The Carrot, the Stick, and the War Game

Which point? The point I made is that the war game requires an inducement to participate in it. You supplied the quote. What was its point? To show a war that existed before war levels that involved more players than any wars since war levels? You brought up war levels, their history, and your radical change to the war engine. The premise of the change is that it would increase participation in the war game. Which leads to the obvious question, the point of this thread.

Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?

That question is fundamental, not a nitpick. It is an attack at the very premise of your suggestion, all its other problems aside, for the moment. So what is it going to be.

Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?

For everyone else:

Is Orbiter's idea what you are waiting for to participate in the war game?

Alright. I thought about this and it is time I answer a few things I didn't start.

#1. Am I "hyper-active"?

Some know I was diagnosed with cancer last November. Less know that the tumor is over my lung and I now deal, not only with cancer, but what is called "restrictive lung disease". In short, my right diaphragm is paralyzed, it is raised up, and it, and my tumor, are pressing into my right lung. I have about half the normal lung capacity of an average person.

I experience shortness of breath with light activity, think one flight of stairs, pulling clothes out of the dryer, and such. I now have a CPAP machine to deal with sleep apnea that it appears to have caused. With luck, it may assist with my excessive sleepiness I experience throughout the day. I rarely do not take, at least, one nap during the day. In addition, I typically have 3, or more, various appointments for my different conditions/week (tomorrow, I actually had to cancel one appointment to prioritize a different one)

One term that does not apply to me is "hyper-active".


#2. What would concern me about a war engine change.


The last, and only, time I "lost" a war I was in the hospital. I was not able to be at the computer. This is something I have little control over and could easily happen again. I reported a fundamental problem with war weapons (introduced with a previous navy update), on August 24, 2014, which you can read here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/9/24089.html?1414165635

Several months later, I lost my entire FB empire to this issue. This included substantial assets including weapons, ammo, professional soldiers, and a population of about 450 million. Mere weeks after this event, the gamemaster realized the gravity of this problem I detailed months before:

"November 18, 2014

38. The Navy [ top ]

The navy is an effective weapon that can be used far away from your country. It is possible to fight the navy with offensive weapons but the defense against attacking navies and especially attacks by frigates and sea based cruise, was very limited.
This is a problem for wars where auto defense is used.

We have now added defensive capabilities that can help protect countries against navy attacks. Both defense helicopters and defensive missiles will counter attack navies in war, also conventional missiles and stealth bombers will participate in the auto defense.
This change will not diminish the capabilities of the navy but will extract a price for navy attacks. The attacker will suffer more damage to the attacking navies."


Since this fix, the ability to defend and attack has been fairly balanced. I could easily find myself in a situation that I am not able to be at the computer at a moments notice, for that matter, so could anyone. I am very concerned about changed to a system that I believe, now, offers adequate opportunity to leave an effective defense. It has nothing to do with me attempting to maintain some advantage with hyper-activity. I want my things reasonably protected if I can't be there.

i knew that was an attack, thats why i hesitated to answer it.

i'm happy being retired

yourself have proven, in your above comments that i've fought wars, i have experience in the war game.

you were a newb in my fed, when i retired,

you know that i'm retired, and testify to my experience.

i know what i'm talking about, your own comments prove that.

your agrument that my experience is out dated, is invalid, because my experience is from an era you'd see resurected.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

All this history makes my case I think. Where the above past talks of clashing feds with multiple capable war players on each side, now only a few skilled war players exist in the entire game. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

so, you state that you'd see a time of higher competition return, while dismissing the warnings from players of that time.

those that fail to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.

If you are not interested in what you are selling, is anyone else interested in buying it? I maintain that the change you are proposing would not increase participation and would likely introduce its own issues, like the navy update.

several players have stated that they like the idea. based on the merit of the idea

You like the idea but that is irrelevant if it does not motivate you to participate in the war game. You are not invested enough that I would trust you to be the architect of a substantial change to the war engine. Further, it remains in question whether it is the missing component to generate interest in the war game, in the first place. We're back to the essential questions:

Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game? -Your answer is "Nope".

