| Andy | Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 10:24 am 
Military units currently function as a way to block invasions.
They do not participate in active defense against air attack or any attacks at all, except for fighting invading forces when these forces attack them.
Mobile units do participate in the defense.
When a target is attacked, it is protected by a garrison stationed at the target (if available), and if a mobile unit is at a close distance from the target, the mobile unit will participate in the defense.
In all cases, one defense wing and possible up to 2 defense wings of federation members might participate too.
In most cases however, the defense ends up supported by an air defense wing if available and a garrison, mostly available as a defense for large cities.
We think the military units should do more.
we would like a military unit, stationed close to the target to participate.
A key issue is the required (short) distance to the attacked target.
Mobile units could be upgraded too, allowing more than one to participate and at an increased range.
Currently, when a very strong army is attacking a country, it is very difficult for such a country to survive a massive attack.
Even with many military units and a large air force, the attack army is more powerful and in many cases, even the casualties on the side of the attacker remain limited.
We think that military units, if they participate, will make more sense in the game and if spread around the country, could potentially give the defense a fighting chance.
This change could improve the balance between attacking and defending forces.
Such a balance will allow more players to participate in the PvP wars without facing immediate annihilation. |
| DETA | Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 12:13 pm
I like the idea. That way more units might become relevant.
It will however change nothing. The only thing that might change is that I need to build up an even larger offensive army before attacking.
As long as I can store weapons for free in my ceo I will always be able to keep on building my army larger and larger and larger without any downside. The moment a war breaks out I tune down the production on my corporations, free up millions of workers/soldiers and just send whatever weapons I need to my countries. There is 0 downside to keeping hundreds of trillions worth of weapons in my ceo's. If you really want to balance the war game then this is where you need to make the changes. Anything else you do will be completely irrelevant.
If players need to pay the upkeep for weapons in a ceo they are no longer able to store infinitely large armies. Rich players will still be able to afford larger armies but their advantage will be many times smaller then what it is now. |
| Andy | Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 02:07 pm
Thanks for your reaction.
I think that having units involved in the defense will make a change.
It may not be enough as you said, but it can significantly increase the casualties on the attacker side. |
| Lord Mndz | Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 05:51 pm
Andy,
If you add another ground unit that will not change the fact that I will kill air defences first by attacking most remote target - so it would not get supported by ground at all. Once Air is cleaned there will be no difference for my batteries to kill 1, 2 or even 3 units at the same time. Loses are minimal.
Good question is if that means that you want to have more units on map? I assume you need less but with higher ranges and bigger in size - (map is already too overcrowded). That would force attacker to read map and plan attacks more carefully. But still that will not change the fact that war is fast.
I think the best way to improve chances of resistance for defending party is to force to fight land wars. Defended country is supplied faster, can take back occupied locations and attacking country needs to move or fly in units to fight.
my 2 cents.. |
| Johanas Bilderberg | Wednesday, September 23, 2020 - 12:56 pm
It would be much simpler for coding if you combined defense and offensive weapons into a single unit.
For example modern surface to air missile systems are neither defensive or offensive, they simply deny an enemy the ability to fly in a certain area of space. Fighters are fighters, helicopters are helicopters.
Modern armies have mechanized infantry, tanks, artillery and helicopters in regiments for offense or defense. Modern navies have the same ships for either task.
It would simplify not only coding but actually preparing a defense as well.
Just a thought. |
| Amalie | Wednesday, September 23, 2020 - 07:13 pm
I agree with you |
| Andy | Friday, September 25, 2020 - 01:36 pm
Thanks for the response.
I do think you underestimate the potential impact of military units participating more in the defense.
It all depends on their defensive power and range compared with the attack power of the attacking forces. |
| Lord Mndz | Saturday, September 26, 2020 - 08:26 am
unless these defending units get boost in resilience against batteries and air attacks there will be no huge difference. People will be doing "attack defences" and additional unit participating in defence will be destroyed together with garrison of the attacked target. If attack is on a small target like county garrison will not likely to be available so attack will be only on additional unit.
If you want to allow to defend all targets then something must change in weapons maintenance cost or durability/strength in weapons. |
| Gaz | Saturday, September 26, 2020 - 06:29 pm
Deta. Storing weapons in CEO's then moving them into your countries is no longer an effective strategy. Weapons go inactive soon as you move them out of the space station.
