War

"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. " -tom

ok, so here is extreme idea that go in the opposite direction... toward no-war.

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

thats rather extreme, i not only say no, but hell no!! at least with a 1 number. i mean allowing 1 war, per player, basically is a paltry number to allow you to say their is still a war game, i mean if you said 0, then you couldn't say you had a war game... and i'm sure that the person(s) that suggested it, would actually prefer 0... that is just ridiculous. and the dumbest idea on the block. am i being clear? if you want to limit the total PvP wars per RL, month, a 10ish number would be more appropriate. but even then, i'll dislike it.

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

i realize that this is off the topic of balancing the war game, but it was put up here for discussion, right?

yes, i attack allot of C3s, why is this a problem? is it an unfair advantage? seriously? i'm stunned that it would even be an issue. The fact that it was suggested a balancing point to make things "fair," highlights the root of the problem.

if you don't know how to quickly, and efficiently take a c3... then you lack the basic knowledge to play the war game, at all. the c3 raiding process teaches, and demonstrates the basic concept of attacking. with out that knowledge and ability, you are at an automatic disadvantage in war... that honestly, requires extreme rule changes to counter... like limiting the total number of players a person can dec on at 1? i mean, if you can't take a c3, it requires a huge handicap in your favor in war...

it is a basic skill, that should be learned by everyone, just like managing corps, education priorities, country indexes... c3 raiding is a basic skill, such as reading in school... to even out the playing field for players that wont take the time to learn it??? what? are you serious?

again, give players the ability to opt out of war entirely, and remove themselves from eligibility for monthly awards, and become ineligible to join the SC.

back to c3 raiding. when W3C disabled c3 raiding from what it had been, an endless gold mine... they stated that c3 raiding is and would remain profitable, just not as dramatic... currently the player base over all thinks it isn't profitable, which simply is not true.

raiding c3s is the best way a NEW player can build up enough assets to stand up to larger players. its one of the few, non-visa avenues left for quick wealth, and rapid growth. taking that out, or limiting it in anyway, only entrenches larger, older players, so that they can maintain dominance based on over whelming size, with out allowing new players the ability to increase to their size in less than a rl year, or using their credit card.

further, as it is, often times the only way an ally can get into range to assist an ally, is via c3s by limiting that number, you are limiting players ability to assist each other, both offensively AND defensively. and even more, when a player is attacked, the ability to gain c3s is an invaluable tool to both passive and active defense.

it is a very bad idea.

Tom, care needs to be made here, not to remove every advantage a player can gain, for the sake of making things fair for those that don't put out effort. I can agree, that bumping the defense a little to give players a little more confidence to explore the war side of the game, is a worthy idea. But in your statement, we want to avoid extremes. some of this stuff, really is extreme... in the opposite direction. don't cut off your nose to spite your face... to much war can be bitter, yes, but to little, can be stale...

I agree with wb on both accounts. As I said, adding more fed defenses would definitely help the smart defender, but that's not an endorsement. That would almost ruin the war game. If anything, make bombers less effective as FP shields.

And the WP option is by far the most fair. WP was meant for vacation mode. If you're on vacation you should put your entire empire in WP. If you want to expand that to protect econ players, it should be the same. All or none. This would require getting rid of Secured Mains, because of the potential abuse. Still, even if you leave SM, it would be a better option than others. At least the C3 warrior would have to sacrifice having an empire. Then again, that's not a big sacrifice for some of us. Removing SM would free up some of those inactive assets out there that could give people more targets to practice on, or raid for their assets. Just saying...

W3C could help by making WP more affordable, especially for newer players. Maybe make automatic renewal options so people don't forget about it.

I agree with Whiteboy that war protection should be by empire, not country. A person with 10 countries should have to decide to put all in war protection or none (except for secure main).

I also want to again share that I think we should have different limitation for different worlds.

Some worlds should be very much designed to help defender and econ players, other worlds should have fewer protections.

Also tom, try adding my idea to the list...

a person can opt out of war entirely, but they give up eligibility to join the SC, and get no, or reduced monthly awards.

it would give people an incentive to play war, and allow those that have no interest in it, to avoid it completely... by taking them off the SC, would be fair, if a person doesn't want to risk anything, then they should not be able to influence other peoples countries with sc resolutions. the risk factor is the reasoning behind the WP changes, so if a person doesn't want to risk something, they should have less to gain.

Most of that is sounding really good Tom Thankyou!

A couple of minor points:

1. Another player made the point that some people won't want to pay to add population to a country they might lose. Could there be a setting or automatic feature that favours moving workers into the army from corporations in times of war if weapons are in danger of being deactivated?

