War

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

8. Reducing the number of countries that can declare on one country.<!-/Quote-!>

I think this is a good idea. What purpose is there in 3 or more countries declaring war on a single country (or a like proportion)? If the attacker needs that much support, he shouldn't be attacking in the first place.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.<!-/Quote-!>

This is a good idea. A player that sets up a solid, well-rounded defense should be able to have a basic feeling of security.

@ Crafty - I'm not sure what I think about that, but it's interesting...thanks for sharing it!

crafty, i like your idea, only flaw i see in that is that less experienced players wouldn't be provided protection from experienced fed mates, unless you wrote that in. and maybe c3 fighting shouldn't count as heavily as against players, like maybe decing a c3 would be half the value as decing a player. the only other flaw, is if some one gets beat down, and they don't have the strength to fight people of their war range...? otherwise, i really like it

green starfish. jo said it took 4 countries to take her 1 down. building up defenses to an unbeatable level disables the war game, completely, limiting number of wars against a country, fine, but 3 is a rather low number, against some of the more powerful countries. I mean i could build a country that takes 4+ countries to take out, now when i dec on you, you will not be able to bring to bear enough weapons to stop me... i mean it sounds good, doesn't it? to make an undefeatable country? but you make that possible, you can guarantee it will be used aggressively.

i'm not saying i would, or will dec you, it was an example

Orbiter - I understand what you are saying. But in that scenario, there would be damage sustained by both sides, but (assuming we both had a proper defense) no country would be taken. In my opinion, that is important. Personally, I would be much more willing to participate in war if there was some degree of loss, not just total loss. Or frankly, if I had any belief that it was POSSIBLE to have a strong defense that could actually hold up.

I know the argument of the best defense is a good offense, I do get it. But, waging a strong counter-offensive is just amazing time consuming. A long time ago, a remember being in a war that spanned many hours over real days. Even with winning, I find it hard to classify the amount of clicking and time as "fun". My favorite part was coordinating with my fedmates...

Lastly, I do not mean to suggest that a country cannot be conquered. But if its a well-defended country, I do think the attacker should be well-prepared and highly skilled.

One more kind of random idea: What about allowing fedmates to "donate" military weapons/units/ammo to fedmates who have a declaration issued against them?

1- good idea but right now we cant buy pop when in war. Will that change?
2-7- I agree with
8- disagree
9- disagree, the war will end with no winner, defeating the purpose of fighting, killing the war game again.
10-11- I agree
12- disagree, this will eliminate any fighting
13- disagree, if you dec you should fight till you win or lose
14- agree
15- disagree
16a)- disagree, if a player can dec with a c3
b) agree
17- remove sneak attacks altogether
18- not sure what to do yet

eliminate c3 style fighting by maybe introducing re-fuelers which would allow FP/bombers/transport planes to travel to far away countries?

I agree some changes need to be made, but how far are we actually gonna go with this....once someone kicks my butt or I kick theirs, maybe I should have to pay for their medical expenses...send their family members an apology letter....how about making it so that we need to send their parents a permission slip that must be returned before the dec can go through?? It costs a militarized country a whole bunch each month to sustain...much more than the cost of war protection.I should be able to put it to use. Defend it one way or the other...wp, or a REAL defense.

Also....if I can drop in special forces to paint with, shouldnt my navy seals be able to do the same? This would eliminate the need for "painting" c3's.

EC

As one of the closest things to an outsider looking in I would give my own thoughts on those 18 items.

1) From what I've gathered from others, there's a distinct problem with deactivation priorities. Changing this to prioritize strategic then offensive then defensive would eliminate a fair bit of this.

2) This would be a double-edged sword. But sometimes, every month counts, so go for it.

3) Seems reasonable and would eliminate some of the chaos of coordination. Particularly if combined with the delaying options of #2. Only caveat I can see is if either side wanted to bring someone in through negotiation and have them enter at the same time, without them having to change feds. Maybe some sort of option to allow that choice.

4) Doesn't seem like a problem. Would be a bit longer game month wise on LU, but that would make reactivations easier here.

5) A full 8 hours of sleep, if you so desired? Would be a novelty, however, there'd be the return slice, getting war declared would be a bit of a challenge in some situations, sure there's 16 hours open, but if two parties are sufficiently different on time scales they could never meet each other on the field of war.

6) Go for it.

7) I'd need clarification on this one.

8) Does this mean there's currently no limit? Or is there a limit of say 10? 20? 40? What should that limit be? Any of those numbers I referenced?

9) Sounds good in theory, but it's all in how the war is defined. If it's between Country A and Country B. Not a problem per se...but what if Country B is losing and brings Country C in? The period expires for A and B, but A and C would continue since they'd have a different period. Unless it's just a flat period that a country can be declared on. This would eliminate some flexibility and turn the whole thing into short term punching matches, or tedious grinds for one person with an eventual loss.

