| Andy | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 02:13 pm 
1. Rapid Deployment Units
Several errors in the deployment of RDU have been corrected. The errors caused delays in the functioning of the units and were old. The errors were exposed after the introduction of the immediate deployment of such units and a fast buildup of remote bases in C3 countries.
2. Using a new acquired country to start a war
Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired.
This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month.
3. The Use of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapons are currently used in wars where recently conquered countries are used to attack others, with a small risk to the attacker.
A country that attacks another country with nuclear weapons will be required to have a population of at least 20M.
More steps will follow, to make sure that countries that start a war are risking some of their own assets.
This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month.
4. Mobile units participating in (Federation) wars
Mobile units will participate in the defense of targets if the unit is located very close (about 10 MI) from the attacked target. Initially only one mobile unit, the one that has the best capabilities to response to the specific attack will participate.
Any mobile unit, belonging to any player, located near the attacked target may respond. The unit may belong to a federation member who is participating in the war but it can also belong to a federation member who is not involved in the war but has stationed mobile units in the country. It may even belong to an unrelated president who received permission to move units into the country.
Federation members who are at a very different war level and cannot participate in the war are also able to participate in the defense by stationing mobile units in the country.
This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month.
5. Smaller Army
Some weapons now require a smaller number of soldiers and officers. This will result in a slightly smaller army without any reduction in capabilities. More such changes are expected on 4 of the worlds while numbers on Fearless Blue that are much lower already, remain largely unchanged or slightly higher.
6. Mobile Units Documentation
The documentation describing the mobile units, their capabilities and man power requirements is updated and now describes all 7 mobile unit types.
7. Improving the Material Accounting
An error was fixed in the procedure that computes the value of materials in the country. The error caused the value of materials to show values that are too low and several corrections will now follow. Also other valuation functions are being rechecked to make sure they take all quality aspects of materials, weapons and ammunition into account.
8. More Types of Mobile Units will be added
Several additional types of mobile units will be added in the coming weeks.
The Mobile Strategic Missile unit will be added and will include 50 strategic missile batteries. At a later stage, these units will acquire an auto response feature that will allow them to hit targets in the attacking country as a response to attacks close to their location.
The mobile Nuclear Defense units will be added and provide nuclear defense coverage in an area surrounding their position.
The mobile Radar Units will be added and will increase the quality of air force coverage and defense if attacks are launched against targets in the area where they reside.
These units will be added to Simcountry in the coming weeks.
9. Bugs solved
Several errors on the country page settings and colors were repaired and also a problem with the product popup window on the CEO pages. A timing problem, connected to daylight saving time was fixed. It caused some unexplained delays in various functions. |
| Stephen Ryan | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 02:52 pm
quote 2. Using a new acquired country to start a war
Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired
There goes the ability too take over inactive fed mates outside the 10k limit by the time two weeks are up all the assets would be absorbed back into teh game or the ability too aid fed mates and build a quick warslave anougher screw tightens for simcountry members |
| Keto | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 03:28 pm
2. still doesn't fix the issue with c3s. Maybe change it to when decing a country of X population, the attacker should be within 5 mil pop?
3. The pop number should be alot higher, like at least 40 mil.
4. your just adding more to the cost of warring, by needing more units to protect each and every target. Aren't garrisons supposed to defend each target?
5. This is fine but the weapons number of the defense,ie. interceptors,are still the same causing more losses to the attacking air wings, creating more military cost.
8. stop adding new weapons and improve the ones we have now. You're just adding to the cost of military. |
| Crafty | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 04:27 pm
Steve, you're going to have far more mobile units to accomplish these goals. It's just a case of adapting your strategies to fit.
More or less the same thought to you Keto.
Lets be honest, 95% of the complaints have been about Wendys tactics. These changes should mainly inhibit riskless C3 warfare.
