 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 11:28 am  We have some suggestions concerning the war game The suggested changes depend on each other and are listed in the order they should be introduced: 1. Add more mobile unit types, including some that have specific capabilities in defense or single type of weapon units. 2. Allow mobile units to participate in the defense of the country if they are within fighting range of the attacked target. 3. Add an auto response mobile unit that can attack various targets when the country is under attack. This in addition to the stealth bomber units. The unit will consist of ballistic missile launchers that will attack selected targets automatically when the country is under attack. 4. Relax the rules for fed wars and allow more support by def members that are in different war levels. Features 1 - 4 will improve the capability of countries to defend themselves. 5. Introduce limitations to the use of (temporary) war protection. The limitation can be achieved by: a. An increase of the cost of war protection. This will make the defense and auto defense option more attractive and reduce the use of war protection. b. Limit or even eliminate the use of nuclear weapons if countries in the empire are under war protection. c. Rethink the option to place many countries under war protection. War protection could be limited to countries with population and assets above some level and/or countries you own longer than a certain period.
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 03:38 pm 1. Why can't we design our own units? 2. How exactly will they participate in the defence? 3. That's taking automation one step too far. 4. It is reasonable. 5. a) Nothing against it. b) That's just not logical. A very poor approach. c) If to be in place, then only time in one's control should be the criteria. Sounds like a) is the best. The other two are overcomplicated.
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 06:12 pm I'm sorry, what is the big push for all this defense stuff I am reading about regularly? Why are there mobile units, is it to raise cash or help military actions? Why not balance the offensive and defensive capabilities and let the players sort it out. If the good players get to big or bully people push the reset button on the server and start over. I don't mind starting over it would give the game a fresh outlook. I would like to see mobile units go away and rather pay more per month if that's needed. I dunno I haven't been around very long but it's just some thoughts...
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 06:17 pm We had resets before. Not many happy campers about it.
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 08:10 pm 1. is because they want people to know what they are buying from the space station. but for the most part the mobile unit templates aren't really workable units. and with #2, allot of people are asking that question. is their a limit to the number units that can respond? what is the range? will this work for fed defense?
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 08:36 pm 5)c. seems to defeat the purpose of the other ideas. I would then keep a main, secured, and a war slave full of my assets in WP, an older country or big pop country, and still have all the options I have now.
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 10:46 pm about #5. the idea, is cool, in its own way. if you make a country as a war slave, over load it. then build an econ slave, keep it in war protection, and use it to pay for the war slave. you are effectively only risking half a country. the concept, of all or nothing is cool. the problem i see, with WP being an all or nothing type thing, is that it gives a HUGE advantage to multi's and account sharing. If i have 6 countries, i can only effectively fight from 1-2, while the account sharer, will be able to fight from more of his (theirs.) allowing me to protect some of my empire, so that i can focus on a couple. is probably better in the long run. unless W3C actually starts doing something about account sharing. really, the thing that people have been complaining about, is the use of C3s in PvP wars. And it isn't even the use of C3s itself. but the exclusive use of C3s. taking a player C3, doesn't have the same rewards as an actual C3. while the attacker can just take more, at vertually no cost. and keep on doing it. originally, 2 years ago, when we began these series of war game changes. one of the concepts, was that if the defense fights hard, you shouldn't be able to "just walk away," how ever the exclusive use of C3s, does not offer a way for the defense to do enough damage to cause the C3 user to stop. when first joining a planet, we have a 21 day rule, (or atleast we did, i haven't tested if the rule still exists) where you couldn't just jump on a planet, with out warning, and start attacking people. why can't their be a 21 day rule for EACH country. that is, once you've gained ownership of a country, you can't declare war with it for 21 days?
| |
| Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 11:26 pm Andy GREAT JOB! For once and im sure youll like this, IM 110% SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THESE UPDATE. I love them all with NO complaints KEEP THEM COMMING!!! Side note how much will fed war level be relaxed?
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 12:11 am Funny. Many years ago, the extension the 21 days for new countries was rejected in a similar debate. I could come from another world, set up shop next to the player I want to attack and peacefully build an all for purpose war slave. And today, with space trade, that would be a bigger problem. The problem is not C3s themselves. The problem is using C3s as vehicles of war. Then, solve your problems as close to the source as you can. Reinstate these two old rules: - Forbid the purchase of military material when in debt. - Allocate a maximum percentage of LLWs and MLMs as military personal. Or just make them easier to conquer back: I think that imposing a maximum of one fort for every 500 000 you have in population would do wonders. C3s generally have 10 million in population, so this would mean a maximum of 20 forts to bust and move on. A combination of this rule with the ones above would do wonders. Then we have nuclear weapons... I'm quicker to point fault at the defence and game mechanics than to limit their usage.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 12:55 am i wasn't thinking 21 days free protection, i shoulda considered that lol, 20 forts, paint, and probably zero corps, that would be quick and easy, i like that, like 5ish or less minutes, and not much ammo. costing less to get rid of the threat, than the threat cost. which i guess is the theme but give this a try LG, set up a country with a skeleton of what you'd need to fight off a nuke attack. keeping in mind, if you just have nuke defense, you'd be weak from a conventional assault. then wait for your war rank to level out. you'll find that players just aren't doing that. previously, when players weren't keeping up to a level of preparation, they changed the rules so you wouldn't need to. ei, war levels. but war levels are not preventing C3s only wars.