Andy, what large wars are you guys basing this on? I haven't seen or heard of anyone fighting a large war recently. Are yous testing weapons on a diff server? I ask cause, to me, I think defence is already too strong.
I can't help but be frustrated with this game. Is this what you guys are focusing on? the GM's I mean. There's so many issue with the game that need attention. To me this is a waste of your time and effort.
Mobile Units do a good enough job at defending my targets.
If anyone wants to use land units to block invaders, use Special Forces. It's the most effective strategy, even with what the GM propose.
I hate to complain but you wanted feedback and that's my honest feeling. Fix what's broken first before adding new features
Nobody plays the war game. I think you's need to work on that issue, not this. |
| John Galt | Saturday, September 26, 2020 - 10:07 pm
Hilarious. Keep making defense stronger. I am going to share a piece of war knowledge with you all that I learned from testing and experience. Air defenses cannot be defeated. Any country that is in a federation with even a moderate air defense will never be conquered. The defense responds with 1500 helicopters or 1500 interceptors. Air attack units are way too small to face off against 1500 interceptors and missile weapons are to fragile to resist 1500 helicopters. The only way to beat the air defense is to ignore it and to brute force through it. The only weapon that is capable of achieving this is cruise missile ships, due to their resilience. The war game is absolutely broken. War levels are also killing your game. If you want this game to come back to life you need to address these serious issues.
The best solution is to completely remove war levels and to merge offensive and defensive weapons into single unified weapons as Johanas has mentioned.
I have serious doubts that any of the developers play this game at all or test the impact of changes. Defense is completely overpowered and broken. |
| Gaz | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 03:44 am
Perhaps work on a world with no war levels as a trial? GC rewards could be gained in a different fashion. Instead of levels, let the players choose how high a c3 they want to fight to achieve their GC prize, but have no effect on the player v player side.
Just a thought. All your old time players have been saying it for years GM's. War Levels have killed this game, for several reasons that I wont go into.
A trial world like this could be a better investment of your time. |
| Gaz | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 03:57 am
It's never been the case that people went around stealing countries all the time, it happened a few times. The Last time the losers kicked up enough fuss and WL's have been the result. Which has been a disaster for this game over the years, I'd say.
Why not try it?
These changes are based on what need? To make c3's more difficult to attack at the higher war levels? i dont get it. Nobody's asking for this. |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 07:17 am
If I had to impart words of wisdom to my Son, Andrew, is always listen to your contituents...within reason.
In defense of the GMs, there were so many game abuses in the past, it was hard to "survive" in the game when going against the many "powers" that existed. So, I can understand why the GMs did what they did with war levels. While this is a great game to us and one we wish to drive, it is a business to the game owner, designed to be fair to its constituents and make them money in the bargain.
BUT, I have to say this. The game seemed so much more active and alive back in those days. I would love to see this game come back to its heyday! I love seeing this new crop of players carrying this game forward. My kudos to Matthew I, Union States King, et al. I love your spirit and your enthusiasm on WG!!
I thank Andy and his colleagues for enabling the war game to be played without the war level restrictions on FB. I hope that many more players will join this world and bring the war game back to life. BUT to enjoy war, you have to be willing to take risks. THAT is part of the game.
Perhaps, if we could spark this more on FB, war level restrictions might come off other worlds if the GMs see that it is working to the game's benefit!
As I've said many many times....talk it up, players!!! We have to bring our community back alive...fire up the forums, the chat. The GMs can provide us the playing board, but we, the players have to play the game!!! |
| Matthew I | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 08:38 am
I completely agree with our dear lady and I appreciate the shoutout.
The WGA has come a long way in the two months it has reformed and it's all because of our active players.
I don't think the GMs are sleeping on us. There are a great many factors in going to war, or even deciding to. Times also change as the player base does and fixes now may not be the fixes we need in 2020. I can't pretend like I knew how it was before, I was never very involved in the war Game previously but have heard numerous people talk about the great wars.