10) Please god, no. The best first step is to shut off automation when trying to build a successful country.

11) Interesting idea. However, this could mean whoever has the deepest pockets would be the winning defender.

12) There's been a lot of discussion about there's an imbalance. How and where these imbalances are determined. I haven't looked into, and will admit my knowledge is spotty. If there is an imbalance, make an adjustment certainly.

13) War with minimal risk? Could be an idea that would allow a weak coalition to chip away at a juggernaut, but would essentially be a formal version of the c3 issue, might defeat the whole point.

14) Defensive improvement. Go for it.

15) Might be an idea, but if done, it'd have to be done by a large group of people. I'd think this would be stepping into the security council and a vote there followed by a general vote.

16) Why not try to use a simpler method? War protection is for either A. You don't want to go to war or... B. You're on vacation or busy. Close the loophole of being able to take a c3. If country A is a secured main obviously you can still take a c3, but let's say you have a 2 country empire of country A and Country B. You put country B into war protection. Country B cannot be attacked and cannot in turn attack. Additionally, country A which is secured loses it's ability to attack a c3 while Country B is in war protection.

Obviously, you'd be on vacation in this scenario, but what about the individual who expands their empire only by conquest of c3s and is essentially economically focused with little to no military present in their empire except for a short-term build-up to add on another country?

Limit the number of c3s that an empire could declare on per real month from an empire in that war protection scenario I outlined. Let's say 5 for someone expanding rapidly on a new world with a solid base of funding who is just interested in economics. Once a slave is taken, this limiter would switch on, or conceivably, just set a limiter by default. If you can only attempt 5 c3s per month from a secured main, or from an empire in war protection, this would significantly curtail a lot of things.

17) They were introduced ages back due to demand, and they are a way to harrass someone. However, they don't take a country. The options are limited on what you can use, maybe review and rebalance the options available. Adding or removing weapons and their effects as deemed appropriate.

18) Negotiation is always a good thing. Why war is declared is most likely for a multitude of reasons.

1. Maybe you should be able to set up Reserve units that only get activated during war time, if necessary. You would be able to set up a percentage of your pop before war starts and you would have to pay some upkeep as a trade-off. If you're buying pop, you're just sinking more GC into something your already coming close to losing.
2. I don't care for the defender having an "attack now" option. I prefer simplifying the war game so people will be more willing to fight than giving one side such an advantage and discouraging most from attacking. Some wars ARE for good reasons.
3. Wholeheartedly agree.
4. meh...
5. Should be 8 for those who have jobs. Hell, counting lunch break and commute time, could be 9 or 10, but certainly no more than that.
6. I think somebody did a good jb of pointing out how this can be abused. Again, it's pretty much just investing in something you are very likely to lose.
7. The war game *is* unenjoyable. The only fun is in the planning and the winning. This is why nobody wants to play it.
8. This is already implemented poorly. As it is, you can only have 15 or 20 wars on most planets and 30 on FB. This has led to abuse that favors the aggressor, who can make decs on inactives or allies to keep counter-decs to few if any.
9. I don't see a fair way of implementing this.
10. Like? Autobuying is already a feature. The only active defense is an active offense. How would you automate this with the current engine?
11. Why not just be able them fully trained on the market, both ways. Just let defensive units max training be higher than offensive units. And none of that deterioration stuff.
12. Yeah, like I said above.
13. That's what we have C3s for. Sounds just as abusable.
14. Will definitely help smart defenders.
15. Don't like it.
16. Unclear yet what we need to do with WP:
a. You don't have to be fedded to fight wars together.
b. I only keep a single country, so it's simple to double my assets with C3s.
17. I agree with Keto. Sneak attacks are lame. If I can immediately sneak attack, why can't I use those same weapons to immediately war? I say get rid of them.
18. I'm iffy about this one.

The problem is, people don't want to invest time and resources into a wargame that is in no way fun or balanced. My opinion is that W3C needs to invest its time and resources into making a wargame that is complex in planning but simple in execution and doesn't require that you be available to attack/defend 24 hours a day.

As for quick fixes using WP,just make WP an all or nothing deal. Either your entire empire is in WP (and you pay for it all) or it isn't. No more econ slaves and war slaves. No more C3 wars. No more Secured Mains. Maybe even make WP cheaper so that it is sustainable. That, or be more generous with GC rewards.

