The Carrot, the Stick, and the War Game

Limits on attacks and "removing the attack button" are solutions that do not work for problems that do not exist. I don't think you read how easily my new suggestions integrate into existing game systems. Jonni Doctrine is ridiculous. I am interested in feedback from folks who either participate in the war game now or would with their own suggestion. How about you, Madoff?

Aries, you're not a prosecutor and I'm not a defendant. Your prosecutor schtick is tedious. Seriously dude, you're unhinged.

We're all happy that you enjoy your adorable, little 3-hour wars against poorly defended countries. But 99% of players avoid PvP. You're not one us. Therefore, you're not our spokesman.

You're just a troll. I'm done feeding a troll.

I have not asked for your alibi but I should be curious about your motivation for offering suggestions to the war game. If you don't want to PVP, that is okay but that makes you less invested in its success, especially if your own solutions would still not make you interested in the war game.

You define troll better. I made specific comments on your suggestions you posted. You attempted to stir things up with a post on my suggestion. Your post lacked any evidence you read my suggestion at all.

I would love the chance to raid PVP for profit again.

Some of my favorite times in SC were with Barney and Jason fighting each other for practice or because someone had a new strategy.

As for limiting units I am all for that.

A more realistic war game with the strategy elements already in the game would be a winner in my book.

Pretty sure I can hear the floor boards of this chat room creaking under the sheer weight of ego on display.

We have to be realistic about what the game developers would be willing to implement, as they are obviously a small team with limited time and numerous priorities. Rather than fomenting grand plans for reinvigorating the game and overhauling the war engine, we should probably focus on small an simple changes within the existing functionality which improve the game for a majority of players.

I'm fairly sure this would rule out tournament/pvp based league proposals ('Total War' etc) and fully automated war/ removing the attack button (a heinous idea that should never be mentioned again).

We ought to focus on finding common goals we all share - and let the developers work out how to do it with the minimum effort - rather than fighting our own personal corners or defending big master plans that the gm's and most players have never shown any interest in despite months of plugging. These goals should reflect achievable aims that improve the game for the majority, rather than those with extreme vested interests e.g. players who only want to play a single player economy game or, conversely, players who happen to -currently- be the big fish and are in a position to threaten today's crop of players to the satisfaction of their megalomania, were war protection/levels to be revoked.

$0.02

Please check out my suggestions without preconceptions about complexity. I have greatly simplified Battlegrounds in the revised version. War College is simply a 3 level system that is nearly identical to game levels. I plan to revise Total War but, in effect, it is simply a conflict that flags participants in a way to drop their war protection.

Also, if you meant to characterize my motives, that description has never applied to me. I have seriously considered doing what is within my game power to setup a battleground where I go through the difficulty of setting it up and stocking the country with my own cash as the reward. The war game is fun and I believe players who are interested in the war game are having a difficult time gaining resources through use of the war game. My suggestions are to resolve this and provide a game experience to players who are less interested in the single-player economy game (I like this description).

Ok. I had written out a long piece, but before I had posted it the computer decided it was time to install updates and shut down.
So I will cut to the chase as I have to go out.

Dubhthaigh Bro. Your points on the game are valid. Your points on why players commit the time to come up with improvements are not valid.
Brothers and Sisters like Aries only want to bring some spirit back into the game.

Ok, back on point.....For me The fear of war was the reason I looked to join a fed when I first started.
Fear was the reason I made friends and allies.
Take the fear of war away and all this game is is numbers, letters and little pixel pictures.
How many noobs look around and go....hold up...I need to join a fed for protection?
I feel WL's have taken away that need and therefore the consequence happy and relieved feeling of being accepted into a fed and becoming apart of the game.
The war engine is 1000 X's better than it was when I joined. Yet at the same time the reason for the war engine to be there has diminished.
If the war engine updates had not been so successful (mobile units) WL's would be probably needed.

We now have the capabilities to be apart of a fed and defend our fed without really needing to log on (Mobile units). So even not logged in you are a asset to the fed and won't get thrown out for not being an sim addict.
Has WL's not been the down fall of Federations?
It has been ages since a noob has asked for protection from my fed.

