War

Jo - You're missing the point, simply having defense is not defending your countries. If you had half the defense and double the offense the war would have looked a lot different and if as Orbiter suggested, your smaller players had been taught how to defend themselves with offense it also would have been a very different war.

As far as how long it took to take one of your countries, that is due to the excessive clicking that everyone is talking about and the fact that you and Iain and others were all clustered together which is great for air defense but much more difficult on the attacking side, we brought down several hundred thousand ints and helis before we could even start shooting at a country. The GM's, knowing the programming of the game, know full well how long it takes to bring down a fully garrisoned country with huge amounts of air support, so I'm pretty sure they are buying the 'rubbish' as it is fact.

Everyone needs to get past that war, as much as it has been played up like it was a crazy mismatch, it wasn't. Were you unprepared? Sure. Would another 24 hours have helped? Probably. Would the result have been ultimately the same? Yep. Except for if we had waited that additional 24 hours and you were then able to really go after our countries, we wouldn't have stopped until we had won out completely. We were out-manned, out-asseted, out-militaried and WE were the underdogs. We thought so ourselves and on paper that is certainly what anyone looking at it would have believed. It went the way it did because of lack of knowledge, poor and disorganized strategy, and a lack of training which all stems from the death of the war game to the point where everyone either is in WP or feels safe in their own little bubble. If you don't know how to attack then you'll never know how to defend because a HUGE part of defense is offense, defensive weapons are there so that you can hold your country(ies) long enough to knock out the attackers countries. You'll never learn how to attack when everyone is sitting in WP or it's an abhorrent act to declare war on someone because everyone is an 'econ' player.

As far as your two options, I completely disagree with them. FIRST, why do you need to 'maintain' level 13? There is zero purpose in maintaining levels except for in the month that you're competing for first place/high score. I can run lvl 12 on LU with 7 war slaves running def indexes around 1100 and off indexes around 900 and 2 econ slaves. This idea that being prepared for war or being a war player means that you can't maintain a high level or have strong econ is complete BS. Some of the best econ players are war players because they have to pay for their weapons. SECOND, to prove it, in the past 13 days I've converted my entire WG operation to quickly level and possibly compete for 1st place on WG this month...13 days (on WG even) to turn a 100% war operation that was thrown together with that sole purpose in mind into an empire that will reach lvl 12 by the end of the month...but you're right, it's impossible to have enough weapons to defend yourself AND maintain high levels and compete for top scores, not that I've had 1st place on LU and FB multiple times already...us silly war players don't know a thing about levels or scores.

There needs to be a balance that is certainly true, but whatever changes that are made are not going to all the sudden make WGC able to withstand another attack, in order for that to happen, WGC needs to change. Unless the war engine is eliminated completely those of us who use it will always have an advantage against those of you who do not and the more that a group of econ players or a fed of econ players only speaks to/recruits other players just like themselves, the more at risk they'll be. Try some diversification, it goes a long way.

Fuddlepuck!

Fuddelpuck, I say!

...... to nobody in particular.

"It took four countries attacking one of mine over four hours to take it down. Please don't insult the intelligence of the Gamemasters or the other players in this game by pretending that there was some way WGC could have won that war." -jo

thats my point actually JO, you just made it for me. A well defended country, takes allot of effort to take down, AS IT IS. Nothing more needs to be done, other than players taking the proper preparations.

you in fact made my point very, very, well. thank you. I am not insulting any ones intellegence, actually, but rather asking people to think this thru, as you said, it took 4 countries to take your ONE. how much more protection does that ONE country need? what really needs to happen here, is LESS protection, so that people are forced to prepare... rather than cry foul when some one who does, comes along.

and as far as levels, and de-activations. the health lvl requirements for higher levels, actually increases the average of workers, meaning you have more workers over 50!!! so if effect of leveling, actually weakens your country, why should i level?

"I'd like to know how I achieved an average FI of over 125 and reached level 13, despite being fully garrisoned, if my countries were losing money. You guys really are talking a load of rubbish. " -jo

man!! jo, you really are making allot of points FOR war players, now aren't you!!!

Wow

gone for 3 days...

This will take a while to read with my wife discussing her latest shopping trip in my R ear.

Need time, need time.

