W3C - The Simcountry War Game (White Giant)

Fearless Blue remains a war world and war will remain part of the game on all the other worlds.

Formally, one could say that following the rules as stated in the game, you should be able to fight anyone, anytime without limitations and without reason.

However, we would like the game to be more inviting and less hostile to players, mainly new players and ones who are not able to invest the time needed to build great defense but are mainly interested in the economic part of the game.

We hope that players will try to be fair and not destructive.

If you want to fight a war, find an enemy who can seriously fight back instead of preying upon people who have no clue how destructive a war could be and who wake up to discover that everything is gone.

These people may have invested a lot of time to build and destruction can be swift.

None of this is in our rules but we always found many who thought likewise and kept the game reasonably descent.

We might be forced to consider some war rules to prevent such unreasonable wars but as I stated in the beginning of this message, war will remain an important part of the game for people who want to play a war game.

We are thinking of several alternatives and possibilities to improve the war game:

There are no decisions yet and we will take some time to decide and listen to arguments.

1. The "End the war" booster as described in the last game news. The booster can be used by the attacked country only. There are arguments for and against.

2. Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously.

Example:

An empire with 1 - 5 countries: 1 country can be attacked.

An empire with 6 - 10 countries: 2 countries can be attacked simultaneously. Etc.

Once the war is over, a new war can be started.

The attacked empire has some time to prepare defense for the other countries or place them in war protection.

The empire will not be destroyed overnight.

3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones.

4. Make the defense cheaper so that defending countries could build a stronger defense without increasing their spending.

5. Place the three weakest countries in secured mode. (Suggested by Yankee).

There are some variations possible: let the player choose the three countries.

This may make the number of countries that can be attacked much smaller.

When secured mode was introduced, we had a lot of criticism from many, about limiting the possibilities for war.

We would prefer the suggestion in point 2 but this is an alternative.

IMHO there should be no limts on the number of countries that can be attacked. Some of the most fun in war is coordinating such attacks with fedmates/allies on your enemies, if limits are introduced it will be a one by one process which will slow down the whole process.

If this was happening on other worlds I could see it being a huge issue but this is the war world as stated many other places. If you are trying to give people a chance to build up on the war world before becoming possible targets why don't you just introduce secured mode for a set period of time for new presidents?

I play on WG because I prefer the mix of the econ and war, I know from reading about the different worlds what each stands for and the type of player you need to be to be on those worlds. A brand new player who signs up on the war world should not be surprised to see armies crossing their borders, that is what it is all about there. Sign up for one of the other worlds, learn the game and make friends/allies/enemies then move to the war world like everyone else.

Why again ruin that particular world for the vets who have put so much time and money into it for people who have no clue and 75% of the time bail after their trial.

War is fun as part of a fed. Interacting with your allies is the most fun part. Limiting the number of wars would interfer with this.

i like it all, but there shouldn't be limts on the number of countries that can be attacked.

Three suggestions (either/or, or all)

1)Limited secure mode for first two (leader and first slave) on FB.

2)Require an amount of play on another world before a player is allowed to have a country on FB.If they don't learn how to play on a tamer world then thats their own fault.

3)Once the player decides that they are ready to go to FB make the cost of the first country 50GC.

Also make it abundantly clear BOLD TYPE, IN YOUR FACE! that FB is a WAR WORLD

"FB is a WAR WORLD. As such, war maybe declared on you for little or no reason. Your countries may be conquered and any time or effort maybe wiped away if you are not prepared to play to the level required for this world. Are you sure you want to play on Fearless Blue?"

"Continue" "Cancel"

Tom,

I will try to cover my opinions on each point.

1. The "End the war" booster as described in the last game news. The booster can be used by the attacked country only. There are arguments for and against.

I think I've covered this enough but would still like to say I still think it's a bad idea and opens the door to many other problems.

2. Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously.
(W3C's points edited see Tom's original post)

I believe limiting the number of countries that can be attacked to be a rather large problem. I for one try to keep some of my countries out of the war so they can perform missions that can only be stopped if they are declared upon.

Many times I will declare on a country I have absolutley no intention of even fighting simply to stop sneak attacks. Unless those countries that are limited are prevented from joining into the war through the use of sneak attacks then this could very well be another sore point down the road.

3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones.

As long as this worked both ways the only real problem I see with this is the very annoying player that nobody can do anything about. This is whether or not anyone believes it is a serious problem with SC today.

There is no reason to get along or even be polite if there is nothing anyone can do about transgressions simply because a country is too small.

4. Make the defense cheaper so that defending countries could build a stronger defense without increasing their spending.