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:20 am Any improvements are welcome by me. There is currently no war game. That died a while ago. With the introduction of war levels and the reduction of income, it currently is too expensive and risky to even consider warring on a big stage. The veterans have built up assets from a different age of profitability and new players don't have the income to compete. It takes them months to get a mini war slave set up because of the current low income, and then there is no reason to risk it at all against players who have an army size 20x larger + know how. I don't like the idea of increasing the cost of war protection. The people most using it really are the people afraid of being attacked by c3s. I am currently war level 4 on LU. If I EVER decide to really focus on econ, I NEED war protection to avoid my countries being tasty bait for c3s. Without war protection, I need to spend probably 1/3 or more of my budget on defense. It's quite annoying. C3 warfare is an issue, but not THE issue. THE issue is the extreme unprofitability of the current war game and the protection of war levels. I originally started playing the war game to raid inactive countries. I built much of my first empire by conquering countries of inactive players. They clearly weren't using their assets, so why shouldn't I go get them? Many of those countries house dozens or even hundreds of CEO corporations that get screwed by the country resetting to a c3. I understand W3 has little incentive to make inactive player assets available to the general population, but as of now there is virtually zero incentive to ever reach war level 3. The risks FAR outweigh the rewards. Essentially, the war game as it stands, is not worthwhile (in my humble, yet somewhat experienced opinion). Food for thought.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:32 am The above post by EO, pretty much summed it up. Might I add, why not improve the Navy before introducing new mobile units and such. The use of navies can reduce the use of fighting from c3s where a player risks nothing against an opponent who has a nice empire.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 02:18 am I gotta agree with EO Out of personal suggests WP should remain as is but needs to be come all or non instead of 1nation in WP. The cost of WP is fine but players being to hide only there best nations we'll letting the weakest fight. An all or non solution would easily fix this problem. Also siding with Laguna there needs to be a factor for forts, being able to pop out 100 over night before war is unfair the attacker HAS to blow them up to win, a limit should decrease this, either it be xxx amount of pop or some other measure. Lasty in reguards to the weapons post I like the factor of lower base cost. Something the GM needs to consider is the real cost of making weapons. 250k make 500 anti air missiles that's only ammo for 100 batteries, for 1 attack. You need a min of 600 batteries just to clear 130 c3 helis in 1 attack. So really I need 6cors to make 1 Attack worth of ammo. The GM needs to boost these numbers no matter how low they go in units they will not make anywhere near enough. if the GM wants to keep ammo production rates low then that fine but some weapons need more accuracy. Really it takes 5battereies and 30missiles to shot down a singlehelicopter?
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 02:54 am 1,2 and 3 sound ok as long as it dosent make it nearly impossible too take a country 4 no good either you have war levels or you dont any war level still provides air cover for fed defence. 5 no good if your country goes into debt if you arent around then your weapons get sold off automatically and would be left with no wp whatsoever, a/ the cost of wp is already way expensive b/ do not eliminate use of nuclear weapons in any way c/ The option of war protection should be left up to the member to utilise as a paying contributor of sim country
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:33 am +0.75 to the GM. Good changes, especially with the changes to Federations. Very good news, although there are some criticisms. I pretty much agree with Laguna and EO on their points.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:11 pm I agree with EO that increasing the cost of war protection is not the answer here. For people who have large empires are going to have reduce their empires in size since they won't be able to afford paying gold coins to keep them safe from attacks, whether it's a C3 country or a player, especially if their military is small and hold trillions of SC$ worth of assets of which I would do this option myself if I had a large empire. Also like Keto says, the navy seriously needs improving before introducing those mobile units that i'll probularly never use anyway. Like EO also says the game does very little to make inactive player assets available to the general population. There should be option where you can raid these countries since their president has'nt been present for a long while. However with my renewed 3 part document of the 'Overall defence index levels' idea to maybe integrate with or replace the war levels, this could be possible. If anyone wants to read this renewed 3 part document, of which i've already sent this to few players personally on here, i'll paste it all on the suggestions forum as I believe it's ready to read.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:22 pm A big thankyou to the GM for putting this out for players responses. I think it's great that they are considering our views, and maybe getting some ideas they haven't thought of. All I ask them to remember is that the game is advertised as partly a war game. All mmorpgs have a war element. It's vital to the fun and ultimately the success of the game that interaction between players is encouraged and facilitated. Federations, politics and the war element are the biggest part of this. (oh, and a new forum & chat system too  )
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 03:09 pm Directed at Andy, I'm wondering at what point the fact that some players continue to get owned will stop being a reason to change the war game. Some people will lose, and some will win. that is the nature of conflict. C3s aren't the problem, people are. When I adapt and find a reasonable method to accomplish the same objectives. Will we change the game even more? What are we going to do when you guys force me to steamroll countries instead of forcing some form of conflict resolution, make a provision for country givebacks? Because once I start doing that, of course that won't be fair. When I exploit a weapon imbalance that has been in place for a long time will we change the way weapons work, and give players back their lost assets, as in the case of Steve? I know you think you are doing the best thing for the players involved who are crying about this or that, but at first glance these things(changes) are always 'the best way' forward but consistently have the undesired effect.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 08:53 pm Maybe it's you that needs to change Wendy. Just saying...
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:09 pm We can dream Crafty but wendy changing is like me becoming the first man on the sun
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 10:25 pm Wendy has been and can be a royal pain in the HINDQUARTERS. I know, as she's had her fair share of fun with me over the years.  However, she has played within the current rule structure just the same as everyone else. I understand her tactics can be irritating, but she rarely picks on new players and does create some interest, activity and drama. The NLUO war was the most active LU has been for a bit. In regards to Andy's post, I don't like the idea of too much automated defense. Isn't that what ints and helis are for? The war game is already quite complex as is. I like your option "C." Not sure what the exact best way to implement it, but I think there is something there.
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:00 pm That can be arranged... /me kidnaps SuperSoldierRCP and locks him a shuttle travelling to the Sun Bring me back some souvenirs. Light in a bottle sounds nice. So, W3C, yes, no, maybe, never, go take a hike? What's the deal?