1. Completely agree, no country will decide to deactivate it's current weapons during a war, makes no sense, that's what a draft is for. At the least, prioritize as has been suggested, strategic deacts first, offense second, defense third, makes the most sense. Also, eliminate the three month waiting period, that really makes no sense, once the workers are there you should be able to transfer/reactivate weapons/ammo.
2. Perfect
3. Perfect
4. Perfect
5. Have to be careful with blackout periods, Jojo and I had discussed this as it is ridiculous to only get 4 hours. However, if I have 8 hours and he has 8 hours that are completely different than mine, that leaves only 8 hours of total potential fighting time per day. I believe most people set there blackouts for when they are sleeping, so 8 hours there, then 8 hours at work, then the 8 hours that your opponent has blackout...adds up to no war. The best solution we came up with, in my opinion, is a guarantee of 6 hours for every player and then the possibility of negotiating an additional 4 if both sides can agree. So, I dec Jojo, he has blackout from 0-6, I have blackout from 18-24, we can negotiate a block of 4 hours in the middle, if we can't agree then we get only our original time. This would work well with 48 hour declaration window, more time to negotiate such things.
6. I would say expanding, not removing, double would probably be good.
7. Could get really tricky, especially with painting c3's etc, if a known enemy has taken a c3 in my area it's indexes will likely be horrible, but I should be able to dec it to remove the threat. It's not a bad idea but I'd like to know more about how it would be implemented and how to avoid issues like the one above.
8. How about reducing the number of players instead of reducing the number of countries? There is a big difference between 1 player deccing with 10 countries and 5 players deccing with 5 countries.
9. Time limit on wars, not a bad idea but again it should apply to players and not countries, otherwise the wars can still last forever. Or, it could be something like 48 hours for an individual country at which point the defender has the option to immediately place in war protection avoiding any further declarations.
10. Instead of automatic defense building, perhaps better tips would help. As a newb seeing the 'Every country should maintain 2 AF def wings...etc' is REALLY misleading. Something needs to lead people to understand what attacks what, what defends against what, etc. I've watched so many people ram drones into ints without any fp to actually be effective, the info is out there but it should be put more directly in front of players.
11. Not sure what this would change, I don't think the problem is building units, so wouldn't it be easier just to allow military unit boosters? Just like corp boosters? And the deterioration either has to go or we need to be allowed to automatically order the upgrades. ALSO, where are the upgrades for navy and lbcb, etc?
12. I really don't find that offensive weapons are so much stronger than defensive, people have this idea in their head but I don't know where it comes from, perhaps from no one every actually attacking a real country? It's VERY expensive from both a cash perspective and maintenance perspective to purchase and keep the offensive weapons necessary to bring down a country with strong air d and max garrisons.
13. I don't get the point, seems just like c3 warfare to me and would be used the same way, weaken a country with that method of warfare and then take it with real war right after...
14. Sounds crazy, you're already limited in bringing down air d to only 400 nfp or 1000 fp against 800 ints and as it stands now it's about equal cost lost on both sides with the most effective option of pbs/fps. Could literally make some countries untakeable if combined with some of the other changes mentioned.
15. No issue with that, except for that you said him instead of 'him or her' ;)
16. I think there is a majority or at least a plurality behind the following ideas on WP, no WP on FB except for earned WP and new player war protection (make the new player war protection longer than it is currently with the player having the option to accept the additional time or not to protect new players for longer). I like BC's idea, WP is all or nothing deal, if you need/want war protection it is either because you are a peaceful player and want no war or because you are a full game player who needs a break/is on vacation. That's pretty simple.
17. Why? I really have no issue with sneak attacks. I can see how corp sneak attacks are annoying but they're quite expensive for the offender if you've got fed air d up but I guess I'd be fine with getting rid of that part, but they should remain for bases, etc.
18. Seems like it could be severely abused, it's not a bad idea, but I can certainly see certain players deccing on a bunch of players they know can't defend themselves just to get the assets.

Couple of other suggestions, give the Security Council some real power. Make no nuke votes apply to a PLAYER and not an individual country and place a temporary nuke ban on the country immediately following the council vote pending the full vote. Allow them to stop wars (make it a very high vote threshold so that it isn't abused) and allow them to pass strong injunctions/resolutions against players. I know that these types of things can be abused, but the people earned their spot on the council and if the resolutions then pass the general public it's about as democratic as we can get. We need to have some options to police ourselves to an extent, instead of needing the system to be changed when people begin to take advantage or act inappropriately.

I know I'll hear a bunch of, you only say that because you're in power, on the council, etc, but I'm fine with it on the worlds I am not as well, against WGC they could have really thrown some wrenches in our plans with tools like that and I think that is fair, they earned their spots, they built their fed into dominance, they deserve it. This could add a lot of stability to worlds and give players even more incentive to reach the HOF and join the council which means they need higher scores, thus higher levels, thus less offensive weapons to maintain the high FI's necessary.

Okie doakie here goes.......

1. Deactivation is ok so long as their is a priority that can be set. Make sure that the nuke def batts dont deactivate when at the same time you are able to staff a strat bomber. Plus, when you get the soldiers/officers, be able to use them immediately.

2. Simply having 48hrs is a good choice.

3. Awesome

4. Awesome

5. 4-6 hrs is enough time.

6. No need to expand the spending limit because as has been suggested this could be abused greatly. But possibly expand the reactivation limit a lil bit.

