 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, October 3, 2017 - 12:02 pm  Fortifications Another uptick in the value of fortifications in the defense of the country. On the other hand, we have again reduced the number of fortifications in countries where the numbers are >150. These countries were compensated for the value of the removed fortifications. Cost of Weapons More weapons base price is reduced. This is especially true for highly priced items like military bases, large navy ships and nuclear weapons. Military units Defensive military units and Garrisons are now a bit larger. This is another small step in the effort to increase the defensive power of countries. Also the power of some defensive weapons is increased and some will fire more frequently during fighting. Special units used to be very very small and used to clog maps. The cost is now increased a bit (They use more ammo for training) and these units will increase in size in the next upgrade and include two special unit weapons (currently 1). At the end, these units will become more usable for the intended use and less usable as a way to clog maps. Nuclear weapons We are trying to diversify the function of nuclear weapons, making them more usable against some targets and a little less against other targets and making them more different from each other. Details are in the weapons document.
| |
| Tuesday, October 3, 2017 - 04:52 pm Some strat weapons should be designed to kill population only, - e.g. chemical batteries. for sure they should kill much more than regular strat weapons.
| |
| Tuesday, October 3, 2017 - 06:16 pm I love that they are expanding the uses of some weapons. However, some of them don't make sense in this first round of updates. Nuking a fortification isn't practical at this point because of the sheer number of them and the time delay between firing nukes. Conventional forces are still much more effective. Also now that we have to defend fortification from nuclear attacks this will massively increase defensive costs. Your talking about adding 80,000 more troops and billions in additional monthly costs. I'm not saying this changes are horrible or unwanted. I love they fact the GM is working so hard to expand the war game, but with them trying to reduce the cost of the war game this seems counter productive. Unless the GM is planning to update nuclear missile mobile units?
| |
| Tuesday, October 3, 2017 - 10:01 pm I am not sure but I think that nukes became less destructive against fortifications. This was never the weapons of choice against fortifications and I do not see a reason to change it.
| |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 12:27 am The vast majority of players don't have strategic weapons because their production is too restricted. The few players who produce strategic weapons usually only sell them to their lovers. Since only the elite has strategic weapons, changing their functionality is dubious. A better way to make strategic weapons more usable is to allow their production on all worlds.
| |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 10:58 am I am not sure we want new players to own these weapons. we had this in the past and it was a problem with new counties, multiple account etc. If you really want them, you do get them. Improving their functionality, making them less of the same and adding to diversity and a lower price, may make them more "main stream" although you do not want to see them used in each war.
| |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 01:12 pm You said the game would introduce "Nuke auto response if attacked with nukes." How is that possible when roughly 90% of countries lack nukes? Many countries that lack strategic weapons are not new. Small countries without strategic weapons lack major deterrence against attacks by large predators. Large predators have always been a bigger problem than new countries with nukes. When production of strategic weapons was allowed on all worlds, PvP was very popular. Now that production of strategic weapons is very restricted, PvP is very rare.
| |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 06:34 pm The availability of strategic weapons has little to do with the popularity of PvP. With fake protections replacing player interaction, what use does anyone have for any weapons, strategic or otherwise? Players who want nuclear weapons have access to them in many different ways. Production, space trade, and direct trade from a player make them available to any player who wants them. I don't recall any player asking for them on the forum who was not able to obtain them from somewhere. This is a multiplayer-game. Surely, any player who wants them would ask. Unless it has been changed, fortifications are not possible to be targeted with nukes, and it should stay that way. The number of targets that can be hit in a country with nukes should remain small unless the mechanics of their defense are changed. Nuclear defense batteries are expensive, requiring many personnel, and are possible to destroy using several offensive weapons.
| |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 09:09 pm Auto response nukes is probably a step too far. I agree. Nuke defenses should be used more. The price is lower now. I will look into how easy it is to destroy them. I agree with Aries on the nukes. PvP probably true too and we are now in the process of making PvP wars easier.
| |
| Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 12:42 am The tweaking you've done to strategic weapons is barely noticeable. You've made no substantial improvement to the functionality or availability of strategic weapons. The tweaking doesn't offer anything interesting to the roughly 90% of players who lack strategic weapons. This doesn't help PvP.
| |
| Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 12:23 pm I understand improvements to the game are being made by the GM that W3C had already decided on, but I am curious as to why when one certain player keeps making suggestions of things to change, just because that player doesn't like the way a certain thing in the game works, that these changes get implemented virtually straight away without any input from other long time players of the game for their opinions. There have been a lot of changes I notice over the last few weeks for example of things that a player didn't like and it gets changed straight away by the GM. Are these changes "really" for the benefit of how Simccountry is as a whole or to make things even easier for that particular player once the changes are implemented? I may just be imagining all this happening, or just an opinion, whatever it is think about it - would things get changed by the GM if you spoke out every time about things you didn't like in the game - maybe not so why do they for this player?
| |
| Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 03:03 pm Nukes have been diversified and will diversify more in the next upgrade next week but at the end of the day, these are all nukes and they destroy targets for 100% or close. WildStallion, please give me some more info about such changes. I think that the vocal group on the forum, some experienced players, are not very happy about these changes to the war game because such changes will increase the fighting power of smaller players. Please give me some examples where we are following a small group or single player requests. In the past years, we received good ideas from many players and we have implemented some. we never implement anything because someone asked for it. We only implement them if we here, at W3creative.com, agree that these are good ideas that can forward our objectives with Simcountry and make it a better game. Many players requests have exactly this same objective. Some don't. you can react here or you can mail the gamemaster@simcountry.com We answer all mails.
| |
| Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 05:25 pm Diversifying nukes is irrelevant. The problem you're neglecting is that the availability of strategic weapons is too restricted. You completely misunderstand the use of strategic weapons in this game. Players don't use them to conquer countries. Players use them to punish enemies. In recent years, you gamemasters expect PvP to be exclusively about conquering countries. But 99% of the players have refused to spend half a day, or longer, in nonstop clicking for each PvP war. Instead, before various restrictions, some players merely launched punitive military strikes against enemies. For example, during a coffee break a player might drop a couple of nukes on an enemy. This is what many players used to do, until the production of strategic weapons was severely restricted. After those restrictions, and other restrictions on lite war, PvP has become very rare. You've restricted strategic weapons production, guerrilla warfare, and even the variety of weapons used for sneak attacks. You keep depriving players of opportunities for lite PvP. Meanwhile, 99% of the players have refused to buy the extremely time-consuming PvP you keep trying to sell.
|