"thats my point actually JO, you just made it for me. A well defended country, takes allot of effort to take down"

4 hours to take it down? A lot of effort?

How much effort to build that country?

Its all about risk and reward. If you are willing to take the risk, then there should be reward.

Much of the talk has been about changing the war engine to one degree or another. But if you look back a year or so ago this was not much of an issue because there were many players that did learn the war game and participated in it. If players would only play the full version of the game this would not be much of a discussion.

The federations that are present now need to take better care of their members by teaching them how to play not only eco, but war as well. I remember when I first started and well before I joined a fed I always had a fear of becoming a target, so I didnt grow to big to fast. I tried to make it so that it would cost more to destroy me than I was worth. Then I joined a fed and learned alot more.

New players do need to be aware that they are bigger better players out there. This game cant become one where a new player can attain the ability and power a long time seasoned vet has. It isnt that way in real life, neither should it be in SC.

Of course there is no argument in the fact that a country with big garrisons and a decent offense capability will be able to make a tremendous amount of money. But luckily you have the option to either buy WP or defend yourself. The econ players have an advantage. For ie... the econ player can buy 'War protection' so they can make as much money as they can possibly squeeze outta their country and not worry at all about war. So shouldnt their be a 'EP' (Economic Protection) one where the war player can have all the military he can possibly squeeze out of his country but it not go into debt? Of course not!

I agree that there needs to be a few changes to the war game, but not a drastic overhaul. So simply put, learn the war game and alot of things will get better on their own. If you want to war, then put up something to back it up. If you do not have the desire or the guts to put up, then .......................... dont dec nobody!

Im all for giving defenders a bit more time to prep. But even then, they need to know how to prep. Letting countries within a fed dec and start the war at the same time is a good idea as well. The war engine with the Q upgrades is not a problem in my opinion, so no need for major changes there. Anyway, thats my $.01

Jason

"If people only want to play a wargame, go buy a copy of Call of Duty. Less clicking." -jo

hey, better idea, if you want friendly interaction, while building, to gain resources, to build more... Go play farmville, on face book. It free, and you don't have to pay GC for WP!!!

i'm not advertising another game, but making a point. if what you are interested in, is social networking, and building, then their are tons of games out their that offer that for free. what does simcountry offer that those don't?

war!!!

whats the point to SC politics? if no one ever fought? it'd really just be dogs in cages barking at each other. whats the risk?

no matter what you do, aggressive players are going to find an advantage. thats just how it works. and if you do manage to take away any advantage preparation provides... then what kind of game will you have?

my above points, the war engine, does give attackers an advantage. but not so much so that it can not be over come, by VIGILANCE. maintaining a state of readiness.

"I'd like to know how I achieved an average FI of over 125 and reached level 13, despite being fully garrisoned, if my countries were losing money. You guys really are talking a load of rubbish. " -jo

jo, herself, proved that a state of vigilance can be maintained. for a long time.

"This approach worked for four years" -jo

she wasn't talking about vigilance, but about WGC non-confrontational attitude. But this does indicate she kept a state of readiness for 4 years.

"I'd like to know how having all targets fully garrisoned and plenty of defensive airwings qualifies as 'refusing to defend yourself'. It took four countries attacking one of mine over four hours to take it down." -jo

had the other members of WGC done similarly, the results of the war would have been very different.

"Please don't insult the intelligence of the Gamemasters or the other players in this game by pretending that there was some way WGC could have won that war. " -jo

seriously, if more of the WGC countries been better prepared, the mob would have taken a beating. so yes, the problem was not

"when it is possible for a small group of war-oriented players to ambush other players who wish to play a more balanced game, " -jo

when jo also says that she was able to maintain large garrisons, many i-wings, with over a 125 FI, in a country that took 4 countries to bring down. And she maintained this VIGILANCE for 4 years... frankly, had other WGC members done likewise... well i already said we would have taken a beating.

W3C does not need to put in more protection to players. in fact, the problem is that players are discouraged from playing the war game. so that when some one does take the time to learn how to fight, they are already at an advantage... meaning most players are directed into being sheep, and those that choose to be wolves, are of course just that.

so had more members of WGC maintained a state of readiness, the war result would have been different. The Jo/Ian Cluster i mentioned above, consisted of about 16 countries, 18 if you include the one each of jaffle's and vann's. if it had taken 2-4 hours of heavy hitting for EACH country. then its likely that the mob would have still been fighting the main cluster, when the WGC counter decs came in.