I'm sorry I you don't want to play the war game you don't have to there is secured mode if you want multiple countries you should have to defend those countries with an army diplomacy or temp war protection there is no need for war levels they aren't an indicator of experience or anything or that matter

The more opinions on this, the more it appears there is two sides to this with a few moderates in between.

Nix, Jackwagen, Toecutter, and Xon represent the war player side. The war players blame war levels for the fall of the war game and would mostly advocate towards their removal.

Orbiter and Madoff represent the econ players side. They want to keep war optional and advocate for the continued unlimited protections that war levels bring, often, even to the war world. Orbiter goes as far as wanting to change the war engine to a casually tweaked system that a player can change similar to eduction priorities before leaving the game to automate the rest of the experience.

I think Dub is a moderate and I feel I am too. I enjoy the econ game and the war game differently. I spend the most time developing my countries and enterprises to be effective tools towards my own ends.

I enjoy the war game too but don't wish the war game to mirror my single-player econ game experience. Like Nix says, I feel I should have to take steps to protect what I built and engage in diplomacy with other players.

Where war levels have been the topic and certainly the first straw that saw the decline of the war game, I think WG and Aaron might have touched on what was the last straw which was the removal of unlimited rewards from low level c3 raiding. This definitely needed to be adjusted but, where it was thought that war players who funded most of their efforts with such raiding would simply use their reserves to change to a large econ income and lead their fed members to do the same, those players have largely left.

Voices we currently do not hear from are from players who are mostly inactive or have left including Serpent, Stephen Ryan, Jackseptic, and others. War players at heart, without the ability to use the war game they mostly enjoyed to raise funds, they had no wish to delve into the economic game to replace their income.

I feel my suggestions could bring back or spark interest in similar players that they would not otherwise have in the single-player econ game. I would ask that all players consider my Battlegrounds and War College ideas as the best compromise. The goal is to poke holes in war levels for just the players that make that choice and to offer rewards from within the war game again.

Perhaps I was a little off the mark on the motive front, as brothers Natures Wrath and Aries have pointed out. That aside, I think what I said still holds true: We should focus on clearly defined small goals rather than endlessly plugging large cohesive mechanisms. I would bet good money the developers will not, in the near future, respond/take on board either the revised 'battlegrounds' proposal, or the idea to institute automated warfare (regardless of their merits or lack thereof).

We should formulate a list of 5 simple goals for the game in order of preference, then ask Jonni very kindly for some form of moderated chat Q&A session. This would at least serve to publicise chat even if nothing is decided.

Sorry for not answering, I've been working 15-17 hour days. Anyway, I don't think at this point anything could peak my interest in the war game. It's just too time consuming and the number of accessible targets too small. I can deal with time consuming or I could deal with inaccessible targets but I won't deal with both.Perhaps if I could transport land units by sea I'd be more interested. I've never liked taking c3's just to get from here to there. That has definitely been a huge turnoff for me, as has land units and painting. I know it's made the war game much better as far as being refined and not so simplistic and unrealistic but I just never liked it, I never liked secure mains either, we had peaceful untouchable empires before that for people who didn't want to war. IMO there will never be a level of safety high enough for everyone. Too much safety leads to boredom and not many will play a boring game.

This game has become safe to the point of boredom. Boredom because of lack of interaction and boredom with clicks per event so to speak. I don't feel I have a lot more to say, I am not very knowledgeable about this game these days and don't really want to make complaints I have no constructive solution for.

I also don't like changes of any kind, I want to learn and not have to relearn, it's something I've come to expect and deal with because I've always liked this game for the 13 or 14(I can't even remember anymore) years I've been playing but I don't enjoy changes. The massive changes to the war game however and resultant lack of interaction was the last straw for me to desire more than a secured country. At one time I had a country profiting 300B/game month, one country, all by itself with no time input from me, that's more weapons than it could buy without boosting spending limits. I can look around the game some but given my work schedule I really don't want to, is it possible to profit enough only through your countries economy to continually outpace military spending? That's also been a huge turnoff for me is the difficulty I've had the past few years making enough of a profit to buy anything resembling a significant military.