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:38 pm hahaha.. Luguna
| |
| Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:41 pm As a player from the old school, The many changes of the war game is both a positive and a negative. Players who have years of experience are put back on a somewhat level playing field with new members overall, with the updates of war. As a nation who was nuked out of existence. I personally miss the old way, but welcome change. As long as c3 fighting does not change too much. C3 fighting is the bread and butter for SC$ and population without purchasing gold coins. Hopefully we can maintain this.
| |
Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 02:58 am
big agree as long as we are talking about the war game. i'd like to ask some clarification on the new response of all units in range. also, do units assist fed members, could i park a dozen mobile defense units in a fed mates country, and help? because if we can do that, maybe no level restraint changes would be needed, as a fed could just fill up they fed mate with units. with out directly gunning at the bad guy, i could see a problem with feds beafing up one country, and going all out though, shrug, probably need something to keep all the fed members out of protection. and war levels could prove an issue. but for larger fed operations, ie feds of more equal strength, they'd have to figure out where best to send their resources. might add a level of strat? but then we'd need more competitive feds for that to work.
| |
| Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 03:03 am also, if your gonna make defense that strong, can you asign defensive values to offensive weapons? why can't a MRMB shoot back? now that defense is super assist. that way, it would make a military presence in a country, harder to push out. kinda leading up to the country resources we've been teased with. i know why, just saying
| |
| Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 04:04 am All sounds like a massive cost of offensive weapons and no prize if their is too much defense then whats the point also sounds even more complicated.
| |
| Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 04:09 am I have tried Crafty, I am simply too true to myself. My game ethics are a mirror of those I favor in real life. How does it go, "Our moral integrity suffers when our principles are allowed to remain underground." My moral principles cannot be escaped, and as long as I stand on them, the fabric of my being will never change. To quote Popeye, "I am who I am and that's all I am." I do miss that cartoon.
| |
| Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 04:12 am To give a word on King Hez comments on c3. C3s as a form of cash flow is on the way out. I am just not sure how long from now. Also, with 300 qualities being run in c3s, the population swap is about mute. There are still ways to do it, but without the right numbers in your face, making it a worthwhile venture is not going to be as it was with the old salary difference.
| |
| Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 05:46 pm that sucks.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 12:23 am We are not out of the woods concerning the fed war with mobile units supporting the defense. having the mobile units defend fed targets is indeed a possibility and fits within the mobile units model. I don't think we need to have offensive weapons shooting back, we have and we will have more auto response units that will actively counter attack as a response to an attack, like the stealth bombers. If implemented in this way it will make it easier for countries to defend themselves and will make it harder to attack a sleeping president, only to have him discover his country is gone in the morning. The defense can be such that some countries will become safe and cannot be taken. The other part of it must be a reduced use of temporary war protection. It could be that the money spared off the war protection will buy very strong defense and while the cost of war protection is on going, a bunch of mobile defense units plus mobile auto response units can last very long at a low cost of maintenance.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 12:38 am Andy I don't think its a prob of war protection but a real cost of war. Let's say I wanted to make a fighter wing 450fighter jets 450jets * 200M per plane on LU = 90B for 100Q, 300Q = 270B. plus that 200M cost is half of base, meaning it be around 800M per plane at Max. making a single wing cost around 1T SC$ in a high demand market. The problem isn't war protection in place of defence its because war in general costs to much. No one is complaining about the cost of WP only stating its cheaper then defence. If you look back in melichor I just upgraded 300inter wings and my monthly spending was 10B give or take a bit higher. That's just intercptors. that doesn't include Helis, offensive forces, or garrisons. As mentioned by players the cost of weapons in just to high to be effective, if anything what the GM needs to consider is reducing these costs by doubling production and tripling ammo this would drop these cost and wouldn't flood the markets as there are little of these corps anyways. Do this and I'm sure you'll see changes. Also reduce troop numbers on weapons. Offensive and defensive should see unit sizes but basic troops needed for these shrink that would also help to reduce these numbers
| |
Friday, February 15, 2013 - 03:05 am
i'm am not for an increase in WP costs. but a point to be made. the cost of WP, both in monthly end over end, and intial set up, is MUCH cheaper than a proper defense. after you consider the amount of money for the initial investment into defense. add the fact that even a mediocre defense, has a higher running cost than the monthly cost of WP. how ever, with the planned defense changes, it would seem possible that 10-15 mobile defense units will be more of block, and easier to set up, than several hundred garrisons. also about the mobile units. can they be used in a sort of advanced defense. that is, if they are with in range of units i've put into an enemy territory, would they defend those? previously, you said that all units "with in range," when looking at the range in the documentation. that'd mean that every unit, and garrison in the country, will respond to every attack. it wouldn't be difficult to put in enough defense, that the first 50+ attacks on the country do zero damage, while the entire attacking unit is destroyed. effectively meaning, you have to run the other guy completely out of ammo, to get anywhere. ??? is this how it is gonna work?
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 03:24 am Andy - The cost of maintaining a defense that could keep an experienced player at bay for a game month would cost many gold coins in maintenance and ammo use per month. Unless a country has very stout garrisons and plenty of air defense, it is quite vulnerable to an experienced player. If maintenance costs decrease DRAMATICALLY, then I agree, war protection is something that could be made more expensive.