But their were almost 0 counter decs, as it was pointed out by a couple of their larger players, they didn't even know how to take a C3?!? Frankly WGC dropped the ball in teaching their players how to defend themselves. Sheep, really, sheep. So you have a huge heard of fat sheep walking around, and no shepards!!! its surprising that it took 4 years for the wolves to show up.

So now we want to make the game "fair," We don't want players "gangbanging," we don't want players "ambushed," we want to make it fair?

so a player, can have minimum defensive weapons. max out their profits, win high ranking, and monthly awards...

and my monthly upkeep cost for my country is more than the cost of WP. so those that don't pay what i'm paying in upkeep, don't want to put their money into war protection, want to rake in the game cash, and win monthly awards, with half the effort, and resources i'm putting into a war slave. and then cry foul when i attack them?

Econ players want to have their cake and eat it 2.

Look i get it if a player doesn't want to fight, to spend the time doing it. Use WP, that is if you don't want to fight. I have no problem with it. For half the resources and effort of a war slave, you can maintain WP as long as you want. I'm cool with that, really. But if you don't, why should i feel bad? when i am effectively spending a GC worth game cash, a day to maintain my WSs, i don't see why an Econ player can't spend a GC a day to maintain WP.

Pretty simple. Why should a player have for free what another player had to spend out the nose to get? When we are all competing for the same score, and awards?

Following that, if you don't want to maintain WP, then you set up defenses. You learn, at least the basics of how to fight. I mean you learn the basics of country building, corp management, ect... why do people ignore the military aspect and get mad at some one that does learn it, when they use it?

I mean i get why some one would be mad, but my point is... when the wolves come, the farmer gets his shotgun, if he goes to town and complains that the wolves are ambushing his poor defenseless sheep, well, he'll soon be with out a flock.

the counter to aggressive war players, is not rules, we will always find a way to use them to our advantage. i mean i used black outs during the WGC to my advantage. Why not?

What i did, when we opened decs, we all have several C3s that we used to just dec all the WGC countries, to block them from using WP. with my C3s i set the black outs to start the same hour the wars would become active. meaning, after the wars started, any one that wanted to close those decs and turn on wp, had to wait another 3 hours.

Any rule that you put in, to make things "fair," will be able to be used against you. the harder you try, most likely, the worse it will get. If you want to make the war game "fair," then players should be encourage to learn how to fight, how to use the war engine, how to defend themselves from the wolves...

i mean the weapons are just effective reguardless of who uses them, right? if i'm shooting at you, and you are shooting back, assuming we both put in prep time? who has the advantage? maybe the country that needed 4 countries to take it down? that one sounds like it had the advantage. if it had been shooting back.

but the more rules you add to make things fair, will actually make things unfair. the solution to this problem, is not in W3Cs hands, but the players. Those that want to have a peaceful friendly game, just as in real life, have to maintain VIGILANCE, and be prepared with both resources and knowledge, in order to keep the peace.

in sim country, the "era of peace," has lasted long enough, that no one knows how to fend of evil. players aren't encouraged to defend themselves, and the vets that are suppose to, don't know how, or are unwilling. This has lasted so long, that their are only a dozenish players that DO know how to defend themselves. In the classic good versus evil, good had won out so well that they had become complacent. and evil has arisen again, against an unprepared light. those who wish for the good to triumph, honestly, need to dust off their sword.

rather than making a rule change, it really should be something that the players should be handling.

now that thats off my chest, i'm for giving defenders a little extra time to get ready. but every hour you give them, is an hour the attacker also gets... and i would be blowing through long range radar planes to see what your doing.

plus i think some one briefly mentioned that this proposal, as it is written can offer free WP. It implies that any one involved in the war make their intent known during the first 24-48 period, after that no one else can join.