Well that's all I have to say, what we have here was caused by people wanting to cause a change, if only those folks were as socially adept as they were technically it would have been known in advance the gm wouldn't change things in the desired way or in a way that positively affected the player base. I personally wouldn't attempt to cause changes, they far more often than not are worse than had nothing been tinkered with. IMO, my opinion based on 13 or whatever(I can't even remember anymore) years of playing. For whatever that's worth.

It is possible, but not easy, to support a large military with a strong economy. Acquiring the necessary weapons and ammo needed to compete in PvP is difficult, especially for players more interested in competing with other players than playing the single-player econ game. This is the reason I announced a new game feature. Check out War Games which I posted to this forum.

I did quickly. I will look at it again.

I know bumping a 6 month old thread should be illegal, but as a long-term player who just returned to SC a week ago, this was a fascinating read. I read it this morning and thought about it throughout work, before giving myself the space to write my thoughts down.

I played almost daily 2011 til 2013 on Kebir Blue. I was a member of the Protectorate. I was even its Leader at one stage (when it went democratic). I remember Parsifal and Crafty and Sunny and Wendy and Orbiter and the Shoe Lady on chat and on the forums. I nurtured an empire which eventually went to #2 on KB. I had a moderately large enterprise. To be honest, those two-ish years were the most fun I've ever had with a game.

Nonetheless, I also remember the seemingly long shadow that the Mob War and WCG war seemed to have casted over the game. It still does, to an extent. I hadn't even discovered the game when those wars broke out, yet somehow, now that I think back, its legacy was everywhere in how I played back in 2012. Just think about it - here's a war that had such an impact on the game that it led to mass exodus the likes of which this game has not seen since. That war was still affecting SC back then, when only a few of the "old guard" still remained.

At that time (2012) I remember thinking the game was deserted. I'm not sure if it is even moreso now. I have no idea about player numbers.

To be honest, I'm in favour of the War Level system. I learnt the game with WLs. I think the system is workable and can foster plenty of entertainment (I say this, having never entered a PvP war during my 2 years playing the game).

What needs to happen is for the systems around War Levels to recognise that WLs fundamentally change the nature of how people play SC. For starters, it's very conservative. Once new players start their country and complete their 'Win a War in 10 Minutes!' tutorial, there's nothing forcing them to keep playing the war game. What's missing is the fundamental need for group protection.

Even in 2012 on KB, I never felt safe without a Fed. The Protectorate and the Soviet Federation were in a 'Cold War' of sorts on Kebir at the time, and it was fun to sit on one side and such banter at the opposites.

I feel that Feds are integral, INTEGRAL to the ability for new players to stick around. The problem is that they've failed at remaining relevant. The basic issue is that the player base is spread too thin across the worlds for there to be any collective build-up. I can sit here on White Giant, out of protection, and no one will know I'm here or touch me. There are no major Feds with big disputes between one another. Everyone in the game is simply in one big Federation - Simcountry. A bit of PvP happens, but not really. It doesn't have the drama and explosive fireworks of the old forum threads on World Wars.

So the Game Masters have a few options. Some of you made points above, which I haven't had time to digest and really critique yet. Nonetheless, I've got some ideas.

a) making Feds intergalactic/interplanetary - countries can join any Fed on any world. Also, there is no limit to the number of countries that can be in a Fed. Instead, there is a limit to the number of players/accounts which can join a fed (maybe 25), and a single account/player can only have 10 countries in a Fed. This allows for the formation of large alliances. This requires for Feds to coordinate within themselves the defence of assets across space, using space ports and stations - an added bit of complexity.

b) a player must fight a PvP war to continue past War Level 5 on Little Upsilon, Fearless Blue and Golden Rainbow. Kebir and White Giant remain the same (no PvP requirement).

c) Put all new players on White Giant and Kebir Blue, where they can learn the game and get recruited into Feds. After a month, they're allowed to start a second empire, which gets no GC cost for 3 months, on either Golden Rainbow or Little Upsilon. This keeps new players concentrated on certain worlds, where Feds can recruit and teach them and Enterprises can find and open for business.

I'm not saying that these ideas solve everything, but they might just alleviate some of the issues. Ultimately, I hope someone does something soon.

