Player have to much protection

It's a numbers game Andy.

Lower numbers are easier to calculate and run in a simulation.

Let's take an example.

The United States has around 1800 fighters/attack aircraft split between Air Force/ Navy.

I have over one million interceptors alone I can use for air defense. It's practically a mathematical improbability any single opponent could defeat that air defense without counting the million plus my fedmates have to support me.

The United States Army has around 900 attack helicopters.

Once again I have over a million helicopters I can put up for ground/ missile defense. Again almost a mathematical improbability that any single opponent could defeat that level of air defense not counting the million plus my fedmates have to support me.

The obvious solution is to keep the map invasion portion of the war game. I love it. Makes war interesting.

Lower the numbers involved which increases the important of units, training, and logisitics. This would increase the need for sound strategic planning, good grasp of logistics, and add an element of tactical suprise.

Federations would be a great place to learn these skills and train with others.

Make war fun again.

I do agree with most of what everyone is saying:

The security council should have more power in putting sanctions on countries and what not.

-Full trade restrictions on specific goods to an empire from the open market would give the council some actual bite and would make their ability govern over the world mean something.

-Have a security council military somewhat like the UN, so that it can back sanctions with military might.

-I also think that dropping the cost of the military drastically, would certainly help keep newer players involved as it would allow more room for mistakes when learning how to wage war. And for veteran and seasoned players, it might make wars on the war world more entertaining and frequent.

Just some of my thoughts

I agree these comments and have a honest suggestion for the GM. This is just a thought, but hear me out on this.

The GM should rework the number of units per base, the weapons numbers per unit, and make bases the "pivotal" asset in war by making it station units that can be lost or disbanded upon destruction. The game like in the real world, should have units "stationed" at it. The moment the base is destroyed the units are disbanded. This would make the destruction of bases an immediate priority and would even give a reason for nukes to be used on them. The primary focus would go to destroying military bases rather than just aerial attrition battles.
If the GM reduced the number of units that a base could have stationed to maybe 5 or 10 per base, that would still give a player several 100's of air force/land defensive units alone. In addition, because there are reduced numbers of units, the GM can easily cut the size of units heavily to even further reduce the cost of war game. It also provides a real chance to rework the hit/damage system and the range of weapons. Having less weapons per units, less units per base, reduced ranges, and having limited bases would have a huge of huge payoffs.

1.) --- This would allow weapons to be sold at their current price and production meaning good income, but allowing a true military industrial complex to take hold.
2.) --- With reduced weapons and ranges, a huge increase for federation resources and regionalized playstyles would evolve as since all weapons would be localized around bases. This also gives birth to the playstyle of players wanting to keep long term remote bases or depots in long range allied nations.
3.) --- Mobile units and navies would gain a massive boost in power. Mobile units would become extremely desirable and almost needed in some cases and given the proper power a naval carrier group would be an extremely terrifying threat, but also a projection of power as in the real world.
4.) --- Such a change would massively scale up the power of nuclear weapons. Strategic bases or nuclear subs would become a first strike target. This would see players fighting quickly to disable these weapons systems as they would have the means to pose a threat to a player ability to fight a war. Even in the cold war, nukes where targeted at other nuke sites first before population centers, to prevent long term repeated attacks.
5.) --- The nuclear threat would give a real reason for the Security council to be involved in humanitarian/military actions due to current or protentional nuclear wars. This also allows the GM to expand the security council. The Security council could have "Relief units" of professional soldiers/officers that could be send to help "Rebuild counties" after disasters. The labor is provided by the Security council, but it would fall on players to provide resources. (this would also allow the GM to rework how much points a player gains from humanitarian efforts for those seeking to increase their score).

Overall I personally feel such a change is needed, but it will take some creative thinking to modernize the game when it comes to war.

Great input Kyle and Supersoldier, It would be nice to see wars require more strategy and less pure military power. However, I would prefer to see the cost of training and maintaining your army greatly decreased over the reduction of the initial purchase of weapons. It seems to me, most players get into financial problems associated with the actual cost of maintaining the army. The amount of ammunition used each month border lines on insanity. Although I understand the purpose of automatic ordering this to needs to be addressed. The duplication of the orders month after month leads to unnecessary spending. (on all products).
Rob

Great input indeed.

I will look into all this text in more details in the coming days.

