Anyone playing samp multiplayer? Is it still alive?

Your country is controlled entirely by real players.

The national treasury has enough resources to fund only one major priority this week:

A. Build schools
Improves long-term regional development and future productivity.

B. Subsidize factories
Increases resource production and strengthens the economy immediately.

C. Craft weapons
Prepares the country for a possible war, but slows civilian development.

D. Reduce taxes
Players keep more of what they produce, but the government loses spending power.

E. Save the budget
No immediate benefit, but the country will be prepared for a future crisis.

Neighboring countries can see that your military stockpile is low. Your next election is in seven days.

What do you choose—and how would you convince real players to support the decision?

I’m developing Nations at War, a persistent Web and Android strategy game where players run national economies, political parties, elections, governments, alliances and wars.

We’re currently in beta and using discussions like this to test whether our political and economic choices create meaningful strategy.

Play the beta: https://nawmobile.online

Hi r/StrategyGames — I’m part of the team developing Nations at War, a persistent multiplayer strategy game for Web and Android.

Our central design question is:

What happens when a nation’s economy, politics, diplomacy and military are controlled by different real players?

Instead of giving one player complete control over a country, Nations at War distributes power between citizens, political parties, elected officials, ministers, alliance leaders and military participants.

A player can begin as an ordinary citizen, work in regional factories, produce and trade resources, join a political party, participate in elections and potentially enter government.

The core economic loop connects individual actions to national strategy:

Player work → resources → taxes → state budget → regional development, laws and war

Some of the systems we’re currently developing

Player-run politics

Players can organize political parties, participate in elections, debate laws and influence government policy. Political leadership is held by actual players rather than scripted characters.

Regional economy

The world contains 3,000 regions with different production strengths. Players produce gold, silver, oil, iron and coal, while governments manage taxation, budgets and regional investment.

Alliances and diplomacy

Countries and player organizations can cooperate, negotiate and coordinate strategic objectives. We want diplomacy to depend on human trust and negotiation rather than a simple AI relations score.

Strategic warfare

Military strength depends on energy, weapons, industrial production, resource availability and player coordination. A country with a large army should still struggle if its economy and government are badly managed.

The design problem we’re trying to solve

Player-run political games often become difficult for newcomers when one organized group gains permanent control. However, excessive restrictions can make elections and long-term organization feel meaningless.

We’re considering systems such as:

• transparent state-budget transactions;
• inactivity removal for government officials;
• votes of no confidence;
• election-participation requirements;
• protections against alternate-account voting;
• stronger tools for opposition parties.

For experienced strategy players: what would make a player-run government strategically interesting without allowing one group to permanently lock everyone else out?

Nations at War is currently approximately 70% complete and is preparing for Open Beta on Web and Android. Some systems are still being integrated and balanced, so we’re sharing the project early to collect honest criticism.

Official forum:
https://forum.nawmobile.online/

I’ll stay in the comments to answer questions about the economy, politics, alliances or warfare.