I find it amusing that the econ players want to limit war gaming to a couple of worlds while the war players want to limit the econ players to a couple of worlds. In each case, the 'other guys' are corralled into a limited space. Although I'm very new to the game, I would like to throw my opinion in the ring, for what it's worth.

It would be best if each type had one or two worlds each. Honestly, each world should be different; with gradations from a no holds barred war world with protection only if you pay coins and equal merit to attack and defense, to a peace world where the only way to buy weapons and wage war is to pay coins and/or import them from off planet. If the rules of each world is clearly presented to them, I'm sure most new players would chose a world somewhere in between the two extremes.
Most online games are credit card driven - you simply can't win unless you pay. And those who do not pay are at the mercy of those who do. This game is far from that, and it's one of the attractions (other than the pure cerebral attraction).
For most people, if they wanted to play war games, they could hit steam or play any one of a thousand first person shooters with tons of graphics and the excitement of constant motion... Let's face facts; this game attracts the MUCH more cerebral gamer. I'll bet most of you enjoy chess. Most of you are college educated, most of you are older than your teens. And almost all of you have an IQ above 100. This game has a whole different niche market than most other games.

Honestly, the way things are now, with the exception of Fearless Blue, you could teleport an entire country from one planet to another and nobody would notice much difference. You could teleport a country from one continent to another and there would be zero difference. All countries are the same clones of each other - each world could be carved into perfect squares on a checkerboard and nothing would change.

I know that what I suggest would likely be a massive strain on limited server resources. And that would cost money, which would turn this game more like all those other 'pay to play' games. That's why I'm satisfied with what we have now - a slow paced, complex, cerebral game with but a few opportunities to make life interesting.

And by the way, you could make a war world far more interesting if you allowed for asymmetrical warfare. If there were guerilla units, saboteur units, spies, etc,. That would give small players an effective weapon against big players. "You can take my country, but your nuclear plants are disasters looking to happen."

Create a fund that funds such units - but once you put money into that fund, it's gone forever. The more money you put into that fund, the more units it supports, and the longer those units will operate. If your country is taken or destroyed, the fund and the units are activated. The last thing a president does is select the target country(s).

As for players preferring to quit than to start over from scratch... well, there's rage quitting in all games.

Yes, old thread. Still the state of the Simcountry war game though. For the guys with new posts here, I am not sure your suggestions successfully met the criteria of creating an incentive to participate in PvP. The basic test is, does the idea you have come up with motivate yourself and others to participate in the PvP game? Answer for yourself and why you think it would motivate other players to participate in PvP that might currently be on the fence.

My opinion is that the game currently lacks much to compete for/fight over. Proficiency in the econ game can duplicate and surpass rewards that can be earned in PvP and for no risk of asset loss in wars.

@Jdlech
The war world already exists as Fearless Blue is supposed to be the War World -and I say supposed to be as not being on that world and hearing what other players that are there say it needs fixing. But not all players want a war game and are found on the other more peaceful worlds. Not that wars don't break out on the other worlds too. There needs to be a balance and the ability to accommodate both war and econ players.

Old thread, but some refreshing new opinions from both Thomas Morgan and Jdlech.

Most of these ideas fail to fully address the lack of incentives within the war game, as Aries has pointed out.

That said, I really like Thomas' point (a), regarding intergalactic federations. The space game currently feels underdeveloped and thus somewhat gimmicky, but is ripe for real integration with existing war and federation mechanisms. Interplanetary war both gives Simcountry Space a purpose, and utilises the game's best and most unique features.

Moving from Thomas' suggestion into a larger point, wars can already be very tedious, with hours of clicking and unreasonable demands on playing time. I feel this, to some extent, is a critically limiting factor on the number of players willing to engage in meaningful PvP. A multi-world federation, or even the existing federation model, should therefore offer central control over all member state military units and weapons which have not been specifically exempted. This command would be realised through democratically assigned 'General' roles with the game engine, sharing out and entrusting war-time clicking duties to those that are willing to fulfill them. This kind of change would both encourage players to join federations - inherently partisan and conflict-causing entities - and necessitate role play/cooperation within those organisations.

