War

tom, i'd like to apologize for my above message,

i believe that in parts of it i went to far, and would like to offer you an apology.

i had mis-read your statement, were you said you were NOT going to implement all the features. as i that read you would. even still, that is no justification to state that you allow one player to influence you more than another. and i went to far to suggest that you do. after reflecting on many of the things you've said in this, you truly are giving all players an equal say.

i do believe that much the rest of what i said was valid. and felt the need to state it based on the fact, that many of the changes, are to an extreme, and combined with other changes, makes things extremely difficult in the opposite way. and allot was leaning toward making the war game so difficult, that it would be unpractical.

if players really don't want to fight, i mean if they just don't have the will for it. no amount of game changes will change that. and if you keep trying to add things to make the war game fair for them... it will eventually make it extremely difficult for those that want to play it. allowing a away out of the war game entirely for players, would resolve the mismatch in will to fight, so that extreme measures are not necessary.

i'd like to state before it actually happens, that 3 decs per country is to small. the 25 that we have now is out outrageous. but considering how large fed wars can get... i'd say 5 should be the minimum, but rather going from 25 to 3 or 5, why not try 10 for a while. see how that goes, and if it needs more, to then reduce it.

The reason I'm opposed to the increased fed defenses is that it very much unbalances the defense over the offense. I think it's a simple change that has big consequences. Perhaps if were implemented in a way such that you can share as many extra player's air defenses as the number of attackers, to even things out, would be balanced, but otherwise I think the other ideas that have been presented (automated defenses, changes in weapon powers, etc.) are going to get you closer to balancing the game. Enhancing air defenses is just an asset protection move and highly discourages the offensive game. Maybe I'm wrong. You guys have better ways of testing these things. But maybe we should roll out smaller measures initially so that we don't find out we went to far. Otherwise, if you could think of a way to make it unabusable, the # of fed defenses equalling the numbers of attackers may solve a few problems at once.


Also wanted to add that I think it's important to see that W3C is interested in what we have to say. We've all been critical in the past, and sometimes we've had good reason and other times we just didn't have patience. I hope that once we resolve the war issue we can have a continued discussion with you Tom, and Jozi and whoever else about what can be next. I think you'll find a lot of great ideas here. We all want the same thing. We want a fun AND successful SimCountry.

Some thoughts:

1. ok

2. strongly agree

3. strongly agree


4. strongly agree


5. ok

6. I agree, but I am concerned about fake wars to increase spending limit.


7. I don't agree that we should compare war indexes and set some limit. If we do, countries will just maintain a low war index to prevent being attacked. This really hurts new players as experienced players can easily defeat a new player without a weapons advantage.


8. I'm not a fan of this either. It really incentivises players to own 3 war slaves, as opposed to 9 countries with each 1/3 the offensive force. I think it may be reasonable for an initial attack; however, for a counter-attack, there shouldn't be a limitation. if someone attacks one of your countries, you should be able to use all your countries to fight back if you want.

9. I do not support a direct time frame, but would like for the game to start with riots, etc after a period of time for the attacker. So after a couple weeks, it would be risking revolution to continue the war.

10. Agree

11. Agree. Additionally, it would be nice if it was highly profitable usually, but that countries could also sell the units at a low cost, or even gift the units. This way, an friend could help out without direct military action.

12. Mostly agree. At the same time, we can't make C3s so hard to take that new players can't expand.

13. On some worlds, I agree. I don't agree about putting it everywhere.

14. Agree, provided that the culmulative effect does not make war impossible.

15. I don't support preventing him from going to war; rather, the SC providing defense units to support someone attacked by the agressor. peacekeeping units.

16. WP:

a. Secure mains should be allowed to remain secure on most worlds.

b. I don't think it should be based on assets; many players have more than 50% of assets in secure main. I think all countries should be in WP or not at the same time, except for secure main on some worlds.


17. Change the rules for sneak attacks:
a. I don't care

b. I support additional weapons to increase the range, if we do keep the feature.

c. agree with not forbidding them for some players and allowing them for others.

d. Hard to see difference between a limited war and a war.

18.
a. Agree to basing it on population. Perhaps 1 gold coin per million people.

b. I'm also fine with the parties agreeing on the amount.

c. I am not sure about total immunity. A federation could abuse this and just have members constantly attack eachother and surrender. Then everyone is always immune. If it is done right, it would be free. I think any imunity should cost GCs paid to the GM, to ensure this will not be abused.

