War

If people spent as much time enjoying war as they did bitching about it then this game would be fun regardless.

Yes I did steal one from you Wendy, and I did get quite a laugh out of it.

However, you were attacking Wild Eyes, my inactive fedmate and friend. This may as well have been an attack on me.

If the game becomes all about stealing countries at the last second, those who steal likely will be continual targets - as you have experienced from us, and us from you. Discretion on this front will need to be exercised - I agree with you.

Back to the topic though. I'm not sure I agree with faster reactivations. If you're careless enough to deactivate all your stuff, you probably should deserve what you get.

I do however like the idea of increased spending space, and maybe a bit of an increase in time between when you get declared on and when wars go active. However, I think one thing that could improve this further is to have the wars go active a DAY later. Something on a real time schedule instead of 4 game months. On White Giant, a player can declare war at noon one day, and will be fighting in the evening the next day. It is very complicated.

Blackout periods are definitely effective in terms of this, but are difficult to use and many players do not use this feature. I think they need to be emphasized further. When you acquire a country, you should be FORCED to see a screen with blackout periods, and know when you set them. I think this also can be of huge benefit.

I will say though from my experience in the recent WG war, WGC had far more weaponry than we had.

For example, I attacked Dale. He had far more air wings up in his empire than I did in the countries that attacked him. His main issue was that he did not even try to attack my wings or my countries. More or less, I was free to just sit back and shoot at him. Obviously I'm a little biased in saying that is his own fault but really, he had a war slave in the top 20 war ranks, he just didn't use it. I know he was online during the wars, as I received messages from him.

In conclusion - I think we should look at finding ways to increase fighting between players when both sides have a chance to be around to fight. IF some way can be found to do this, it would decrease the advantage of the attacker greatly, and should allow the defender the time and ability send in attacks of their own.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for the input rita!

Make FB a war world, remove all wp except for a main.(wp only,not secured).

Make one world,econ, the other 2 balance, one towards econ with war, the other towards war with econ. That to me, would please all.
Each would know where they stood.

The only addition i would add, is defensive weapons arent as affective as they should be.
Everything is geared towards the attacking player.Why not make Ints defend harder than they do? Heli do as it is.

Barney and others have stated some great ideas, i just doubt most could be coded into the game, this, even in its infancy, has a chance.


I think this would give e1 a shot at what they want from sc.

Maybe alterations needed, but a good starting point.


Rob


As an addition,

A totally econ world could have weapon products removed and maybe others put in their place?


Im thinkin along the lines of whats codable, not the pipe dreams we all have,lmao

Good post Blue. I agree that int's and heli's are too easy to take out but I would add that if they defend better, then they should be priced accordingly.

New products aren't really needed for an econ world. Just increase consumption of goods by countries/population.

I really like the idea of the worlds that are at both ends of the war/econ spectrum. Many of the suggestions that have been put forth are very good ones, and they would/could work. But they may be to complicated to implement.

The issue I see with players is the fact that many may have defense set up with garrisons and wings, but they lack the offensive weapons to fight back. As many of you know, a great defense is only a speed bump, just buys you some time. No doubt the reason is because offensive weapons cost alot more in money and staff to keep active. So what if during the initial four months of the war dec spending limits and reactivation limits are doubled? That way more time could be focused on offensive firepower. Of course this would not 'fix' everything, but it sure would be a big step in the right direction. Also it should be a simple thing to implement.

Just my $.02

I 100% agree with your thinking on the offensive weapons Serp. Defense buys time...offense wins a war...even if they cost more to maintain.

I'm just glad to see all the discussion on war. If nothing else...people are talking about it....which may lead to more participating in it. Maybe there is hope after all.

EC

I remember it like yesterday. I was trying to take Barney's country, which wasn't even his, and he and Sam tried to steal it out from under me, and while they were ripping apart my lousy defense I stole it out from under them. "Outplayed" was probably a poor choice of words for someone whose scale of play at the time involved relying on a single LRD to take out half that country. I remember asking Barney to toast my victory with a simbeer, and he said he was going to pour it on my head, a foreshadow of what lay ahead. Ah, good times

i had an idea of spending 5GC and it would instantly reactivate all weapons

Barney's proposal reminds me a bit of the game called Diplomacy. A war game is more fun when it has that kind of interaction and collaborative strategy.

My problem with Simcountry war is that it's stuck in internet 1.0. Back then people discovered that a mouse could be fun, and online games became about clicking.

But internet 2.0 is more about creativity and interaction. Now there are games with elections, auctions, player blogs, blog rankings, player jobs, and other applications for interaction. And they don't require clicking marathons.

True indeed Vicious.

I vote for Vicious' answer.

It makes me happier with fewer words.

Vicious is always more eloquent then myself.

@vicious,

agreed, the war engine is stuck a couple of time zones in the past.

There should be more automation to it, so that a player could plan actions to occur without actually having to sit there and continually click the mouse. It should be possible to be able to tell a unit (or units) to move to a location and attack without having to sit around and wait for the unit to get there.