7. Its difficult to make a determination as to who can and when attack another player. Just make sure that if you dec a country that you have something to lose. Of course 1 secured main with 7-8 10M pop C3's would not fit this criteria.

8. Number of players rather than the number of countries. Many players have their military split between countries, ie... navy country, off air, ground, etc...

9. No time limit on wars, somebody needs to win/lose. Although the negotiation/bribe might be a idea.

10. Automation seems to be a bad idea. Again, tips on building a good def/off is what a federation is for. Of course the docs could be updated and be easier for new players to understand.

11. Good idea, but make available for both parties.

12. No need to change. Off weapons have no advantage. It already costs more for the off. It takes more off T's to kill the right proportion of def T's. Of course if a player does not fight back and allows his def to do it all, then he/she should lose. War is more than just def.

13. Bad idea. If your going to dec, then put something at risk.

14. Allies being brought in the equation is an idea, however only limit their sharing of def, ie... max25%?

15. Good idea. Of course when they cant fight, then no ability to attack them.

16a. Disagree
16b. Just make sure that if you dec a country that you have something to lose. Of course 1 secured main with 7-8 10M pop C3's would not fit this criteria.

17. Sneaks are fine. Just as a defender make it expensive for the attacker to use.

18. Possible, so long as there does not become a 'Pay me Tribute or you die kinda thing.'

No doubt many will complain with #7 and say that weaker/less asset players have no way to fight bigger/more asset players, which is fine, it SHOULD be that way. Thats how a real SIM is. At the same time there needs to be a system so that stronger players should not be able to roll over those weaker players. Oh, right there is.... its called a Federation!!! Use it properly!!!

Whiteboy's suggestion of giving the Security Council some short teeth is a good idea as well.

Frankly, it would be cool for the GMs to randomly change the rules each month. Part of the charm of the game is trying to figure out how to adapt to rule changes. For example, the c3-only fighting has to go, but it was a brilliant idea, for a while, by those who thought of it.

Barring that, I like 2,3,4,5,7,8 (but presidents, not countries), 9, 16b, & 17b (sneaks are FUN and strategic, especially if expanded).

Hey Jojo

Lots of reactions.
Thanks.

I was not able to look into it and discuss here today.
I will start looking at it in the morning and hope to have a next version, including reactions and opinions later tomorrow.

Thank you so much Tom, for consulting with the players on this. There are a lot of good ideas in there. Further to my email (which was sent before I read your proposal), this is my response to your consultation:

1. I totally agree. Perhaps in times of war workers can be conscripted from corporations - the game automatically places them in the army as needed and if the corporations suffer temporarily, so be it. After all, that's what happens in the real world. Maybe, for added realism, housewives could be drafted to work in corps in place of the workers joining the army?

A standard demographic for bought population would also help, but would be best working in tandem with the first part.

2. Another day won't make a huge difference, but will help.

3. Absolutely! This is a great idea - one of the best on the table.

4. Same response as for #2

5. Yes to extended blackout periods. Maybe more than 8 hours? Players who don't have to work or sleep have a distinct advantage at the moment.

6. Removing spending space limitations altogether (if a country has been declared upon) would be my preferred option, but would only work if implemented together with #1.1. This would reduce the advantage gained from a long-term build-up by the offender prior to a surprise attack.

7. Agreed. The war game would disappear if the types of players who could fight each other were limited.

8. The number of allowed war declarations would have to be limited to one or two to make a real difference. If it is to be 3 or 4, I'm not sure how much it would help.

9. Broadly, I'm not in favour of a time limit. This might kill the wargame altogether, especially if the other changes mean it takes longer to get through someone's defence, which I strongly advocate.

10. Automatic defence building feature will only be useful for those who don't know what they are doing, although if their implementation is under the control of the player I don't see too much of a problem. But it's better to encourage players to learn themselves, than to do it for them.

11. Neither for or against.

12. Absolutely crucial. The defence / offense balance is way out and needs a serious rework. One which makes it very difficult for offense to get through a strong defence (full garrisons and a reasonable number of airwings) and which gives the defender time to buy-in and replace defensive units over a longer period of war.

13. This would be good to implement if one of the worlds was geared towards economic play, but would spoil the wargame on most worlds, removing the incentive to make war.

14. More fed air defence is a good idea. This would also strengthen defence and balance it better against offense.

15.

16.
a. I suggest this is not based on large armies and a high war index, but rather a high offensive index. Peaceful players often have large defensive armies and need a high defense index to gain levels but do not pose a threat to other players

I'm not sure gearing it around feds is the way to go. People can gang up without being part of the same fed and that would be a way around it. Better to apply the rule country by country.

b. I don't have a problem with this but don't really think it's part of the same debate.

17.
a. I don't agree. Doesn't that ruin the whole idea of sneak attacks?

b. See my answer to #a

c. Maybe a high offensive index, but generally I am not in favour.

d. Why?

