War

I'm just happy my c3 suggestion is being looked at more heavily.

I do like Laguna's original post, very straight forward and I have to completely agree that it does indeed represent the general state of affairs now. As I've said before, if the idea is for no war, then fine, the game isn't for me but I understand. Econ players certainly far outnumber war players.

That being said, I *hope* that is not what is going to happen and I don't quite understand the issue coming from someone who just doesn't want to participate in war at all...there is already an option for that...war protection isn't good enough? Or is it that it is too expensive/can expire? I personally don't think it's too expensive but don't like the fact that it can expire. I've proposed two separate classifications before to avoid that happening just as you spelled LG spelled out in one of his suggestions, don't see why that couldn't be put together, seems simple enough. When you join the game (or perhaps after you've played for a month or when you become a full member) you make a choice, econ or full, if you choose econ all of your countries are *secured* and you pay the standard 30 GC per empire/CEO + some extra amount for the added protection per country and there is no expiration, your empire will dereg if you stop playing. The other option is the game as it is now. Require a GC fee + a real month wait before a player can switch modes and no offensive weaponry or ammo is allowed in secured mode to make sure players can not use it to build up a large aggressive empire. Simple enough?

Yes many of us would like a war world, a real one, everything goes, no wp, etc. However that seems to be on the back burner and all the other worlds do need to have some adjustments made regardless of whether that happens or not. Why don't we start by making at least one world where there is no war? KB would work...no war there anyway and then see what happens? Allow anyone with an empire there who doesn't want to stay to pick whatever world they want their countries moved to and move them, not sure how complicated that is...or offer them some GC compensation for having to strip and move themselves. If there really is that much interest in no war, KB will turn from a ghost town into an economic powerhouse world Of course no war means no war against c3's either...have to buy them :S

Lets not get into an argument about comparisons, LG has a point, there is a large base of the community who wants no war at all, probably a plurality. I say modify an existing world to where that is the case and see what happens. Fix FB to be a real war world (no war protection except for earned) and we'll have both extremes...add time...see what happens.

Where is the challenge removed with No Victory? It's the exact same conditions, but instead of having the option to show the kindness of "Just end the war", it will become compulsory.

Or you fight for assets, or you fight for a challenge. If for the first, sure, I get it; if for the latter, your objection comes from?

i fight for both, having the assets rewards, and winning.

as far as war goes. winners aren't always kind. you can not blame the atrocities of genocide on the losers, but you can blame losing on them, if it was lack preparation. and you can not always say that any time a person loses, on lack of prep.

as far as assets. it takes quite a bit of effort, to both set up offense AND defense in my country. to have a battle plan, gain allies. these things take effort, and i think if i WIN, i should enjoy the spoils of war. whats wrong with that?

"That is the SC equivalent of coming out of the blue and smack a player with a war dec and what follows. " -LG

the rules as they are, means that any one that expands past one country, should defend it. i'm not going to enter football game and not expect to be pushed around...

further, if you are referring to the recent war. in comparison to the pearl harbor analogy... the initial strike was devastating, and the United States could have sued for peace, could have folded, but they didn't and fought back. Had WGC made an attempt at fending off the mob, it likely that the war would be coming to end, right about now. and its likely, the mob would have lost. as they had enough players, and resources to launch several counter waves.

i do agree that many players just don't want to war. as it stands, they have secured mode, and wp. it is already cheaper to buy wp, than it is to build even basic defense. so for players that have large countries... they could spend some of the money they didn't on military, on protection...

but i do agree, that players should have the option to make their whole empire safe... with some sort of draw back or limitation, in comparision to those that leave their empires at risk.

The challenge removed with 'no victory'/'no takeover' is pretty significant, if a player can't lose the country, they aren't likely to fight back, no real reason to. Many players barely fight back now (and do so pretty ineffectively) when they are SOOOO worried about losing their country, you expect them to fight back as strong as they possibly could to keep their country from being 'damaged'?

Similarly, what if no matter how much econ work you did on a country, it *always* lost money, the game wouldn't be any fun and it would be far too expensive. Under the scenario of 'no takeover', war players are basically forced to piss away all of their assets while econ players get to make infinite amounts of assets while risking nothing, makes no sense. War doesn't have to be about asset raiding, but it does need to bring some economic benefit when done effectively.