If stirring up activity is the end goal, I think we can also focus on small updates that would really help, because I don't think the War Levels are the only roadblock. A system to connect active players, more incentive to join the in game chat/forum, even a list of "Active players last 30 minutes" would be really helpful. Communication (more specifically the ability to see and get in contact with active players) is a little difficult unless you're willing to do lots of leg work. It's hard to tell who is active and who isn't. On White Giant, I really believe we are one of the only other active Federations. I know of one more, but even that one has few members and even fewer active. |
| Zentrino | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 10:08 am
I wholeheartedly agree with merging defense and offense. I do like the idea that units on the ground would participate in the defense too. I often just use jeeps if a country I am invading is connected to mine. They won't get destroyed because nothing attacks them. Special forces also work if you need to air drop them but you never have to worry about losing any.
I think the war game is just too expensive and so it takes forever to have anything close to a decent military. It is basically impossible to catch up to a wealthy player. I have been back playing for about 10 months I think. I estimate I have about 300-500T in weapons. While it sounds like a lot, many wealthy long time players have multiple quads in military assets. How many new players want to play a game for almost a year just to be a decent place in the game? Beyond the cost of purchasing weapons, the maintenance costs, if they are actually in your country, are outrageous. I have said on other posts, a modest defense of a medium size country that was prepared for an invasion would cost 2T a game month to maintain. Can your country support that?
Matthew: You can see who is currently online by clicking statistics in your country and selecting the who is online tab. |
| Johanas Bilderberg | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 03:15 pm
Andy.
My field of expertise is military affairs, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
The Red Army had 4 complete armies in East Germany/ Poland tasked with invading through West Germany, driving through the Fulda gap, force a crossing of the Rhine, and rolling through to the Bay of Biscay in a week.
At it's peak the Red Army had 55,000 tanks of which 12,000 were considered class A, the remainder were Class B, C for reserve troops. 41,000 artillery of which 10,000 were field mobile artillery the remainder were towed tubes. 8,000 free flight rocket artillery including Scud and short range surface to surface missile launchers.
It also contained 4,300 helicopters and 12,000 air defense mobile units including mobile SAM and ZSU anti aircraft guns.
The Bilderberg Empire on LU has classified military information but I can share that we possess over 1 million helicopters and in excess of 40 million ammunition for those birds.
The problem could be looked at this way. Simplify the number of weapons systems, decrease the total number of weapons, and allow more flexibilty in defense which will increase the amount of fun in playing the game.
It's your game after all, I just enjoy playing it. Any changes you want to test I volunteer to try out before it goes server wide and I am sure John Galt could be counted on as well. |
| Andy | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 05:07 pm
Thanks again for these contributions.
Please keep going and please check what we do to improve.
We have just made some changes.
We will create more balance in the war game, in the defense capabilities and we will listen to what you are saying.
We are interested in improving the war game, we think we have all the building blocks we need.
I am surprised by the comments on war levels.
please explain the problem with war levels on the Fearless Blue world.
War on FB should be possible, all countries 60 days and older, participate in the war game.
war protection remains an option but costs gold coins and we think we should raise the cost on FB.
For us, the issue of being able to defend a country is crucial.
players who are able to build a great defense will be less scared of war and will probably be willing to participate more in the war game.
all the issues mentioned here can be fixed. we need a lot of input from many players.
new players comments are welcome too. |
| John Galt | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 05:48 pm
War levels are still a problem on FB, just not as bad as the other worlds. On FB you still run into the same issue of C3s becoming impossible to conquer after winning enough wars. On the other worlds, war levels have completely shut down player to player interactions. Empires should never be secure without war protection boosters. Every player gets one secure mode country. That should be all they get. It is ridiculous to see massive empires hiding below war level 3.