Some comments:

Any choice we make will have the non destructible option.
A country with 1.000.000 interceptors and similar numbers of other defense weapons cannot be destroyed.

the US with 1800 fighters (I thought it was much more) and the nukes they have, is also not your target of choice. nobody will try.

if we enforce smaller numbers, the rich player will always create a non destructible defense no matter which way we go.

however, the limitation of the numbers of units per base, can add a lot to the war game.

I do not think that destroying a base should cause all the units in that base to disband but if there is a max number of units par base, the destruction of one will cause a reallocation of units and at some point, if more bases are destroyed, all bases might be at their max and then units will disband.

So this might enforce a good defense of military bases and create strategic opportunities.

I will read more and react later.

We are not going to rewrite the game and not only because it is not necessary and a huge job.
We have done major changes before as requested by players, only to discover that although some were happy, it did not change anything, and the number of new requests, sometime requesting the old situation, continued as before.

we will make changes, if we believe the change makes sense in the view of the team here, and if it can be done without a major rewrite.

Any changes we make, will keep the peaceful option in place, might look for more incentive for war on all worlds and try to increase the incentive for war on Fearless Blue.

Thanks for the consideration Andy!

Understanding the task at hand, everything you do is appreciated. Its a wonderful game. Thanks
Rob

Here is the promised response.

I tried to get the most important issues and mainly, to write a short reaction.
I do not think people read many pages these days.

Any changes will have to be gradual and any plan we make, will have to updated as we proceed.

Opinions always change when functions are implemented and we cannot see now how the situation will change when we implement some of these ideas.

Thank you for your contributions. we are very happy to work with you on this. It is very constructive and I can see your true desire for improvements.

Here goes:

1. Some players are just not interested in the war game. Forcing them into it? Why not just move to FB and fight everyone. The number of players, as you said is not large enough for 5 worlds. Maybe the number of war players is large enough for FB.
There are currently very few war limitations on FB. You move to WL3 after 60 days and you participate in the war game.
I think that war protection on FB should require more gold coins.
Some play peacefully on one of the other worlds and earn the money for war on FB.

2. Different styles of game play. Seems excellent. I have never heard any suggestions on the different styles of game play.

3. If you play on one of the worlds where war is an option, you can build your army while your war level is lower than 3. Once you are ready, you can move to wl3 and participate. This path is available now. One country remains in secured mode. Is that a problem?
Using the peaceful choice to make that choice has some problems, we need to look into the score advantages, but I will discuss it here to see if the function can be upgraded.

4. Asking to overhaul the war engine with no suggestions is the same as promising to overhaul the war engine and do nothing.

5. We will look into the participation of federated air wings. Two might be overdone.

6. What exactly is the limiting problem when moving corporations out of a country? What is etc? is there more? Please explain.

7. The range of the defending interceptors is only relevant to the fed support. We will look at that and also at the range but it must be possible to support a country from a larger region around it.

8. The inability to get back at a very annoying player is a problem. Any suggestions on that? Anybody ever used sneak attacks?

9. Do we need a protection mechanism to prevent a devastating war on a fresh FB player? Do they need more time? Do we need to help them with a very strong defense? We have indeed removed all war limitations on FB but I read here that it is too hard for new FB players.

10. Limiting the number of military units per base, meaning in our opinion that the destruction of several bases could result in the dismantling of units. The count of bases could change if some are damaged. A 50% damaged base can count for 0.5 base.
It will require players to set up bases and protect them if they want to keep all their military units.

11. The limitations will depend on the type of the base and the type of military units. We would like to prevent specific stationing of units at a specific base. This is complicated and will require manual moving of units between bases. This is too complex and adds very little.

12. We will look into the idea of replacing radar planes with radar stations. It is more complex. I need to exactly see the advantage of radar stations and if it is worth the effort.

13. Repairing structures, including bases, is done automatically by use of construction materials.
The automation is good, we do not want to make it more complex. The use of construction is outdated. We could use either repair products, these must be available, or if we want to make it even simpler, use maintenance materials we already have.

14. No navy for land locked countries? These are most of the countries. Such a decision will give coastal countries quite an advantage. Your comments are welcome.