18. I fear that this would be too open to abuse.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Thanks to W3C for listening to players.

1. No. Deactivation of weapons due to worker shortages works fine and is realistic.

2. Six months to start any war against a player-owned country.

3. Yes.

4. Ahem. Six months to start any war against a player-owned country.

5. Yes.

6. No. This will lead to phony war declarations just to expand defensive spending limits.

7. Yes, but it would be more relevant and transparent if the formula is based on the money value of the military assets of the two prospective enemies. For one party to be able to declare war against another party, the difference between the money value of the military assets of the two empires should not be more than 50%.

8. Yes, not more than three countries should declare war on the same country.

9. There is already a 6-month time limit if there is no shooting. Wasn't there a 60-month total time limit?

10. Yes.

11. Yes. The market for pre-fabricated military units should be for everyone.

12. No. Stronger defensive weapons shouldn't make countries unconquerable or extremely hard to conquer. Offensive weapons don't have an advantage.

13. Limited war already exists: sneak attacks. Increase the limit on sneak attacks from 2 per month to 6 per month, per country. Sneak attacks should allow use of any weapons, except for strategic. That's how it used to be. This would be a huge improvement to war since most players don't have time for the massive clicking of regular war.

14. No. Shared fed defenses already have the potential for being very strong.

15. No. Definitely no. Players should not prohibit other players from playing, or even from declaring war. That would be very unrealistic anyway. It would be better if the Security Council has more power to impose strong boycotts. Boycotts are currently trivial. Another interesting option is for the Security Council to be able to elect a general for a fixed period of time, and grant him money to fund the Security Council's Peace-Keeping Force or Army. This would encourage more players to try harder to qualify for the Security Council, and would encourage more diplomacy.

16.
a. No war protection for any empire that has military assets with a money value of over 200 trillion. The game has no balance when players with huge military assets suddenly can take a country out of of war protection and attack much weaker countries.

b. A war protection option for everyone, except as described in 16(a) above.

17.
a. No. It's more realistic and interesting if the name of the attacker is not known. Real world military strikes are often covert operations.

b. Yes, definitely. As I explained in (13) above, sneak attacks should be expanded.

c. Yes, great idea. Empires that have military assets with a money value of over 200 trillion should not be allowed sneak attacks. That provides more balance to the war game.

d. Yes, definitely. Again, I refer to my answer to (13) above.

18. Yes, there should be an option for ending a war with a financial settlement. The "loser" can pay the "winner" a certain amount of gold coins or game cash.

Two final points:

First, there are only about a dozen hardcore war players in the entire game. 99% of players don't have the time for massive clicking war.

Sneak attacks, or other forms of limited war, provide an option for those of us who don't have 10 to 30 hours per week for regular war against players. Sometimes I use sneak attacks to kill all the state corps of enemies.

But regular war needs to be less time-consuming anyway. Why does W3C make a big effort programming a war engine so time-consuming that 99% of players cannot use it, except to conquer c3s?

Second, if you want the war game to be competitive and to include more players, then reduce the war monopoly. 1% of players shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the war game.

Each player should be limited to declaring war against only one player-controlled country per world, per real month. This limit would create more balance in several ways:

a) It reduces the domination of warlords.
b) It reduces the stalking wars fought repeatedly against some players.
c) It gives more players an opportunity to conquer inactive countries, which incidentally provides great military training.