The distinction between offensive and defensive weapons 100% needs to be eliminated. It is a relic of the old war engine and has no place in the new one. Everything should be able to attack and defend. It makes no sense that someone can attack my cruise missile ships with no return fire from the ships because they are considered offensive. That is bad gameplay. That should be the first step in any war overhaul. Once that is complete, then you should look at adjusting the numbers. Unit sizes should also be larger and attack sizes should be larger to reduce the micromanagement. Weapons should be more expensive, and ammo should be very cheap. This will reduce the number of units significantly. I would be willing to give up a large percentage of my Arsenal if I were compensated fairly with game money if it is required to maintain balance. |
| Gaz | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 06:21 pm
Like John said, WL's on FB's problem is still the game forcing us up a level every c3 we attack. We should be able to choose a level. It must be a simple fix for the GM's to implement
Many players are saying it. |
| Zentrino | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 08:58 pm
Yes to choosing what War Level we fight at for a c3. If the concern is "raiding" make it so the c3s don't have the loot in them after the first war at that level. Just because I have beaten a c3 at war level 5 doesn't mean that I have mastered that level. It may have taken me multiple days and 6 times the cost that it should have while I figured it out. Maybe I just want to test other tactics to see what works. Why should I have to do that at the maximum level? Maybe I just want to expand my empire to a new continent. it just doesn't make sense to force us up a level every time we fight a war. |
| Gaz | Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 09:17 pm
If anything else raiding c3's is fun and I'd say its great experience for empire building. Let players make their mistakes with them without some lock on their future empire prospects.
I've made mistakes building my FB empire and I'd love to correct it by taking some C3'S and starting again, but I cant be bothered with the effort to fight such high level c3's every time.
That's 1 example when these rules are a hinderance to building my empire. |
| Andy | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 11:34 am
The reason for changes is that many current players do not dare starting a PvP war as they know they can be wiped out very quickly.
They should be able to create a better defense and extract a high price from the attacker.
this was the situation in the past and we had many (large) wars.
Merging defense and offensive weapons:
The units are mixed.
A missile interceptor intercepts missiles. It does not destroy ships.
An anti ship missile is not capable to destroy land forces. Not in Simcountry and not in the real world.
Some of the weapons can be merged. The reason we kept them separated is price.
We want the defensive to cost less than the offensive forces.
Having units participate in the defense will improve the defense of all land targets, including small cities and towns.
The aim is to extract a higher price from the attacker. If the cost is high, the balance will change. |
| Andy | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 12:05 pm
So the problem with war levels on FB is that you need to fight at higher levels.
what is in fact the reason to fight C3 wars?
why not fight PvP wars on FB? wasn't that the idea?
Raiding for resources?
We had a previous discussion here and the claim was that C3 wars are not for resources.
We can make the increase in difficulty between C3 wars smaller.
It is already much smaller up to C3 at war level 5 or 6.
If it is for fun, we can flatten the curve but why not clean up the assets when the war is over?
It seems like we are back to easy resources fighting trivial wars against C3 countries of level 3.
If it is to increase the size of your empire, we support it and made it quite easy to get an empire of 5 to 6 countries.
Larger empires require more power, larger wars.
I will look into making the difficulty increase of C3 wars more gradual.
We are concentrating on FB for now because it is the war world.
we will get to the other worlds later although current changes are in all worlds.
We can look at cases where a weapon can have both defensive and offensive functions.
Mainly, military units and the navy, should have both functions.
A missile cruiser should be able to defend itself.
I will check that this is the case.
I will check all military units to see they include defensive weapons.
The choice of weapons depends on the way you set up the unit.
If you set up the navy with attack weapons only, that will remain your choice.
Navies can include missiles and interceptors for their defense.
We intend to continue with (small) frequent changes
We will also improve the speed of cargo shuttles and reduce the cost of weapon storage on space stations. |
| Gaz | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 03:42 pm
There's been several reasons the players have asked for lower war level c3's.
Number 1 reason for me, is to manoeuvre around the planets easily. I'd like to be flexible with my countries. But these rules are counter productive. You want players to be less attached to their countries if you want them to risk pvp. So making c3's easy come easy go should help.
As an example I've got 3 slave countries I took 4 weeks ago, They're absolutely terrible countries and I'd like to just throw them away, but, because they where so hard to obtain I'm hanging onto them.
This isn't about raiding GM's. I'm not looking to exploit the game in anyway when I'm asking for these changes. I get the impression you's seem to think that that's why the players are asking for this.
But on that note I think you's should encourage raiding anyway, especially on FB. There's been so many prolific raiders over the years, love those guys. Fact is, people enjoy that sort of playstyle.
I ask for these changes cause I think it will help the game not out of selfish reasons.
