 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - 08:49 am  Jonni said in another thread: "As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons and targets." The famous work list of 5 years ago has a solution to simplify logistics and reduce clicking: "8. Create an open market for military units.To simplify logistics, I suggest: 1. Go back to allowing weapons to be fired from military bases. Military bases should function as if they are fully supplied military units. It's redundant to need military units and supply units to shoot weapons having enough range to reach their targets from a base. Players will remain motivated to use military units and supply units for invasions and remote deployments.To decrease the number of targets, I suggest: 3. Limit the number of forts to 100, with no extra forts allowed from production contracts.
| |
| Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - 04:05 pm 1. That is well and good but what happens when they are not in range? Is there some way to make easier management of large numbers of weapons? If the military base is attacked, how is this worked out with the weapons based there? 2. The problem is not in obtaining weapons. We have them. They are readily available. 3. I am not sure I have a problem with this but this doesn't help me with my logistics issue. 4. So, I have all these weapons, and now I am limited in the number of units I can squeeze them into? Are these units still the same size? Talk about a mess. 5. I don't object to this one either. Providing garrisons for so many targets is a defensive burden. I would not be for a drastic change here but would not shed tears if there were 25% less targets to garrison. Maybe if the number of cities, towns, and counties stayed static rather than additional ones being created with size. Nothing like protecting your people with garrisons and realizing that your people are being attacked in cities and towns you were not aware of.
| |
| Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - 05:16 pm 1. When a target is not within range of a base, it could be hit from a military unit deployed elsewhere. Military units only expand ranges when they are deployed out of the country. Firing some weapons from bases leaves weapons management largely the same. But it reduces the need for the logistics of military supplies, food, gasoline, trucks, etc. Why would soldiers move tons of stuff out of a base to hit a target within range of the base? As usual, when either a military base, military unit, or supply unit is attacked, some weapons there might be destroyed. 2. Obtaining certain weapons is a logistics problem because on most worlds certain weapons cannot be produced. Weapons that cannot be produced within a world are not readily available in that world. Either a player needs the political connections to get an in-world direct contract, or he has to deal with the logistics of the space program. 3. The fewer the targets, the less shooting is needed. The less shooting is needed, the less weapons and ammo are needed. The less weapons and ammo are needed, the less logistics is needed. 4. Why should there be unlimited military units and supply units cluttering a map, and providing unlimited targets? That's the real mess. 5. We agree.
| |
| Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - 05:35 pm 4. Well, I am the president/commander-in-chief and all that. I have 10's of thousands of every weapon type available (maybe more)... and I choose to make units that cap at 850? What? I am still not sure. Are you for my suggestion on the other thread or not?
| |
| Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - 06:20 pm 4. I'm suggesting a reasonable limit, as opposed to the current unlimited numbers. If some weapons could be fired from bases, you could deploy plenty of weapons in bases. The limit of weapons per base is many times higher than the limit of weapons per unit. I've read your suggestion on another thread for simplifying logistics. It's insightful and worth considering.
| |
| Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - 04:49 am I think Madoff is on to something in this post. I definitely agree with his original points with the exception of #4. Regarding item 4, there are already limits to how much you can deploy in the sense that the GM has stricter rules regarding negative country cash balances and other internal economic factors that automatically deactivate your weapons and then only allow a 10% reactivation per month.Plus one pays a hefty initial price for full or even partial deployment of multiple units or garrisons. Considering the costs of unit deployment to a country, it can be argued that it is fairly controlled now. Also, I don't see any contradiction with Madoff's ideas and Aires super unit idea which, as I in the end agreed, was neutral in the offensive/defensive war scheme. I am especially glad about item #3 which proposes to return the game to 100 forts. This development of super fortress countries simply is not good for the game and goes directly to the issue of too many targets.As Madoff shrewdly pointed out in item 3 of his response to Aires, "The fewer the targets, the less shooting is needed. The less shooting is needed, the less weapons and ammo are needed. The less weapons and ammo are needed, the less logistics is needed." This addresses some of the concerns of what you Aires, said you have with logistics.
| |
| Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - 02:17 pm Why are all of these ideas solely in favor of the attacker? It is just as important to be able to defend your country. If your country was under attack I believe you would want the defensive advantages you want to take away from others. I hope the GM will not take away the balance of defense vs. offense.
| |
| Thursday, April 2, 2015 - 05:05 am These military reforms would not be biased either toward offense or defense. Neither side would lose or gain anything more than the other side. Let's review: Corps that produce military units. This should include both defensive and offensive corps. Shooting weapons from bases. This includes both defensive and offensive bases. Make all materials available on all worlds. This overcomes a current handicap of offense. But more importantly, defenders and attackers equally would gain easier access to currently restricted offensive weapons and ammo. Decrease the number of targets (i.e., limit to number of forts, military units, and supply units; fewer cities, towns, and counties). Both the offense and the defense would have fewer targets. It's not only the defender. And the attacker has to defend too, right? Fewer targets will result in fewer attacks and fewer automated counterattacks in any war. That expedites war without favoring defense or offense. Fewer targets also will result in less need for weapons, ammo, and logistics both for defense and offense. Decreasing the number of forts, bases, cities, towns, and counties already has been done. It has been done more than once for some entity types. CEO corps were removed as targets. Throughout those cutbacks of targets, the proportionate components of the war index have remained fairly stable, give or take occasional tweaking. Based on that history, we can trust that the balance of defense and offense will remain the same.