1. Deactivation is realistic. Even in a war, it takes time to train conscripts. Housewives cannot realistically just become soldiers or officers. Even a soldier takes substancial time to train. Perhaps, allow for training of soldiers (taking 3 months), at the COST of some of your active soldiers during that time while those soldiers are taken away from regular duty to train, and at a substancial loss of quality for the military units they are in. Perhaps 10% fighting quality after 3 months of training, 30% after 6 months, 50% after 9, and 75% after a year. It is simply not realistic to get 100% quality soldiers after a few months, nor to have any soldiers of any value right away. The deactivated weapons are the reserves, that is realistic. There is simply no way for a country to train quality soldiers from scratch in a month. Perhaps, allow an option to require military service for the whole population for 2 years, the deal is if you check yes, you unit quality drops, but you can draft soldiers in less time?
2. I agree.
3. I agree, only for the federation that was attacked first.
4. agree.
5. Agree, provided that the "black out time" does not apply to the attacker. If we apply the blackout time to the attacker, I don't support this.
6. agree mostly. I am slightly concerned about this being abused.
7. do not think this would help, and do not agree.
8. This would not make much of a difference.
9. Don't fully agree. However, starting a war, should cause some level of unrest resulting in riots, etc over time...these could make it impractical to continue. Exception, of course, is that if a country attacks another country, other countries should be allowed to declare on the original attacker, without harm. So, 1- if you attack, you'll overtime face increasing hardsihp, and 2- you can be attacked by anyone without them facing hardship.
10. Good for me. However, advanced players will figure out this system and build weapons to target new players who follow that automatic system. That said, still a good idea.
11. Great idea! This should take 2 forms; 1st allow a country to buy mercenary soldiers from another countrie's army (units, soldiers, etc), and 2- allow new corporations to build ready-made units and sell them to others. The new corporations would produce the units and sell them to the player. When the player buys them, he'll pay a price to the corporation in sim $$ and will also pay GCs to the GM for population at the same time. The unit quality would be fighting level. It is very importaint that these units be large, expensive units and that they be units that can be held by Enterprises. So, an enterprise may invest 5 trillion for a single unit, which it would old in its stock without requiring anyone to man it and without costing a storage cost. When war comes to someone, the enterprise can sell the unit, and the player would give GC to the enterprise for the unit and a gc to the gm for the population for it. The units would need to be highly expensive and highly profitable. It would be put up for sale in the direct trade market for gold coins.
12. Agree, and add a firing bonus for units defending the capital, cities, bases, airports, and forts, and to a lesser degree, towns and counties.
13. Only for 1 world. I think this is a good option, but only to 1 world. That can be a safer world. All worlds should not have the same for this, as some people would object.
14. Agree; and I would suggest not allowing players to drain helicoptors so easily from the defense.
15. The Security Council should be allowed to provide defensive assistance in time of war by its vote. However, preventing war completely is not idea. I suggest the better idea is to provide the Security Council with the ability to use some of its money to buy defensive units (the new type build by corporations), and to place those to assist the defense of people attacked unjustly as determined by the security council.
16.
a. Like people in WGC?....
b. I don't agree, as this would only be avoided by players transfering assests off-wold. However, I think that before declaring a new war, the requirement SHOULD be that the countries you attack from must all have a FI over 120. The real issue is people who attack with unsustanably large armies.
17.
a. Good, but sneak attacks should also be a cause for war, so the person sneak attacked should be allowed to attack back 100% without penalty.
b. Not several new weapons, but I support adding conventional missils (long range)
c. Like WGC? WGC had twice the on-paper resources as The Mob, but lost handly. On-paper limitations may only assist the stronger side as on-paper stats are not always realistic.
d. same thoughts as above, good but must be just cause for other side to attack full war.
18. Should allow for a negotiated peace tready where one side offers the other something and they can agree on a payment in GC from one side to the other in exchange for peace for a period of time.

Likewise, allow gifts in exchange for one side providing protection to the other. If the paying side is attacked, the other player will automatically declair war on the attacker, and cannot attack the payer.

6. You can't defend your way to victory. It should apply to offensive weapoms also.

I wanted to add that I agree with Jo that the war engine is HEAVILY in favor of the attacking player. The attacking player can build up for the attack, can set the time of the war to when the attacker is free and the defender is not, and can destory or limit the ability of the defender to continue to fight. All the defender can do is counter attack or sit and wait while he is destroyed.

The defender needs to have a substancial advantage in order to even the odds. In reality, the defender usually has a huge advantage knowing the terain, digging in, etc. In addition, much less supply problems, and can react more quickly. IN addition, the defender can place stationary defenses such as SAMS, bunkers, etc.

Sim Country should seek to make it more realistic by providing defensive bonuses, allowing more units to assist in defense, strengthening defensive weapons, more quickly re-build, etc.

Additionally, their needs to be a 5th type of unit (offense, defense, nuclear, Navy, and counter-attack. Counter-attack units cannot attack by themselves, but if a country is attacked, they will activation and be able to attack back the country that initated the attack. These can be purchased and will automatically fight back against the attacker based on pre-set targets (such as target bases, or target airports, or supply units), and will opperate by themselves on a pre-set objective. The advantage of this is that it will allow for less expensive units for counter-attack only. These units would be limited to only fighting whatever countries declare on a country. They would be purchsed during the war by the defender, and the computer would manage them and use them to fight the attacker. They would only last during the war, and only attack the country that attacks their country.

They would cost CG and be bought on the direct trade market.

This whole argument about the offensive player having the advantage is really silly. Defensive weapons are a big deal and given that typically one must attack from a c3 or built up c3 (unless you just *happen* to have a war slave right next to your enemy) the defense has even more of an advantage. Winning a war against a built opponent is *EXTREMELY* difficult, how many players in this game can say they've brought down a country with more than a 800 def index? Compare that with how many players have a country with a def index that high...having taken down many countries with high def indexes I can tell you that it takes far more time, effort, planning, weapons and ammo than you think. It isn't cheap and it is VERY time consuming, especially against an active defense. Also, I've lost a country or two with that high of a def index and can tell you from that perspective that it requires ALOT of work. If you increase the strength of the defense you are decreasing the likelihood of war (which is already quite slim) and furthering the overall issue that wars take way too much time.

