Tried the new war game yet? (Kebir Blue)

I had about the same Level 3 experience today as Parsifal with a bit lower costs. Military units disappeared but country had 3T assets. I'm happy with this (Level 3 anyway) as it is. Thank you GM.

I lost only 385 (or 387?) bombers. Used about 12,000 air to air and 17,000 bombs. 280B?

wb- it doesn't matter anymore. the games changed.

Look ... whatever criticisms we all may have of this it should (more or less) protect new players and econ only players. I'm guessing that means a lot to a number of people. Econ players can build their empires and not have to worry about warlords wiping them out in a day. New players are untouchable until they come out and take a few C3's. If they want to stay at level 0 or 1 they can just buy countries. They can take their time learning the econ side of the game and join the war game when and if they are ready.

If you have been playing this game for years you may have enough GC/SC$ that you are playing for free, and if you do have to put some RL money in now and then is that so bad?

If the c3's at any level have enough assets to cover the cost of taking them + that should be good enough. Raiding inactives might be more or less out but so what?

The people at higher war levels will be able to blow each other up to their hearts content, the lower war level people won't be preyed upon. The general idea seems pretty sound to me, and I am assuming the kinks will be worked out over time. The response to the excessive difficulty of taking Level 3 C3's was about as quick as you could expect.

Bottom Line:

The people who have been in the game for years that want to stay in the game can make suggestions to GM (they are apparently listening), adapt to changing circumstances, level up, work with each other (war games, etc) to keep the game interesting for them.

What is more important is that this new system may keep new players hanging around longer and keep econ only players from quitting because they went to work one day and came home to find they no longer have much left in the game. This game needs lots more players, the more players there are the more interesting it will be.

Wendy, I'm not sure we should be calling this WB's war engine, even though he says it was his suggestion he also says none of his suggestions were implemented. Like I said though, I'm not sure because I'm obviously too much of an idiot to follow well thought through reasoning like that.

Fascinating. Mr. Green, you state "The people who have been in the game for years that want to stay in the game can make suggestions to the GM (They are apparently listening)"
I voiced my opinion in a poll calling for the repeal of the new war rules. I voted for repeal. I just checked the status of that poll. 16 voted to repeal and only 8 are in favor of the changes.
In light of that, your statement does not appear rational. Just like the mythical Earth in which a group of donkeys attempted to lead some stray elephants to water in the midst of a drought. The elephants just said no! Apparently here, only the voice of the minority counts. In light of the current poll results, your comment is irrational.

Exactly Joe, great points.

Aaron, try reading a bit more, you might then know where the suggestion came from. The GM's took my initial suggestion of having varying strength c3's so that players could learn how to fight without risk of being demolished by others and to load up those higher level c3's with assets to give players an incentive to learn. The GM's then turned that into a system with the hopes of solving multiple issues in the war game. I happened to be one of the many who were quite interested and excited about that system. It hasn't been fully implemented yet.

Spock, the GM's are listening and the system has already been modified once even thought it had been in place for only all of 4 days at that point. They are responsive to the issues, quite abundantly so when you consider what response was like 6 months ago. This system will work and it will change the game in a positive way, it just has to get implemented completely and then have the kinks ironed out.

Good for you for voting to get rid of a system you haven't even had the chance to completely experience yet or for the issues to be ironed out of...you like some others will choose to jump on any change because of a small negative consequence (which makes your whole 'elephant' and 'donkey' comparison seem that much more ironic) while ignoring the positive change it can bring to a game that has been on a fast decline for about a year now. But you'll have to excuse the GM's if they don't take a WHOPPING 8 person vote difference to dismantle an entire system that hasn't even been implemented completely. Majority rule isn't always correct or right, just ask American Indians, African Americans, Jews or the LGBT community. Plus if we're going to go by votes and vote differences, the priority should apparently be to "create some sort of sport game between nations every 4 years" as that received a whopping 23 votes with just 4 against...19 vote difference! I guess repeal will have to wait in line.

It is possible... and likely, the system sucks.

It is called WB's War engine because unlike Tom, you wet your pants every time someone says they don't like it. Should you be surprised? Really? I mean... REALLY!?