What does that mean? Are you just saying that it will become more difficult to take player-owned countries? I'm not sure there is a bigger need for aid for "sleeping players" than just decreased defense costs. Most players that lose countries just do not have enough deployed defense. I say this from experience, having lost a non-c3 country while sleeping during a war on Fearless Blue before. I'm not sure how to implement it, but perhaps defensive weapons/maintenance can be reduced in cost relative to offensive ones? This would allow players to have a better defense whether they are around to fight or not. Also, thanks for listening to our opinions. That's all we can ask for.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 04:26 am Just bring on the changes. I'm going to kick some royal arse either way. The route of game changes just seems like a self inflicted wound by way of an unnecessarily increased work load. Poor engineers. Andy, I don't envy your position. More credit to you than I have previously given.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 12:21 pm In the past, we used to have unlimited defense and although it did not guarantee a country will survive, it deterred attacks because the price of winning the war was prohibitive. the price of setting a very strong defense is not a price per month. The maintenance cost is a fraction of the total cost of putting the units in place. The cost of weapons and ammo is declining. A bomber used to come a 1.5 to 2B now it is a quarter of that and the units are smaller. a military base can handle 20.000 weapons and the cost of the base, per unit is not significant. we would like to decrease the number of weapons per base but then, the cost per base, already much lower than before, will keep dropping. we would like players to choose for defense instead of temporary war protection and we will have to make it attractive for them to do so. If not attractive enough, the war protection will remain an option. The idea of mobile units capable of participating in the defense of a country, their own or one of a fed member, with or without a war declaration, by just being close to an attacked target, presents an opportunity to expand the fed function and cooperation and the possibility for multiple players to participate in the same war. We will have to improve the way these units are listed, where they are and by type and location to make it easier to see where your forces are. also the supplies of such units, if not owned by the country where they reside, will be part of the challenge. The entire structure needed for this was created with the mobile units and these functions are easier to implement. We think that such functions will improve the war game but they remain optional.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 04:20 pm If this game had a hex system for territory and an avalon hill method of military units, keeping the economy system the way it is... ------------------------------------------- It seems you are talking a different game. I would love to try it when you finish development. The gamemaster
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 06:19 pm There are some more issues that will need to be resolved in the war game: 1. The war level should be account wide for obvious reasons. If you are a great war player on one world, you are a great war player. period. All empires should have the same war level. we will start planing to close that gap, one war level at a time. And no, resetting of war levels will never occur. we are not able and you are not able to wipe out your knowledge of the war game. This part is easy to implement. we will announce exact dates ahead of time. 2. We need to prevent a country with no resources, low population and no economy, from attacking a large country, especially with nukes. this can be prevented by requiring a minimum of assets in the attacking country before it can use nukes. A war should be a risk for both. a war where you have nothing to lose is no good. This issue is not very simple and it is a problem for a long time. we are also receiving some ideas/thoughts from players. It will be solved in the coming weeks.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:01 pm Sounds like good changes
| |
Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:35 pm
You would rather me start over then? I can if it is a must. No problems there.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:53 pm kinda along those same lines their should be some sort of provision, maybe via the security counsel, where a player can petition to have their war levels lowered. if it goes through the security counsel, then the player base is signing off on it. perhaps adding to community involvement. why would some one just sign off and allow some one a chance to rampage, unless that person has demonstrated a change in their sim goals. and how would any one know, unless that player gets involved? shrug
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:55 pm i would independently of the opposite, offer giving the security counsel, and general voting, the ability to raise an aggressive players war levels. their might be min conditions, like the player had to attack x number of players in the mast rl month, idk, shrug or perhaps it can be limited, like if a player is going on a rampage, the security counsil and general voting could raise some ones war level, by like 2, for maybe 90 rl days, for just that planet?
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 08:12 pm Andy If war levels are going to be account wide there need story be better income from C3 warring. The difference from war level 7 to 11 is about 200Q 3dozen more units and a ton of stealth attacks. In the end you only make 4T more which is nothing. Can the GM go back to the old 1.5T per war level. Honestly C3 income really needs to increase. If war levels are going to be set on a board level. Sure I might be good on 1world but if I move to another I'll be an arm and a leg before I can get another nation set up
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 08:16 pm Get rid of war levels, period. Give the security council some teeth so the player base can punish/prevent noob bashing, gang rape etc. A limit on the number of one fed that can be in the sc at one time to prevent 'fixing' sc votes. It used to work fine, except a few bleated about being picked on. Why would it be any different now? Ok, I know it wont happen. But does anyone really believe that just because someone remains at WL 3 or below, they aren't a war experienced player, no, I think not. Take Wendy, or Laguna, or even myself for instance. And I dont reckon it's right to force my GR empire, which is basically the only place I make money because I have kept it unassailable, should be made to incur defense costs because of increasing WLs game wide. Maybe if the game sees 50T of military, then fair enough, up my war level, but if I have no military it doesnt matter how experienced I am.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 09:04 pm I just attacked a C3, WL6 I am, halfway thru painting I look and ..... --------------------------------------------------- if you have a problem, please put it in the problems section. this track was about something else.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 09:11 pm Your newspaper or the war page should give you complete logs of any losses you received. The stealth do attack your units at home I believe.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 10:00 pm Crafty, i do understand where you come from. FB is a war world. On the other worlds, if you never fight, maybe the rule should be different. once you start a war, any war, you should move to the empire war level. maybe this will be a better solution.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 10:06 pm I'll be extermely pissed off if my war level goes to 6 on all planets. Was about to reg a country on KB and play econ only. Think I'll be holding off for the moment.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 10:27 pm The war levels should not be the same account wide. Like Crafty says some players are low war lvls on different planets for economy only, we do not wish to fight, so we remain at war lvl 0. If war lvls will be the same account wide, you might as well get rid of all worlds except one and have everyone play on one world. War levels or not, players can still have their empire, except for secured mains, taken from them in war. You can never dispute the advantage veteran players have of accumulating mass weapons and war experience from years of playing versus newer players. Also, if a player has different war levels on each world, what war level would the GM pick? The highest? The lowest? I would say if anything put my account to war level 3, then again, I could also start over. One more thing, maybe eliminate PvP wars on all worlds except for FB. After all, FB is the war world!
