonus for infantry and a decrease in effectiveness for air and tank units.

Somebody found wikipedia... haha

I do research like this for a living.  Sometimes for fun I do research on the junk e-mails my dad forwards to me... he hates it.  I laugh.

I've been know to do the same thing.  For instance, it's interesting to see how many "influential" people here in the US have less schooling than I do...

jacksonville extended it's city limit to the county line, so it's hardly fair to include it, if you actually looked that one up.

like i said before, a land base covers the city role. if the 20th largest city ojn the world would be 18 sectors, that means that most cities in the world are under one sector. cities were already denied to us, so you might as well just build 60 land bases on consecutive squares.