16a. Do you mean defence index rather than 'war index' (given that all peaceful countries have a high war index)? If so, could this be offensive index, rather than defence index? Thus limiting offensive players rather than those who have high defensive indexes for the sake of achieving higher levels.

17c. The same - a high defensive / defence index does not mean you have the capability to sneak attack. It's offense that counts here, although the index should be much lower than for #7 - say, over 5 or 10.

19. Would this be based on wars fought on that particular planet, or wars fought across all planets?

If it is the first, there is nothing to stop a vastly experienced war player moving to a new planet, setting up quickly and then attacking players who have little experience of war, as the attacking player will have fought no wars on that particular planet.

22. The SC vote to limit nuke attacks does not have any effect at the moment, in my experience. Great if it will in future and great if it applies to players rather than individual countries!

Thanks again Tom. We appreciate how much work this will be for W3C and it's awesome that you are willing to consult with us to this extent.

Hugs and respect

Jo

As far as the air wing issue, yea, you already lose allot of bombers going against air wings.

i suspect with the new 160 fighting levels, the enhancements to defensive weapons being over all stronger, are already on the board. before any one start calling for defensive weapons to be strengthened, lets see what the 160 effect will do.

so as far as multipul fed wings responding, and improved stats for defensive weapons, so numbers 12 and 14? we should wait call that one after we've seen the effect of recent changes...

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

Mostly positive but based on players, not countries.

ok, i can support it limiting it on number of players attacking. but the question this would leave, would it be fair to limit say 2 players can attack another player, but 7 fed mates can counter dec? and if you think thats fair, can those 2 players fed mates counter the counter decs? or is this a limit only to the aggressive side? thats doesn't seem fair. and will infact create a very hostile enviroment, while players try to provoke other players into attacking...

Yes very good ideas here and some not so. It will be great when the dust settles and things get done. But I am sure we will end up back at the reason we are here now. Everyone cannot be pleased. Anything you change can still be exploited. Be careful what you wish for.

Orbiter ... as opposed to players forcing other players into war, losing their empires and leaving the game? That's what I call a hostile environment.

No one is FORCED to attack. Maybe if there is a bit more risk to the attacker, people will think twice ...

Unfair? I seem to recall the mob don't accept that as an 'excuse'.

You aren't forced into war Jo, you chose to play the full game which you were fully aware involved risks, you underestimated those risks because you felt your federation was big enough to guarantee security but it was not because ALL of you felt that way and you chose to recruit no players who really knew or were willing to participate in the war game. In addition, no one lost their empires that didn't choose to do so, we handed back $1000's of dollars worth of countries.

Every person in this thread is saying that people who do not wish to participate in the war game should not have to (except for on FB, it is the WAR world). The result of all of this should be pretty straightforward for those who do not wish to play the war game, put your empires into WP. Everyone is acting like those who choose to play the full game should have to pay some sort of consequence for doing so, it is the opposite, the overall design of the game includes war (in a big way when you factor in the % of corporations that SPECIFICALLY produce weapons and ammo), everyone who chooses to play only one part of the game (while at the same time taking advantage of the war side of the game by building corps that build weapons/ammo/supplies for weapons and ammo corps) should have a consequence to pay, war protection. What you are asking for is war protection without having to pay for it by excessively stacking defensive weapons to ensure that no attack could ever bring down one of your countries, that's BS, buy war protection if that's the kind of protection you want. Asking for that would be like me asking that no war protection exists so that I can take whatever I want, it's unreasonable.

I'm joining Orbiter on this limiting war declarations stuff, talk about making it impossible to adjust the balance of power while killing off the war game completely. Assume a fed like WGC was more aggressive or chose to be controlling (some would argue they already are), they get 37 decs per month, Jo Blow new guy gets 1, good luck with that...especially to be so crazy as to suggest a limit of 1 per month, that's insane. And limiting c3's one can take? What for? Take all the c3's you want, if you want to use them to fight then all of your empire should be out of wp, done. No reason to limit that.

This conversation is starting to move WAY over on the side of econ *ONLY* players (I'm not a war player, I play both sides, the full game). There needs to be some amount of responsibility taken by those who choose to play the full game to learn how to defend their countries and for those who choose to play econ only, there should be a consequence for not participating in the full game. Let's not forget here, W3C needs to make some money too, if players can lobby to have the defenses become impenetrable then they get WP without paying for it and the people who play the war game (who I'd bed $100 spend the most money on the game as many do not take the time to work on their econ) will leave. Bad decision for the game, bad decision for the business.