So, player A could start the process on his friend, player B. after the initial period, no one else can join. so then theirs the extra 24? hours prep time, if that is included, then war decs, and with out a minimum time, one player each day can fire a single missile at the other, maintaining the war... and no one else can be involved, becoming a type of war protection...

even with a max time for the war of 48 hours, when the decs expire, well, you just set up with another friend. creating an indefinite amount of time that a player can be protected from other wars.

allowing another president to start a new conflict before the first is resolved, kinda defeats the purpose... so this will actually provide free WP...

and by not allowing the primary player of each side to remove players from conflict, provides another problem. we all know of some one, that if she could, given a 24-48 window, would involve herself in every war on a planet, and try to take the last shot, and steal every kill. we all know she would. and she'd have a 24 hour period to get involved. so the primary players on each side should have the ability to remove a player from the conflict. meaning the above example of limitless WP, for free, would become a reality

really, here's the best solution to the broken war game

lower the sell-able/trade-able pop to 15M.

as it is, 25 being the limit. 35 being more attractive, means for a C3, buying 25M pop, is 100-125 GC. Then the military assets, of 20-80T is another 40-160GC

so as it is right now, for a player to "ante up," to the war game, they are looking at 140-285 GC.

for a new player, thats quite the investment. and by the time some one puts that into a slave, it would hurt to loose. especially, if their main source of GC is from leveling... a one time award.

by lowering the pop limit to 15M, you are making the cost of having something to defend, between 35-50 GC, (25 for pop, 10-25 for cash,) with the 15M limit, having a 25M country with the same stripping value of a 35M country... your talking what, a 60-100 GC value? still hurts to loose, but a player can now buy into the war game, at a lower cost...

and making it cheaper, should mean allot more targets at the lower range. so their would be reward for the risk

in theory, this would create a "little league," where players can get the experience, at a fraction of the cost, and still have something to gain.

by the time a player can build, maintain, and hold a 50M + country, they would have the skills, and resources to defend, and manage it. Meaning they have joined the "big leagues,"

their will always be bottom feeders, but it would be up to the players to police themselves. not W3C.

The whole problem is that anyone who loses something it takes so much time to develop would have negative feelings about losing. Especially when you have no real chance of conquering those who are established and in coalition with another group of established players. The result is that no one is going to waste a whole month real time losing something to 4 players in 4 hours. That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. So in essence Orbiter, your suggestion, like that of many other suggestions will further diminish the will of people to participate in the war game. Federation membership will decline although it looks like it has already bottomed out, due to the reasons you guys had for attacking WGC. They were the largest non militant federation and for lack of a better target.

Congratulations, you guys are on your way to saving simcountry. BS.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

If people only want to play a wargame, go buy a copy of Call of Duty. Less clicking.<!-/Quote-!>

Although I do play CoD from time to time, I much prefer Battlefield 1943.

Go in, shoot, go out. Nothing is lost or gained.

With Simcountry it is more like a sculpture. A unique object of admiration by itself everytime.

Take the hint.

I really admire the infinite Wisdom displayed on this thread. From top to bottom, nothing productive has come of the discussion. But of course, yeah so many "good suggestions" have been made, and many more will follow. But to what end?

What part of anything ANY of you have suggested makes the war game more attractive to the player entering simcountry? NOTHING

What is the point of this thread? A subtly masked attempt at solidifying the result of what has already occurred. The consolidation of too much power.

The imbalance of power is so gr8, that no one cares to waste a real month participating in a no win proposition.

Too many of you "Self described" warlords, or war gamers, positioning yourself in a way that there will not be an organized competition of any sort for the foreseeable future.

You claim to attack those who have invested time and energy in this game in hopes of a "good fight", yet none of you ever put yourself to the task of a good fair and balanced fight.

You attack the largest newbie fed on LU while having some of the top war driven players in the game on your side. Hardly a challenge. Same for WGC, yeah they had a lot of assets and if you look at history, you will see, that ASSETS are the real criteria for their selective targeting masked by the piss poor 'good war' excuse.

You guys would have much more fun, if you divided your groups in to half or more and began having 'good wars among each other. The game in its' entirety should not have to bend to your lust for wars and assets in the same way you don't want to participate in long drawn out c3 wars. People don't have the time or organization to plan for a real month to war as you guys have.

You take advantage of that in the same manner that I take advantage of c3s, correct? No your never guilty its always just Wendy abusing features and c3s and war protection.

Lets overlook the fact that ALL of you are in WP on LU, not ONE but ALL of You. Hey I want to attack you, but hey lookie who is in WP now. All roads lead both ways.

