I think there should be more feeders. Specifically, at least five more.
I'll go into some reasons why. There'll be less hard data than I'd prefer due to the issues with NSArchive, but I'll try to include a little. Some parts may also be over-simplified. I welcome feedback, preferably constructive.
Size
The Feeders may not be game-breakingly big at the moment, but they are pretty huge. They range in number of nations 6925 to 8550, which means they're all bigger than all the sinkers, but not necessarily by that much. I'd like to look more at size by nature of WA count. Consider:
| Region | Endos on Del | WAs in Region |
| TNP | 1,100 | 1400 |
| TEP | 800 | 1000 |
| TSP | 600 | 800 |
| TP | 500 | 700 |
| TWP | 500 | 700 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Balder | 300 | 400 |
| TRR | 200 | 400 |
| Laz | 200 | 300 |
| Osi | 200 | 300 |
As you can see, the feeders are measurable larger in WA nations, which carries with it two mind three immediate resultant metrics -
1) User-verifiable unique players (that, bonus, are engaged enough to join the WA)
2) Delegate power in the WA (as much griped about - we'll come back to this later)
3) General Stability of the Administration (i.e., before additional user measures in regional gov't structure, base resistance to total regime change)
I think the Sinkers are in a good place, in terms of many metrics. I think making all GCR's closer in size to the current Sinkers would be desirable. Generally, feeders are at least twice as big as sinkers, if you consider the largest feeders as (hard-earned) outliers. As such, I'd propose five new feeders which, over a few years, should eventually end up approximately sinker-sized, while the existing feeders will very gradually shrink under decreased founding rate (but benefit from existing communities, retention, etc and likely remain generally somewhat larger) to the same area.
There's still plenty of room for better regions to be bigger/more powerful regions!
Reasons, Effects, Etc
So, what are some effects that we might expect with such a scenario? Why should we want it?
For why, I think the very generalized answer is that too much power is consolidated in too few regions, across several metrics. By nature of their size, this very small handful of regions largely controls diplomacy among NSGP, many of them are part of a WA voting bloc whose monolithic size often determines votes singlehandedly, and governance over a large portion of the game's players lies in the hands of just a few administrations - ones that, by nature of trying to hold on to their power, are largely very insular and very long-lived. In some cases, the same close-knit group of people have been running these regions since before some current players were born. Returning to the power difference, the raw size of these regions, baseline, leads to some pretty strong results - TNP alone is approximately twice as powerful in terms of WA voting/unique WA players as the average of the other feeders, which in turn are about 2-3 times more powerful than the average sinker. In other words, while half of the other feeders match TNP, all the sinkers combined fall short. Softer forms of power are harder to measure, but there are somewhat similar political parallels.
Now, TNP's prominence is well earned, and they should not be singled out for shrinking because of it - but I believe the margins in question can be balanced to bring these various forms gameplay to a *more* balanced standard. In a scenario where the non-outlying feeder is approximately the same size as the average sinker in such terms, TNP is only 2-3 times more powerful than any other GCR. Or, in other words, where right now the top two GCR's are as powerful as the bottom six by these measurable metrics, a more desirable scenario would make that disparity far lesser.
What does this allow? Looking in the longer term, once things have begun to settle, this means that there is more ability/incentive for a more dynamic WA game, with 2+ blocs of equal power. Same goes for other forms of diplomacy and politics - more bodies of more equal size stands to create at the least more varied factions with more methods of interaction, and ideally more factions altogether. This allows for more "gameplay" meta in the widest sense, and a more interesting game.
As a player from a largely Gameplay background, the first one that came to mind for me of course is that a fire will be lit under gameplay's ass in the short to medium turn. Quite a few factions will attempt to seize control of one of the new regions, and a lot of interesting R/D/other is sure to occur. The fallout could very well be an entire new generation of people brought into said game due to these events. Medium terms, some of these governments will fail and be replaced during the stabilization process. For likely at least a year or two, at least occasional major movements should occur. In the longer terms, these regions should still be generally stable, but "generally" will be, on average, somewhat lower than it is today. The more organized and adept regions should still be perfectly stable and fine, but the ones less so will no longer be as safe on top of an inherited pile of endorsements as they once were. This better rewards good caretaking, and increases the ability for the region to actually, as the FAQ states, "get the delegate unelected" if they don't like them, by gameplay means. The wider faction bed, larger number of feeders, and smaller endocounts could theoretically allow actual inter-GCR military gameplay, which would bring an interesting increased meaningfulness to politics. These feeder regions would also tower slightly less on high above even the largest class of UCR's, making the gameplay between those two groups more interesting.
I'm sure there's plenty I've not considered in here, or only touched on really briefly. I welcome more commentary.
Names
Names always come up, and what would a "more GCRs!" post be without name proposals?
My two cents is thus: Keep the sea-based naming theme. But don't go try and take "The Atlantic" or anything else that's got a decently established history. Instead, look to the Red Planet. I propose five seas of Mars - Mare Boreum, Mare Erythraeum, Mare Australe, Mare Acidalium, and Mare Sirenum. I own them all and you're welcome to them!
In Closing
I like this as a single solution to several problems, that is uniquely simple on the backend. No new spawning mechanics, no new region types, no new math to weight WA votes, nothing - just five new feeders. I like it because it brings all the GCR's closer into balance in terms of actual activity and unique WA players, as compared to the deceptively similar raw nation counts at present. I like because it still allows extraordinary regions to remain a league ahead - just not 6 leagues ahead. I like it because it has short and long term effects. I like it because it doesn't instantly hurt any existing regions too strongly. I think it would positively impact much of the meta game, notably the WA, and provide more opportunities for new players to enter those metas.
Thanks for reading!