I understand that some people do not want to fight at all and thus should not be forced to, however I think we should draw the distinction between those who do wish to fight only when they know they can win and then act victimized when they lose. When was the last time you were in a war LG? It's been a LONG time, you've had plenty of instigating factors that could have led you to war and you are certainly a more than capable war player, but you have chosen to avoid that side of the game altogether, so I'd say you're the kind of player that would be just happy to live in a 'secured' mode/world or on a world where war was not even a possibility. I say the world or mode gets created and we see how many choose it and go from there, at least it will be clear at that point who is and is not choosing to play the full game and there will be no excuses. Seems like that scenario would make most people happy, as long as there was *some* cost (unless it's a world with no war, then costs could be the same for all players) that was paid to create equity in the system for non-secured players and that cost was not exceedingly expensive so that econ players weren't being kicked for making that choice.

i would like every one to read and consider, please, and sorry for the length.

at this point i'm a 3 year player. it took about a year off... and returned at the beginning of April.

i signed up, thinking i'd give SC another chance, it might be fun... it took 5 days for me to decide to pay.

i waited the days it requires before you can get into the forum... eagerly. before i had quit, one of the most fun and entertaining parts of the game was the forums... countless rants, requests, arguments. it was a buz of activity. and finally i got back into the forums. i was stunned... it was practically dead. It was night and day, really!!!

The WG forum, which used to be a hub of activity, has fallen to the point, if their is 2 posts in a day... it is a busy day. Even LU, seems to be more in death throws than any real activity. Its just plain sad.

Participating in the forum, is of course optional, but the slow disintegration of players being involved in more than just their own country... is more than sad. A side point of the mob/wgc war, allot of life has come back to the forum... which frankly, was one of my goals. honestly.

In the past, we had villains, mercenaries, hero's, champions, and of course jesters...

Where are they now?

The villains we had... people enjoyed hating them. Many of them i detested at the time. They were often abrasive, to say the least. They would use any excuse to war, and often would even forgo that, and just go for the old, "you had swag, i wanted it," i remember seeing quite a few posts like that.

It forced players to join feds and make friends, to protect their assets. many strong friendships were formed from the need for mutual protection. many players, (my self being one,) were so disgusted with the behavior of some, that they were willing to do something about it. That led me on a long and crazy path, to were i am now. And i've had allot of fun on that journey. And yes i get the irony... kinda like being seduced by the dark side, i'll admit it, why not. but i'm the orbiter, i'll probably spin back around, eventually.

Which is actually why i'm so strongly trying to keep the war game viable, now. The war game creates conflict. Creates need for friendships. Players rise as champions of just causes, as hero's of right. Other become villains, seeking gain.

Whats wrong with this? Their is no epic struggle with out conflict. And conflict requires at least 2 opposing parties. No one can be a hero, with out having villain. No one can champion a just cause, if their is nothing to fight against!!!

Villains, are as necessary to this game, as hero's. With out them, their is no struggle. And no politics. I mean, if every one just wanted to sit around and collect sim cash, whats the point of feds? whats the point of the security council? why do we needs boycotts. why even have weapons at all?

When a villain arises, honestly, the response should be for a hero, to pick up his, or her, sword, and take the fight to them. However, it seems the will to fight, has disappeared.

Although, i do agree that W3C has the right answer, for many, if they believe they can survive a war, just might be more interested in starting one... and from what i've seen, their is actually allot of support FOR war...

The powers that be in Sim Country, have enjoyed a type of peace, being able to state, "this is the way it should be," and no one challenges them, because its them...

and they don't speak out, for fear of being labeled a thief, or a thug. to be equated to a terrorist, or a mass murder... who wants to be called these things? by a player that every one respects? so players are unwilling to step out and do what they want, because their is an awful lot of peer pressure AGAINST war players.

And thats why many war players band together, every one already hates us...

In sim country, the single strongest skill a player can have... is the ability to make and keep friends. which, no rule will ever effect. Its possible for a player, to gain so many powerful friends, that with out being a military power themselves, they are able command (for lack of a better term,) large armies, and can enforce their will, while never firing a shot.

I do not seek rule changes to eliminate influence. However, i do want to maintain my ability to counter their political posturing, with my guns. So i understand that while not every one wants to fight, those that want to wield sim power, should not be immune to conflict. And should not be able to build defense beyond reach.

so, i believe that those that truly have no wish to fight, as it is, can buy WP, its cheaper than fighting war. but a secured empire option should be provided, with less features, ie, no Security Council. So those that just want to rake in the sim cash, can do so, and not effect any one, that can't effect them.

Further, by creating this feature, the need for extreme changes would disappear. Some changes to help players have more confidence in fighting... yes, but not extreme to the point fighting becomes pointless. And players that want to do political posturing, should learn how to defend themselves.

So i'm making 2 points,

1. The war game should not be disabled, and should not be nerfed to the point, its pointless. I'm gaining more and more confidence in W3C in this.

2. Peaceful mode in regards to empires. If a player has no interest in fighting, and should be provided a way out.

As it stands now, its cheaper to pay WP, than it is to build and maintain a WS. So if a person wants to be out of WP, they should be defended. Why should a player be safe, with half the cost, half the effort, and making twice as much money? If you think that they should, then pick up your sword and defend them.