Only exploit (if you can call it that) with allowing easy c3 war is the transfer of pop. That's the only "exploit" left I can think of that's holding this rule back from being changed.
Transferring 400K workers every month to gain free pop takes such effort and patience from the player. It's not a fast process. Why care.
Nobody's asking for c3 wars to be more difficult GM's. It's the opposite. It's clicks on a mouse at the end of the day, It's not fun to keep clicking over and over when it's just a routine c3 |
| John Galt | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 03:53 pm
If you want defense to be cheaper than offense just give a bonus to defenders in combat. That way you can merge offensive and defensive weapons and still have defense cheaper. Having separate weapons for them is terrible. Putting defensive weapons in units is currently a waste due to small unit sizes, so no one uses it. Every defensive weapon placed in a unit weakens its attack ability. |
| Andy | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 04:10 pm
Gaz
The argument of flexibility in your empire is good.
We could allow wars in war level 3 for all players with an empire that is up to 5 countries.
If you have 5 countries, you can drop one and have another go at a C3 country.
John
I need several examples of weapons that will be defensive and offensive.
(not tanks and artillery and such). Thank you. |
| Gaz | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 04:24 pm
Thx Andy.
As a solution I think you's should encourage raiding on FB. And actually incentivise it for newer players. Give conquered c3's more assets and let newer player catch up quicker.
It's only game assets you'd be giving these players not GC's. Game assets cant be taken out the game anyway so GM's not loosing $$$ |
| Andy | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 04:41 pm
Did you read the updated message?
I am not worrying about the GM $$$.
we are winning if players are winning. |
| Andy | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 04:49 pm
We will have another look at what we give new players.
We currently give them millions of additional population and lots of cash.
The C3 countries they conquer will not be for assets or gold coins but rather for training and setting up a an empire.
Not even sure we should limit this to FB.
It could be introduce to all worlds and once you have conquered 4 countries you become a war player.
Not so fast I think.
we can try on FB first. |
| Gaz | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 04:55 pm
Why the limit of 5? It's to low. Why restrict it at all? Nobody's winning with 5 c3's. Why is it a problem for the game to let players own however many countries they like? Who cares |
| Gaz | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 05:04 pm
If it's not for assets then I don't think it's incentivised. I dont really care about the assets tbh.
I just thought it would be a good way to encourage new players to catch up.
The limit restrictions is the problem though. Keep c3's how they are now at level 3, assets wise. just remove the limits |
| E O | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 06:50 pm
I appreciate the dialogue, Andy!
Quote:
So the problem with war levels on FB is that you need to fight at higher levels.
what is in fact the reason to fight C3 wars?
why not fight PvP wars on FB? wasn't that the idea?
1. Yes, fighting at higher levels is a problem, but addressing the difficulty of c3s is not going to help. If you make players always fight more and more challenging c3s, there is a limit to fighting. If I go bonkers and go to level 20 in 2 days, I'm done fighting c3s... FOREVER. That's a problem. If you see no benefit to a player to allow them to keep fighting c3s, why block someone from doing so? You're just preventing people from playing your game more.
2. This has been a topic on many recent threads. C3 wars allow a player to move around. If you haven't tried building an empire or fighting in large wars, this isn't as immediately obvious. For those of who have though, this is a critical reason to allow more C3 fighting. What if a new player takes 5 c3s like you said, and then joins a federation that is entirely on the other side of the planet? How would they move over there? There aren't exactly many federations recruiting, so if one recruits you, you should join regardless of where they are. THE benefit of federations are shared, LOCAL air defense.
3. Why not PVP wars? You're saying a new player should take 5 c3s and then be ready to fight players? You think that prepares them? There are maybe a dozen players with empires capable of fighting player wars on FB. You think noobie 5-c3 is ready to take any one of them on? If so, why haven't we seen it at all? That'd be awesome if what you said did occur, but it simply does not.
I completely agree that I'd like to see more PvP wars. All of my suggestions are built around trying to promote that aspect of the game. You're not really addressing the underlying issues though by changing unit sizes. Changing unit sizes will not incentivize more players to play. Most players don't even understand what these changes mean for a war, regardless of whether or not these changes are good or bad.