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 10:35 pm It sounds like the GM would move you to your highest level Keto. That's why I said 6. My highest level on fb. Im level 0 on 2 planets. Getting bumped up to 6 would suck.
| |
| Friday, February 15, 2013 - 11:40 pm 1. I have difficulty agreeing with this. You make it sound as if players play the same game in all the worlds. 2. You've already made conquering C3s difficult for those who typically use them as a tactic. Make them easier to conquer back and the problem is mitigated quite a bit. I've already suggested an approach.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 12:10 am I'm in the same boat as Gaz. I reached WL4 on KB but am on zero everywhere else, and have just started an econ empire on LU. "once you start a war, any war, you should move to the empire war level. maybe this will be a better solution." ~Andy Andy, please don't make WLs account-wide. I think C3 wars on worlds should be separate, but if a player participates in a PvP battle, the War Level automatically becomes the "account" war level for that world (aka the highest war level reached on any of the worlds). Or you could just leave the system as is, which would be better. The way you are suggesting would mean people would be forced to buy countries in order to actually have an empire.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 12:13 am "One more thing, maybe eliminate PvP wars on all worlds except for FB. After all, FB is the war world! ~Keto No thanks.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 12:34 am It seems that you like to write, not to read. This is confusing with comments that are mainly based on not reading what was said before. I was reading all over the place that everyone wants more war, easier to fight everyone, and no WL limitations. So why not get rid of the war protection, and maybe also secured more. You will be able to fight everyone even without any war level protection. You get up in the morning and a country might be gone. I don't think this is what you want. It seems that while many say they want more war, they are in fact scared and hide behind war protection and war levels. The exception is wars against C3s or beginners, wars you know you will win and then even that is a problem because the loot is too small. Then I suggested some changes that can reduce the trivial wars and the use of worthless countries to wage risk less wars and look at the reactions. however, you should realize that these wars, waged by worthless countries without any risk are a problem for Simcountry. and so is the hiding behind a low war level, mainly on FB. As I commented before, we might accept multi WLs in a single account on the condition that the first war declaration, or the first weapon purchasing, will automatically move the empire to the highest WL in the account. FB is a war world and will be even more so and hiding should be difficult. Economy only remains an option on the four other worlds.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 12:38 am Tom, economy only is fine. but then, don't fight anyone, and don't fight C3 countries. Don't purchase or produce any weapons. Just don't touch the war game.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 12:58 am Laguna, the rules about purchasing military materials when in debt and numbers of soldiers and officers in the army have never changed. There might be an old loop hole in some types of spending but you cannot build a large army when in debt. spending limits were out of control because weapons and ammo pricing went all the way down but the spending space is being repaired. a C3 country has 10 fortifications. Fortifications are not that relevant to strong defense. we used to have thousands of fortifications and we will not go back to that situation. with units participating in the defense, fortifications will become more important. The problem of using just conquered countries to wage war cannot be solved with these rules. These countries should take more time to build up and take even longer to obtain nukes.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:00 am Andy, please have a think about how the limiting of the war game might impact on how purely econ empires might use the war game. It would hugely impact 2 things: an empire's ability to get cash/create new slave countries, and the ability for players to have different worlds for different purposes (e.g. my plan is KB pure econ, and LU as a place for potential PvP). I don't want to spend GCs on WP on KB just because I'm an active war player on LU. It would make the game so much more expensive, especially for people who lack the massive cash-chests of the vets. Please think about the impacts.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:15 am I'd like to see protection removed only if the cost of maintaining an army comes down drastically. Many people have said it Andy. I think we'd all like to have our countries with enough defence but the cost of doing so at the moment is huge. Even a mediocre defence would break the bank for most people. Maybe if the world's were split into 2 for econ and 2 for war? On the econ worlds only c3 wars are possible and on the war wordls no protection and no war levels. I think that would keep all sides happy?
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:22 am i dont like the idea of resetting war levels, i like the choice of playing the game i want to play on what world. i dont want to be a fighter on all worlds, for me its nice to go to my countries on worlds where im low war level and not worry about war...just econ, in addition i use the different war levels on different worlds to learn and perfect the war game. i need to be at war level 3 on GR so i could figure out better ways to take countries at war level 11 on FB and because im war level 11 on FB dosent mean at all that im one of the top fighters. The biggest factor is military assets more then expierence in my opinion. If the war levels set account wide i will not need to play on 5 worlds anymore i would reduce to one. It seems that we just keep looking for solutions for problems that war levels have caused, why not go back to the old ways and if any one takes advantage or bullies the game master could just send a random meteor or asteroid into there countries to get them readjusted.
