| Andy | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 03:30 pm 
While awaiting the update of the war game to the large maps, we have tuned/updated several functions in the current war game.
Changes in the size of war units and the reduction in their size made some changes necessary.
- Fortifications where too hard to destroy. Their resistance is now slightly reduced.
Fortification remain very strong positions but the number of attacks needed to destroy them is now slightly lower.
- Attacks against any war targets depend on the proximity of your own military units to the target you attack.
Example: If your air force attacks a military unit and none of your own military units are close to the target, the destruction power of your air force will be lower by a factor of 4 compared with its power when one of your own units is close to the target.
The factor is now change from 4 to 3 which means that remote attacks became more powerful although moving units close to targets remains very important. This change will be effective tomorrow, Tuesday.
- The number of dead and wounded in military attacks is slightly increased. This was done because the numbers declined when units became smaller and the influence of these numbers on the war index declined as well. it made winning wars more difficult.
- The war damage as a result of each attack is increased somewhat. The war damage also declined when the number of weapons declined and this too reduced the influence of war damage on the war index and made it harder to win a war.
- The balance of power in beginners wars compared to the defensive power of C3 countries they attack is measured again and tuned to make the first war easier to win. We expect some more tuning that are needed in preparation for a war tutorial that will lead players through a first war and show them how to win a war.
- More tuning is expected, aimed at making the war process easier to manage, find specific targets and units and making it easier to view the war situation of your enemy and decide what needs to be done to win the war. |
| tuco_ | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:12 pm
If your air force attacks a military unit and none of your own military units are close to the target, the destruction power of your air force will be lower by a factor of 4 compared with its power when one of your own units is close to the target.
Could there be a notification, whether own military units are, in fact, close to the target or not, rather than just a visual check? I mean how close is close enough? |
| Crafty | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:23 pm
Close enough to smell the fear... |
| Xbox | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:31 pm
Also how bout them war lvls |
| Marshal Ney | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:36 pm
Assumption: proximity to an enemy target is within range of the unit's weapons? Or will it be within range of the longest range weapon possible to have within a unit? |
| Crafty | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:39 pm
Actually I think you'll find it's 35Km, but how you measure that on the current maps I dont know. |
| tuco_ | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:39 pm
I think I've read somewhere that the rationale behind this mechanic is something like:
when targeting is done by ground unit close to target, accuracy, thus damage, is increased.
which is sound. At the same time it is hard to imagine that ground units would not be able to report if they are in range or not as it would make the whole notion inconsistent in my opinion.
In other words, if I expend time and energy in order to activate a feature of the game, move units into position, I want to be sure time and energy is not wasted.
*shrugs* |
| Marshal Ney | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:46 pm
Just a bit smaller than the space between LRD's when taking down a c3 fast then. Just have to keep an eye on the border area if using a mixed strategy for dropping it. |
| Crafty | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 07:59 pm
Tuco, I image the thinking is that if you cant target it (in range) then you cant report on it.
That is the real case in heavy arty I believe, they use spotters to range targets out of sight.
I do agree a notification of 'in range' for spotting would be good though if it doesnt co-incide with weapon range.
BTW, you're not Mr. Zednek Pavlovsky are you? |
| tuco_ | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 08:11 pm
When I've read about this feature, I sent some SF (spotters) close to/on top of c3 targets. After attack was launched I could not tell if the feature was activated or not which bothered me. Actually I was under impression that damage was the same as if SF were not there .. but admittedly I have not tested it throughly enough.
Yes that is correct, Zdeněk Pavlovský  |
| Crafty | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 08:18 pm
I think you will find SF dont count, it has to be an actual unit. But I havent tested that thoroughly myself either.
Its good that you have have returned to sample the game again Tuco, I hope to have some of the more enlightened chats we had before, and read your negative arguementive comments again. Ha ha, Regards, CraftyCockney. |
| tuco_ | Monday, July 2, 2012 - 08:22 pm
Well, I think I understand now that it is indeed of no use. Though I cant promise I will not sin again as sometimes I cant help myself.
Thanks, I remember you too. Got invited (autosend email) by w3c, saying something about old players returning and restart bonus. Accidentally, haven't seen neither yet ;) |
| Andy | Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 12:10 am
Tuco,
Welcome back.
The invitation mail said that you should mail us once you registered.
Many did and received the bonus.
Please mail the gamemaster about it. |
| Andy | Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 12:30 am
Close is indeed the range of the unit. it is 35.
The idea is indeed that a unit close by could help in targeting the air force.
In reality it gives an advantage to a player who is using its ground forces to invade and coordinates a war effort by ground units and the air force at the same time.