15. We do not think that there will be a situation where a country cannot becomes indestructible. It can become more difficult but someone with a lot of assets on multiple worlds, will be able to setup a very strong defense that will make attacks highly unlikely and in virtually all cases, fruitless.
We do not think that we need to find ways to prevent it. It is open for a few, and they could also purchase war protection.
The issue is what does it take to get there and is it too simple making the entire war game irrelevant. It is not very simple. Keeping millions of weapons is very costly.

16. We have greatly reduced the cost of ammunition and with it the maintenance cost of the army and the cost of war. We will do more but this is not about new players.

17. To help new players on FB, we could prevent wars from going all the way. If the war index of a new player goes too low, we could end the war and give the winner a compensation.

18. Reducing the number of units per base is a good idea as I already said before. Maybe also the reduction in the size of units and a reduction in the cost of war. How to implement it is another matter, there is a current situation and it will have to be a gradual change. We will hear more opinions on this.

19. If implemented, cost will be reduced, including the cost of maintaining the army. The amount of ammunition used is proportional to the size of the army and must remain in place. A huge army must have a huge cost. There is no other way to make players think twice about the size of the army. Automatic purchasing can be turned off but not ordering the ammo you need, should then destroy the units. You cannot have negative numbers of ammunitions.

1.) Fully agree, I think the only reason this became an issue was due to one taunting player who hid below WL3, annoying but no good fix that doesn't risk the majority of peaceful players.
2.) I would say this is already semi dealt with by having two scoring systems.
3.) This too I think is already fairly solid as is.
4.) I saw several overhaul suggestions, not much just ranting for change. Systems added so physical locations matter more, Navies require a coast (maybe rivers count), shorter range Defense Helicopter / Interceptors to encourage feds to work more on being closer, making military bases destructible or at least disable-able adding strategy to the placement and defense of them, etc...
5.) Thank you
6.) I had control of over 20 corps in one country, I went to move them all same day to C3, 10 moved as expected, other 10 said approved but didn't, after several days the request to move just went away and they moved when resubmitted. This drastically reduces the amount of economic damage possible with such acts.
7.) The thought behind reducing it is to force feds to cluster together, encouraging greater team work and more conflicts over territory.
8.) The annoying player was hiding below WL3, no attacks possible, really just an annoyance not likely fixable without putting the majority at risk.
9.) I'm not qualified to add input there.
10.)I love the idea as you stated.
11.)I would agree, the game already has many confusing mechanics.
12.) Maybe radar stations as an addition to radar planes. Have stations be expensive but continuously monitor threats within a limited range, like post all enemy units and report movement of offensive and strategic units, also full time allow you to check for changing garrisons, and planes cheap but only monitor when deployed and further range.
13.) I agree it should be automatic.
14.) Yes, make the coastal countries more valuable to encourage fighting for territory, the goal is to force interaction between players.
15.) I forgot the name but a group of us were talking about this, a country on FB with 100T cash quit the game due to fed Air D power, he set up the air D and stopped playing, no one could capture his nation still it did or is about to cancel out as the account expires.
16.) Thank you
17.) Maybe a simpler solution is to require new players to spend time on a non war world first, account age restrictions on FB.
18.) I think your understanding is solid, gradual changes are key.
19.) Maybe not destroy the weapons, but disband the units and send them de-active.

My points:

1.
There are few ways to play peacefully - CEO or Peaceful empires, but not a mix where empire lead country cannot be attacked.
2.
CEO gameplay is abandoned by W3C dev team, while this is very different gameplay. tons of suggestions made and more could come if there is a commitment to do anything here
3.
Best SC is aggressive pass pvp, where federation game is most engaging. Currently there is no way where to burn cash, everybody has trillions quadrillions of cash with no way to spend it. Active wars is the only way to burn massive cash reserves. Selling cash at 1$ per 1T would be profitable for W3C at any times.
4.
War engine is perfect just remove massive micromanaging, - thousands of small units used for 1 attack.
resources management is so complex that new players kill themselves before starting.
Reduce dependency on air defense, remove long range batts, make land units stronger that what is needed. just let me know is I need to provide suggestions with specific numbers - I will be happy to
5.
Federation logic needs to be reviewed, now even 2 players cannot fit in 1 federation. Number of wins participating in defence should be 1 per player with 3 max as now. Currently you don't need allies to have federation of your own countries with all benefits.
6.
no comments, moved hundreds corporations with ceo and no complaints
7.
reduce the range and change how conventional weapons are working - suggestion only use conventional batts and strategic bombers for attacks against weapons, but not targets.
8.
sneak attacks does not work against protected players. even game admin Andy has war protection and avoiding war himself - also in FB
9.
New players need mentorship and less game driven protections.. losing few times makes you think more about how to defend and attack. Current situation is that even big players lack military experience due to lack of pvp engagements
10.
why are you complicating with the bases? It is much more simple to reduce number of units and their types make them bigger and use bases only for storing weapons for replenishing units under the combat.
also - Make possible to destroy and scan weapons in bases. why it was disabled in the first place?
11.
exactly - leave bases as their are, they are just objects for replenishing units and ground attacks. Work with units size shape and limitations, not with bases..
12.
cannot see any diference, just make possible to scan what weapons are stationed under the based like it once was. bring it back please.
13.
dont complicate - it is good as is
14.
old question, but no point as most of the countries are inland. Better fix navy units size and maintenance as this is absurd right now.
15.
don't think too big, do simple things that were agreed long ago e.g. prevent CEO from storing weapons. then reduce cost of storing innactive weapons in countries. this solves a lot already with facing CEO based gazillion armies. army should be based in country and CEO should not interact with this. If you want to make space wars possible, then just allow to move weapons from one world to another but without CEO.
16.
I don;t like that cost of weapons decrease, only ammunition should but when you allow new player to buy 100 000 bateries with a single budget which cannot be maintained this creates problem of understanding what is affordable and needed for war.. I would make all weapons 100 time more expensive and switch off your market procedures meant to kill shortages. it just kills all idea of building weapons. I can buy 1 million interceptors in few days even without a single corporation producing that - this is silly..
17.
again, don't prevent. encourage them to join federations and collaborate to understand the game. direct and group new players to establish countries around each other.
18.
I can have hundreds of basis and how that will solve the problem? Think about war levels and their dependency to number of units instead.
19.
limiting is wrong approach, how you get your money for gold coins and cash sales?. If I have 10Q of money, what should I do? Just allow people to have what they want and allow fighting in all possible ways. people will fight, will buy money or gold coins for boosters etc. In very limit driven model, I have tons of money, maximum weapons and I dont need anything as literally nobody can touch me. If you allow people to build big armies, I will be challenged a lot and will challenge other players too. let people burn down the money and GCs.

Thanks for your responses.

I will wait a little longer for more reactions.
then another round.

Didn't have time to day, but I will leave a comment tomorrow morning

Just a few thoughts. Jiggle Billy and Lord Mndz have covered quite a bit.

1) On Fearless Blue give new players the option to come out in 60 days, make it mandatory in 120 days.

2) I like having two def air wings respond from federation, however they should loose a percentage of support based on distance from attacking unit.
Example
1) Attacking unit 2000 miles from target
2) Fed support 2000 - 2500 miles from target 100% capability

3) Attacking unit 2000 miles from target
4) Fed support 2500 - 3000 miles from target 80% capability
and so on.

By having radar stations covering zones this would allow the targeting of stations to create a path into a country and would disable a percentage of defensive interceptors or helicopters from responding. Land units if in the zone would still be able to defend at 100%

3) Bases have no problem with number of bases / airports, but when the last base is destroyed to 98% they should not be allowed to participate at all until repairs are at 85% and then only 15% capability and so on 75% - 25% Etc.

4) The cost of maintaining the army.

I do not think reducing the cost of weapons or ammo is a good idea. I would like to see an increase in weapons cost ammo stay the same use less in training and create a new products such as blanks, unarmed missiles that would be used as well as live ammo.

Maintenance of weapons and bases should be reflected in the quality of the weapons / bases. The higher the quality the higher cost.

On a personal note I would like to see incentives given to the established highly skilled players to help mentor new players. I do not consider myself in this category. I might as well be gambling when it comes to the finance side of the game.

@andi please check your emails its urgent

I like how open the community and admins are to modifying the game.

My thoughts, in no particular order.

In general the military is overly complex with all the single specific use items.
This also applies to a lot of other products that have only one customer and use specialized supplies.

Empire management is almost non existent. Trading within your countries and with your CEO is like dealing with foreign nations. This also applies to worker exchanges.

The quality of all products should matter. Traveling on a highway is better than a gravel road.

All products should deteriorate over time.

Earthquakes should destroy roads and buildings.

There is no way to stop or retaliate against a rouge CEO peaceful pres.