19 Will wars against c3s count? I'm fine either way, provided that this statistics are only from this time forward, and don't go back and penalize people for wars before the feature was implemented.

20 ok

21 ok with removal

22 I don't support SC stopping wars, rather I support them being able to use SC funds to buy peacekeeping troups.

23 I'm not sure this would help. I don't support.

24 Strongly agree with idea

25 Strongly agree.

26 Strongly agree

27 Strongly agree

I actually think that if we have some worlds where war is easier, that it would make the other worlds safer. Many players, I think, would be very happy to play a war-game on a couple worlds, and use a couple safe worlds to build up econ to fun their war empires elsewhere.

If we make some worlds closer to constant war, others can be closer to constant peace.

24, is really cool
25, no
26, yes
27, i like the concept of a "peaceful world," but i have reservations. WG is currently suppose to be the "peaceful world," and the forum is usually dead as a doorknob. although i think the reason for that would not exist in a truly peaceful world. so i like the idea, with reservations.

You know what I think would go a VERY long way to creating balance in the war game? Not changing defensive weapons to be stronger than they already are, but instead, creating levels of c3's. As follows:

Lvl 1 would be as they are now
Lvl 2 c3's would have say 15-20 mil pop, 20k ints, 10k helis, and 100 mib/100 aab/100 dmb garrisons plus some tanks/arti/av's
Lvl 3 would have say 20-25 mil pop and have 30k ints, 15k helis, and 200 mib/200 aab/200 dmb garrisons plus some tanks/arti/av's
Lvl 4 would have 25-30 mil pop, 40k ints, 20k helis and 400/400/400 garrisons
Lvl 5 would have 30-40 mil pop, 60k ints, 30k helis and max garrisons

Make it so that there is enough in cash/assets in some of these such that someone can make a slight profit if taken efficiently and federate some of them so that full int/heli response is there. Also, provide rewards for the first one taken, just like the current leveling system, so that the first time someone takes a level 1 they get say, 25 gc's, then for level 2 and above they get 50 gc's for each level.

This will serve many purposes:
1. It will get players interested in the war game
2. It will give players experience attacking
3. That experience will be gained without players risking loss of their own country
4. It will allow people to see directly what weapons destroy what, which defensive weapons respond to what
5. It will show people just how difficult it is to take large and well defended countries even if they aren't being actively defended, thus dismissing the idea of how much stronger offensive weapons are than defensive
6. It will allow a place for weapons testing for those who enjoy the war game and who are interested in coming up with new strategies.
7. It will give war players something to shoot at instead of another player (not nearly as entertaining but testing weapons would keep war players far more busy than they are now)

If this got done I highly doubt people would still be saying that def weapons aren't strong enough, if so, change them then. The truth is that very few people understand just how strong def weapons are and what it takes to bring down a large well defended country. If that was still the thought, then change it. However, making def weapons stronger now and having more wings respond will have the effect of killing the war game or at least killing it amongst the players that should be playing it and instead it will focus all of the attention of war players and asset raiders on those who are new who do not understand how to build the new stronger defense, newer players will be consistently wiped out as war players seek out assets because attacking players with experience will be a complete loss. In addition you will allow the war players to basically make their countries impenetrable (more than the non-war players because they'll understand best how to do so), so that they can operate aggressively with basically no risk, it will be like war protection for war players in which they can still fight all they want. Then, if you add even further protection for new players, war will just die altogether. When wars become completely unprofitable, that is when the war game dies. If econ became completely unprofitable, the same thing would happen, just like you don't see a whole bunch of players building cattle corps, they aren't profitable so no one will use them.

As far as war protection, saying that large feds get none so that they can be pot-shotted is ridiculous, that will also have the opposite effect that you are intending. Instead of feds being built which leads to more people being trained (after all, the fed system is pretty much the main training line in the game), players will isolate themselves even further in war protection. It will also take away the ability for feds to be balanced with both econ and war/econ players, like all of the econ players in a fed like WGC would have to leave their assets completely at risk, that seems ridiculous. War protection should be player based, anyone should be able to have it if they want, it should just be fixed so it can't be abused. ONCE AGAIN, BC's idea is best, all in or all out, no secured mains, no half wp, half not. If you are going to choose to play the war game, you should assume the risk of doing so. This option is the most straightforward way of avoiding manipulation by players and the way that makes the most sense for what war protection was originally designed for and what it has become for, protection when unable to fight/away and protection for econ players.