Lastly, you do give population and cash to new players, which is great! I do not think that really helps them win wars though. They have no idea how to spend the cash. New players RARELY actually BUY more weapons before they fight. They wouldn't know what to buy anyways. Make their starting weapons stronger relative to what they're fighting. Make it so they'll win much more often on their first attempt. Treat the first war as a tutorial. This is how you can get players to stay in the game longer. If you lose your first war against the computer, there's a decent chance you'll quit the game and look for something else to do. |
| Lord Mndz | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 10:44 pm
i think you are missing one important element playing key role in war game... which is army maintenance cost. it prevents any larger pvp for big players and conpletelly bancruipt small Ones when they try to build their first army. reduce it 10 times and i promise you 10 times more pvp between new players. |
| E O | Monday, September 28, 2020 - 11:40 pm
^^ Agreed, Mndz. There are lots of obstacles preventing players from fighting more, costs being one of the biggest ones. |
| John Galt | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 03:43 am
Andy I would do something like this:
Merge Defence Military Airport & Offence Military Airport and Strategic Airport
Merge Defence Military Base & Offence Military Base and Strategic Base
Merge Defence Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries & Offence Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries
Merge Missile Interceptor Batteries & Navy Missile Interceptor Batteries
Merge Defensive Missile Batteries & Mid Range Missile Batteries & Navy Missile Batteries & Land to Sea Missile Batteries and Tactical Nuclear Batteries and Chemical Batteries
Merge Jeeps, Light Artillery, Light Tanks, and Armored Vehicles & Heavy Jeeps, Heavy Artillery, Heavy Tanks, and Heavy Armored Vehicles into a weapon called Combined Ground Forces.
Merge Interceptors & Navy Interceptors & Fighter Planes & Navy Fighter Planes
Merge Radar Planes & Long Range Radar Planes
Merge Destroyers & Attack Destroyers
Merge Helicopters & Attack Helicopters
Merge Conventional Missile Batteries & Land Based Cruise Missile Batteries and Nuclear Missile Batteries
Merge Cruise Missile Ships & Guided Missile Frigates
Merge Special Forces & Seals & Rapid Deployment Units
Merge Stealth Bombers, Precision Bombers and Strategic Bombers
Merge Attack Submarines and Nuclear Submarines |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 03:47 am
Thank you, son! |
| Andy | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 02:38 pm
We are not limiting to 5 countries.
if you have 5, you can continue, but why only fight trivial wars against C3s at WL3?
after so many wars, you are not capable of fighting at higher levels?
Keeping the C3 countries as they are now? is it about assets after all?
EO
You don't fight to WL20 even in a week.
we can add another 20 levels in several hours.
as I said, when you have 5, you can drop one and get another one where you want it.
We could extend it.
If you are experienced in many wars against a C3 country, maybe continue with C3 countries at WL5 and extend your empire to 10 countries.
All this simplifies the effort compared to the current situation.
It can be done to allow a very flexible empire with countries spread where you want them, but as we said and was confirmed by players, it is not about assets.
Gold coins can be won, in large numbers, if you go for C3 countries in higher war level.
but such a change will resolve the problem of war levels preventing you, who are in all war levels, from fighting C3 countries in lower war levels.
We do have a problem in explaining war to new players.
Must explain much better.
push them to do the war tutorial is a start.
the changes in units and defense capability will make the defense stronger and reduce the fear of PvP wars.
These changes will make a difference even if many players don't understand what happened.
Mndz
The cost of mainly defensive wars was already reduced.
We have today completed another substantial round of cost reduction for armies, mainly defense.
The reduction is in the cost of weapons and ammo.
It will reduce the maintenance cost of the army.
It will be part of the next upgrade.
We will do this again in the coming weeks.
John,
I will look into it in details.
I do however have a major problem.
The price of a defensive missile was reduced today (in the code), by 15%. It will be in the next upgrade.
the price of offensive missile is not changed.
We will reduce the price of the defensive army further in the coming weeks.
we will probably not reduce the price of offensive weapons.
If we do, the cost will remain higher than the cost of the defensive army.
There is also a major issue with one weapons one ammo type. |
| DETA | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 06:41 pm
I still believe that the main issue is not one of money or what type of units. In my opinion it is the absolutely massive difference in power between players.