| |
Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:28 am
amen the rule, for a long time, has been if you can't defend it, protect it. i recently ended up moving all my military to LU. leaving my WG undefended. one might argue, that i should have been vulnerable on WG, to a counter attack. not to mention i have other enemies... i'm ok playing that way. its not the way it has worked, but shoot, i can do it. all or nothing on multiple planets, with every one at max WLs... i don't think thats what W3C wants. but sorry for the side track. i'm now going back and rebuilding those defenses, with the intent of letting those countries out of protection, at WL7, my main world, (9 on LU) but haven't really had enough time to pay attention to my WG stuff. think about the adjustment. much smaller empires, much fewer multi-planet empires, because no one can really afford just the nuke defense. for that much stuff. if we are going to embrace the philosophy that was abandoned 2 years ago, of "its your fault you lost," but that has not been the theme from W3C. People have been forced to rely on WLs, as a game feature. i am not for or against changing on WL's, more of i'd prefer not to, but i can deal with it. Although, i'd prefer the game master put that more into the hands of the players. Allow the SC, and general voting adjust aggresive players war levels. give us something to have politics with. thats my 2 cents on WLs If some one resets their account, goes to wl3 and starts tearing things up, the sc council could vote him up say 3 levels, to get away from the wl3 guys, and get him in range of bigger guys to have a conversation with. because that IS an ambush. although i would add that anything the SC should be limited in time, as it would end. or be a one time only thing. and andy, i'm over all happy with the direction of the war game, less units, and less total hardware, makes it less of an exercise of logistics
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 03:06 am +1 for your financial comments Gaz. That's what I've been saying too. I have VERY MODEST slave defenses, and they ALL bleed cash. ALL of my countries "make" money. Most have finance indices over 140. ALL except for my main, secured country and my tiny ones lose a trillion or more every day or two. I have taken at least 1 c3 every day for around a week - netting me a little over 4 trillion per c3 (depending on how many corporations were in it). I have a stockpile of offensive weapons and ammo that I have not needed to replace. Since then, my empire has LOST money. More than 4t per day and ALL of my countries "make" money. I do not have excessive auto ordering on, and I'm not placing orders for anything except schools, roads, and a corporation here or there. Certainly not 4t worth though. I have the experience and infrastructure to handle this cost. The vast majority of players do not. I couldn't see how they'd want to either. A reason war used to be more prevalent was because players could afford to indulge in the war game. Players these days can barely afford to buy infrastructure. I understand that I am being critical, but if I was a new player, I would have ZERO interest in war. To have even a slight chance against a decent war slave, you need at least 30-40 trillion in military assets allocated properly. The capital required to set this up as well as maintain it is out of reach for just about everyone who doesn't buy gold coins daily.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 04:52 am War is expensive, as it should be. I do think that some tweaking of the numbers is needed, but if you want to take another presidents country that has made an effort to set up a reasonable def, the cost should be higher, possibly 3:1 ratio? Which although I have not run the numbers, Id say that its sufficient as it is now. If a player does not want to have to set up a defense and play strictly econ, the protection shouldn't be free, I think they should have to pay for it. Of course there should be a 45-60 day free WP for new players, because by then they should be able to have a decent grasp on the game and have the opportunity to join a federation where they can learn as they grow their countries. But in all honesty, I think the idea of 'noob bashing' has been dramatized. Although Im sure it does/has happened, its NEVER been the issue that it has been made out to be. As far as the 'worthless' countries having the ability to dec war on a much larger country and not risk any real losses (other than a worthless C3), why not make it so that an aggressive country must have at least 25% of the assets that the defending country has or a minimum amount of cash so that there is at least some risk incurred, maybe like 25T in cash/weapons/ammo throughout the war dec? Thats my $.02 on some of these issues for what its worth.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 05:42 am It's not the cost of fighting a war that im on about Serp. It's the cost of maintaining a full time army so we dont need protection. For me to have a high value country out of protection I'd want a big army. From what I can tell so far it'd be unsustainable without playing econ on another world. Why play muti world otherwise Perhaps Josias or SR could shed some light? You guys both have big armies on LU. What sort of numbers are you's seeing with maint costs? I wouldnt normally ask but it's relvant to this thread.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 06:17 am With all the recent updates/changes SC has made to the game, it's virtually impossible for 1 country to make a profit and support a defense to defend that country, let alone trying to support defense and an offense. Why do you think that the majority of newer players are afraid of war? Because they can't afford it, and they are afraid of losing what they have built up so far. I've been playing for 6 years now, and in that time its been hard to maintain an army for 1 country and try to make a decent profit. That's why players attacked other players or raided inactives, to offset the cost of having an army. If SC wants more warring, as do alot of players, they need to drastically reduce the cost of having an army versus trying to maintain a profitable country. Eliminating wp in favour of countries having more mobile defense units(auto-response), will not fix the issue, it will actually add to the maintenance of a country. Countries are having a hard time as it is to stay profitable. We would be forced to purchase gold coins to purchase game cash in order to infuse our countries to maintain in the least our defense.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 06:57 am well, actually Gaz, those 2 countries with large militaries make money. but theirs an umbrella of sorts. that once you get your pop over #, then things get easier. i've got a 50M country, trying to hold onto a strong defence, but loosing money. its kinda, the basic thing you need, needs to be maintained by like 80M+ pop countries.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 07:07 am Yes I see them in the green but does the total monthly cost compute the ammo usage etc? I cant remember.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 07:14 am The profit a country shows IS NOT the actual cash increase per month. There is the problem with reporting the profit. If the line wasn't muddied by x factors and showed an actual increase in cash after any and everything you have to buy or maintain, there is your real profit. Each month look at how your cash increased. That should be the only measure of profit.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 07:47 am yes, actually its making money. well one of them is, but its true, the bottom line isn't the bottom line. and ammo usage, doesn't fit into the country's monthly profit
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 01:39 pm 'Get rid of war levels, period. Give the security council some teeth so the player base can punish/prevent noob bashing, gang rape etc.' Crafty No I don't think so, not the war levels just so i'll be a target again and the security council will be too late to punish or prevent noob bashing by the time they'll try to stop it, the war will be over before you know it and it will be the noob who will lose out. Even going back to the old ways Jackseptic an asteroid or an earthquake or something would'nt put off the big experienced players from doing what they want. You get up in the morning and a country might be gone.' Andy Well this where I thought of the 'overall defence index levels' where fighting will be much more fairer and stand a much better chance of hanging onto that country a lot longer without the fear of being overrun by a extremely large and powerful military in 2 minutes, just like what happened to me once when I set up a country on FB and reached WL3. Only to return just 3 days later to realize my country was gone. It's just so cowardly and such as them will not give you the chance to get up on your feet.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:57 pm I don't know the particulars of your issue on FB Mr James, but if you were not 'on your feet' you might should have stayed in war level 2 or lower so that you could have amassed more assets in order to defend yourself. Also Mr James, I wouldn't classify you as a 'noob' anyway. I'm sure your no great game god or nothing, neither am I, but I'd assume you have a good grasp of the game concepts and know how to play according to your abilities.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 06:30 pm I could be wrong here. Was a few weeks since I had a defence up. I seem to remember 100 int wings using 500 missiles per month. Same for heli wings. My math is dodgy but I make that at 5B per month on wasted int ammo alone? 100 int wings isnt alot either, I'd want 200 atleast. That'd be 10B a month on int ammo then another 10B for heli missile. I didnt get as far as garrissons but to defend a big country you'd prob need something like 50k batts each? I've no idea what the monthly ammo usage is for that amount of batts? It'll be alot though, no doubt. That's not even taking into account offessive ammo usage or soldier salaries. Im gonna test it next few days but Im betting protection is quite a bit cheaper.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 07:35 pm Don't forget upgrades for weapons/ammo, gasoline, aircraft fuel, military supplies! Yeah Orbiter, your big countries "make money" on the finance index, but if you leave them alone for 3 days, do they have more or less money?