Beyond that. creating the peaceful world, like chryso suggested, and every one agrees that their would be limitations written in... OR create a secured mode empire option...

mmmm u still need wp when ur away

It's about time you all resigned yourselves to the fact that the GMs are incapable of fixing the problems in this game.

It is becoming hard to find the issue we were discussing.

maybe we need to have another track on the issue of war or no war, or maybe we are done with our discussion here.

This discussion was about features that will improve the war game.

Our intention is to:

1. Not force everyone to build an army and fight but let anyone who wants to do so, play a peaceful game.

2. Allow anyone who wants to fight to do just that.

3. Create incentives for war players to fight much more and much harder than they do now, and have fierce fighting all the time.

The incentives will be added. We would like to get back to where more players dare to do so while other are not pulled into it against their will and can play the peaceful game.

In the current war game situation, it seems that we have a lot of collateral damage caused by a group of war players. we clearly need to move away from that.

There were many very good ideas here in the past week and when we look into some of these ideas, and push them further, there is already enough to help us go in that direction.

Thanks for all your help.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Not force everyone to build an army and fight but let anyone who wants to do so, play a peaceful game.<!-/Quote-!>

Then the obvious solution is to go back to the old system of picking peace mode or war mode, and do away with secured mode entirely. Limit war protection to prevent people living in it full-time.

I agree with the overall premise Tom, those three goals are the correct ones.

EDIT: I also agree with Orbiter, this game used to be a lot busier and I assume made more money when people felt the need to meet and converse with others for knowledge and security. I don't think forcing people to fight is the answer, so I think there needs to be a clear distinction and system to separate those who choose a completely peaceful game and those who choose the full game. As I said before, at least it will clear up the confusion and prevent any excuses from those who made the choice.

Here's going to be a possibly unpopular suggestion: stop the population trade. Increase population growth so that people will hit (at least) 60M in about 6 - 8 months in mains, maybe smaller growth the further from your main that you get. Institute rebellions in distant (from your main) or newly conquered countries (real rebellions, not destroyed state corps). Make it very difficult to maintain countries that are far from your borders.

Make it so that you can only transfer pop from your main, like sending colonies.

Change the reason people go to war. Remove the asset raiding. As we well know, wars end up costing money. Maybe leave FB as it is (and without WP) so people can go to settle grudges or fight for fighting's sake.

Personally, I'd like to see a more regionalized game where certain players/federations are strong, maybe control, certain areas. As it is, people are spread out with countries all over. Very unrealistic and it results in a loss of political boundaries which add a sense of ownership and control in the game, give people a motivation to fight.

This would take a new world since everybody already has their places, and likely won't be giving them up, but I think we need to be changing some dynamics here. There isn't much motivation to fight. The motivation that IS there is basically to take from others, which runs players off. We need to find better, more creative solutions to the problem and where we can take SC into the (hopefully) not to distant future. The game is fun but way behind the times. It needs to evolve.

~ Ramblings, BorderC (LU 2656)

Willard,
The engine is broke. It isn't built for this game. You can persist how much you want it, but things will remain unchanged. The next time you gather the strength to "solve" it again, undoubtedly sparked by more complaints, read my "4 Options" post, take your pick and message me.
It isn't natural that you get the same complaints over and over again, for years and years, despite multiple changes. That is a sign of failure.

Whiteboy,
Of course I don't war anymore, I'm the moderator. The less I have to do with everyone the better.

Orbiter,
Before your war, there were 15 threads active per day. There are now 10. If I don't post, 8. Chatter in this game is mostly about this game. In other games, most chatter concerns things that happen out of it.

BorderC,
Keep on rockin'.

Is there a way to access a test server so I can kick Whiteboy's roody poo candy Arse!

My thoughts:


1.
a. ok
b. agree
c. Strongly agree

2.
a. agree
b. agree
c. strongly agree

3. agree

4. agree

5.
a. agree
b. suggest to wait on this and see if needed
c. suggest to wait on this and see if needed
d. agree
e. agree
f. mostly agree
g. strongly agree

6. agree

7. agree

8. agree

9.
a. agree, provided average is also considered
b. do not think 50% should consider secure main.

10.

a. support long range missiles only to be added.
b. public and a cause for war; country attacked could declare war immediatly without waiting.
c. agree
d. strongly agree. Unlimited defender sneak attack for all countries of that player and his fed allies, and even for all other players, without starting war, without attackers being known, and without loss of war protection.

11.
a. ok
b. ok
c. ok
OR
d- allow countries to be vassales of other countries. Vassals pay 10% of their INCOME each year to another country in exchange for protection.