| |
| Thursday, April 2, 2015 - 06:08 am Wouldn't less targets mean less chances for air d to intervene?
| |
| Thursday, April 2, 2015 - 06:21 am Madoff do you have any countries?
| |
| Thursday, April 2, 2015 - 07:12 pm cl108: Yes. The previous decreases in the number of targets didn't result in any noticeably weaker defense. Whether any defense is made stronger as compensation depends on how the changes are coded.
| |
| Friday, July 10, 2015 - 07:24 pm Pardon my intrusion. A couple of questions answered would be appreciated. Weapons being fired from military bases. Is that just for the offense? Is that to be applied to forward bases as well? How will the number of weapons that can be fired be arrived at? If we are still to use the extant military units, wouldn't it be easier to use the supply units as well, and give an immediate delivery time (or close enough to it) for supply units to restock military units at the same base? Would we need to manually place ammunition dumps in our bases? In regards to the space program i.e. weapon systems and ammunition. How much does that contribute to game income in gc, and is there any advocation to institute some other system to compensate. (There was a thread about tourism etc. Shifting the balance of payments from the war players to the peaceful players. Isn't the latter more numerous at the present time?) Reducing the "Super Fortress" model. My understanding is people are using this model to 1)slow down the tempo of a war, and 2)increase the number of casualties inflicted upon an aggressor. Would there be a concomitant increase in defensive capability? For example, the hit ratios of defensive systems, or the number of attacks by strategic assets to compensate? Concerning the tempo - should there be an increased duration for player vs player wars? Or is the blackout period sufficient? (wrote this before I read the last post. So I'm asking for speculation I guess.) Many thanks for your time and consideration, MNey
| |
| Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 07:44 pm Weapons being fired from military bases was a feature of the game during the first half of its history. Let's call that war engine 1.0. Offensive and defensive weapons both used military bases for shooting. There was no need to supply any ammo to the bases. Ammo, military supplies, military services, gasoline, etc was used automatically from the country's supplies. I'm suggesting bringing back that feature. I'm assuming, and hoping, the gamemasters didn't trash that coding when they introduced war engine 2.0. It shouldn't be overly complicated to reactivate a feature that's been deactivated. I can't remember the limit on how many weapons one could shoot from a base. I defer to the gamemasters to pick a reasonable limit. Remote bases are part of war engine 2.0, along with military units and supply units. Those new entities made war super complicated and unpopular. Every aggressor is also a defender. Therefore, my suggestion to reduce the number of targets does not favor aggressors over defenders. It's dubious that there would be any need to increase defensive capability. One reason that war engine 2.0 made war unpopular is that it vastly increased the number of targets. I'm not advocating shooting from remote bases, although it's not a bad idea. I don't have any suggestions about the space program, or about supply units, or about a time schedule for war. Above all, I'm not suggesting any massive coding to create war engine 3.0, unlike some other suggestion threads.
| |
| Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 08:56 pm I think tweaking the current system with a 0 delivery time for units colocated at a military facility would be far easier. You could still use the unit in situ. And there would be no need to set a limit on weapon systems fire-able at one time - that would already be in place in the current system. 400 for a fighter/bomber wing, 125 for interceptors etc. Changing all the unit numbers in for a static number would definitely change the current balance in the war engine. I.e. hitting a target with 100 bombers/300 fighters to be met with 400 interceptors, that would increase the casualties on the attacking side. A stealth bomber wing of 400 would take a long time to chew through, while inflicting huge losses.(that would probably even out.) What about strategic weapon systems? The reason I mentioned the space program, is that is currently a source of income for the gm's. Not sure they would simply cut it out, without a way to replace lost income. (this was from the idea to be able to manufacture all weapon systems across worlds. Maybe instead, allowing them to be created in space by renting gm owned manufacturing systems, or a gm market similar to direct trading for cash - letting the players still do so also Countries would still get access to needed weapons and ammunition, the gm would still receive an income). How would weapon quality and ammunition upgrading capability be affected? Having to do the whole thing at once would be very expensive. Many thanks for your response, MNey
| |
| Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:00 pm err, number of casualties would remain the same, there would be a redistribution on the weapon systems they were inflicted on.
| |
| Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 11:48 pm Yes, I agree that tweaking is what the war engine needs, not a massive overhaul. Our esteemed gamemasters barely have time to answer emails. It's highly improbable they can find time to code the complicated schemes some people propose. Since I'm not trying to make things complicated, I don't have any suggestions about the quality of weapons and ammo, or about the space program. If bases are reactivated for shooting, then each player would choose individually whether to shoot either from domestic bases or from military units. That's a choice between minimal logistics using off-the-shelf ammo, or complex logistics using upgraded ammo. Reactivating the deactivated bases, and reducing the number of targets are relatively simple improvements. A bonus would be to create a market for military units, which has been on the gamemaster worklist for 5 years.
|