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:03 pm Yes ofcourse, the supplies needed aswell. The costs just mount up. The cost of maintaing an air defence alone is enough to put anyone off.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:14 pm The Democratic Union of Mubalak, (The DUofM) https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=1030&miColumn=vCmainCash and Candle Light Express https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=826&miColumn=vCmainCash usually express is better than that. but it is the #1 war rank on LU, what would you expect? Express isn't quite as good, and it has 10M more pop. But the differense, is that corp selection between the 2, is differen enough, and that DUM is a much older country, i got it several years ago from Pale Rider. Express, i got less than a year ago, from that guy Skylar. so, yes, or near enough, that is if i leave them alone. and its not really enough to do anything with. and as long as the GM doesn't do something, like negative ammo, or auto-upgrade orders. or should i actually have to build roads and such. they'll stay reasonable level. and really, for as much stuff as i have in them, (even though its pretty much all defense,) and they are large, (120M+) its probably better than i should expect. part of the deal, we are complaining that defense is 2 tuff, (or going to be,) and complaigning that at the same time, it is 2 expensive. i mean, i'm over all with the need for defense to be cheaper. but as it is, we can't afford to buy, and maintain these unbeatable defenses. it would seem, one of the very things that we are complaining about the rules allowing, is very difficult as it is. and will continue to be difficult. the problem remains, that their is ZERO, value in declaring war on other players countries. The game masters have removed pop sales, and dramatically increase defensive responce, and values, in an attempt that the attacker should not "just walk away," and thats what we got. if we contemplate that. that is a good theory. how ever, it means that all wars, are fought for glory, and politics. which is something that much of the player base does everything it can to prevent. the planned, "country resources," is a cool idea. but i sincerely just can't grab that justifying the invest into attacking another players country. more of a consolidation prize. if you already have a reason
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:30 pm That's good work Josias, but you're right it does help that those countries have 120 million population. I see your point about wars being fought for 'glory' and 'politics' but there will be no 'politics' if no one is interested in the game. What 'politics' exist these days compared to a few short years ago? The last war hydra was involved in exposed the severe lack of war game and competition within it. What new players - and I mean within the last several years - have ANY serviceable war countries that they built themselves? I can think of one or two players at most from the three worlds I play on.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:31 pm This is a 47 mil pop country with no weapons purchasing. The only ups in the graph are cash transfers. https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=535&miColumn=vCmainCash Finance index 128
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:37 pm Im guessing you have large country stocks of ammo/supplies needed? So are you actually buying the maint ammo every month Josias?
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 09:13 pm https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=1030&miColumn=vCmainProfit https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=1030&miColumn=vCTotalCostOfDefense maybe that will help. the country is amazing. but this is more of a distraction. i get, that not allot of people can do this. the point i was making was that it takes a certain level of pop, to maintain a "basic," defense. with min gars, (just enough for nuke d,) and good air support, a 50M country would have difficulty maintaining it. https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=2055&miColumn=vCmainCash but at those higher pop levels, and ofcourse higher econ. they can handle it. its just that the "level," of pop needed to support a legit defense is quite high, atleast 60M, but probably over 80M for most players. so when you calculate what you need to defend yourself. add in the pop needed to go up to 80M, the roads, train tracks, water treatment, schools, hositals, cost of building new corps. and all the time to manage your country... honestly, its allot of invest into one country. with allot of time. both in the doing of it, and start to finish. not allot of players are gonna really want to go to that level to defend themselves. so we are getting another improvement to defense. prior to this conversation, i was thinking that the new defense features where cool, but a bit excessive. but now. after hearing all these vets complain (myself included,) that we can't build and maintain, even basic defenses. its would sound like the new improved country response is the best solution. we can all have the defense we want, at an affordable rate. i'm becoming more convinced, and excited about the improved defenses, actually. i can have the same level of security, i have now, (even better,) and be able to stash allot of the stuff i have active now!
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 09:26 pm I think you said what I was thinking Josias. The idea of stacks and stacks of defense is to be dated. The scale of wars is to be more limited which the community is not used to.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 09:39 pm I'm not trying to stop or prevent war with worthless countries. If Burkina Faso wants to declare war on United Stats, let it. But in the game, as in reality, it should be a war that poses very little threat. The rule was like this: if you have 100B in debt, you can't buy anything, no matter what you had in assets. Today, the rule isn't exactly like this, but, I think, takes net assets into consideration instead. Can I get specifics? If it is still in place, I believe the game forbids that more than 90% of all MLMs and LLWs are employed as officers and soldiers respectively. Then it is a simple matter of tunning this down to something far more reasonable. You could even impose different limits for different categories of countries based on population or another measure. When using C3s for the purpose of war, defence is hardly an issue. These are used to attack. In most cases, the defence we are mostly likely to find are federation air wings. And here I most point out, that the plans you have for federations would make C3 warring more effective. Carrying on, fortifications, however, buy war points and time for the C3 attacker. Time is even more important if you are facing multiple C3s slaves. Every time I had to conquer one of these, I always thought if this was a C3, this would have ended a long time ago when I'm busting the forts. With less forts these would be much easier to conquer.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 09:45 pm Aries, yes, if you have 10-15 mobile defense units, can offer the same protection as dozens of garrisons. less units, less clicking, less an excersize of endurance. more fluid, and depending, more relaxed. then consider the cost of those units, compared to a modern defense? and add to that, the ability to pick them up and move them where you need them. Independent of spending limits, and even across space. its what we are asking for. it solves the cost problem of defense. the big problem is that it makes defense to easy to be unbeatable. and the GM aren't really offering a big enough carrot.