Crusher himself has resorted to c3 wars himself in recent and past history, it was cool then, but now... need I say more. Its a crime for Wendy to have placed her valuable countries in WP, yet you all are doing the same thing, and there is barely anyone with the will or logistical capability to really cause a threat to the military you have amassed, so what is the worry? Oh, the c3 thing, right?

Your arguments can be traced right back to your own actions yet all you guys are doing is pointing the finger at everyone but yourselves.

Everyone else is at fault because YOUR warmongering has made people avoid the war game altogether. Now we want to FORCE people OUT of WP. Now we want to make it harder to wage wars when you guys hostile bid 200 corps again? Of course that was what that feature was introduced to achieve. Should anyone care that since you did that I won't suicide my countries against 4 or 5 opponents and fight you with c3s? NO. You get what you get because you deserve it, not because I get bored.

Everything is everyone else fault, you had nothing to do with any of it. WGC needs to fed up with WB to defend against the likes of Wendy while he and his fed are systematically paving the way for Josias to make excuses to continue raiding their fed inactives. Yeah I had everything to do with that too. It wasn't their fed btw that was raiding, it was Josias "acting alone". LMAO

You all have within your ranks the ability to provide yourselves with entertainment of your choosing but you won't becuase it has never been about that.

We go from accusing others of using c3s while your fearless leader has done the same.

You are all sitting in WP on LU while griping about how it should be taken away for others.

You are crying about Wendy forcing you to fight a battle you don't want to fight, while attempting to sham the gamemasters into adjusting the war game and WP to force people to play yours.

What part of any of this isn't hypocrisy at its finest?

This whole Idea has been a waste of time and effort. I do admire the fact that the gms actually have listened to half your BS, but that time and effort could have been used on improving the game not taking everyone back to square one and pleasing an small group of asshats that have in a very few short months caused plenty to really want to never participate in the war game or quit altogether, while throwing stones at Wendy for making people quit. They as a group have been a very destructive force and more so than any in the recent history of the game. So yeah let's make it possible for them to make more people quit or lose interest in the game becuase the gamemasters are helping them accomplish that very end result.


Game Over. Let's play.

"The whole problem is that anyone who loses something it takes so much time to develop would have negative feelings about losing." -wendy

thats true, so maybe we should just turn off the war game altogether? i mean, if no one wants to loose their stuff? why not just turn it off? that would be fair, wouldn't it? no one has the chance of loosing anything, every one can be econ players. no need for the forums any more except for occasional corp requests, or worker exchanges...

any war game, is going to have negative feelings by the losers. thats just the way it is. if you don't want that, like i said, go play farmville, its free, and you don't have to pay for WP.

again, not advertising another game, making a point. losing war is going to hurt, and winning feels good, thats how it goes. if you don't want to play the war game, buy protection, that is if you don't want to war. not buy protection if you want to fight but not lose... thats something else.

i mean, if their is no risk to the war game, their is no reward, and with out the reward, their is no point to fighting. to putting out the effort to be good at it, and have the resources to fight... for no gain, because it hurts to much for your opponent to lose.

i get it, i really do. i've played internet games like SC for a very long time. I've been beat up by players, and alliances that i had no chance of standing up against, months of work erased in hours. I've been on the receiving end, and the giving end. war is not going to be "fair," the more you try to make it fair for the less prepared players, the less fair it will be for the prepared players. The players that put out the effort, should NOT be handicapped to make if fair for those that don't..

Let me say that again.

The players that put out the effort, should NOT be handicapped to make if fair for those that don't.

In this game, we have WP, and secured mode. If a player does not want to fight, they should use those features. If they want to have more than one country, and don't want to pay for WP, then they should be prepared to fight, with assets, knowledge, and friends. In fact the game documentation says that.

"War is part of life in the real world and it is part of the game for anyone who wants it.

Many of the participants in the game may not be interested in fighting wars and they are welcome to play a PEACEFUL GAME. Their country can remain in SECURED MODE and will never be attacked.

Anyone who wants to play the full game, will find out that as in the real world, IF A SMALL NUMBER OF COUNTRIES ARE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES AGGRESSIVELY AND PLAN TO CONQUER OTHERS, THEY WILL FIND THEMSELVES BUILDING UP DEFENSE FORCES TO PREVENT BEING ATTACKED.