I play FB so weapons are already cheaper than the other worlds. I do have quite a bit of experience over the years in the other worlds also and I've never had a problem with the cost of defense.

I don't "like" the way somethings are done, specifically the minimums for ammunition on units (which if you'll check you have an email on that subject), but anyone who wants a defense can build a defense.

5. Place the three weakest countries in secured mode. (Suggested by Yankee).

There are some variations possible: let the player choose the three countries.

This would actually defeat many of the purposes for suggesting secured mode for any country, foremost of which, was to prevent a player from being "wiped out"

Many wars are already fought with massive amounts of countries grabbed for no purpose other than to attack a specific target. These C3's warriors never risk thier main countries and keep them in either WP or secured mode for the economic benefit of feeding a loser (the war country).

If you allow the player to choose which countries he no longer needs to spend GC's on for WP, then you've only increased the number of economic powerhouses someone can own on the worlds (other than FB) by two.

This may make the number of countries that can be attacked much smaller.

This should allow a player 3 countries that cannot be taken away.

When secured mode was introduced, we had a lot of criticism from many, about limiting the possibilities for war.

And I was one of them, I still do not believe there should be any form of secured country other than WP. In my opinion, alot of problems we have in this game today stems from both boosters, population sales, and secured countries. (I argued against all of them)

However in the case of population sales, since you cannot gain population through raiding anymore, that's the only real way of getting it other than waiting years.

I do not like secured countries in any form, and I only bowed to them as a way of preventing a player from being wiped out and leaving the game.

My suggestion however can't be "improved" on without destroying the only reason I suggested it in the first place.

Allowing a player to "choose" which countries they keep in secured mode is only going to multiply the problems we now have in this game.

If a new player wants to build a viable empire 3 countries is enough to start with, if they wish to continue that growth then and include 5 or 15 then they should have been developing those countries .

We would prefer the suggestion in point 2 but this is an alternative.

I honestly can't think of one, but if a country is able to attack me, even through "sneak attacks" I need the ability to declare on it.

I'm going to agree with most all of what Yankee has to say. I don't know a lot about the other worlds, but FB being an 'all risk' world is what caused me to join.

I'm all for keeping FB as it is. With possibly an increase in Black Out hours (max 8).

Although if a 'Stop War' Booster is what you guys are really shooting for it would be great if the booster could only be used prior to the actual start of the war.

Having FB be a less restricted world when it comes to war would attract only players who seriously want to have a 'no holds bar' war.

I agree with Gandolf on making the risks involved on FB very clear and allowing new players an extended WP time. (Longer for those new to the game as opposed to new to the world).

Also adding a disclaimer that says something along the lines of how very possible it is to lose all assets on Fearless Blue.

It's understandable that W3C wants the game to be more inviting and less hostile. The ideal mix between player and GM control for me would be: (this is strictly for Fearless Blue)

-If the Stop War Booster is a must then only prior to war starting
-Black out times allowed (between 4 and 8 hours)
- Extended War Protection for new players, by this i don't mean a lump sum that must be used right away, maybe give them a credit of 100 months or so. (For new to the game players only)

If they have a credit they could lower war protection to start their first war against a country they can't beat (as many new players do) find out how hard it is and place their credited WP on other countries.

-Increased Security Council Involvement.
-Make access to the Security Council by player vote maybe? We have had a member of the SC that has been inactive for several months.
-It would be largely up to the community to keep the SC as unbiased as possible.

This post is getting to long as it is, but bottom line: Fearless Blue should be the most accessible and least restrictive when it comes to war; and new players (to the game) should be given extra advantages on FB.

Also, the FB community (despite it being the war world) is pretty nice in general and as long as im there i'll help new players understand the intricacy of war (with my limited knowledge that is.)

Another thing the community could do is have an overall training Fed, with no allegiance. Don't know how it would work exactly, but something along the lines of new players being immediately registered into the training fed and having players that are generally helpful be permanent message receivers in terms of this fed.

Edit: I think what the community generally dislikes about changes are the numerous ways other players can exploit them as well as the increase in restrictions, but as always no law is made without it having already been broken.

Not that I matter,

But . . .

Restrictions take the realism of the game away.

Changes, good or bad, dont go over well.

From a very unbiased standpoint, 3 secured countries make sense more than alot of the proposals here. For reason I will say

1. Players will have a stable platform to build from. Most would agree that an empire over three countries can be time consuming for maintenance.