Contracting between your corps and countries is time consuming and offers little reward and is possibly harmful.

If only coastal countries can have navies than navies should only be allowed to attack other navies and coastal countries. Inland countries should have something special to balance that.

Should the ability to purchase or produce weapons be linked to war level?

Should war level drop if not involved in war for a period of time?

Should strategic weapons be limited to FB?

Lastly I applaud the changes you made to clean up the interface.

@johnV: Is it still the case where ships can actually enter landmasses?

I remember years ago attacking a landlocked player and my ships were able to sort of float above the land hahaha

@Andy:

8. The inability to get back at a very annoying player is a problem. Any suggestions on that? Anybody ever used sneak attacks?

State sponsored 'terrorist cells' would be a good addition allowing a president to create these which could operate in a similar way in which special forces do however, they are invisible on the map of the target country unless said country builds an intelligence agency and staffs to a correct level. This could open up several different play styles and add another layer to the game.

@johnV, I agree navel weapons should have limited range and not be able to do harm far inland, navy fighter planes should have a range of a couple / few hundred miles. Current fighters have 500 miles without refueling. This would allow some non water connected countries to be attacked, but the limits would be similar to the real world.

I think a big thing to encourage fighting / interaction is making locations matter, more strategic locations being more valuable. Modifying the navel system to make water frontage more desirable is a (seems to be) simple step for this goal.

Stu, don't know about ships going inland, was just thinking about balance.

Stu @Andy, Posted this a while ago, didn't get any comments.
_____
New Game Feature: Espionage

Intelligence Agencies are expensive to build and maintain.

To build they require a Hospital, a University, an Airport and a Production plant.
It would take several months to build if Airfields and Factories are available.
They require a high game level.
Only one can be built at a time.
They cannot be owned by a CEO or C3. If a players country is taken over by war they are destroyed.

The staff will be approximately the sum of one half the workers needed for a Hospital, a University, and Air Transport. The supplies are similar to Air Transport plus all the weapon maintenances.

Each month they will generate an amount of Espionage Defense that is applied to the country.
They also create Espionage Units that can be used against other countries.

As you build more, your defense increases and more units are created.

Teams of units are used in spy missions. The harder the mission the more units are needed. A mission takes six months to a year to complete.
They can be used defensively to increase your resistance to infiltration.
Offensive missions can range from intelligence gathering, lowering welfare or fighting ability, the destruction of infrastructure, corporations, arms and ammo.

The higher the defense of the target, the less likely you will succeed.
The more units you use above the minimum required increases the chance of success.
_____

JB, my point is you would need to balance the value of coastal/inland countries. Maybe something like certain resources can only be found inland.

@johnV & @Andy: I like the sound of the intelligence agency - perhaps only one required to cover your entire empire though due to the resources required to build and run one.....

I still like the idea or state sponsored terrorist cells though...!

@johnV, I don't think balance is necessary, I think coastal being more valuable is fine. I do believe an end goal would involve resources and wars caring about geography would be good.

Make it so troops move slow if at all through heavy mountain regions, could have random countries in areas like Switzerland where mountains cause military choke points and are easily defended.

I'd also think resources and farming could become based on geography, areas that are fertile (green) supporting lumber and farming industries. Areas being mountain / rocky having most mining. Desert areas supporting most oil and gas, etc...

These last two ideas though would be a major project to implement, making navies care about coast lines is an easier start based on existing programing. See if limiting the locations of stuff impacts how people play in a positive way.

Two weeks later.
I will now process the responses, discuss within our group and publish a next version within several days.

Here is a next iteration.
We are getting closer to some specific actions that can be started.
Some work will start while we can continue the discussion.

1. Some players are just not interested in the war game. FB is the war world. No protection after 60 days. (Or 120 days?). You can move there and there will be no war protection unless you pay in (more) Gold coins.
Possible change: more gold coins for war protection on FB.

2. The enterprises game should indeed be upgraded. There are many ideas and little time.
Possible action: many, there are many upgrading options.

3. If you play on one of the worlds where war is an option, you can build your army while
your war level is lower than 3. Once you are ready, you can move to wl3 and participate. This path is available now. One country remains in secured mode.
No action.