Something needs to change about the availability of GC and pro soldiers/officers though, particularly the soldiers/officers to allow these mobile units to be functional. |
| PhilinCt | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 06:30 pm
I is so much harder now to take over a C3 country. I wish the long range division units were bigger but they are getting smaller. The cost of replacing my lost units is increasing, I was told that it would be decreasing? The time it takes to replace those lost units is increasing because of the lower monthly spending cap on military equipment there by increasing the cost of C3 wars, time is money.
Crafty, they have made complete changes to this game because of one player? |
| Andy | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 06:46 pm
What you call C3 wars are a problem for a very long time and we need to make those wars less attractive. We do not like limitations but something had to be done.
you will however be able to attack such countries and they will be able to fight back.
The cost of weapons and ammunition is declining.
Shortages on the market can of course change the price but the trend is down because the base price keeps going down.
Building units is also cheaper as the number of weapons you need is smaller. we will recheck the numbers of casualties and difficulty in fighting C3 countries but as the size of the large garrisons declined too, this should remain largely unchanged.
You do not need mobile units to defend.
In fact, you do not need mobile units at all.
The garrisons remain there and the defense system will continue to function as before.
Mobile units, as we have published many times before, will allow for a better defense.
There will be an alternative to war protection which costs many gold coins.
You could setup such units and enhance your defense instead of paying for war protection.
you could also keep the war protection on.
The cost of mobile units is also declining.
The weapons are cheaper and the numbers of soldiers and officers you need will become smaller. |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 08:43 pm
Quote:2. Using a new acquired country to start a war
Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired.
This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month.
I don't like this. In every actual war I've fought in, I've used c3s to help augment an attack somehow. I take these c3s DURING the war. I understand why this rule could be seen as beneficial, but it is extremely limiting. What if I manage to take a big country during a war and want to then turn around and use it on an opponent? I have to wait two weeks? I understand that you don't want wars between countries that have little assets, but there is a two day (12 game month window on the planets I'd be fighting on) on decs. The amount of weapons that can be moved in for defense during that time is definitely enough. I don't think this will improve the war game. I feel it should be the players' choice whether they use their own assets and countries to fight or not.
Also does this include not being able to declare war on c3s? I think it DEFINITELY should not. As Stephen said, this greatly limits flexibility within the war game. Most actual wars last between 2 and 5 real life days. Within that time frame, much gets decided. Two weeks makes no sense here. If a player has enough talent and skill to conquer an opponents' country, they should have the ability to take that country back out of war protection and use it.
Changes 3 and 5 look great to me. Thanks Andy. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:16 pm
I think the updates are just and called for.
The nuke option is good and C3 had been limited, I do agree with EO though about the 2week rule, I think the player either needs 2weeks or to have the 20M pop needed anything over 20m shouldn't need to wait.
But otherwise the updates are all just and sound fair to me.
Andy.... any word on increase C3 war level cash income...... (whispers) go back to 1.5T per level..... please |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:40 pm
Andy
I just realized, what's to stop long range nuking?
C3 where an issue yes, but what's to stop a player(and it has been done) from being just inside the 10,000KM range and start nonstop nuking, it would take me time to take nations near by to war, plus with the 2week issue. Unless I'm wrong.
Your saying I'd have to wait 2 weeks before I could use that nation to war. Meaning I'd have to wait 2weeks which is WAY TO LONG to war, 2weeks of someone non stop nuking is a HUGE problem.