The reason that there is a *perceived* advantage for the offense is that people don't know how to fight wars, not because there is an inherent advantage in offensive weapons. It is far more difficult than those of you who are making that claim know, Jo already made all the point that was necessary, it took 4 people 4 hours to bring down *ONE* of her heavily defended slaves. If you want to make wars even worse make the defense even stronger than it already is, it will push the war game to be even more minimal and will mean that people who wage wars will have zero sympathy at all, if you're going to make it next to impossible to take a country just because people feel it should be then it will require volume to profit in the least from war, it's a recipe to have people wiped out instead of just injured by war.

The problem is not that offense is stronger than defense, the problem is that people don't know how to fight, that is what needs to be overcome and it isn't going to happen by making more wars go away. It will go away by having people actually participate in the war game. The more exclusive the war game becomes the more power you put into the hands of those that actually know how to play it. Ultimately, the goal should be to make the war game accessible, not impossible, unless the overall goal is the elimination of the war game which I don't think is the case.

jeese

i've watched the suggestions, every one has say right?


"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. " Tom

thankfully W3C has the right goal. They don't want to disable the war game, THANK GOD

jeese, being able to set up undefeatbled defenses, creating unlimited air support, with unlimited fed support, with a limit of attacking countries, against an unlimited of fed'd counter decs, and a limited time frame for wars, with a maxed out black period... is not going to happen, atleast right away.

w3c is going to add thing, (the way i understand it) until defenders can defend themselves

ok, read wb post above, then read it again

the problem is not the way the war game work, atm, it is the player base that is out of whack

i agree their are players that don't want war, allow them to opt out of war at a price.

a player that opts out of war, can not join the security council, (i mean, if you don't want to put anything at risk, why should you influence my country?) AND they should not be eligible for the same monthly award...

"Jo already made all the point that was necessary, it took 4 people 4 hours to bring down *ONE* of her heavily defended slaves. If you want to make wars even worse make the defense even stronger than it already is, it will push the war game to be even more minimal and will mean that people who wage wars will have zero sympathy at all," -wb

does any one get this?

"You're all arguing to improve and expand a war engine that 90% of the people playing the game do not enjoy or do not have time for." - BC (off the cuff)

Does anybody get this?

Nothing above is going to fix this. I'm assuming W3C's motivation is to keep people from quitting by securing their assets. Aggressive players aren't going to have much of an argument. For everything you say, "add WP", "reduce attackers", etc... why not just "stop attacking people in the first place"? It doesn't matter what they do here, the war game doesn't change. The reason people lose wars is because of inexperience and time. The reason people are inexperienced is because the wargame has very little attraction to casual gamers. As the aggressor, you will ALWAYS have the advantage when you are fighting non-aggressive people.

So who cares if it took 4 hours? What if it had taken 10 hours? or 20 hours? She still would have lost, because she didn't have a chance to win.

That is fundamentally untrue BC, as someone who has fought multiple wars you are aware how easy it is to defend your own country in contrast with trying to bring down someone else's. I mean seriously, Jojo once had me chasing his c3 with barely any defense at all for like 3 hours. People need to learn *how* to defend their country and it isn't just by throwing in big garrisons and air defense. I will grant you that it does take some time, but nowhere near the amount of time it takes to bring down a country. Looking at people's countries, empires and CEO's, especially someone like Jo who sits at level 13 or 14, you can't tell me they aren't already spending quite a bit of time on the game. So perhaps the issue is that the attacker gets to choose *when* they spend the time as opposed to *if* they spend the time. Why don't we work on that and also work on getting the war engine simplified somewhat as well as getting more information out there about *how* to defend a country.

Perhaps the defending country should be allowed to choose the time for war to begin in the 48 hour window? Like, BC decs me at 4 am my time, so under the current 48 hour proposal, the war starts at 4 am, I don't want to wake up to fight and then I have school/work at 8 am-5 pm, so BC has been shooting at me for 13 hrs by the time I can do anything. So, why not make it so that if BC decs me at 4 am, I can choose to start the war at 6 pm the following day which would be 38 hrs after the dec, within the 48 hour window and at a time when I know I can fight back. Or, allow a federation member to log in to my account (or even just to a single country?) to defend my countries while I am unavailable without retribution or 'multi' complaining, this would encourage people to build large federations and train people so that they could have someone around the clock to defend their countries when they weren't available.

i agree that not every one has the time or will to fight battles... but swinging the war game so much in the opposite direction, that it is impossible to gain victory, isn't fair either...

i'm cool with the idea of allowing some one to opt out of war entirely, at a price. They lose monthly awards, and can no longer be on the security council!!!

why not? a player doesn't want to be at risk? fine! they should not influence any ones else's game!!! why should a player offer no accountability, but be able to have power over other players, and reap all the rewards???

their has to be a trade off. its not fair to allow a player to create an "undefeatable empire," but still allow them the ability to make policy and resolutions that effect other players.

as it is, no one is untouchable. being able to build a strong fed, and group of friends to defend you again aggressors, is part of the game. and given enough time, the political power can swing against you. But to write rules into the game that does not allow any way for your power base to be challenged... you shouldn't be able to have a power base that effects other players...