Is Orbiter's idea what you are waiting for to participate in the war game? - Your entire suggestion hinges on this question.

no it doesn't hinge on that, you want it to, but it doesn't

its merit is how it addresses the immensity of the war game, and how many are turned off by it.

Remove the Attack Button

automate all attacks, based on movement, time, and targeting preferences

add player set minimum weapons level prior to auto-attacks, facing considerations, and stacking limits

"no it doesn't hinge on that, you want it to, but it doesn't

its merit is how it addresses the immensity of the war game, and how many are turned off by it."

Circular logic? Nice one. You are saying people are "turned off" by the war game. Would the solution not be to offer something that would turn them on to the war game? Would not the measure of success of such a solution be the number of new war game participants?

okay, how about I insert your words?

Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game?

circular logic, lol, how do you think an Orbiter would think? Its kinda my nature

Aries, you've ignored Aarons and, Madoff, and many others. through out the years, this has been a common complaint. complaining the war game just requires to much attention, to play casually.

you've offered no solution to these complaints, except to say its not a problem for you.

offer another solution that reduces the time commitment, can you?

Aaron:

Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game?

Madoff:

Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game?

Anyone else?:

Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game?


Better?

still not a suggestion that addresses time commitment,

those guys can speak for themselves, but what i was referring to.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Few players are willing to engage in that mind-numbing, massive clicking marathon. Players want less clicking. -Madoff<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Not many people have a lot of time to devote to a game like this so perhaps refinement and progress has been the wrong way to go in maintaining a large player base. In years past there was a pretty large and steady flow of new players building assets, there doesn't seem to be that anymore. I think it's the rl time and complication. -Aaron<!-/Quote-!>

so again, whats your suggestion to them, "get over it, it works fine for me!" ?? thats all you've offered so far.

I would not expect it to fix the war participation issue but a few things would fix some time commitment issues out there.

1. Fix Forts

-You get up to 150 and never more than 150. If you contracted it to yourself, any over 150 are lost.

-No forts are delivered if you are in an active war.

2. Fix Painting

-Some countries are unpaintable (there is no way to defeat these countries at all). Change painting mechanic to % of country or some similar solution is needed. A balance here where smaller countries don't receive a map advantage would be ideal.


3. Reduce targets

I agreed with Madoff on this. On the ignoring front, I replied to his thread on this (https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24778.html?1436549049) and you have not.

Stop ignoring Madoff so much!

More from Madoff:

"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. "

That is for you.

Edit:

and another from Madoff:

"I've read your suggestion on another thread for simplifying logistics. It's insightful and worth considering."

That was on my Unit Simplicity suggestion. Found here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24775.html?1427724961

This is from Kel:

"I think multiple unit groupings is a great idea. I am all for a more streamlined unit movement process. Aries suggestion doesn't seem like it will have any unbalancing affect on the game. I don't see how this would be any different than making multiple units of the same configuration and moving them all at once in unison, aside from them being more organized and eliminate some potentially unnecessary clicking. This game could use some streamlining in areas.. And this is probably one of them."

and from EO:

"I'm all for Aries' suggestion AS LONG as the amount of weapons firing each time remains maxed at current numbers (such as 850 for an LRD)"

and from Nero:

"So long as this is an option and we retain the right to deploy individual units at 850 weapons and we do not have standardized amounts of weapons like the GM has done with the naval fleets, I can't find a reason to object to it. In fact, I think it is a great idea. I will place it up for vote, as your idea. I'm not being sarcastic, you have actually changed my mind about this."

and from Blackeyes:

"Yeah it's true, that a few of us are capable in the use of certain "tricks" to our advantage. Which is why i thought your idea was interesting...but it will not see the light of day. "

and Brandon:

"I like the idea would definitely help in managing large amounts of units and not having to go back and dismantle the unit and remake it, IS ALWAYS A PLUS ! supply units take to long for offensive weapons "

1 and 2 do not address the issue, but i'd agree with them, although in relation to #3, #1 should be reverted back to 100, like used to be. or maybe less

i don't need to comment on everything, or force every one to believe what i do. i used to do that, thats part of why i'm retired, i don't want to play like that, i know i don't have to, but i have a tendency to. right now, i'm just defending my idea, from nitpicking.