In Simcountry, all new players are PROTECTED against war and can choose to remain in SECURED MODE INDEFINITELY."

As far as the lop sided power base. it is true. it is lop sided. but really, you can't "blame,' any one. I know you will, just because.

like minded players are going to seek each other out, and group up. and even with out that, players are going to make friends. some how its ok for econ players to be friends and fed up, but its not ok for war players to become friends and fed up. that is flawed thinking.

the counter to whats happening now, is to make friends, and form alliances that can stand up to aggressors. endless C3 wars behind WP, are only a nuisance, and offer no real substance to victory. yes, EVERY one has fought C3 *only* wars. That true, what *NO ONE ELSE," has done, is to do it for 2 YEARS.

And wendy, you've had 2 years to make friends, and form alliances, to create a counter power to the current power... but you've choosen to a nuisance, rather than have any real substance. The last major fed you were in, you watched from WP as it was dismantled, because you caused problems. You may say that you were justified. I'm sure you feel that way. But it remains that your friends pay for your lack of patience.

and thats the problem really, isn't it? you can't wait to be a power, and effect the way the game is played, so much so, that you will fight in such a way you can't lose. you of course can't really win, but the constant nuisance is what your going for. keep harassing people until they give in.

you've been playing longer then EO, him and his friends have built the strongest power base in the game, currently. In this time, you could have done that, but you choose a different path. and you are going to continue to fight an ineffective method, that relies on harassing some one until they give up. not be actually outsmarting some one, or out maneuvering, but simply harassing some one until they slip up, or give in.

so basically, you want the same reward as EO, or WB, with out the work. thats really what it is. because if you wanted it, you've had 2 years to try for it. but you haven't

again, players that put out effort, should not be handicapped to make it fair for those that don't.

Yes, encourage everybody to stay with a single SM or WP. Then you and yours will whine that there is nobody to fight, and if they do fight and are smart enough to keep assets in WP, you'll whine that they aren't fighting the way you want them to fight.

The only way to fix this is to make war something that everybody can do, not just those who have the time. We all know that you can prep for war for months, you can buy all of the offensive and defensive weapons you need, and you can have plenty of friends, but if you don't have the time to fight back, you lose.

WP solves nothing. It just makes the defender pay more and gives the offender nothing to offend.

It's not a war game, it's a nation-building game, of which war is an integral part. Successfully defending your empire, especially when under direct attack, can be fun.

Any mature player of this game should realize that success is not guaranteed; if it were, the game would not be as fun.

On the other hand the infrequency of wars if one is not seeking them out can give one illusions about the effectiveness of one's efforts, and discouragement when shown your weaknesses. It's happened to me, to whiteboy, to WGC, to many. This may be "fair," but it's not always so much fun.

Those of us pushing for these rules changes have had some success on the offensive side, and see the built-in weaknesses in the defensive side of the game quite clearly. Currently, aside from the ability of the individual player, it's just difficult to adequately defend. Currently, the best defense is an aggressive offense. That's NOT conducive to bringing in new players to the game, nor to keeping the NORMAL player who wants to build and defend their empires non-aggressively.

Barney started this thread to propose an interesting way to strengthen the defense relative to the offense. Laguna, at the request of myself and others, directed the GMs to this thread to review Barney's proposal and some of the analysis of it.

There are lots of potentially good ideas to improve the game. If unrelated to the thrust of this thread they should be articulated and discussed elsewhere. Crafty has already started a great thread for the back and forth arguments between Wendy and the mob, here.

"Any mature player of this game should realize that success is not guaranteed; if it were, the game would not be as fun." -jojo

i like that, well said.

"Currently, the best defense is an aggressive offense." -jojo

yes, true. so think this through. you want to make passive defense able to hold against any aggressor? really? you could argue that they could be strengthened. ok. but as Jo pointed out, it took 4 countries 4 hours to take her country... how much effort should it take? 8 countries? 12?

higher up in this thread, it was stated that gangbanging and multipul wars against a country should be something to avoid? but you want to strengthen defense so thats the only way to over come a country?

no one is arguing against giving players more time to prepare, no one has said that. how ever, every rule that you create to make things fair, will have the opposite effect.

the problem that every one is dancing around... is that the way the game is played, is out of whack. the more protection you provide for players, the less players are going to be encouraged to prepare for war. meaning the ones that do, will have more and more of a lop sided advantage.