With regards to nuking can we set something in place where the attacking nation must be withing a certain range it be land or air force. The fact they can sit and nuke me non stop for 2weeks well I wait to counter attack is a BIG issue in my book. |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:51 pm
The nuking isn't as much an issue as the 2 week waiting period. 10,000 km is within counter-attacking range. |
| Jackseptic | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:19 pm
i dont want to wait two weeks to take out a country out of my range. In my recent pvp wars and in my pvp wars over the summer ive been attacked by several countries at the same time all being around 10,000 km away meaning while getting nuked by subs ive had to at the same time take several countries all over the world to get in range to land troops in my enemys countries, already taking much precious time i couldnt imagine waiting 2 weeks just to take out the country attacking me. i hope this rule wont go into effect because i see an advantage for my enemy. Also if a fed mate is being attacked i would like to quikly set up next to him (if i wasnt already) to be involved in the war while it is accurring. |
| Crafty | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:44 pm
Phil, no, not because of one player. It would be totally wrong of me to say that and I'm sorry if I implied it. My meaning is in this recent rant for war game changes that some of wendys wars are cited.
There have been and will be many more of these rants, caused by any number of players.
I use the word rant because I ran out of words today. |
| Andy | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:47 pm
The population requirement will be implemented ASAP.
In addition, an asset requirement might be added that will turn the "worthless just conquered" country into a less worthless country.
There is a clear need for more exposure of both countries and assets during a so called C3 war or in fact any other war. There might be a trade off between the time delay or an increase of the cost of war protection during the war (which is a long time consideration anyway).
The possibility of enforcing a partial removal of war protection during war or in general, seems too complex. |
| Crafty | Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:53 pm
You might be able to make some difference by not allowing newly taken countries to use any raised quality weapons/ammo. That would make them less potent and easier to conquer.
Just an idea, not really thought through. |
| Andy | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 12:03 am
The current fast track on war game follows the introduction of the mobile units. We have said long time ago that many new developments will follow after these units are completed.
Many older ideas, including improvements of the navy, intelligence, espionage, terror and counter terror features can now be implemented more easily.
However, we have an issue with some bad taste wars, trigger happy users of nukes and unnecessary use of war protection.
Nukes will remain an option of course but why not use a conventional missile unit to fire 100 missiles and destroy some of these nuclear installations after they were used. Using nuclear weapons with impunity is the problem, not their use as such. |
| Keto | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 12:24 am
Improving the navy could/will eliminate the need to take a c3 close to the enemy.
I see an issue with most newer players thinking nukes are the way to go so they threaten and or use nukes believing they will win the war, which in the real world it could happen. In SC it will not happen.
Like I said before Andy, introducing mobile units and such is fine, but it only adds to the overall cost of maintaining an army. If players have to continue to purchase gold coins to be able to afford the military maintenance, they will all quit playing this game.
The game today is very hard for a players economy to support just a basic defense.
Bottom line, lower costs of military, level the playing field of offense against defense weapons, allowing a players knowledge to win a war, not how many weapons he/she has. |
| Stephen Ryan | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 01:19 am
The game should imitate real life once a country is conquered it should be able too be used as seen fit. How can mobile units replace war protection i hope this isnt the case if your saying that enough mobile units deem the country unconquerable in effect no war game. Mobile units seem too be just an extra cost as a good war slave will now require mobile units and fully stocked garrisions that seems to be costing out any offensive campaign in effect destroying the war game altogether. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 01:23 am
Andy in regards to your comment most players like myself when warring keep my garrisons heavy in anti air and missile defense, meaning I'd spend a lot of missiles to blow up the target plus Helios would destroy them when they attack.
If I can make an honest suggestion and I'd like everyone's input.
During war if nukes are used stealth bombers SHOULD auto attack those batteries like Helios would with any other unit.
During a auto attack they would have a 10,000KM range allowing them to attack any target, the only defence would be inter wings. If I fire a nuke the stealth would respond in an attempt to blow up these batteries, if the enemy has enough land and air force they would prevent me from destroying it.
Doing this would only make stealth more attractive in war and would give players more chances to prevent nuclear warfare |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 04:39 am
The Limit should be both ways. Assets of x country = assets of y country. Add to that the inability to transfer those weapons.assets out via space and then you've got a game.
But you're not serious, you're addressing one side of a problem in a very one sided manner, and as such, even those you are attempting to please are not happy. Imagine that. It would have been easier to reset my war level to zero, or asked them to just play the game or change their style of play.