| |
| Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 10:36 pm Is it what is wanted? A ready for action army available to defend or attack whenever wherever they are required? The whole individual country or even world concept is disappearing. We all end up as accounts. So which ever account has the biggest mobile army wins. You can send your mobile defenses to one place, but I can send enough mobile attack to attack you in 2 places...and so it spirals. In the end, it just ends up like it is now really except there is no distinguishing between countries and worlds anymore. Might as well shut all worlds except FB and have everybody play there.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 12:09 am i agree crafty, actually. the point i made was that we want cheaper defensive. mobile units would seem to provide that. the feature of being able to move them, because they are mobile, has been advertised by the GM as a way to defend yourself with less hardware, because you can move them, ie they are mobile. lol but yes, their is a level of build up with those, that is extreme. and not difficult. and true to sim country form, we will all build as many as we can. then no one will be able to do anything. which is not what we want. i'd suggest a limit version. for instance, say 1 garrison, and say 3 ground units could respond, in addition to the normal target. those ground units could be mobile units, or regular defensive units, (not suggesting any changes to air d,) that way, it wouldn't be difficult to build a strong defense, but impossible to build an unbreakable one. or even one garrison, and 2 ground units, from the player, and that can be matched by up to 1 mobile unit from fed mates. similar to air defense. or even limited ranges, like 100KM for most the missile batts, and 35-50 for the light tanks and such. that'd allow the attacker the ability to gain access to the country, with out over whelming it. leading to "country resources," if you had to empty the ammo of all the units in a country, why not just take it? but if you can create your own military presence in the country, and attempt to move it toward the richer parts of the country... its interesting to see if that would be enough to make the war game viable, while lessening the effects of loosing.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 05:54 am also, as an aside point, when a country is declared upon. it should be allowed to make map adjustments every one, should be able to earn advantages. the attackers should have the advantage of time, ie, they pick the time and place. but defenders should be given the opportunity to adjust their map.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 01:10 pm Same old story everyone will have masses of mobile units and this will be an extra cost and the game will be making even more money.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 05:21 pm What about the professional army to cut back on defence costs? I think since we have to pay gold coins for them, I don't think there should be a salary cost for them or an upkeep on weapons of which they're assigned to. Surely this would allow us to have an huge army without eating into our countries profits all the time or not whats the point of buying them if they're going to have no special functions or bonuses? they might as well not exist.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 10:15 pm I know this is kinda beating a dead horse.. But the whole war levels thing is a bit of a joke anyway. I am at wl.3 on LU, and I can think of a good handful of vets that can dec me at any moment whom have much more military and experience than I do. One declared on me a month ago. I am war level 6 on FB, so if we make war levels account wide, that will probably just put me within reach of even more big dogs. Not that I care either way, I have been wiped of the map on FB a couple times years ago when I attempted to play this game. It never kept me from coming back. And now I am in a fed with 'big brothers' who have my back lol. I guess to sum up what I am trying to say: -War levels have very little to do with the actual capabilities of the player. -War level restrictions on declarations are not keeping anybody safe that is not in war protection. (If anything, it actually helps the aggressor, who might be an experienced player at a low war level taking over a rookie player's empire, while being protected from being declared on by similarly experienced players in higher war levels). In my opinion, war levels should be done away with.. Other than for c3 war purposes. I know that will never happen, so maybe we should just keep them the way they are. The more they get tampered with, the more inconvenient it seems to be.
| |
| Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 11:52 pm So where are these pro soldiers? There are none on offer in DT. Do the GM not offer them for sale anymore? How do I make mobile units without the pro soldiers?
| |
| Monday, February 18, 2013 - 12:14 pm I know Crafty, the whole system with the professional officers and soldiers as well the mobile units is a complete mess and both need reforming seriously. Of what you're also saying Kel is echoing of what i've said on my defence index levels idea page. I'm glad you agree with most of it.
| |
Monday, February 18, 2013 - 01:42 pm
Really? Is this your solution? Can it at least be attacked?
| |
| Monday, February 18, 2013 - 01:54 pm (Overall Defence Index level Quote) 'If you are a single country and have grown into a large empire with a number of countries, they should all be treated how the way you can share military resources in times of war at 100% in a federation without creating a federation. Since if a country in your empire ever got attacked they should all automatically be at war together. So basically your empire can act like a federation without creating a federation.' This idea would put a player's entire empire assets at risk except for their secured main. Well think about it in real life during WW2, obviously except for your secured main. When Great Britain went to war with Germany, the rest of the British Empire went to war with that country and it's other colonies too. The Japanese who were Germany's allies invaded Hong Kong, Singapore and Burma, which all three were british territories. They also attempted to invade India as well but failed, of which also that was another british territory. So the thing i'm trying to say is, if one of your countries in your empire gets attacked. The rest of them should be at war too. It would make the game more realistic this way where you would have a lot to lose so be prepared for it.
| |
| Monday, February 18, 2013 - 02:43 pm u cant have it both ways james either war levels or not lol
|