2. Assets can be safely guarded in a three nation secured empire.

3. Three secured countries would give a ton of players more opportunity to increase potential GC earnings. Which would of course go to making it easier to pay the 30 gc per month. And reduce complaints, or new trial players from not extending membership. The monthly gc fee, would be more affordable. More players will happen upon SC and while W3 still gets there kickback. Player assets will increase. The cash market will liven up, opening up more activity on the cash market, and stimulating more trade between players for real assets or SC assets and Vice versa. Sim Economies will Grow. That is alot of countries for CEOs not to get their corps nuked in wars they have no part of.

3.Sim ceo's, ( who are the only true eco players DUUUUHHHHHHHH ) would have more opportunity to grow in secure environment, encouraging new ceo accounts and keeping old ones in the game.

4. and finally . . .

All you whiny little whimps crying about being eco driven dictators can quit yer itchin when some real drama comes your way cause you have no business with all that schwag and dum dum pops like this "Candy Land. Keep yer whiny arses in secured mode and CEO's and let the dogs run the yard and eat. This is a dog eat dog world. And thats how it is in the real world. So yes, we know who you are, and when we get the time and space, Im comin for ya. We gonna make you pay. You think you can have all these ECO goldmines sitting around while we have to break even on defense. NO . . . We're not gonna take it.

No We're not gonna take it ANYMORE!!!!>>>>

And LDI can stay, and kick arse and be evil. NO rulez need to be changed, no body needz leaving. Im gettin annoyed by this kina talk. I'm thinking about them hormone pills I've been missing. I get kinda whacky when I can't find em.


Three cheers for three nation secured. Ther is no downside, and the upside is tremendous. What do you say W3. Lets get one for the good guys. YOU hear THEM screaming for it. Give it to them.


Good suggestion Yankee.

I can see clearly now the rain is Gone . . .

FREE LDI!!!!!

I agree. Yankee's proposal is the most logical, least corruptible, and overall best solution I have seen yet.

There will always be players with big empires, who abuse the power and assets they have.

There will always be n00bs who think this is just a war game, or that military power is the only one that counts, and spoil the game for the rest of us.

The two are very similar, the only difference being that the former have managed to survive.

There will also always be players who don't want to war at all, and those who will only war to make the game a nicer place as they define it. Essentially all those different groups of people are self-balancing within the virtual world that the GMs have created ... a microcosm of society.

The GMs have created a great game, and what makes it so fascinating is that there are as many different ways to play, as many different goals to aim for, as there are players. This is a community. Those who survive are part of it, and those who don't, don't have the skill to play such a complex and fascinating game. Survival in itself is a goal, and to limit such an important aspect of the game would be to destroy its appeal.

I prefer Hondo's idea that the GMs bias each world a certain way ...

* A war world - cheap weapons, no secure mode or WP, a place where those who want to war can have fun!

* An economic world - no war at all, with a bias towards economic growth

* A fast world - for those of us who have too much time on our hands

* One or two mixed worlds, one more peaceful and one more aggressive - for those who wish to explore the full range of the game

... then encourage players to gravitate towards the world that matches their style of gameplay. Taking away the choice would ruin the game, IMHO.

Hugs and respect

Jo

i am a relatively new player. when i picked the world i wanted to play in i read all descriptions of all worlds carefully. i chose fb for the war. i have been attacked and have attacked and , like the real world i was forced to make allies and enemys. what a bueatifull world it would be if powerful countrys couldnt invade weaker ones. its not like that though, i servived and feel quite secure. i understand the war protection and agree but no one can hide forever. if these rules are put into place it will slow down the pace and reduce the reality of the experience. i suggest starting a medium war world where countrys are free to yell at each other after 6 game months then they can start throughing rocks at one another.

Again with respect Jo . . .

while Hondo's suggestion is valid and creative, this "concept" already exists in form at present regarding which worlds cater to certain player types.

This kind of approach, is too broad, to be precise, this one

"* One or two mixed worlds, one more peaceful and one more aggressive - for those who wish to explore the full range of the game"

"Mixed" is the problem leading to questions such as , "What is TOO agressive?" and "What exactly IS acceptable?"

This is why this pickle we are in is a major problem now.

3 nation secured gives EVERY player the CHOICE you speak of and I hope you are aiming for.

This leaves the game, great as it is, intact and with a wide range of CHOICE on every world. Not just certain ones.

Three secured nations . . . and after that "NO HOLDS BARRED"

Stinkin beautiful

I think this game should be trashed and the GMs should go find new jobs.

Maybe you should just act like an adult and leave without trying to ruin the game.

You think C3 wars are bad now? It'll be that much worse with 3 Secured Mains.

I think you people (GMs) are making excuses and making scapegoats out of a few people so you can ignore the fact that people are quitting the game due to previous changes you've made and ways you've treated people around here. People have been saying as long as I've been here that the game is dying. You want to blame it on the players. I blame it on the game and the general GM attitude we've all seen.