I don't see what the argument could be against this except for those who do wish to manipulate the current system.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to add my thanks for listening, it is great whether I agree with what is coming out of it or not, it is much better than the alternative.

"7. I don't agree that we should compare war indexes and set some limit. If we do, countries will just maintain a low war index to prevent being attacked. This really hurts new players as experienced players can easily defeat a new player without a weapons advantage. " -chrys

i agree with you. it will allow bottom feeders to just build huge defenses, then dec, then transfer in weapons... but if you must put a limit based on the defensive index. flip the offense to be double the value of defense. then put the relative index limit... that way, players with huge offenses, the ones with the aggressive strength, have the higher war ranks...

24......


I think the automatic response units or counter attack units would create enough balance to perhaps not have to tweak the strength of the responding passive/fed defense.

Depending, of course, on what the GM's have in mind. If I have stealth fighters hidden that will automatically hit your FP and ignore your drones or bombers, then who needs a stronger passive int responsive?

All FP should not be lost when that attacking unit is hit by an auto response stealth unit, but he should lose some FP. Quality should be a factor here as well.

The stealth units idea could be rich with depth. stealth fighters, bombers etc... All with different attack priorities. responding only when a certain attack occurs which happens to be programed into the stealth unit to stimulate a very specific response.

you GM's have a real gem here if you flesh this idea out. players could customize weapon platforms and units and produce them for corporations. This could be a rather large customizable market. They could tailor them to respond to certain scenarios, and sell them at a premium.

I could even envision ground units with auto attack capabilities. MRMB, land based sea batts, the beat goes on...


If these units respond and auto attack in the way I think they should, then perhaps we could keep the war lords happy with putting to bed the strengthened passive defense issues?

I could envision a new enterprise...

"Barney Rubbles Automated Defensive Response Solutions...

My units are expensive but your attacker just lost most of his missile shoot capability!"

"Results may vary. Past performace does not guarantee future success"

You get the idea;P

Well, I thought this was going to be change we could believe in.

I personally like the result of the tuning as it is. Unfortunate that I will now have to buy a lot more weapons and ammo just to shoot through defenses, but even still. More people can now take the option of NOT staying in WP. Also they can spend more money on weapons and ammo, instead of WP. Opening the possibilities of new war players and less players in WP.

This IS what you wanted right, WhiteBoy?

i agree with you barney, this idea should be more fully detailed... as i have quite a few ideas myself

for instance, why click 100 times to take down interceptor wings? when i can automate it...

and your also right, lets explore this option, to it fullest before we explore other options. the more i think of it i agree.


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. It could be started manually during a war. Strategy to be set by the player, for all the automatic response units or for each group separately.

An attacker will not be able to assume that the war is just a matter of some clicking.

-so i can automate stripping air d... or blowing up forts...???

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 offensive forces. If we add this, the automatic defenses will include 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 it, was incomplete and insufficient and such an addition could improve it.
So far, I see some support for this.
---

and to further what you said barney,


"Depending, of course, on what the GM's have in mind. If I have stealth fighters hidden that will automatically hit your FP and ignore your drones or bombers, then who needs a stronger passive int responsive?" -barney

but thinking about that, i might want to send in a single fighter plan, just to test the water...see what kind of response i get... can you set up an automated response to an automated response? i mean pressing one button just to see what might happen... could create a serious of automated responses from both countries, and that is how war works? each side reacts to what the other is doing, usually with a preset battle plan, and often having to wing it? it will make fighting easier, and more interesting at the same time...

as it is, to be able to respond to what the other guy (or gal,) is doing, is a bit herky jerky, its hard to actively attack, and watch your country paper to respond to attacks... flipping back and forth in windows, continuously... this will level the playing field a little in reguards to experience, but not actually take away the advantages of experience, and prep...

the only disadvantage is that it might speed up wars, which isn't really a disadvantage, but allot of people want to be able to set up defenses that survive based off the time it takes to take their country...

I can set my auto response to only respond if attacked by say 1000 weps. otherwise, i ignore your probes.

again, this is rich no?

Offered Countries and Enterprises By Requested image #Bids Best Bid Result

bid
Republic of Mindressa on LU Elechristian_EC 5,000.00 GC 1 50.00 GC Aug 26 06:07


I was unaware that country at war could be sold, wassup with this guise?