This is an updated list of suggestions with some added items.
I also included the reactions so far.

Just to repeat the main issues here:

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.

If a small player could inflict serious pain on a large attacker, the system might shift to a more balanced status.


This list is incomplete and more will be added. On the other hand, we will not implement every idea here.


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.

It seems that everybody would like to have a solution for the deactivation issue.

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.

This too is seen as very positive.

3. Allowing fed mates to join and have the war start for everybody at the same time.

Same. Everyone is for it.

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

Same.

5. Increase the blackout time to 8 hours from 4.

Also positive. Some want 8 hours, some more, 6 is also mentioned. 8 seems to be most popular.

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

Unlimited spending goes too far. Increasing the limit is OK but what to do about abuse? (declaring a fake war to have your spending limits increased).
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.

Some form of limitation will be OK. It was suggested to base it on the value of (offensive) military assets.

8. Reducing the number of countries that can declare on one country.

Mostly positive but based on players, not countries.

9. Set a time limit on all wars. It has to stop within a set period.

Again, based on players but reactions are mixed.

10. Introducing automatic defense building features at a chosen level will make it easier for the defenders.

Largely positive. Maybe not entirely understood. We meant the automatic building of military units, based on players choice and taking care of all the orders of al weapons and ammo, materials etc.
One click and some game months later, 10 units end up created and ready to go.

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.

Largely positive. Some want it for both parties. Defender needs it more as the attacker is ready for war.

12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.

50/50. We add our vote for it as we look at the war sheet numbers .

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.

Also 50/50 and a suggestion to divert it to more powerful sneak attacks.

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.

Close to 100% for. No wonder, it was part of the game before and it helps in the defense of everyone.

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).

50/50. Suggested to apply it to feds with a 200T+ in assets or on the offensive power of these feds.

b. Limited WP for all, but before declaring war, 50% of the assets must reside in countries that are not protected.

Mostly supported. Suggested to allow attacks if the FI>120. (not really related to WP).

17. Change the rules for sneak attacks:
a. The name of the attacker should be known.

One vote to keep it secret.

b. Sneak attacks could be made more powerful and include more weapons.

Some support, some want sneak attacks to go away.

c. Forbid sneak attacks by very large powers-feds with a high defense index total!

No specific response.

d. Upgrade sneak attacks to the level of a limited war.

Some support. Not a popular item.

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

Supported by everyone but details are crucial. This is the secondtime we brought up this idea and we need some specific examples how this will be done before we can expect more response.

19 Limit war declarations based on the ratio of number of wars per player.
You can declare war if the number of wars you participated in is not more than double the number of wars for your opponent. Small numbers can be excluded and wars against C3s will always remain possible.

20 Make it possible to transfer military units. This is similar to the market idea which is easier to implement.

21 Limit the numbers of c3s that can be attacked per real month. (This is a different issue)

22 More power to the SC, to stop nuke PLAYERS instead of countries. Also allow the SC to, stop wars. This too is not directly related although the SC could help in trying to level the field.

23 Limit the max number of wars per player per world per month on a real player. (1 war is suggested).

24 Add counter attack units that will attack selected targets if the country is attacked.
We could add what a player called response units. The units could be of a special type, or stealth units. They could be secret, never showing how many units are available and what the attack plans are.

Attack plans will be set by the player. These attacks could be high quality and effective in destroying essential targets. The attacks will be triggered if the country is attacked and could be launched automatically in addition to the current automatic defense.

An attacker will not be able to assume that the war is just a matter of some clicking.
The units could be traded on the market, and as a player suggested here, they could be produced by a corporation (or created in the same way other units are created).

The idea here is that although we have automatic defense, it is insufficient and experienced war lords cut easily through these defenses. Many have stated that a good defense include also offensive forces.

So if we support the defense with these units, it will be able to bite and the attack will not be a picnic.

We fully agree that the automatic defense as we have implemented was incomplete and insufficient and such an addition could improve it.

Some of this stuff is good Tom but some that are highlighted at almost 100% are not at all by my count. My read shows about 50/50 at allowing more def wings to respond, it's already a 900 drone/100 fp loss against 800 ints and 165 bomber loss against 800 ints, with upgraded def wings those numbers become even more staggering, with upgraded AND 3 or 4 wings responding...It'll wipe out an entire attack wing bombers or drones and all fp. Most people don't understand this and as it is already people can STACK air def by clustering up, if you want to make clusters completely impenetrable then go that direction, but that is just further death to the war game in my opinion.

I again would like to add my vote to BC's option for WP, it makes the MOST sense. No more secured, either entire empire is in WP or it's out, you pay for each country in WP. War protection was designed to protect people's assets when they were away or unable to fight or to protect econ only players, this option does that and takes care of all the issues.