But by all means have it your way. If you are hell bent on appeasing certain groups even though you can never achieve that, then all you are doing is ripping the game apart and accomplishing zilch by doing so. You're pampering a bunch of babies and they don't even have the appreciation to thank you for their dry arses. I'm hoping this will prove it's worth in changes some day down the road but you are a looong way from that day.
I will be consolidating and those of you that wish to house the game and have it changed repeatedly to suit only your style of play can do so without my interference. Have fun beating up n00bs super and Hydra(like the case with NLUO), just about every vet has no desire to play any of this so-called improved utopian war game. I'm not going to play a game where every change introduced favors the very style of play that basically crushed the war game and introduced war levels, and NO it was not c3 wars. Some of you are crying, but many of you are not and never had to, because it is the style of play that avoided it. Hyper aggressive attitudes and tendencies brought down those tactics on the heads of those playing that way, not the other way around. I'm done caring though. Enough said. None of it matters anyway.
I don't know how in just a few short years you guys have managed to mangle this game up, it is stunning that you aren't done yet. Just an honest observation looking at how the trend has played out, try not to take offense.
Have a good one. |
| Serpent | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 04:45 am
I think Wendy is a dude! 
If I agree with her or not, her 'tone' (if that can be sensed online) sounds like a dude! |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 04:48 am
Yep, you got me, I'm also Gay and married to myself. I produced my children through spawns in the deep of my buttocks, which no man will ever know. :s After reading that last sentence, I'm not completely sure that I'm still Gay? |
| Serpent | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 05:03 am
You have a point! Cant procreate if your gay... well unless your some sort of lizard or something.... hmmmm... maybe thats it!!!! |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 05:07 am
Coming from a Serpent ... :p |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 05:20 am
anyways
Andy is this something that can be done? its not unfair and it would add uses to stealth bomber making them a much more useful weapon in war |
| Josias | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 07:21 am
Quote:Many older ideas, including improvements of the navy, intelligence, espionage, terror and counter terror features can now be implemented more easily. -Andy
yay! |
| Laguna | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 11:22 am
C3s has been a problem for a very long time and it should have been addressed a lot sooner.
This problem warrants a better solution than what has been advanced. But it will have to do for now. |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 11:33 am
Quote:C3s has been a problem for a very long time and it should have been addressed a lot sooner.
This problem warrants a better solution that it has been advanced. But it will have to do for now.
Assuming we all agree something must be done about that. then you have to consider this...
Quote:Add to that the inability to transfer those weapons.assets out via space and then you've got a game.
I mean if the issue is zero risk, shuttling everything out in the "forever" amount of time it takes to clear forts is NOT zero risk? Not even pop is sell-able now.
So how is zero-risk being addressed here? It isn't. Any player could waste hours and Trillions in ammo taking a country, that will have nothing but pop that is worthless for your efforts. If you consider that fact, the problem is indeed being corrected in a one sided and unbalanced manner.
One hand you have little risk initially, and the other hand you have "hypothetical risk" that can be swiped off the table at the last moment for that "Gotcha" moment. The problem is not a zero sum. The fix isn't a fix. It is an impediment when the so-called risking party is allowed to continue to risk nothing as well.
Once war is declared, then the assets should have to stay put until the war is ended. If not you are still looking at the same problem. |
| Laguna | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 12:28 pm
Quote:Once war is declared, then the assets should have to stay put until the war is ended.
That used to be case. I don't know why it changed. |
| Tom Morgan | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 12:37 pm
EDIT: Nevermind... |
| Crafty | Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 01:49 pm
Look guys, SC was a very exclusive game a couple of years back. Since then, Wendy is right, the game has been 'mangled'. BUT, it is a consequence of the GM wanting the game to be more accessible. Nothing wrong with that, many have said how they want new blood.