The difference in the attack force is significant. maybe too significant and this is why we reduced it from a factor of 4 to a factor of 3 which increases the power of air attacks without an invasion.
We have recently published the idea that winning a war should be possible even without an invasion although it will be more difficult.
These current updates are a step in that direction. It increases the number of war damage points you can obtain from the destruction of military objects, cities and factories and reduced the number you must obtain by invading the enemy. |
| tuco_ | Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 12:50 am
Perhaps I was not using proper contact email, in such case apologies for misleading. Email resent. Thanks Andy. |
| Tom Morgan | Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 04:49 am
I like some of those changes.
Cheers,
T -- Still the One and Still not Muted |
| Andy | Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 07:19 pm
Tuco,
we received your mail.
we will take care of it tomorrow. |
| tuco_ | Friday, July 6, 2012 - 02:15 pm
Perhaps I am not being diplomatic, but is there tomorrow already? |
| Dix0n | Friday, July 6, 2012 - 04:33 pm
I like these changes Can we please just get all non-strat weapons back to planets, then I will jump for joy! |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 03:39 am
Andy
You guys must have made a mistake in your last update. When attacking targets the kills where as follows
Factory = 13K killed
Citys = 2K killed
Capital = 10K killed
You guys need to relook at your update with the numbers that have died. How does factory have more dead then cities? A suggestion is that the Q should effect the killed. If there's 1M people in the city and i blow up the capital there would seem to be no reason at least 50,000- 100,000 shouldn't be killed. I should only have to blow up the capital, cities, and some towns to gain 30WI of the 40 war index, You where saying how we will not need to paint but this last war i only got 15WI from blowing up all factories/capital/cities.
You might want to really relook @ the people that die in these battles |
| Andy | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:39 am
The numbers depend of course on the percentage damage to the city and many small attacks probably produce less casualties than a few very big ones.
cities are harder to tune and probably need another update. The number of damage points is increased which was the aim of the change and it will increase a little more.
Corporations have 250.000+ people in a relatively small place. Cities are larger in size but the population could be even lower than 250k. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 01:02 pm
Thanks for the clarifications.
Maybe for citys if an occupation unit is within 35km the amount of killed in cities is doubled. Like i said if i attack with 1000tanks and 1000artillery at 300Q theres no reason i shouldnt see 100K people killed.
1000tanks use 35shells a fighting round = 35K shells per attack
1000artillery use 35shells a fighting round = 35K shells per attack
Total shells used = 70K per attack... If only 1 and 5 hits a person thats still more then the game gives you. Im just stating facts the GM has always wanted to increase ground war. Allowing them to kill large amount of pop would greatly increase this feature |
| SirSmokesAlot | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 05:05 pm
Andy How come all the military units and garrison units go away after winning a c3 war? I mean if I by pass Int wings and fight just a ground war the units should still be there after I take the country. Also all the weapons and ammo in the garrions i don't destroy should be there too. But they all just go away like they where never there. I think we should get those weapons/ammo after the war is over. We did before when lvl 7 was the highest u could go. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:36 pm
I also agree with Smokes
I really think its important that any weapons left over from after the war the player should be allowed to keep this only helps players gain defensive assets in which we can use to defend ourselves |
| Hanma de Hermania | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 11:38 pm
That is the same thing I noticed as well. And if simcountry is suppose to simulate nations, shouldn't the victors get all of the spoils after a war? |
| tuco_ | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 11:59 pm
Not if spoils of war can be traded for real assets as in such case it will not be c3 who will pay out. |
| Drew | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 06:19 am
But c3's don't really have any military units or cash for that matter. It gets spontenously created for the war. If you were to able to take it you would crash the weapons industry. Those weapons are immaginary ghost weapons, SC didn't buy them off the market. If they did I'd be pissed cuz I can't seem to sponteneously gets weapons in shortage, even with immediate orders. |
| dboyd3702 | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 07:04 am
And the weapons you don't destroy disappear after the country surrenders... |
| Andy | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 03:20 pm
Also when you win a war against any country there is no money left in its government bank accounts.
C3 happen to have a huge amount of money sitting there.
We can replace this unrealistic situation by one where the money is gone but some weapons and ammunition remain.
I think that the current deal is more beneficial for the winner.
These weapons came from nowhere in the first place and should not enter the markets. This is why we decided that money made more sense. |
| Laguna | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 03:31 pm
Quote:Also when you win a war against any country there is no money left in its government bank accounts.
Nazi Germany looted the gold reserves of the countries it invaded. Today, if a country invaded another in a matter of days, chances are it would still be able to loot that country's gold reserves as well. It isn't an easy task to move tons of gold inconspicuously.