12.
a. agree
b. agree
c. ok
d. agree
e. agree
f. agree
g. agree
h. agree

13. agree

14. agree

15. Rather, allow war winners to create vassales. Include C3s as possible vassales. Vassales will pay 10% of income to player who is guardian of them. This will provide a reward for war-players, increase wars, and allow peacefull players to pay for peace. If you take over a country, you can free his vassals or take over the vassle agreements. Thus, there is a heavy incentive for vassle owners to to attack eachother.

16.

I support this feature. Having a small number of set C3s. Make this part of leveling requirement for war mode. This would

a few more thoughts:

1. Time. It takes a LONG time to build up for an attack and an even longer time to build a defense. I've upgraded my defenses several times. Each time, it takes a couple weeks (2 real life weeks) to complete the upgrade. To upgrade an empire of 10 countries takes a long time. You first need to buy the amunition and weapons (which takes a very long time due to the spending limits). Then, set-up units and garrison blueprints, and deploy them. Then add some supply units. Add to that the need to adjust your workforce to have the right number of MLM and LLW. And ofcourse, make sure not to build any corporations, or close them down to free the workforce.

As it is, I have a long list of things by military-wise and econ-wise that I could do if I had more time. Econ-wise, alone, I could be making about 300-500 BILLION more a game month, with 1 enterprise if I had time to make the adjustments I'd like to. This game requires alot of clicks for things.

2. Balance - almost anything that makes it harder to attack will make it harder to counter-attack.

thank chryso, well said.

about the econ versus war slave... thanks

and chryso hit on the problem with trying to make things "fair," for trying to make the game fair for non-regressive players... everything you do to help them, will also hurt them...

for instance, increasing the defensive power of weapons, i've already figured out how to beat through the new numbers, and what it will take... has a non-aggressive player? i dare say not!!! so the change has already given me an advantage! as i know what to bring to the fight, and my victim still doesn't have a clue.

The extra expense and effort, certainly is there. but now scale is more tipped toward the experienced, larger, and determined player, than the newer, smaller player, casual player. congrats, all the big guys, just got bigger!!!

lg, as far as i can tell, with tom's "Thanks for all your help." would tell me their part in this discussion is over...

i have more points and counter points i could make, but i don't see no point in waiting for this huge thread to load. if you want to continue the discussion, i'll be around

Tom, we currently have a choice between 'peaceful mode' and 'include defence' mode in levels. The level requirements are different for each, as they should be.

But if one selects 'peaceful mode', it's just the level requirements that change. You can still be attacked. If you truly want to create a game where "more players dare to [make war] while others are not pulled into it against their will and can play the peaceful game", why not make it so that those choosing 'peaceful mode' cannot be attacked?

It would seem the obvious solution.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Orbiter do you have a 56K modem connection? Seriously I have a dsl Broadband and the page loads fine. Not sure why you are complaining that this thread takes too long to load.

Has anybody considered setting up a "Warlord University" where players can attend to learn the fine arts of war? Perhaps they can get SC "degrees" like in real life....associates, bachelor, masters, phd? Or maybe "certificates of completion" or stars or something for certain smaller skills. Wonder if the GM would be interested in setting up a university to train all interested players.

i might be wrong (prob am lol)but its a war game...most players get 2 a certain thing and get lazy dont wanna learn war side and dont want 2 lose countrys either......gm's shouldnt change things all the time, they buckle under pressure instead of forcing(2 strong of word?) players to learn....

you know the point of how difficult it is to level peaceful, probably is enough drawback to peaceful to justify no other changes other than the choice to level peacefully, as it is, and add immunity to attacks. thats sounds fair to me. you can still be involved in things, and hard work will get you to the top. that way doves can expand, and gain the size they need with out any threat... i wish jo had made that statement earlier... allowed me to put 2 and 2 together.

i've been playing peaceful mode for leveling, just to see how it works, and at lower levels, its actually easier, but at higher levels... i can see why people are complaining, although, i don't agree that it is as hard as people want to make it out... but harder yes. so the extra difficulty in leveling... doesn't make up for the extra difficulty in playing war. but by playing war, you get the chance to pillage... so i think the 2 would equal out.

Nukepana - That's a great idea and a large part of the thought behind my idea of 'Leveling c3's', players would learn (at first on their own) how to take these larger and more well defended c3's and earn GC's for doing so the first time, just like leveling. Ultimately, players will write guides on the best way to take these c3's which other players will then learn from (such as Scarlet's Church of Simcountry or the Simcountry Wiki page). Also, that was a large part of the fed structure at one time, people teaching others how to fight. It doesn't seem to happen so much anymore, probably because there isn't so much fighting. Anyway, I like your idea, but I would think it's more likely that the players take up that cause as it used to be than for the GM's to do so, at least actively, it *may* happen passively with leveling c3's.

Also, nice to see you on the forums, don't think I've ever seen a post from you before.

She's been busy... lol... busy l;ttle bee's nice to see you nukepana.