4. Navy limitation to countries with a coast is questionable. The navy is then limited to act against countries with a coast only. This will be very limiting to the navy feature.
Reduce the function of air defense? the defense might become more difficult.
Possible actions:
- Adding functions that are specific to a location.
- Shorter range for some defensive weapons. Also encouraging a more regional game.
- Limiting the capacity of mil. Bases to station weapons. Reduce numbers if damaged.
- Upgrade the repair function for military bases.
- Find ways to reduce the number of military units to simplify.
- Make land units more powerful.

5. We will look into the participation of federated air wings. Two might be overdone.

6. Moving even 10 corporations at once is a huge event. Most corporations now have about 300.000 workers. Moving 10, reduces employment by 3 millions. This is more than intended.
No action.

7. The range of fed support and defensive weapons. Taken care of in item 4.
Strategic weapons use against weapons only? Any comments?

8. Review sneak attacks? Who can be attacked and frequency of sneak attacks?
The gamemaster remains protected. Should not be involved in wars against players.

9. Do we need a protection prevent a devastating war on a fresh FB player? Opinions differ on this.
Do we need to increase protection to 90 or 120 days? (Asked before).
Possible an initial defense that is more powerful?

10. Discusses in item 4.
Currently weapons are not stored in specific bases. It is not relevant. Weapons and ammo are in units.
Larger units make sense but if too many bases are destroyed, units should be dismantled. This will force players to build a well defended bases.

11. The limitations on the numbers of units per base, will depend on the type of the base and the type of military units.

12. We will look into the idea of replacing radar planes with radar stations. It is more complex. I need to exactly see the advantage of radar stations and if it is worth the effort. Reporting on local forces, threats etc. makes sense.
If implemented, defensive wings will be less effective if the attacked target is outside the range of a radar station.

13. Repairing structures, including bases, is done automatically by use of construction materials.
The automation is good, we do not want to make it more complex. The use of construction is outdated. We could use either repair products, these must be available, or if we want to make it even simpler, use maintenance materials we already have.

14. No navy for land locked countries? These are most of the countries. Such a decision will give coastal countries quite an advantage. It could encourage more interaction and fighting for territory. We will fix the oversize of navy units. We promised this before.
If only coastal countries can have navies than navies should only be allowed to attack other navies and coastal countries. Inland countries should have something special to balance that.
Navy weapons should have limited range and not be able to do harm far inland, navy fighter planes should have a short range.

Your comments are welcome.

15. We do not think that there will be a situation where a country cannot becomes indestructible. It can become more difficult but someone with a lot of assets on multiple worlds, will be able to setup a very strong defense that will make attacks highly unlikely mechanics and in virtually all cases, fruitless.
We do not think that we need to find ways to prevent it. It is open for a few, and they could also purchase war protection.
The issue is what does it take to get there and is it too simple making the entire war game irrelevant. It is not very simple. Keeping millions of weapons is very costly.

16. We have greatly reduced the cost of ammunition and with it the maintenance cost of the army and the cost of war. Weapon cost should not be reduced.
There are no interventions in the defense related market.
We will do more but this is not about new players.

17. To help new players on FB, we could prevent wars from going all the way. If the war index of a new player goes too low, we could end the war and give the winner a compensation.

18. Reducing the number of units per base is a good idea as I already said before. Maybe also the reduction in the size of units and a reduction in the cost of war. How to implement it is another matter, there is a current situation and it will have to be a gradual change. We will hear more opinions on this.

19. If implemented, cost will be reduced, including the cost of maintaining the army. The amount of ammunition used is proportional to the size of the army and must remain in place. A huge army must have a huge cost. There is no other way to make players think twice about the size of the army. Automatic purchasing can be turned off but not ordering the ammo you need, should then disband the units. You cannot have negative numbers of ammunitions.

20. There are many players with a lot of money, they need new ways to use the money.
We intend to add features to resolve the problem.

21. I think a big thing to encourage fighting / interaction is making locations matter, more strategic locations being more valuable.

Andy,

before replying on all, please consider this simplification:

1 unit requires 1 base/airport and 1 maintenance unit. when base is destroyed unit is not maintained, when resources are gone unit is disbanded.

unit size should be increased by number of times you want to reduce number of units needed. i suggest 10 at least.

challenge is that there is no penalty for dismantling and creating from scratch. penalty could be loss of weapon, quality or could take time( e.g. 1 game month)

also you need to change concept of innactive weapons. active are weapons used in units the rest are innactive with no maintenance.