There has been no adjustment yet, don't know where you're getting that idea. Unless you're referring to the upgrading of units which has now been increased.

Impenetrable defense is not what I wanted, what I want is more players to get involved, impenetrable defense will keep everything exactly as it is now except for even less war. No one will have any incentive to use the war engine because wars will have no effect except to piss weapons into the trash/possibly annoy people and leave all new people as the only targets because they will be the only players without impenetrable defense.

I think my suggestion above is the best option to create a more balanced game, it will give people incentive to learn and teach players how to play the war game. That coupled with some changes to give people more time, fix wp and reduce the amount of clicking will make things better.

allot will depend on how it works, how specific we get... and yea, its really cool

like setting up a c3 with 100 lrd, with just hj and hav, to auto-attack everything they encounter... and when i see the HM are gone. start auto attacks with missles

set up 50 wings of drones only, and auto order them to attack...and set up another 50... lol

it actually opens up allot of avenues of attack that were unpractical before, based on the tedium.

Comments on some of the more creative ideas:

Keto sounds like he's talking about doing away entirely with using c3s in battle, not just doing away with using c3s while hiding in wp. I'd like that. How to do it? maybe a week-long wait before you can dec with a c3 you've just taken? Fighting big country vs big country is fun, and seems to be intuitively how many of us see the game. Allow a naval rdu and each individual country could have a world-wide presence, and players would have less tactical need of taking and using c3s .

Whiteboy's suggestion of higher level c3s is too great to expect to happen. I agree with all his reasons for it. Though it would devalue a lot of hard-won warlord experience, lol.

Barney's idea is interesting. Smart, crudely programmable weapons? Custom made. How do you price those? It could be done. That would toss things up a bit!

Orbiter and others are leading toward having macro commands for doing tedious stuff like attacking forts, attacking air d. Yes, much less clicking! But that opens a can of worms. If you take air def down in 2 minutes, and all the targets in 2 minutes, and program your units to paint the ground in 15 minutes...where's the game? There has to be some sort of brake to slow it down.

Someone suggested re-organizing feds into global and local. You can only be in one global fed--a fed of players, not a fed of countries. With many regional branches. I think that's neater than what we have.

An idea I haven't seen elsewhere: add a new type of award, a fed award, for the global feds to compete with one another. Base it on a broad range of metrics, econ and war, the kinds of things Laguna puts in statistics. But other things too--bonus points for dominating regions, extra points for having newer players in your fed.

I'd like to hear from Tom on my idea, is it really hard to implement? If so, then I totally understand, otherwise, I don't see any reason not to implement it.

As you mention Jojo, it'll allow players to easily attain all the basic knowledge that you and I have attained as warlords without the losses and stress we went through. Should make it more balanced. I really hope it would be possible.

"maybe a week-long wait before you can dec with a c3 you've just taken? Fighting big country vs big country is fun," -jojo

sorry to hack and slash your comment jojo. waiting a week seems a bit much... but waiting for the normal auto protection to fall off... can't tell you how many times i've used navy to take a c3, dropped a coin, used c3 to take 5 more c3s, then boom, 6 c3 decs... never really seemed fair. but then again, how many people actually daily check the region their in? if they did, their would be less multi-world empires.

Thats right, Ignore the toall. I said hi to someone today and i found $20!

jeese hi br, is it really that important?

can we start a new thread, this one is taking long to load...

"8. I'm not a fan of this either. It really incentivises players to own 3 war slaves, as opposed to 9 countries with each 1/3 the offensive force. I think it may be reasonable for an initial attack; however, for a counter-attack, there shouldn't be a limitation. if someone attacks one of your countries, you should be able to use all your countries to fight back if you want. " -chryso

i'm not a fan of this either.. but i'm seeing allot of this swing way in the favor, of defense. as you make defense stronger, you remove the incentive for aggressive war... and those that do, have less and less mercy...

if we want to turn off the war game, W3C could just do that...both attackers and defenders should be at risk. allot of whats been said here is about putting attackers at risk. fine, agreed, but defenders should still be at risk. its been said that, before changes, it took 4 countries to take out on heavily defended country... by limiting the number to 3, you are automatically removing the defenders risk...

silly.

the theme is to give defenders a chance, not take away any chance of success from attackers....

again, before any other changes lets explore 24

It's hard to argue that defense is as powerful as offense when a can kill 800 ints and only lose 160 bombers. The only balancer is the cost of OA2A missiles which make it as expensive to attack as it is to lose all of the interceptors in defense. The problem with that is that I can store as many missiles as I want without cost and transfer them where needed. Defenders don;t have that option. They are limited in the number of ints they can maintain, and even moreso if they are trying to make a profit.