Jdlech's observation regarding the game's user base are spot on. That Simcountry has survived for a decade, despite few meaningful changes to its gameplay, is a testament to both its uniqueness and the loyalty of its player base. So few internet games these days have a true niche, and it is frustrating to see this one not achieve popularity and full potential.

Being able to join a federation across worlds would be "neat" but isn't a game-changing feature in PvP. Friends and allies already exists across worlds regardless of official federation tags. If wars were more prevalent, in general, interplanetary war would follow whether or not the federation tag allowed this flexibility.

The ability to allow federation control is an interesting suggestion but might be a bit scary for a player to yield expensive formations by default. I do like the idea in a more limited and controlled fashion though. Perhaps the creation of a defined "battlegroup" created by any federation member where a controller, or controllers, is defined and allows any other federation member to lend forces they choose to the effort.

From a coordinated effort standpoint a "battlegroup" would be an welcome addition. I do not believe the war game is any more tedious than the econ game though. I spend lots more time in clicking tedium in econ than I have ever done in the war game. Also, as Dub said, I don't believe fed tag changes, shared fed control, and guerrilla warfare solve the major issue of lack of incentive in PvP gameplay.

@Aries - the worlds are now connected via space trading. Why can't Federations therefore be stretched across 5 worlds instead of just 1? This gives feds far more interesting functionality.
A great idea to add onto this is to allow fed mates to be able to transfer goods from world to world via space for another player. This would add an incentive for a player to join a federation, in order to get his or her goods transferred without having to dump a lot of GCs and $$$ into acquiring the necessary goods. It would also promote interaction and coordination between Fed mates. Other players will rely on each other to deliver necessary goods.

Nonetheless, in spite of having put my own (rather ambitious) ideas out there, there is only one way in which the player base can be revived properly: a conscientious effort by a number of existing players to recruit new players into beginners federations and guide them through the early stages. This game has all the necessary aspects and features to be devastatingly addictive; what it requires is for new players to reach the stage where they feel they can understand the game and feel worthwhile investing more time into it. As it stands, I have some ideas which I may decide to implement to make the game more approachable for new players. I'm working on it

You're right, Aries, in saying that the Econ game is no less tedious than the war game. If anything, the risk-reward factor of the war game is far more potent than anything the econ game can ever deliver. What the game needs is for a lot of players already playing the game to a) not be afraid of war; and b) not frown upon PvP.

On b, it's true. While we all woe the loss of PvP's popularity, there is still a predisposition by many to condemn the war game as immature and barbaric. That needs to change.

Again, I approve of the additional utilisation of space game functionality.

I'm sure many of us are open to recruiting new players, and guiding them through the game, but I really think that some kind of organisation is required...

I suggest:

1. Interested players contribute war-game-revival specific ideas to a medium that is easier to moderate, organise and collaborate on. This might be a joint google docs folder, with the ultimate aim of providing a comprehensive (and uncrowded) list of suggestions to the GM.

2. The same as #1, but covering associate ideas such as inter-planetary war/feds, in game natural resources, and assigned in game federation roles.

3. A cohesive plan to recruit players from offsite, and bring them through a ready made programme of our own devising. Perhaps recruiters could be additionally rewarded from security council funds in a world of their choosing.

@Tom - Adding the ability to have interstellar federations and more flexibility, in general, again, is neat. Sure, why not do it? Does it fix PvP? no

As far as adding the ability to transfer another player's goods, this is less of a problem than you might think. Check the market for shuttles. A half dozen shuttles can be had for a few coins. If this is price is out of reach of a player, they have an issue beyond trying to transport goods through space. Again, doesn't fix PvP.

As far as guiding new players, yes, I am doing all I can. I have added the best c3 war guide ever written to the Beginners Forum. I have also added a guide titled "Path of a Warrior" there that provides an overview of how a new war player gets started in obtaining the resources to be a game force. I am also the most consistent presence on the forum and in chat helping guide new players into developing strategy and style. A half dozen or so players in the last 6 months are already very good.

Again, all that said, there needs to be incentive to take the next step. Something that makes building and risking an army, or a country out of war protection, worth it. Further, the joke that the "war world" has become should be fixed.


Sounds good Dub. More discussion into this problem can't hurt.