EDIT: Also, I agree with Chrysostom, why not create some differences in the worlds other than the speed and on 1 you get no secured main. Design some worlds to be more aggressive, some to be less aggressive...we have all these worlds with no real difference. Perhaps with some variations in the worlds *nearly* everyone can get something they want or find a world that fits them best.

aww Jo. thank you.

influence is more than just shooting isn't it?

shooting is a form of influence. but not the only one. if you want to have power, you should be prepared to defend it, regardless of how you are challenged.

you can't seriously want to force people to oppose you only were you are strong? its more subtle, and veiled, but you do the very thing that you are speaking out against, you just don't use sim guns to do it.

and frankly i applaud you skill, and ability. and i understand your need to limit your weakness. however, if you could avoid war altogether, would you give up any eligibility to be on the WG SC?

darn wb all that hot air... and you have the nerve to call me Windy.... WELL *Fartz*

Spin Whiteboy, spin. I'm not going to get drawn into separating out the lies, half-truths and truths in what you say.

Almost all the players, except the mob, favour most of Tom's proposals. Just because your federation posts more, and your posts are longer, doesn't mean you are in the majority.

Please, let's restrict ourselves to objectively discussing the subject in hand. That is what this thread is 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. " -tom

"Please, let's restrict ourselves to objectively discussing the subject in hand. That is what this thread is for." -jo

"7. Agreed. The war game would DISAPPEAR if the types of players who could fight each other were limited. " -jo

"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. " -jo

you are openly endorsing dismantling the war game, which is not the purpose of this thread...

personally, i don't think the solution to the broken war game is not in W3C hands, but i except what they say, even though i disagree with it. I arguing specific points, that i think, if applied, would disable the war game. although on many of those, i'm willing to except limitations, just not to a degree that it makes war unpractical.

Give me a break Jo, there isn't a single thing that can be considered a lie, I stated my OPINIONS. Quit with your victim stuff in the thread and I'll quit responding to it. Tell me to spin and call me a liar THEN say we should restrict ourselves to objectivity, you're a joke.

Jokes on You WB, did you want to buy your fedmates country back?

Not one single thing, Whiteboy?

"you chose to recruit no players who really knew or were willing to participate in the war game"

Beo, Jaffle, Aaron Doolavey, Iain, Man of Peace, IndustMech.

Back to the debate ...

Yeah, now you start idiot, did you want to give a completely non-combative player who has nothing to do with our fed his country back that you stole?

Yes Jo, I meant what I said, if those players were capable at war they either didn't show it or chose not to participate. Beo did, he was dispatched in a 1 v 1 vs. EO in short order, Jaffle chose not to for the most part, the tactics he did use didn't have much effect, Aaron, didn't see much from him, Iain fired some shots and rolled over, MOP is inactive and Industmech didn't do anything.

Either way, once again, my OPINION, not a lie.

If you're going to continue to respond then I will as well, if not we can get back to the debate.

Whiteboy, one of the things the GMs are proposing to address is that some of us have lives. Work, families ... you know the sort of stuff. Or maybe you don't.

Not all of us can spend 24/7 clicking. All the WGC members I named "know and are willing to participate in the war game". They just aren't necessarily able to fit in with the mob's agenda.

"You chose ..." is a statement of fact. But let's not get into semantics.

Now PLEASE can we get back to the debate.

"For the record, you attacked an Econ player. I sent messages to the countries that attacked that I was an econ player" -IM

but now he's a military recruit? Which is it?

"lies, half-truths and truths in what you say. " -jo

hey jo, what happened to the WGC non-forum-flaming policy? or does that apply to every one BUT you?

tell every one to stay on the subject, i'm cool with that. you should to. and the subject is how to make the war game more playable, for every one. given the premise that offense is stronger than defence... not how to make war unpractical. thats not what we are trying to do here.

and for the ability to not fight at all, would you give up your seat on the SC? if so, then we can push that... so players that don't want to war at all, don't have to, and can't effect other players games via SC resolutions...

if you don't want to allow others to effect your game via war, why should you effect others via SC?

so we could create an opt out feature, and not have to create extreme handicaps. that make the war game unplayable for those that want to.

No we can't get back to the debate, not if you're going to continue with your BS pot shots. We ALL have lives, I work, go to school and have a family thank you very much.

No one can spend 24/7 clicking nor does the game require you to, it requires you to strategize. You had 32 hrs to prepare for that war, you chose the strategy of first thinking it was a joke, second thinking you were going to guilt me and then third panicking. You then made the mistake of spending way too much time trying to disable our offensive capabilities instead of going on OFFENSE, you guys were actively defending for all of the hours that the war was lost, don't BS about not having time. That war was decided in the first 4 hours of the war, you were shooting, Iain was shooting, Jaffle was shooting, Keithvann was shooting, Aaron was then or slightly later. You had plenty of time to shoot, you just did it ineffectively. If we had drug the war out for a week I could completely agree with you, but it was 4 hours of shooting 1 night and a few shots fired the next morning. You talk about things like we are the only fed that has set up on another which is definitely not the case, I've been set up on many times myself, it does suck to lose. I lost so I chose to learn how not to, you lost so you're choosing to lobby to make it so the war game dies by creating impenetrable defenses. Guess what though, if the war game doesn't actually die from changes like that (pretty sure it will), you know who will continue to be the best players at war and the players that will continue to be able to bring your countries down? Those who learn how to play the war game, since you've chosen to lobby instead of learn, you'll still be at risk.