No other game I have found offers the complexities and skill required to manage the war game (even as it is now) or the economy game. Try some, Nothing comes close, not that I have found anyway.
And, no other game even comes close in the player base participation in the direction forward. Witness the GM talking with us about our views etc.
So, really, although we all want things to be different it is the direction the game is taking to make it more open to newcomers. And it still beats all.
Chins up and jolly hockey sticks. |
| PhilinCt | Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 04:24 pm
I really need more spending space per game month to be able to play the war game. I think that there should be no cap for defensive weapons, other than your bank roll. |
| seven_devils | Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 09:34 pm
... |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 09:36 pm
they need to tweak weapon ammo use
a tank uses 35 shells per attack(100K per shell = 3.5M per tank ammo).
On its best attack it has 30% accuracy and 20% damage meaning it takes 5shells to destroy it times that by 3 for Q = 15.
1Tank = 35shells = 2destoried artillery pieces?
let's not forget that it takes 5 anti air bats and 30missiles to take down a heli
the GM needs to increase damage and accuracy for almost all weapons, units and weapons are smaller meaning less losses but you still use a lot of ammo and weapons becuae of there low damage effectiveness |
| Josias | Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 02:24 am
Quote:So how is zero-risk being addressed here? It isn't. Any player could waste hours and Trillions in ammo taking a country, that will have nothing but pop that is worthless for your efforts. If you consider that fact, the problem is indeed being corrected in a one sided and unbalanced manner. -Wendy
i agree with this, mostly. the only flaw i see with it. is that i don't want to keep that close tabs of where i stash hundreds of products, to use for various things. in a dozen different countries.
i'm all for making the defendor leave his stuff in the country, make them fight to keep it, and have a prepared defense, or atleast a legit battle plan, in case... but i might have 2K NDM in one country, where i stocked it. then get dec'd in several, and all my NDM are stuck?
but yes, making players keep much of their assets in place, so that after all the effort and cost of taking a country, theirs something to gain. i would suggest something in the middle. |
| Josias | Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 03:00 am
actually, i was thinking about this.
i was thinking, is why not combine a long time desired feature, with wendy's complaint. allow us to inter-empire transfer non-military goods. but make outgoing transfers in a time of war count against a "spending limit," i'd say a new spending limit, "war exports limit," and have it work similar to normal non-military spending limits. so the larger countries having more assets would gain an advantage. or something a long those lines.
although, you'd probably want to set the default limit to C3s to zero, and have it recover slowly, to prevent abuse. |
| Jackseptic | Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 07:04 am
who would move stuff out unless they planned to lose. my military assets probably double from shipping stuff IN during war i hope any change wouldnt involve moving stuff into your country...weapons,ammo,aircraft fuel,trucks etc. i think wendys just trying to leverage a little out of her failing situation, let players do what they want and lets have less restricions not more PLEASE. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 09:29 pm
bump
their was a few good ideas by multiple players and I was hoping to hear from andy |
| Crafty | Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 10:23 pm
This is stupid. SC has become 'design a mmorpg today' game. Dunno why we all dont get together and do a dub!
*goes back to sleep* |
| SweetPea | Friday, February 22, 2013 - 11:22 am
Jack, your assumptions here are about as dull as your game and this thread. It's all going nowhere fast. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 08:34 pm
Andy
What's the GM opinion on the following.
When in a PVP war can something be done to where stealth auto attack any nuke batteries if attacking first(if they fire a nuke my stealth seek to destroy them well mynuke defense stops the missile).
what's the word on the 2week deal? In PVP a lot of people take a nation and Dec with it afterwords, can a rule be in place where if the nation has over 20M and xxx amount of assests it can bypass the 2week rule?
Also I'm bit fuzzy on the mobile unit, currently in feds they only share air units, can something be done where all defence units be shared? Air land and mobile? also if I send a mobile unit to an ally does he need one swell to get there defence benfits or is it just automatic regardless of the attack? |
