W3C - Tuning the War Game

What does a large federation have to gain from attacking a single player of a small federation? That sounds like a tremendous investment of effort.

Further, no such animal currently exists in the game. We should be so lucky to have one or two federations that could be considered "large". Most current federations have no more than one or two members of a war level that qualifies for PvP. Sometimes what we are afraid of is not worse that what we have now.

Federations are very unpredictable. They depend completely on their particular members, their personalities, and time constraints. Federations already have decent game mechanics. I've seen very good federations and not so good ones.

For now, how about we not worry about federations.

If the concern is about predators, then let's worry about extreme stockpiles of weapons. This is a problem created by the space program. A player can stockpile weapons in various worlds and CEOs. Then quickly transfer some of the stockpile to one world for one war. That's not a simulation.

That gimmick means that a multi-world empire can attack a country on one world. That's ridiculous.

I've already suggested ending the transfer of weapons through the space program. I've long suggested to allow all weapons to be produced on all worlds.

It's no gimmick and is not ridiculous. It's the way the game works and it would make managing forces just on one world much more difficult, than is is now, if it were changed. Further, it does nothing to fix what is broken. Why make the war game even more difficult than it is now when war participation is already exceedingly rare?

As to federations, point to one good one that remains on any world. Then count how many players have seen a PvP war or even have a war level that lets them participate. There are no good federations left, and that says something.

what about limiting our discussion for now, to FB.

implement the changes on FB where war and risk are "expected". This is our war world.

'That gimmick means that a multi-world empire can attack a country on one world. That's ridiculous.

I've already suggested ending the transfer of weapons through the space program. I've long suggested to allow all weapons to be produced on all worlds.'

This is a valid point and one i'd love to see implemented.

Ceasing the transfer of weapons from other worlds would mean at the very most, that the economy on 'relevant' world would be up and down like a yoyo, giving incentive for people to invest in more 'military' corps. Furthermore, that incentive could also direct players to keep small stock piles from their own production, thus, some aspect of defence / attack coming into preparation.

It would also mean, as Madoff has clearly pointed out, it would be a in-house war only, not half a universe vs a city. Clearly unfair, but quite surprised how this has been an oversight for so long.

Good suggestion Madoff, good suggestion.

We are talking about changing the war rules.
It makes sense to do it on one world first and see how it works, then decide on the other worlds.

FB is the so called war world so starting there makes sense.

Also on FB you can produce everything and the military industry is now bigger on all worlds.

The transfer of weapons is not more dangerous than a federation with 20 countries attacking a single player.

Weapons transfers during wars could be looked into but the transfer of weapons using cargo shuttles was part of an effort to reduce military cost that was far too high in the past and is now far lower.

we could put transferred weapons in the reserves. we could require the availability of workers and managers when reactivating weapons.

Producing weapons too is easier now as these corporations use much reduced number of workers.

We need to improve the war game not by forbidding this and that. we have done this all the time. We want to reduce limitations in general and add incentives for war.

Defense capabilities must be excellent also for small countries by they will have to set them up.

Here is a suggestion to prevent all against one federation wars.

If two large federations fight, that is OK.
If a small federation attacks a large one, that is their problem too. fine with us.

If a federation with 10 countries starts a war against a federation with 3 countries, only three will declare.

Instead, they can decide which 3 and declare.

If the small federation has war treaties with another 4 countries, it makes it 7 so seven will be able to declare.

In general, the number of countries on both sides will remain in balance.

FB seems easy to fix. It is the world that should have the 21 days war protection, as it has still, and no war level protection. As it is possible to transfer weapons via cargo shuttles, my new war player guide already recommends getting a start elsewhere first, and then trying FB. This prevents player elimination and allows the player to "pick their risk" by establishing and transferring to the war world what they wish.

Limiting the number of wars is counter-intuitive, so I don't like it. It doesn't make it easy for a new player to understand, which tends to give the advantage to an established player. Also, it is difficult to account for scenarios that present themselves when implementing such a limitation. Just like war levels, where predatory players simply kept their war level low.

Offhand, one issue that I see is that it follows a narrative that has never been true. Countries don't fight countries. Players fight players. Also, war treaties cause a mess in my experience. I never sign them, as responding to a certain player and situation requires more thought that automatic war declarations will allow me.

Andy: I posted it on the other thread I think. Of the highest priority, it is important to make sure that notification of war declarations via email is working. I can still confirm that this does not work, as well as notifications that an entity is about to expire. This is very dangerous, particularly for a player with empires on multiple worlds.

We will find out why it does not work and will add it to the notifications.
There are many types of notifications, this one is missing.

Suggest more, and we will add them to the alerts.

Ability to attack a country or countries on any world and not just on the world you are actually on.

If attacking a country on another world, what weapons could actually be used to reach that world and cause destruction to the country being attacked, and because it is being attacked by a country on another planet, war protection not being effective because the attack is coming from a country on another planet rather than their own.

If being attacked by a country on another planet, your country wouldn't be able to be taken from you, but it would make players think about all the possible threats that could occur from anywhere, not just from countries on their home world.

This must be a misunderstanding.

You always wage war in one world where your country is.
you never attack a country in another world, no weapons have that range.

you can however, get yourself a country on that other world, move weapons around and then wage war there too.

Mine was a suggestion Andy if this is something new that you and the game designers were to consider going forward for any future changes to the game that you are making on an on-going basis, hope you are now clear on why I just suggested this and posted it?

Oops I misunderstood.
Such a change will require a rewrite of much of the war engine and not really needed.
you can wage war on all worlds with one empire, trade between worlds, move goods and weapons.

Not a problem and yes I know, all the best W.S