honestly, it needs to go the other way. less protection, so that players are forced to learn the war game, and defend themselves. so that they aren't overwhelmed by some one that attacks them.

if a player has no will to fight, or lacks times. but they still want a large empire, then buy WP.

sense i've returned to SC, in 4 and a half months, i've built up quite the empire, it is not difficult to mass wealth. and the amount of money i've spent on my military, i could buy war protection for several real life years,

yes, if i was to sell off all my military assets, i'd be able to build several large econ slaves, and keep them in wp for at least a rl year, with the resources i have now. after 4 rl months

if a player doesn't want to fight, i have no problem with them being in WP. and teaching them how to support continual WP...

if a player doesn't want to do that, then they should be prepared to defend themselves. this is simple.

the problem is, the more we protect players, the more lop sided the power base will become. with only a handful of people knowing how to fight, meaning we are actually creating sheep, to be harvested at our will

creating new, and bigger protections, will only offer a false sense of security, until some one chooses to harvest the sheep. then we'll be back here, figuring out a way to protect the sheep, to create the same cycle...

seriously, we will be back here, figuring out a way to protect players, as aggressive players will always find a way to use a rule to their advantage. thats just the way it is. the "fix" to the war game, is to actually play it, rather than trying to avoid it

"Everyone else is at fault because YOUR warmongering has made people avoid the war game altogether. Now we want to FORCE people OUT of WP."-- Windy

NOBODY wants to FORCE anybody outta WP. How many times does it need to be said that if you wanna play peaceful...... then get WP. How many times and different ways can that be said? However, if you do decide to play peaceful, then dont go dec on others, otherwise you clearly are not peaceful.

Learn to play the game, implement your learning and alot of this will fix itself!

exactly serpent, the WP issue, is not with peaceful players that want to be left alone, its better for a peaceful player to buy WP

The WP problem, is with aggressive players that want to use it a means of an "undefeatable," tactic. And it is the classic example of what i meant with the more protection you provide players, the aggressive players will use to their advantage.

exactly sleerpy

Implement your learning and you wouldn't have to worry about people fighting you with c3s.

Can we quit whining and start playing now?

As much as you tell everyone else, if you don't want to fight c3 wars stay in WP like everyone else who doesn't want to deal with your BS. Seems fair to me.

Many times when some epic event takes place, you realize you are at some crossing point. This recent war made everyone aware of the way the war game is played or largely not played.

The problem however, is lingering for a long time and most people think there should be some changes. This recent event is not the cause for change but obviously accelerated the discussion.

Big and fast changes are dangerous as the probability of success, when you change such a complex system is low.

If we want to allow players to make other choices than the two extremes of war or no war, we need to give them some more chance to survive a war.
If they have a hope of surviving a war, they may start to think of the possibility to start one.

The following is a long list with many ideas that can help to improve the war game.
The list is incomplete, I am sure, and it is at the same time over complete. We will not implement every idea here.

It is a compilation of what was said before and some of our ideas. We would like to continue from here and add more ideas before we start to make choices.

At the end, we do want to make some choices and do some tuning. It can be done in stages, smaller steps to prevent a major error but we definitely want to move on and make some changes.