Well four days after implementation the fed forum Dead as ever. I'm waiting for the flocks of traffic to overload the server with the federation forum flying off the handle. So much for improving the federation aspect. Any else have ideas?

Im not sure about lower level players not bein preyed on,not all players will level up also any fed can recuit a new or low level player then teach him war game ,bingo you got your self a low level raider....me shrugs... can anyone verify that ,also if this can happen then all this for nothing?

The level 3 players could still be at risk of unwanted wars but my understanding is new players are at level 0 or 1. Until they start taking C3's they can't be touched by anybody who is now in the game because we are all at least level 3 ... unless you have never conquered C3's, and if that is the case you are probably not much of a war threat to others. Players that just want to play the econ game are good for the game too (selfish thought: because their countries are where I want my CEO corps to be).

Hey Joe yes new players are on level 0-1(and can be a threat),and im not sayin encon players are not part of game.im just saying what i think could happ. sorry if i didnt explain it better

Wendy, there is a new thread for bickering. Use it there.

White Boy, in the second paragragh of your last pos you addressed my reposnse to Joe Green. Your initial first response seemed reasonable even if I disagree with it. However, your analogy concerning a game vote to historical wrongs done among entire ethnic, racial, religous and sexually oriented groups of peoples over the past hundreds of years is to me appalling and speaks of a person who places much more weight on the insignificant versus the real world reality.
I could understand and even chuckle if you compared the current Simcountry poll to lets say, American Idol. But to compare it to the near extermination of Native Americans, the forced transfare and later enslavement of an entire race (my great, great grandmother was an African slave in Puerto Rico), the demonic evil of the Holocaust against the Jews, and the ongoing civil rights struggle of people of a different sexual orientation, is to me beyond the pale. Where you find the moral equivalancy, I do not know.

Regarding the Simcountry war rule change. I suppose it would surprise you if I told you I agree with many of your points of view. A change allowing for addition of the ability to fight benign high level c3's with potential rewards, even if they only compensate for the effort would make sense if it ran parallell to the current game so as not to upset the efforts of long time players who have already gone through a minor peronal treasure to achieve what they now have.
Also, C3 war has always been a personal concern to me and I have always felt empires should be completely out of war protection in the event they become agressive. As for new players, we already have a Federation system. A new player only needs to petition to join one for protection. I do no agree that new players are as vulnerable as it has been claimed.
Your dismissal of what is now a 17 to 8 vote against the current game rule changes is dissapointing. Mostly veteran players vote in these polls and you have decided in your mind that their opinion doesn't count. Honestly, I find that insulting.
I am not angry at your reply. I am angry at the GM. They have hijacked your important message for their own designs, and you are now boxed into defending certain decisions of theirs which I don'think even you agree with. I for instance was told this afternoon that at level 3 I can't declare war on a level 4 unless I play this new forced c3 war game. I read through the posts and find even you don't agree with that based on your reply to Neidy. (My sister in law). Almost every game addition you have promoted can be implemented without these new GM rules.
I believe my analogy is much more applicable than the analogy you drew. I see no Irony in it.

Spock, you're right, I apologize...shouldn't have blown you off or made such a drastic comparison.

I still disagree with you, but I should have done so more respectfully. There are aspects of the system I really like and aspects I could do without but I do support it overall and I believe many players already do and once implementation is complete most will.

As far as public voting, people often only see the negative consequences of any change immediately and would therefore vote against things that are over time in their own best interests, I believe that is the case now. If in 6 months time the system is fully implemented and the kinks are worked out and it still is viewed negatively and hasn't made a positive impact in the game, then I'll be out there lobbying with you for it's repeal.

Give it time...please...the path we have been on isn't sustainable.

WB

Normally I wouldn't want to be a lab rat for six months. I pray it doesn't take long.

6 months... wow.

White boy, You did not need to apologize. I was only trying to point out flaws in your comparisons. Your ideas to improve the game are sound and with merit. They are being implemented by the GM as a subsitute to the current game rather than useful additions. Since I am boycotting the war level game, I am now being forced to play a solely economic game as I have no ability to support friends and friendly federations. I will be on the sidelines over the next few months watching how this works out. Hopefully your faith in the GM will be vindicated and I will become a full active game participant. If the game changes for the worse as I believe it will, I will probably leave. The game will survive without me in either instance.