for #3, it would reduce clicking, but i'm not convinced that is a better idea. simpler, easier to implement. which might give it better value. but it does not really offer the defender a better chance of survival, by itself. of course you can adjust weapon inefficiencies.

so to explore your #3, why don't you expand on that? of course every corp would be a target, can't really change that, you can change the number of forts, reduce the number of cities? towns? counties? limit number of units? how would you suggest that?

just saw your edit, after my last comment
***
Aries, i'm not gonna fight with you over madoff, like he's a child in a divorce, jeese,

i've pointed out that him and others through out the years, have complained about clicking, and the amount of time the war game requires. their is no need to go back and forth about who's side he is on

I'm sorry Madoff, i remembered your comments back in the old WL debate, about endless clicking, it has always stayed with me, and i wanted to offer an idea that would address that, while offering depth, it was not my intent to fight over which side you where on, just to point out that people do feel that way. as a need to give my idea meaning. how ever, i feel this has gone to far.

Aries, i'm done, my idea has merit, and worth defending, but this has gone to far. it was my intent to offer a solution to a common complaint, and yet maintain a level of sophistication.

I still maintain my idea, but this bickering has passed a healthy level. It was never my intent to create battle lines over an idea.

#3 was Madoffs idea. I posted the link to the thread where you can talk about it there. I expanded on my Unit Simplicity idea, at the outset, on its thread and also posted a link to it.

You suggested I was "ignoring people". Retreat of that like you should. Just like you retreated off calling me hyper-active, claiming that is my motivation to oppose your "idea", claiming that your idea is the solution to those "turned off" by the war game, and hiding from the fact that your idea is for other people, and not yourself.

Then offer your solution on its own thread. This one talks about motivation for participation in the war game. A goal that you wont even admit your idea remedies, even for yourself.

Helloa Brothers Aries and Orbiter.

Ok. When I started this game back in 2008 I would see mans rolling around taking other mans countries who, for that week, had been in-active.
For sure it scared me to think that will happen to me some day (reason I don't wear gold lol).
At first I spent many nights pondering if I would be able to ever get to sleep while my slave country needed work doing to it to get it in a defend-able state.
Then came the pondering of how profitable I should make my slave country.
The more profit the more tempting he would be to the bandits out there.
Then came the pondering of when I should open my mouth on the forum.
For the forum would only bring attention to my slave country from the bandits.
Then came the intensity of the first declaration....A bag full of mix emotions to say the least.
Those experiences made my game.
Its a shame some of you have never experience what I did.

Brothers Aries and Orbiter. You are both looking for a way to enhance everyone else's gaming experience and a big thank-you to you both.
You are both holding the same coin.
If there is a problem with the game it needs sorting out....and sometimes to sort things out battle lines have to be created for the GM to make a decision.
Maybe you should both make a list of the top five things you would change about the war engine so the GM can ponder on it?

ToeCutter Bro/sis?. Back your words up with facts or shut up. I thought at first you were a ### but the more I read from you the more I'm thinking your a #####.

When I first started playing the game, a substantial period of time before my serious stint c.2008, I had very little understanding of how anything worked. I can remember intently micromanaging every aspect of my one favourite corporation, and wondering why it'd never rise above 200bn in value. I also happily ploughed my way through a few c3's singularly through the use of heavy tanks (lol), most of them bought 'immediate order' from the world market. I didn't understand why my country was so much in debt, or how my 100k strong column of tiger-tanks could fail to take a puny country with the population of Belgium...

But it was still incredibly fun, most especially because of the mystery and resultant learning curve. I kept coming back and survived as an empire despite my lack of knowledge and game protection mechanisms, even after (being the cocky noob I was) 'opening diplomatic relations' with the then #1 LU player; Pink Floyd.