Also, when attacking a c3 with a navy, it should be possible to automate the actions to occur, i.e. take out air force first, then the capital, etc.

I saw the chat record. I missed the event unfortunately. Ill try to shorten this idea significantly so jozi can quickly look it over and make a decision about its merit.

Please no one post here until I concisely describe the idea.

Give me 48hours from this time.

Barney

This idea is intended to reduce the lopsidedness that has evolved in this game which currently gives highly aggressive well coordinated players a tremendous advantage over other players.

Basically its goal is to allow more time between when the war dec happens to when shooting starts.

PREWAR COMMITMENT TO A CONFLICT

Prior to declaring war on an active player, the aggressor must push some button(call it what you will)which puts the defender on notice he is about to be declared on.

Once this happens a count down begins(24 hours 48 what ever). During this count down the players can recruit help, negotiate etc….

During this time period other players may jump in. If a player doesn’t make himself available for the impending war by committing himself during this phase, whichever side the president may like, he/she can not declare when the time period ends, and the actual war decs can begin.

This is a static time window for every player to plan around. It doesn’t begin at different times for every player when they commit. It begins the first time the first player commits. Again, a count down.

THIS WINDOW OF TIME WILL ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO DECLARE WAR AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME GREATLY REDUCING THE INEQUITIES WHICH HAVE EVOLVED WITH THE INCEPTION OF RAPID WAR UNDER THE NEW ENGINE.

WAR DECLARATION PHASE(same as we have now)

This is under the same time constraints which exist today.

INTENT
1. Give players more time to plan and counter a threat.
2. Allow consultation from other players who may wish to passively help.
3. Allow active recruitment.


CONCERNS
1. Must be sure that players can not join in with the intent to just take a kill shot on a country winning the country after another president does all the work. THIS CAN HAPPEN RIGHT NOW BTW.

Please, no one post until jozi can pick this apart.

We have read all of this and we think that this is a good idea.
It has evolved a little in time and the last description is simply formulated and probably easy to understand.

To make it happen, we should clarify some details and try to avoid major changes because a long development time will put this on a waiting line and nothing will happen for a long time.

If we find a solution, we may start implementation on one of the worlds and then move on.

I would like to try and get to a definition of exactly what we need to do and the time line in the war process.

We will have two different possibilities of declaring a conflict:
a. Declaring war as we did in the past
A player can declare war. It will be a limited war and will start after 32 hours.
Wars declared in this way will allow a limited use of offensive weapons.
- Military units will not be used.
- No nuclear weapons
- The only weapons to be used will be offensive weapons that will attack targets at a distance (air force).
- The war will also be limited to attacking military targets and corporations.

b. Declaring a conflict situation with a potential war following
This is the new process that starts with a 48 hours period, allowing the parties to
try and avoid a war.
During that period, others can join both sides and parties can negotiate or just prepare for a full war.

- During the 48 hours period, each joining party will be considered joining at the time of the initial declaration of conflict.
- There should be some rules as to how many parties can join.
- We might consider balancing powers or at least avoid absurd differences in power on one side or another.
- 48 hours after the initial declaration, the setup of both sides will be fixed and closed. No entry of new countries.
- Both parties will have 24 hours to decide if they want to declare full war. If none is declared the conflict will end.
If they declare, what happens next?
- If anyone declares war, all countries on both sides will be considered as having declared war on everyone?
- Only countries declaring war will participate in the war. This could end up unbalanced.
- If anyone declares war, it will be a war against the original target of the conflict and everyone will go to war with that country?

We would like to discuss with you and end up with a text, in this format but updated, that will then be used as a guideline for the developers.

We have been thinking about the temporary war protection and possible solutions.
We will defer that issue and wait for this one to be decided first.

First, I'd like to say: Please don't delay modification of the current war protection system, it's an entirely different issue and has created numerous issues in addition to, just as Jozi said, has killed the war game, case in point, look at FB (the War World) right now.

Second, I'm interested to hear what Barney has to say about this as it seems a bit more complex/cumbersome than his latest reiteration, part B sounds about right, not sure what the purpose is in part A. I think part of this should be some kind of system to avoid endless wars, if you combine part A and part B you are either preparing for or fighting a war of some type for a week straight minimum. Giving defenders more time is the ultimate goal in my opinion and that can be achieved without making the war game even more cumbersome than it is already.

Part a and b wouldn't occur consecutively. Either the attacker would choose one or the other or it would depend on the conditions during the first 24 hours.

This complicated system, and it's proposed changes actually speed up the undesired effect. I know that may sound strange, but change it, and track the results. It will be the exact opposite of what you think you are creating.

The proposed changes as are will still favor the attacker(s) and will force more people to stay in WP.

Changing WP boosters will be a failure again and seems like you are placing too much faith in players' discretionary thinking. This whole idea is biased as the organized groups of raiders/or aggressors have presented almost 90% of the general idea. It could have been taken differently if the ideas came directly from the game developers and not from participants. Give it 90 days after implementation and you'll see what I mean.