On one end you have players that have stored 100's of millions of weapons and countless numbers of ammo for free. They can move these reserves everywhere at any time. The fact that they are inactive on arival does very little to change this advantage.
On the other hand there are players that are restricted by what their country can support.
I'm very very happy that it is going to cost money to keep weapons in CEO's.
If everybody is limited to what their country/countries can support the power difference will shrink by a LOT. The rich will still be stronger but the gap will be many times smaller then what it is now.
As far as buying weapons and their costs. Money is hardly the issue. It is the max number of soldiers needed to maintain the weapons in a country. If you really want to make defensive weapons better lower the amount of soldiers needed for defensive weapons, or raise the number for offensive weapons. That will make much more difference then any price tuning. |
| Andy | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 08:02 pm
Defensive weapons use much smaller numbers of soldiers and officers.
This has been the case for years.
In addition, using professionals (you need some gold coins) removes the problem of numbers of soldiers available.
the changes in the defense will help reduce the differences and make smaller countries better equipped to defend themselves. |
| Lord Mndz | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 09:01 pm
Andy, wars are won by offensive weapons so if you like to see more low lvl players pvp you need to also reduce their maintenance as well. army draining money when buying supplies and ammo, these have to be reduced much more or new players should given some higher income to keep the army. 20-30B increase per game month will not change the world for me, but it will change situation for small coutries in general. |
| Gaz | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 09:05 pm
When are these changes taking effect with regards to the ceo's and storage? Some pre-warning would help players adjust |
| E O | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 09:17 pm
Andy you're responding to tons of players at once (which I appreciate), so I'll keep my post brief and point at something you said that I agree with.
You said this:
Quote:EO
You don't fight to WL20 even in a week.
we can add another 20 levels in several hours.
as I said, when you have 5, you can drop one and get another one where you want it.
We could extend it.
If you are experienced in many wars against a C3 country, maybe continue with C3 countries at WL5 and extend your empire to 10 countries.
I say yes please extend it. This is very close to what I've been hoping for/pushing for(option to keep fighting c3 countries at a low-mid level IF YOU CHOOSE for no extra reward like gold coins, cash etc.). This is exactly what Gaz's proposal was except instead of level 5 like you said, he said level 3. If you would do it at level 5, that'd work just fine in my opinion. |
| Andy | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 11:14 pm
This is a good discussion.
There are many suggestions and I hope it will continue for a while.
changes like storage at enterprises takes some time and should not be extreme. need to think about it, have a level of free storage etc.
When we know what should be done, there will be an advance notice.
Having military units participate in the defense could be added in two weeks or so.
also making it possible to fight C3 countries at a lower War level will take several weeks.
I don't think this one needs an advanced notice.
I hope for more reactions from players and other ideas might pop up.
We will be happy if the war game could be transformed into a more active feature with more participants.
Having more PvP wars and more land wars could depend on better tuning and balancing of weapons and units.
Lowering the cost is I think quite clear.
Improving profitability for the same reasons started quite some time ago. |
| Gaz | Tuesday, September 29, 2020 - 11:52 pm
I missed that EO, thx .Level 5 with 10 countries, level 8 with 15 and so on, could be extended?
As long as it's based on the amount of countries. So if I had 12 countries and suddenly I had 2 I would be able to fight c'3 at level 3 again, and work back up?
That seems a good solution. |
| Demerzel | Wednesday, September 30, 2020 - 08:44 pm
As a returning player that played back in the time there was no GC, I will agree that I'm lost here.
Wars are so much more complicated that back in time and the in-game guide to ''win a war in 10 min'' is not event good anymore. What more, I dont find that guide usefull to learn how to make wars after that.
You need to test stuff, see what works against what. That take time and money. I find myself on FB where I'm at lv 3 war and cannot win against a C3 cause I'm still testing and playing around to understand the new game.
So that mean I cannot expand anymore because :
1. Cannont win (for now) against a C3 level 3
2. Cannot PVP on Inactive players because of the 52 days I need to president (make sense to eliminate abuse, but stil...)
I will say that the 300B every day to new players help, but I need to juggle between testing weapons in war I will not win (really expensive) and developping my economy with that money.
