| Josias | Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 04:21 pm 
Regarding the war game.
If you go back to the original event, and discussion, that resulted in War Levels. I was there. I was one the the bad guys, the hyper-aggressive, hyper-active players, that these extra measures of defense were created to stop.
Truth be told. Both sides had a point. Aggressively raiding players, and trashing their countries, is toxic. But also, playing the power game, w/o basic war game knowledge, and ostracizing would be war players, so that no one knows how to fight, is also toxic.
A decade of gradually increasing the strength of defense, has suffocated the political game, and generic enthusiasm. But at the same time, w/o that, there will always be those that use any exploit, or weakness, to their advantage, and cause just as much harm.
With the introduction of wind farms, and huge incomes, it has created the effect that players can do, much, much more than they could before. And the enthusiasm for the game, is growing.
But we've reached the point that the war game is unplayable. You can reasonably easy, create an unbreakable defense. But then the question is, how do we fight? and compete? and play politics? These are genuine game aspects.
Its been a long time. But I remember Laguna, suggesting that you just do away with the "take over country" option. Doing that, would eliminate the sting of losing a war. But alternate options would be necessary, to make it worth it.
I remember you folks, talking about "partial victories" where you could gain access to the losers natural resources. Other options, like gaining access to the country stock pile of resources, and a version of nationalizing corps, (like targon corps) and even income tax, and such. I also remember "missions," but you never gave any sort of details about that.
Recently, I suggested, to remove the war index, and go with the welfare index gradually declining over time. Successful attacks would also reduce the welfare index. And give a "surrender," option, with a fail safe that the country will auto-surrender once the welfare index reaches whatever low point. This will result in players raising salaries, and indexes, to maintain the welfare index. Increasing running cost, and making standing armies more and more expensive. Allowing a player a surrender option, that the loser still gets to keep the country, when the country can't handle anymore, seems like a good option.
I believe -your- game is right on the verge of a resurgence of active and enthusiastic players. Mostly because of wind farms. But the war game needs to be re-tooled.
Pretty please, with a cherry on top!
Josias Jorvick
aka Orbiter |
| Zentrino | Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 09:02 pm
I agree 100% with these options and what Orbiter has said. As a player who has been around and left several times only to come back over the years, I believe the war game is important. It has been broken for a long time and seems worse than it used to be. There are too many different weapons and no guide for what they do or what is effective against what. The defense appears incredibly strong, even in low level c3s. I spent far more in lost weapons than I gained by taking a wl3 c3 country. That's absurd, and I am a retuning player with some knowledge of how to do it. A truly new player could easily fail and just leave.
I get why WL exist because building a country takes time and effort and losing it a warlord would be no fun. WL also stifle the game though. Removing them would create real incentive for collaboration and federations to protect everyone. If WL existed in the real world, NATO wouldn't exist. The EU may not even exist. The risks of war encourage diplomacy.
The idea of not losing the country in war is great. Having other options for loss would benefit everyone, although I do think takeover should remain an option. Sometimes both players are in agreement with the takeover of a country for instance. I have said many many many times. War is an important aspect of the game. Without it, eventually it becomes counting 1s and 0s, which grows boring. With windfarms making income easier, that grows boring even faster. This is NOT an endorsement to remove windfarms or make income harder. Having higher incomes helps everyone enjoy all aspects of the game.
there should be more incentive to have higher welfare index. I would love to see a real reason (besides score) to have common markets. It does seem with income from windfarms there may be less disincentive, since you can bypass the world market for items in large shortage, so maybe I will explore that again.
I also am realizing I am not sure I know how maintenance works. I see that ammo I have bought seems to be decreasing in Q. I assume it is either shortage of maintenance and/or because the Q of the maintenance is less than Q of the ammo. I am not sure which, and there is certainly no explanation in the guides so I will be left to ask around or test it myself. These things are frustrating. It shouldn't be a guessing game.
Obviously, I think the concept of this game is great. I have played so many times over the years and keep coming back because there is just nothing like it. I don't think it has to be a small niche game with only a handful of active players though. So much untapped potential here that I hope can be unleashed. |
| JamesDragonrider | Monday, February 26, 2024 - 06:25 pm
There is actually a detailed description as to what is effective against what. I was just reading through it yesterday, and it is very detailed, right down to % chance to hit, and % damage, that each unit causes to each of the possible targets.
That being said:
I have to agree that it seems far less obvious than in most war games.
It is not even clear how to refill units that have been in combat, and bring them back to full strength for the next offense or defense.
I could easily disband the damaged ones, and reform them at full strength, but I'm still trying to figure out how to simply replenish them.
I'm not convinced that protecting countries from capture is a solution in a war game. I remember when I first played, years ago, and I read about the limit of 50 countries in an empire, and thought that it was a strange limitation in a war game.
As an alternative: it could be in some ways more costly to have larger empires. For example: the time it takes for orders to go out from your capitol might be increased based upon distance, to represent the reduced control of having a huge holding to manage. Thus it could take many months for some states to send troops, start new corporations, transfer resources, etc.
Another option I suggested was to slow down wars, so that you're not taking over countries in minutes. In the real world: pilots typically only fly 1 sortie per day, but the game allows for 10+ "instantly".
Adding in factors such as troop morale and experience, that would act in ways similar to equipment and ammo quality, as well as reducing damage rates for both sides per attack, would make it take longer to actually capture territory, or even to wipe out defending units.
For example:
Empire A sends planes to clear defenses in Empire B.
Empire A sends planes from 10 countries, but due to distances, they do not arrive as a single attack, but rather as 10 separated events.
Empire B's country under attack launches their interceptors, which take out a bunch of incoming bombers, drones, and their escorting fighters.
Missiles are fired on both sides.
Then the 2nd wave hits, and the calculations are run again.
Empire A's forces would still be at or near full morale, but Empire B's forces that were involved in the first defense will have reduced morale due to having already been involved in a conflict that day.
Other units from Empire B have started to arrive by the 2nd or 3rd wave, and so will be at 100% morale, etc.
As to why ammo Q is dropping: I believe you're buying lower quality ammo that is getting averaged in to you ammo pool.
I agree: the game concept is great. I agree that it could be improved.
One of the biggest problems for most games, particularly games that have had years to mature, is that the wish list of different players will be different, and that there will be a nearly even split of likes and dislikes for any new feature added.
Another major problem is always getting the balance right.
The 3rd major group of problems is the unexpected bugs and exploits new features can add to a game. |
| Andy | Friday, March 1, 2024 - 08:03 pm
Please read the section about the balancing of the war game.
several actions have taken place and are making a difference. |