Either way, I hope whatever changes come quick so I can move back to planning. Can't calculate what you can't see.

Part A:
Sneak attacks mostly fulfill the function of Part A. As proposed by Tom, in Part A war is limited to attacking military targets and corps. But many countries have no state corps. It would be strange and boring if the only targets are military. Part A doesn't add value to the game.

Part B:
Option 1. If each alliance attacks only the aggressor or defender, that's very unbalanced. Then it would seem suicidal for anyone to declare war.
Option 2: It would be more balanced and realistic if every country in one alliance can attack every country in the other alliance. But that can become a huge, time-consuming war.

Option 2 can be enjoyable if the number of allies and targets are very limited. Six allies each for the aggressor and defender seems reasonable, chosen by the aggressor or defender among countries offering them help.

In Option 2, the aggressor and defender would assign targets to each ally. Ally 1 attacks cities, Ally 2 attacks towns, Ally 3 attacks counties, Ally 4 attacks bases, Ally 5 attacks forts, Ally 6 attacks corps, plus the aggressor and defender can attack any target.

Most importantly, this division of war labor would reduce the number of targets per person to a sane amount. (But forts would be a problem, with potentially 700 forts per alliance. That's a good reason to limit forts to 50 per country.)

This division of war labor also would create interesting diplomacy for the game. War players would need to get sufficient and capable allies. I believe the purpose of Barney's proposal is to promote diplomacy.

I personaly like the first proposed idea of having half the countries come out of WP if dec'ing. This is what the argument started with.. c3 wars. If the attacking party wants to start a fight and only use a c3, then they should at least have countries either that they worked hard at vulnerable to counter decs, or they have to work hard taking a bunch of usless c3's in order to declare war. As far as Econ Vs war player, well SC is both. If you want to be an econ player and not join a fed, at least learn to defend yourself, its no secret that there is a posibility of war, look at the cover page every time you log in with the big tank staring at you. You have an Econ that supports your military, as in real life. Also you have feds that protect the econ player (which should at least have some sort of interest to defend ones interest) that could stick up for them in case they are attacked. Which brings up somthing, heres a thought, we have the ability to auto dec a country in case one of our empire coutries is attacked, why not have the same option for a fed mate? is he/she not considered part of your greater empire? In a fed you normaly have both econ and war players or at least someone that has a clue to fight. This is the most realistic idea i can think of. Example, if war was deced on Canada, would the States not know about it immediately and counter dec? Or would they just sit there watching there nieghbor get slaughtered saying, well, i didnt dec in time cause i was sleeping, or i was at work. This would also help define the word federation here on SC, as the only thing linking to a fed is outside forums and air support. This is not complicated and should not be as hard to implement. Thanks Mr. Willard, I appreciate your effort on this topic.

This really seems like it is becoming VERY cumbersome requiring many changes to the system which will likely be quite time consuming and will just as likely not change too much. This idea was born in response to the Mob attack on WGC, another 24 or 48 hours or being able to recruit other players, etc wouldn't have changed the result, we didn't even use a quarter of what we had built.

That being said, I do understand the need in general for more time to prepare/negotiate on the defender side. This can be accomplished much more simply by giving the defender more time, straight up, option for an additional 4 game months just by logging in and clicking the 'Additional 4 game months' button. I'd prefer to see it coupled with an option for the defender to start the war immediately, giving the defender the option for 'surprise' but even without that, I think the above option would suffice.

Ultimately, the problem with this or without this remains the same, people don't understand the war engine as much as they should or as much as they used to. The more cumbersome you make the war engine/declaring process the more you enable the strong war players because they are the people who will take the time to figure out whatever changes are made. Econ players/big feds like WGC will continue on either naively assuming they are safe without war protection or assuming they are safe because they are the biggest fed in the game, however, ultimately no one is safe and the only way to increase safety is to learn how to defend yourself. War protection and large feds whose most powerful members can't protect themselves much less their newest members are only making the problem worse. There are multiple facets to this game and simply saying 'I want to play this way' is not a good enough reason to completely ignore one of the biggest facets, 50% of the econ in the game is based on war and weapons, ignorance isn't bliss, it's just ignorance.

War protection has allowed the community as a whole to become completely ignorant to the war engine in general. The answer isn't to get rid of war protection but there should be limits on it and players should have to learn that side of the game or align themselves with players who can actually assist in their defense.

Don't get me wrong, I like the general idea here, being on a 16 hour (LU) or 32 hour (WG) time schedule to start a big war is a bit ridiculous and I think correction is in order. However, the ultimate problem should be addressed immediately, the war game is dieing due to war protection and exclusive c3 warfare, the war game is either going to basically go away completely or be revived by changes to correct the imbalance, I'm hoping for the latter but expecting the former. If the former does occur, you can count out 10 of the most active players in the game.