Having said that, if W3C wants to increase the strength of the defense through bumping Interceptor efficiency or increasing fed air defenses, they should consider decreasing the cost of OA2A so that the war game can be balanced.

This is the next iteration.
I am trying to consolidate and move features up the list or out of the list.

Repeating again:
We will not make any extreme changes and will not implement all these features. The ones we will implement will not be extreme but rather tuning of the current system.

I am busy in and out of the office for a large part of my time. The texts from the forum were collected here by a lady who removed all the names, and formatted the text in a compact word file so I can edit quickly and take the relevant points.
In addition, I do not know the names of the countries or players involved in one side or another. I do know some serious players who contributed in the past and were very constructive in their communication to us but I have no idea on which side they were in the past war and have no idea if they are on one side or another of the discussion.
Even when I know the name, it is not on the file I received.
As a company we do have an opinion and I stated it several times. I read every comment and I try to see the logic behind it and find out if it contributes to the issue we discuss.
Do they understand that we need to make changes or just want us to keep the current situation? Are they interested in a fair solution and to have simcountry evolve the war game into something more interesting and have many more players join?
All this is complex and time consuming enough. I am only interested in the content.

This is relevant. Who the person is, is not relevant.

We are very happy for the many positive reactions. I think the process is constructive and love doing this. The company is supporting it and there is full commitment to implement whatever comes out of it ASAP. It is here all under my name but Jozi participated in the last days and knows all the details.

Here is the latest update on all the issues:

1. It seems that everybody would like to have a solution for the deactivation issue.
We have many options to try to reduce deactivation and reduce the man power problem for the army. We will come up with possible solutions.

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.

It will be implemented as one of the first items. Similar to 4.

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

Same. Everyone is for it. This will be the two phased start of war with a wait period for anyone to talk or join.

4. Increase the time between war declaration and the start of the war to 48 hours on all the worlds. Allow the defender to start whenever he wants to and have the surprise effect.

Will be done

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

Will be implemented with the coming update, probably tomorrow, Friday.

6. Expanding the spending limits for defensive weapons for the defender once war is declared.
Example: set the spending limit to 5 times the standard value.
There is a problem with fake wars that will allow others to increase their defensive spending. When starting a war, they will have to stay out of WP :-). Maybe we should allow that. It will be for defensive weapons only.

There is support for an increase.

7. Imbalance between the warring parties cannot be eliminated. Comparing the offensive war indexes of both parties and limiting the difference to a factor of 3 or 5 or 10 can help a little.
Lowering the defense index to prevent attacks will not work if we set a minimum value.
This version seems to be supported.

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

Mostly positive reactions but based on players, not countries.
We think of 3-5 players with max 3-5 countries. Response declarations should be limited too.
Fed members of the attackers will participate in the defense in case of a counter attack.

There are positive and also negative reactions. 3 is too low.

Now imagine that the one defender and the three attackers have similar military power.
Why is 3 or 5 against one unfair and 10 against one fair?

Unbreakable defense, or extremely strong defense is not the goal but should be possible if you really go for it.
Winning a war should be possible but it is not a MUST. Unsuccessful war should become a more frequent event. We had unbreakable defense or nearly unbreakable in the past and we had many more wars.

By limiting the number of attackers, we will limit the general fire power during wars. It will be possible but very hard to build an unbreakable defense but the cost of an average war will go down.

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

Again, based on players but reactions are mixed. We will not execute this feature in the first round and it may not be needed at all.

10. Introducing automatic defense building features and a market for military units.

Example: 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.

Largely positive.

We will make it easier to build the defense. It will be done either by automation of the ordering of all the components that are needed or by adding corporations that make them and trade them on space stations/direct market.

This can include multiple types of units, including supply units. The feature can reduce the amount of clicking and the time spent in setting up the defense.

11. Merged with 10.

12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.Arguments against: This will require increased clicking to destroy the defense. We do not think that we should have a weak defense to reduce the amount of clicking. This is an argument for no defense at all.
We will make SLIGHT CHANGES, possible several times and measure.

