W3C - War Levels

Raiding is enhanced.
allowing you to make more money if you make the effort and there are many gold coins to win in addition.

Some want to play chicken and only fight war level 3 C3 countries and never expose themselves to a PvP war.

that is not a good strategy in this game.

Andy you said you where going to test some weapons can I just ask how you test them? If your not testing v a fed air response plus mobile units then you's wont get proper feedback that applies ingame? Just checking

OK, maybe it was addressed in the past. But the issue still remains, you're not going to get pvp wars if there isn't an incentive. The fact that because of space transfers I could line up an enemy that I think I can take, but then their defense can go from practically nothing to invincible in the day before the war starts is a massive disincentive. Same on the other side, if I line up a nice target with lots of resources and then by the time I can win the war the resources are all gone that's also a massive disincentive.

I just don't understand why you would think that the reason players aren't doing pvp wars has anything to do with the fact that they can raid for cash. The cash you can earn from raiding allows a player to build a strong empire that could enable them to actually fight pvp wars. Forcing them to higher war levels where they have to risk things like mobile units and have to use maximum quality offense just to beat a C3 that actually has cash in it isn't going to help.

I have a suggestions that I have been brainstorming this week that I will add to the forum soon, probably tonight. I think it will help with your concern about unexpected resistance when evaluating a pvp war. It will help address the fact the obviously your opponent is the player, not just the country your looking it. It expands an idea I had on another thread previously.

On mobile unit balance, the defensive units are fine. Keep in mind the increased costs of upgrading units of already high quality. I have seen more mobile units deployed at 500 quality, likely for this reason. The concern is that their offensive counterparts lack an effective configuration and the flexibility of non-mobile units allow them to be more useful by including a larger number of engaged weapons. Mobile offensive units such as, for example, a 400 fighter plane unit and a 600 off aa / 250 medium range missile battery unit would bring more balance between offensive and defensive mobile units.

As to navies, I started a thread on those. I am opposed to the idea of defensive air forces responding but believe some weapon should be available in garrisons that fire back. If naval missile batteries are not added to garrisons then defensive missile batteries make the most sense. I think one issue with wars is that most offensive weapons are most effectively countered by just a few types of defensive weapons. If you were to ask "what counters this?" again and again through the different offensive weapons you would hear helicopters or interceptors repeatedly given as the answer. Weapons should be more varied in effectiveness and wars should not always follow the same script.

Viking mentioned the ineffectiveness of conventional missiles. I think there is something to that. Perhaps missile attacks from land-based conventional and cruise batteries should not be countered by helicopters, as effective defense is already available in garrisons provided by defensive missile batteries and missile interceptor batteries. This would put these land-based weapons on par with the navy equivalents.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said Aries, but I don't think the way to increase the likelihood of wars is to make them more complex by adding even more variability to it, the game is tedious enough.

As for DMB hitting cruisers, I don't understand the justification for there being just this one type (at least that is effective) of weapon that doesn't get a response from air D and AAB/DMB. I think there should be air support from navy ints possibly or instead of air, have defensive navy units with destroyers/etc. that respond to navy's in the same way that air D responds to air/land attacks. Or, as I suggested, keep it simple and just have heli's attack them like they used to.

As for garrisons, they're too small as it is much less with another added battery.

I agree on offensive missile batts (LBCB/Conv), they have a longer range than the heli's and def batts that attack them in defense which makes zero sense. They should only be defensed by MIB as it would be in the real world.

All of that being said, the original point was what about what would increase PvP war and I've posted this elsewhere but I'll add it hear as well:

The war levels have zero to do with the fact that there aren't more wars, it's the following:

#1 Can't trade cash for GC
#2 Can't sell pop down to 20 mil
#3 With quality/mobile units defense is WAY stronger than offense
#4 Because of space there's no way to tell what your enemies actual defense is
#5 Because of space there's no way to know that the enemy will not just strip out their country during the war if they're losing

You'll notice that there are many players at war levels that are high enough to actually engage in PvP war, but none of them do it and it used to be that all of these people would be sitting with WP on. Now, they don't need WP because they know all of the above is true.

War level 12 on all 5 worlds. Lets go Boys. I'll go head to head. Bring it. Evil B---th. Jennifer Mas Mota Empire. LOL. It's only a game... Right?

You're funny Jennifer

Thank You David. I try! LOL

i agree that there needs to be a bigger danger factor this includes doing away with war levels it would force people to actually cultivate alliances and join federations... also the limit of countries in a federation should be lifted or increased greatly so small players and newbs can stand up to the bigger players

I strongly agree with the larger federation numbers.

Federation # limits definitely need to be removed.

You will have to explain why the purchase of gold coins with game money leads to pvp. More cash seems to be available in raiding, for far less risk, than in pvp.

I have already suggested direct gold coin awards for pvp that are a part of my Total/All-Out War suggestion on the appropriate forum. The goal with that setup is to reward victory in real wars with real risk with gold coins and avoid potentially staged wars for profit. That victory over higher population countries confers greater gold coins awards makes moot the need to sell pop later.

At similar costs, defense is stronger than offense, as intended. This is to give some comfort that it is possible to establish effective defense. It is beatable though, and not just with navies.

As to evaluating player defense, I have made my suggestion, as promised, to the forum for Player Power Rankings. This will make it possible to have some idea of the resources an opposing player has available in a conflict.

About Space Centers, I think it was proposed, but does not appear to be implemented, the ability to destroy them and their contents in war. This seemed to be a good idea and makes them have strategic importance to allow reinforcements or a retreat of resources or to prevent the ability of your opponent to do so.

I am in the US in the past week.
when back, next week, I will look in more details into any suggestions made here.

Feel free to mail the gamemaster,
It will be looked into next week.

Part of what we have said is that there will be additional incentive to fight PvP wars.

We will see in time if they happen or not.

In addition, I must comment that changes in the war game, and changes in general, have always met rejections.

we had that when we stopped the killing of new players.

we had it when we stopped the ridiculous exchanging of game money into gold coins.
(raid and exchange was the name of the game).

we have it now when we try to get players stop hiding behind their war protection, making easy money, raiding easy to conquer countries and never taking a risk.

We started this game with HUGE very frequent PvP wars.
The negative was that you could come back in the morning and your entire empire was gone. you had nothing.
Many came back and took revenge but many also left.

We want the wars back, obviously it is possible as we had them before, but we also want to have the basic protection, both for your main assets and for new players.

You should realize that new players will join and walk into a different reality, not used to sitting on their hands earning money, they might just do the obvious, and either fight wars, or go for the economic, very profitable game, or both.