For that reason I do not believe the 'over complexity' of the war engine can ever validly be considered a detractive factor on gameplay, player numbers, or in fact be suggested as a reason to restrict how players make war - through the implementation of war levels or any other means. The war engine, and most aspects of the game, give back as much as you put in and learning is in fact the most exciting and unique part of Simcountry. Anyone who wants an entirely 'casual' gaming experience with no possibility of further investment in complex environments can sign up to Farmville. Make the engine more 'efficient?' Perfect. But 'simpler?' Nobody likes or needs to be patronised.

Creating a country is virtually free in RL terms and new players have nothing to lose by experimenting with the economy/war modules and running riot as such. It is a world of meaningless 1's and 0's that won't illicit any tears or lasting emnity towards the developers if lost. That said, I see no problem with having a protection mechanism designed to reassure those players with something substantial to lose, and whom posses no desire or time to defend said assets by martial means.

Players should be able to take a total of 4-5 countries and remain at war level 0 (inactive). Conquer any more and you become war level 1 (active) and all restrictions are removed. There should also be considerable bonuses for those empires at war level 1, perhaps to score, economy, that kind of thing. Experimentation and tutoring should happen during level "0." The transition from "0" to "1" becomes a spur for further political interaction, without the intricate and graded nonsense in having five thousand war levels dependent on how muscly a c3 you take. "

The chairs are tall at the big boys table, but at least this way everyone can learn how to use their knives and forks without falling on them.

It's not so much the complexity of the war game as much as I is cumbersome and inefficient all the arbitrary rules and for example airlifting units one at a time and all the mindless clicking could be reduced

Helloa Dubhthaigh Bro I agree with your "0" to "1" idea. Once you have taken 4-5 C3's (regardless of if you still own 4 or 5) you are ready for war.

Hi Jackwagen Bro How many times have you had to defend your country's from multiple attackers bro? Or even just one attacker who knows what they are doing?
Its hard enough keeping up with attackers as it is lol

Not as much as I'd like considering there isn't much war anymore... Defense is mostly automatic anyways as long as your unpainting territory and have your defensive units where they should be you should be focused on your offense..... It is a simple fact that all the clicking involved is just boring

Only reason why war is fun honestly is because of what a rarity it has become

I'm not sure I agree that all the war clicking is "simply boring" Jackwagen, although I can see where you are coming from.

Personally I see every click as an executive order, demonstrating a strategic decision to prioritise said target... When two players are facing off the main limitation they experience, other than the resources at their disposal, is the fact that one click means one attack and this can only be marginally supplemented by additional browsers etc. At this point both participants are having to gauge which targets represent the best options for attack, within the wider context of the war.

As such every click is committing to a strategy that will ultimately succeed or fail based on the quality and effectiveness of your plan. Having automatic 'wave' attacks defined by prioritisation formulae (as proposed above) removes most of this aspect of the game and effectively turns war into an inelegant mud-slinging and slogging contest.

That said, I do think there is room for some 'automatic attack' feature that holds no bonus over traditional clicking, but that can be activated to paint & finish off a country (especially c3's) that have already been neutralised.

I have added a new suggestion to the appropriate forum. Please comment there on my new idea, the War College.

Also, let me know if you like the direction I am thinking in general here. I need some encouragement to continue to weave these ideas together. I think War College can work very nicely with Battlegrounds and then the Total War idea. I also have the suggestions for Player Power Rankings and Unit Simplicity on the suggestions forum. Are you guys with me on these ideas?

thanks!

I had the ideas for a new Battlegrounds that fit in with War College in my head so I had to put it down. Battlegrounds (revised) is now available on the suggestions forum. take a look!

The gamemasters usually make only a very minimal effort to improve this game. They've shown a preference for tweaks involving relatively simple numerical changes. Therefore, suggestions for big coding projects are probably dead on arrival, even if they have merits.

When I wrote elsewhere that the gamemasters probably don't have time to code complicated schemes, I was referring to Aries' "battlegrounds" and "total war." His suggestion for "unit simplicity" is good. But it could be the type of big project they avoid.

Orbiter's suggestion for limits on attacks is great, and the right kind of numerical tweak. His suggestion for automated attacks is good, although it might be a medium-ish sized project.

War suggestions are best evaluated by whether they satisfy the Jonni Doctrine, which Jonni decreed last March:

"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."