As far as semantics, my opinion is that 'you chose' to recruit players that were either incapable or unwilling to participate in the war game.

"since you've chosen to lobby instead of learn, you'll still be at risk. " -wb

so true, so sadly true. not meant as a threat, but the soft targets that haven't learned HOW to fight, and rely on game changes for better defense, will remain soft targets... unless you put in such extreme handi-caps, the war game becomes unpractical. and according to toms statement, thats not what they are going for

LOL, Orbiter is in the MOB but not a member of the MOB, now ricky harris isn't a member of the mob, while having a country in a mob fed.... LMAO you can't believe anything this kid says.

A few thoughts:

1. I think that while many of the ideas are good, it needs to be considered what the effect would be of implementing them ALL at the same time. For example, individually, I support adding additional fed air defense, and individually tweaking defense to make it stronger. However, I'm not sure it is a great idea to do BOTH at the same time.

2. I think it would be totally stupid to take away the advantages of strong players and strong feds against weak ones. What is the point of being strong? In fact, the problem is the opposit. The problem is that it is way to easy for someone to take a few C3s and start a war with no risk of their own.

Frankly, the main problem is that someone can own 5 main countries that are wealthy, put them in war protection, take 5 worthless C3s, spend a few trillion to build up their armies, and then attack someone with no risk. The most importaint solutions are:

1- take away the surprise advantage by giving more time before war starts by default, but allow the defending PLAYER to start the attack early at any time of his choosing.

2- Require the attacking player have a finance index over 120. It is importaint to not allow attackers to have an unsustainably large military. This is critical to stoping players from building up a military they cannot support for a short time just to attack. This feature will also limit military size to what a country can actually support.

3. Tweak SOME of the defensive weapons, not all. I think the BEST way to tweak the defensive weapons is to allow a player to make some capital intensive investments in fortifying cities, capitals, etc.

For example, add a 3 levels of fortification to be allowed for cities, capital, bases, airports, and forts. Each level would provide a bonus to troops at that location. These would have a large one-time cost, population requirements, and a small ongoing cost. For example, each level could cost 1 trillion per location one-time cost, and 1 million per location monthly cost. This would allow large countries to invest in defense, but would make it more difficult for a player to use a C3 to fight. This fortification would make the existing units harder to kill, fight better, and would make these locations harder to attack or destory.

4. Adjust federations so that they are realistic. While it is reasonable for a player to have countries in different local federations, there needs to be an identification for global federations. A player should not be allowed to have his countries in multiple global federations.

5. Now that I understand automatic defense building, I agree with it. Defense should not take as much time and effort. It would be ideal if we could set some macros/rules/battle plans up that would function automatically in war. For example, set-up a rule that if attacked the country will automatically use offensive reasourses in the area to attack fleets near the country with x number of land to sea missiles until x, or to have unit x target any special forces units in the country, or whatever. This way their is less effort needed for active defense while a player is less active.


As an overall note, there NEEDS to be a BALANCE. We don't want to make attacking impossible, as what would the point of having the feature be? We also do WANT the strong to have an advantage over the weak...if not, why build up any military? Why join an alliance if there is no military value of one? We need to not go overboard in any one direction.

A key aspect is also that different worlds need different rules. Set-up one world as a completely safe world, another world as mostly safe, another that is average, another that is slightly dangrious, and then fearless blue that is the most dangerious. As the price to being in the safe world, remove all military weapons, only allow leveling based on peace mode, do not allow space travel with that world, and as the price of safety, impose a tax of $1,000 per citizen on each country. So if a country has a population of 50 million, the country would pay 50 billion in tax...the peace tax.

Of course, in the safe world, you can't raid inactives, nor can you attack and take C3s...you have to buy them for 30 gc....these issues would balance the advantage of no war, as many players actually go to war often, but don't consider it war.

Jo, for example, has attacked and taken C3s, has raided inactive players, and has engaged in war when diplomacy didn't work. These actions should not be allowed in the Safe World, we should not allow war against C3, but not players. That is essentially like saying that you would want a world where you can attack other countries, but you can't be attacked yourself.