1. Deactivation of weapons because of shortages of soldiers and officers can disrupt logical steps during the war and should be delayed, reduced or eliminated by a possibility to get the people you need immediately and by expanding the use of other groups of the population.
It could be solved by an addition to the purchase of population, allowing the purchase of specific groups or as Jo suggested, have a standard population distribution, independent of the situation in the country.
2. More time when war starts and/or the option for the defender to choose for one or two extra days or the option to start the war right now.
3. Allowing fed mates to join and have the war start for everybody at the same time.
4. Increase the time between war declaration and the start of the war to 48 hours on all the worlds.
5. Increase the blackout time to 8 hours from 4.
6. Removing or expanding the spending limits for defensive weapons for the defender once war is declared.
7. Imbalance between the warring parties cannot be eliminated or severe limitations will have to be imposed, limiting the war game to an un-enjoyable level. Comparing war indexes of both parties and limiting the difference to a factor of 3 or 5 or 10 can help a little.
8. Reducing the number of countries that can declare on one country.
9. Set a time limit on all wars. It has to stop within a set period.
10. Introducing automatic defense building features at a chosen level will make it easier for the defenders.
11. Starting a market for military units and making it possible to purchase complete units, ready to go, at a certain fighting level. This can be limited to the defender, after war or a conflict is declared.
12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.
13. A limited war option that can cause damage to the other party but without the risk of losing the country. This option may no be interesting for the large aggressive feds but might encourage smaller players to declare on larger ones and reduce their power.
14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.
15. The possibility for players to complain about a specific player and prevent him from going to war for a set period may help. It is more time consuming to build.
16. Unclear yet what we need to do with WP:
a. No WP at all for fed members with large armies and a high war index?
(plus measures to prevent countries from quickly going in and out of feds to dock this rule).
b. Limited WP for all, but before declaring war, 50% of the assets must reside in countries that are not protected.
17. Change the rules for sneak attacks:
a. The name of the attacker should be known.
b. Sneak attacks could be made more powerful and include more weapons.
c. Forbid sneak attacks by very large powers-feds with a high defense index total!
d. Upgrade sneak attacks to the level of a limited war.
18. Set conditions for anyone who wants to stop the war NOW. Assets transfer? Other conditions?

thank you tom,

were as i don't agree with everything, i do agree with the basic concept your going for.

"If we want to allow players to make other choices than the two extremes of war or no war, we need to give them some more chance to survive a war.
If they have a hope of surviving a war, they may start to think of the possibility to start one. "

that said, knowing i'm not always 100% correct,

i'm sorry, but i do have to point out a couple of flaws

6. Removing or expanding the spending limits for defensive weapons for the defender once war is declared.

expanding or removing spending limits for the defender... to a degree i can support expanding spending limits. but removing them?

i've got over 200T in my direct account? whats to stop me from buying 200T worth of weapons and ammo. Or before i want to war some one, talk a friend into dec'ing on me, so i can max out my spending limit? then when that war expires, i'm already a leg up. Or just trading back and forth decs with friends so that we all get expanded or removed spending limits... this idea is really open to abuse. The idea is kind hearted tho...

14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.

this works both ways, as aggressors can still set up their own clusters...

but on the positive side

18. Set conditions for anyone who wants to stop the war NOW. Assets transfer? Other conditions?

allow a player to pay some sort of bride, or reparation, what ever, to get out of a loosing battle while having their country intact, thats a really cool idea. Who's idea was that?!? their would be some tweaking to that. like have an offer show up on the war page of the "winner," forcing them to except or deign the offer before any more attacks can go through. so that a player that expends allot of ammo isn't forced to go away with a fraction of what they spent... so an offer could be made, deigned, a better offer could be made... and the fact that the receiver of the offer has to except of deign it before continuing attacks, and the defender can't make attacks while the offer is out... will make it so no one can say they didn't see it, and it can't be used away to get free attacks.

4. Increase the time between war declaration and the start of the war to 48 hours on all the worlds.

thats a good idea to, its really hurky-jerky to figure out where you are going to be in 16 or 32 hours. and an even 24 or 48 hours, i like that.

I'm going to throw in a suggestion here, just an idea is all, feel free to shoot it down in flames.

Take the number of wars that an account has been involved in. If it is twice (say) or more the number that a potential target has been involved in then that war cant go ahead. This could be on a per world basis or for the whole account.
Taking C3s would count as wars involved in, but deccing on C3s would not be limited by the rule. (So if you take a C3 for pop transfer or strategy in warring or whatever reason, you have gained experience and gotten the benefit but made youself that little bit more vunerable).

This would offer new players protection from big capable players, also it should offer the economy players some protection, though it might be noted that as they grow large multi country empires their 'attackability' would become greater, and so it should.

Now new players can fight and enjoy the war game without fear of being completely shafted by very experienced, asset heavy players. As they grow they get to fight in the bigger leagues, in fact, publishing the number of wars a player has fought/won/lost would surely encourage many players to achieve higher standings and so use the war feature more.

It seems to me this would be easily implementable, there already is a view of wars fought/won and lost for countries though how accurate it is I am not sure, so its a comparison of numbers and a yes or no. Also, I am not sure how you go about decs from multiple entities, maybe 1.5X average war number or maybe less, open to debate.

Pick the bones out of that.

Crafty