I love the idea of merging the weapons in one group, but I understand the equilibrium you need to keep with the price. Why not then have 2 groups :
1. Purely defensive with the actual price
2. Hybride, that cost more to buy and to maintain
Player would then have the possibility balenace their army depending their budget. High risk high reward, because you could as a country ''eliminate'' your need for pure defense, but if you lose your hybrid army by attacking, you are left defenseless. I think it would make to game really interesting.
-------------------
If any english mistake, sorry! English is not my first language and I'm trying really hard to write properly. |
| John Galt | Wednesday, September 30, 2020 - 09:52 pm
If you want defense to be cheaper in a merged weapon set up, just give defending units a blanket advantage in combat over attacking units. Problem solved. The weapons need to be merged. The amount of weapon types currently in the game is ridiculous, and most of them are completely useless.
There also needs to be other possible outcomes for war other than conquest. Conquest should be extremely difficult. Limited wars should be the norm. |
| Gaz | Wednesday, September 30, 2020 - 11:05 pm
I was in the same situation Demerzel with the 52 days rule. It was frustrating just waiting around. |
| Andy | Thursday, October 1, 2020 - 12:27 pm
The C3 wars for beginners should work better.
I will look into it.
cost of war will be reduced further in the next upgrade. |
| ROBERT E LEE | Friday, October 2, 2020 - 12:18 am
Agree with Mndz on lowering defense cost all around having standing army is expensive
Also think maybe speed up the time it takes to build a country , guess quicker population growth so that way loosing acountry wouldn’t sting as much
Maybe try some advertising Facebook YouTube twitter need fresh body’s
Also storing weapon in a ceo should remain free , if that changes I will prob say goodbye to simcountry |
| Zentrino | Friday, October 2, 2020 - 02:35 am
When did I miss the announcement that we will start paying expenses for weapons in our enterprise? So the game becomes even more unplayable? I don't expect I would stick around long after that terrible change. Let me know if I should put the weapons in one country so one person gets 500T in weapons or spread them out among the empire so multiple people can grab them up. |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Friday, October 2, 2020 - 03:48 am
Hey Andrew,
I'll be the first to say, I am by no means an expert on the war game, but I do offer "motherly" advice. Try not to do too much at once or you will be overwhelmed. Fix what is needing to be fixed first before doing any major new changes. Remember, you won't be able to please everyone. Having said this, I would strongly listen to your older player base who have played the war game throughout the years to date. This is where you will obtain your most experienced advice and good suggestions.
I've been privy to much conversation by these players, and they have wonderful suggestions to offer a quality war game for all player types. Remember, you want to involve your long-standing players, because they are needed to carry the game forward to our newest generation of players! My recommendation is to listen to players like John Galt, Mndz, Zentrino, EO, Ragnar, Johanas, Robert E. Lee, etc. who have tested war tactics over the years, and know what works and what doesn't work. They won't steer you wrong, because like me, they love this game and want it to prosper.
I think if you bring back some of what we loved most about the game 12-15 years ago - the war game of old....conquering countries to gain assets, selling off population, makes war so much more exciting and rewarding. I think the game was at its best when players benefited from playing with federations vs. the solo game, although this could still be an option. It promotes more forum/chat banter, competition, and I think that "presence" is so important to anyone popping into the game for a look-see. Interaction is key.
Love and hugs,
Your "game" Mom |
| Andy | Friday, October 2, 2020 - 08:57 pm
Thank you.
We will try to do more to revive the war game but also try to reduce the number of military units.
keeping huge armies is too expensive and it becomes unsustainable.
Hiding big armies to prevent cost is a bad solution.
It makes it impossible for smaller players to participate in the war game.
We think that what we have in mind will help most players participate in the war game.
changes, as I said before, will be gradual.
we will not introduce large changes and there will be no revolutions. |
| Andy | Sunday, October 11, 2020 - 04:33 pm
We intend to introduce the military units defense support function into simcountry in the coming week.
It means that if a target is attacked and a military unit is within range, that unit will support the defense if it has weapons that can help the defense.
Unrelated, we will also reduce the maintenance cost of units as part of the general reduction of the cost of the army. |