It isn't unrealistic for C3s to maintain money after being conquered. |
| Andy | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 03:39 pm
It is very unrealistic for a C3 country with a government budget of 30B to have 1T to 11T in cash which is 30 to 330 times the government yearly budget.
Nearly nobody today has gold, certainly not worth even 100B. Those days are gone.
cash can be wired out in milliseconds.
The loot in C3 countries is now cash.
If everyone wants to replace it by the weapons and ammo in the country, we will give it a serious consideration and use the money to purchase the weapons on the market to prevent it from being flooded. |
| tuco_ | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 05:29 pm
Is c3 like Bhutan, Switzerland or Iraq? Because I am not invading Bhutan. Therefore I am not sure making real world parallels is of any use with regards to game mechanics.
The point being that raiding c3 is standardized, be it defense to overcome or spoils of war wise. The gain seems to be around 1T in cash, no matter war level, which is about 13,5 GC per session. Lot or little? is the question. |
| tuco | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 03:32 pm
test test .. wunderbar! thanks again Andy I was getting a bit nervous *shrugs* |
| Andy | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 05:01 pm
Tuco,
I am personally responsible for the delay, I am very sorry.
swamped with work, your mail was sitting in my inbox waiting. I forwarded to an engineer only this morning and he took one minute to fix it. |
| Andy | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 06:40 pm
The amount that remains in the C3 country increases with the war levels.
It is nT for war level n. |
| tuco | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 07:22 pm
I was referring to "How much do you make per war level?" thread where some claimed net gains to be around 1T.
The cash is easy to understand and balance, while c3/inactive raiding with more or less random factor used to be more exciting. In my opinion, both models are valid as it is not game breaking/making issue. |
| Orbiter | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 05:46 am
just a random idea... what if part of conquering a country, say you return it... later on you can claim 10? corps as conquered, they act like state corps, that pay no tax, and pay to the conqueror... so if you win a war, you'll have a stake in the countries future well being |
| Andy | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 08:53 am
orbiter,
we have looked into this idea in several ways. The way you propose it here is probably hard to manage and we need to make sure it is very clear what is yours and what remains in the country.
we do have a longer term plan to allow you to conquer areas.
All countries are divided into individual properties/estates. You can see them when you paint the map of your enemy.
Now imagine you could conquer some of these estates and have their economies become part of your economy. Corporations pay salaries to the people of that area, which is in another country and they pay taxes to their country as before, but profits of state corporations go to the country that now owns the area.
This idea goes much further because you could have secured properties at the center of the country that cannot be conquered (maybe replacing secured countries), and partial wars that may not end with a full victory but allow you to become owner of estates in many countries.
Purchasing these estates will be the alternative for economic players.
This is one of the reasons for the new maps, and our effort to make the maps more centric, and also moving the war game to the new maps.
The estates look very big on the largest maps. We will look into dividing then into smaller ones which will enable us to have several hundreds estates in each country with the possibility to trade them, conquer them or recover your ownership by counter attacks.
Natural resources fit in because these resources can be found in an estate and to build a corporation on an estate, you need to own the property. This can go on and on. |
| Orbiter | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 05:30 am
actually, that sounds pretty cool, right on! |
| Drew | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 05:36 am
I concur |
| xiong | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 10:31 am
the war levels and the game levels are bit confusing to us noobs.
some countries are at war level 10, yet game level 1.
would it be nice to just have one bottom line, instead of two now (wl and gl)?
with the secured mode, single country players do not have to worry about being conquered, unless they're too smart to turn that secured mode off. if you're in to bit empire, then just prepare for wars for your slave countries.
i'm praying that conquered countries with common boundary would be allowed to merge as one bigger country to cut down on management of the countries. it doesn't seem to fair, in that your score is the average of all your countries in your empire, yet you are not allowed to synergize them as one bigger country. w3c can still keep each country unique, by just letting the player/owner turn the country into a state in his country. i have yet to figure out what to do with counties within a country. as you conquer more countries, you would have more resources to your empire whether in war or economics. base on reading from various sources, if you got many countries and someone declare war on your slave countries, i think it would be a nightmare to fight in more than one slave countries at a time. if this option is allowed to combine countries, then i would prefer there be no secured mode for any player or country, it's a game of the fittest/best survive...thats more realistic in common with the real eart world. |
| xiong | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 10:37 am
and the rewards can still continue, just make it so that each c3 country that you conquered earn you the awards as mentioned:
first c3 = 1T
second c3 = 2T
third c3 = 3T
.
.
.
.
which make it so that each next c3 war be more difficult than the last....up to whatever levels the world has as existing |