Develop innovations in the game instead of limitations. Make this a better game. Quit worrying about things like the display and city maps.

How can you contradict your self with those statements BC??

Do you really feel like that??

If you can make yourself believe your own lies you are really full of @%#$

If you really believed a word of what you just typed. You'd have been out of here and NEVER even posted that rediculous crap.

GROW UP and leave then.

Im just wondering, you rarely have had more than three nations in an empire. From what I've seen.

What does a c3 war matter when you have three nations to have worry free??

Anything beyond that is really too time consuming, so you should be using those as war slaves.

Everyone can have something meaningless to figth with (c3s) and not have to cry about getting a country they have worked on or owned for months swiped from under their noses.

YOU are making EXCUSES

3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones

If this portion of the restrictions are chosen to be enacted is it possible to make that by player instead of countries? I picture two experienced players and an 80mil pop country with number 1 war rank that has enemy countries with 25 mil pop and 50 -100 war rank not able to attack the larger country. Or the larger country suffering from hourly sneak attacks by smaller countries it cannot declare on.

Having 3 secured countries would probably encourage war, which is a good thing. You could spend a lot of time and effort on those 3 countries and if you lose you empire beyound this its not such a big deal. But war is not for everyone, and those that like war mostly dont want restrictions.

War is a very enjoyable part of the game, but like all things it depends who you war with. Some players are good sports, will have fun and sell your countries back to you on the cheap afterwards. Others however are less amicable.

For worlds other than FB I would suggest giving the secruity council more power. Allow the player community to control the community. If one or a group of players is deemed too hostile for that world, allow the secruity council to put controls on them.

War protection on FB is a good thing. We are not always available to look after our countries. Having the option of war protection gives player choice. Other than that I think FB should be a free for all, and advertised at that.

Restrictions are generally harmful, increase player choice. The game is at its best when its interactive. Expand the United Nations. Keep the council to experienced players, but let everyone have more voting options. Weapons embargos etc.

I had the very same idea as Jo, why not have a world that is an Economic world, without having the war aspect at all, this would create a more balanced game and would provide the correct environment for anyone wishing to play, no matter what their goals.

Defense is a big part of the real economic world.

"You think C3 wars are bad now? It'll be that much worse with 3 Secured Mains."

Maybe, but then I'm talking about the three lowest ranked countries being automatically placed in secured mode.

Once a fourth country is acquired it "most times" unless purchased, would become the lowest ranked and the top ranked country would them become unsecured.

Same with the fifth, sixth, etc. The three lowest ranked countries should never be able to participate in a war against a player. That means if you wish to keep your top ranked countries out of war, you'd have to pay for WP. And if you wanted guarenteed assets, you'd be smart to develop secured countries along with everything else.

I've already stated I'm in FB and do not think any country should be secured and have argued against many of these types of changes for my entire time in this game (almost 8 years)

This is however the best way I can see for anyone to have guarenteed assets and as someone said the least open to abuse.

Sure you will find people using these new "secured country" C3's as airlift and air drop staging areas. That however would not make C3 wars "worse" in my opinion. It would make it more costly in manpower and equipment but I am perfectly capable of nailing someone on the otherside of the world as long as they are forced to declare with the country feeding the effort.

Air dropped forces are actually rather easy to destroy anyway unless provided with support from a close in country.

As for the "Dedicated Worlds" it sounds good however, how does a new player have any idea just exactly which world they wish to play in?

There is nothing worse than being locked into a boring world as you have no way to move assets without help at this time.

And before someone recommends being able to move empires, that has already been done and found to be a horrible idea (see monkey wars).

Imagine working for years on an empire and having someone drop one next to you that was developed on another world, and was 4 times your size.

I must admit, having read Yankee's thoughts towards the "3 lowest ranked countries" being in secured mode.I am all for this.

If you go beyond 3, you open yourself for war or buy wp.

Your not going to lose everything if you do get in to a war or 2.


This booster to enable stopping war, i think is a bad idea.I would much prefer 3 secured and a little common sense applied from all players regarding their conduct in game or on the forums.

I'd think everyone would get the "gist" of the following statement however I probably should clarify.

"The three lowest ranked countries should never be able to participate in a war against a player."

All countries including "secured" should be able to participate in federation air defense during a war with a player controlled country.

If the problem is on FB why in the world would you ever consider changes to other worlds because of this? If you do not like war then stay the fuck out of FB! All of these proposed changes are ridiculous (and this coming from someone who does like not war).