We have now implemented a 5% change to the defensive power of interceptors and defensive helicopters. We will implement another similar step in the coming days, possibly tomorrow, Friday. It will also include other defensive weapons. The change is minimal. We will then stop and wait for other features.

13. A limited war option that can cause damage to the other party but without the risk of losing the country. This option may not be interesting for the large aggressive feds but might encourage smaller players to declare on larger ones and reduce their power.

50/50 and a suggestion to divert it to more powerful sneak attacks.(Item 17).

We may find a solution in larger sneak attacks. Maybe keep the current sneak attacks "Unnamed" and add larger ones, where the attacker name is published.

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.
A new idea here is to have the max number of defense partners, depend on the number of attackers!

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.
It is in unrelated. It will not solve the problems in individual wars.

We will not execute short term.

16. WP:

a. No WP at all for fed members with large armies and a high offensive war index.
(Plus measures to prevent countries from going in and out of feds to dock this rule).

Also said: Fed WP should be on or off for all the members at once.

50/50. Seems fair to force large feds to face the music.
We need more specific response to this. It is a big change. Do we really want it?

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

Mostly supported.

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

More types of weapons higher frequency are an option. This new type of sneak attacks will be public (the name of the attacker will be known).

It is a limited war.

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

Lots of supported by everyone. Options:

a. The payout when you request to stop the war should be preset and will depend on the finances of the country or population or we can base it on the nominal value of the country.
b. Warring parties should agree but the defender must have the option to decide to stop.
c. After it happened, the country will be immune for war for a set period.


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. Possibly we could count only wars against real players. Small numbers can be excluded and wars against C3s will always remain possible. This should be based on the war history of the player, across all the worlds.
20 Make it possible to transfer military units. This is similar to the market idea which is easier to implement. Transfer between users requires availability of users when the transfer is urgently needed and you cannot always be sure that such transfers will be possible on time.
This will not be implemented. We will implement a market for military units. (Item 10)

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

Remove.

23 Limit the max number of wars per player per world per month on a real player.
Acceptance will depend on the number of wars. For now, we would like to refrain from this limitation but rather create a more balanced war game that will on one hand allow more players to participate in the war game and on the other hand, will force war players to fight harder to win and will probably reduce their appetite if winning is not guaranteed.

Will not be implemented. Other features will be implemented first and this may not be needed at all.

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. It could be started manually during a war. Strategy to be set by the player, for all the automatic response units or for each group separately.

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 offensive forces. If we add this, the automatic defenses will include 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 it, was incomplete and insufficient and such an addition could improve it.
There is wide support for this feature!
Here is a quote:
I think the automatic response units or counter attack units would create enough balance to perhaps not have to tweak the strength of the responding passive/fed defense.
If I have stealth fighters hidden that will automatically hit your FP and ignore your drones or bombers, then who needs a stronger passive interceptors response?
All FP should not be lost when that attacking unit is hit by an auto response stealth unit, but he should lose some FP. Quality should be a factor here as well.
The stealth units idea could be rich with depth. stealth fighters, bombers etc... All with different attack priorities. responding only when a certain attack occurs which happens to be programmed into the stealth unit to stimulate a very specific response.
Players could customize weapon platforms and units and produce them for corporations. This could be a rather large customizable market. They could tailor them to respond to certain scenarios, and sell them at a premium.
I could even envision ground units with auto attack capabilities. MRMB, land based sea batts, the beat goes on... (This is more difficult. GM)
I could envision a new enterprise...
"Barney Rubbles Automated Defensive Response Solutions...
My units are expensive but your attacker just lost most of his missile shoot capability!"
"Results may vary. Past performance does not guarantee future success"

25 Require attackers to have a minimum FI level.
Suggested FI >120. Could be set lower or higher. The idea is to force everyone to build some economic power. I am not sure about this. Some just want to play a war game. Why not allow them?
There is however some support, some oppose. Let's keep it open for now.

26 Introduce a system of fortifying cities, bases, airports and fortifications to make them harder to destroy or damage.
This may add to complexity and introduce another layer of options. It will enrich the game at the price of complexity.
We suggest to wait with this and see what the effect is of other features.

It is supported but we would like to implement other features first.

27 Diversify the worlds and created different levels of risk. Put a price on safety.
Obviously, this is supported.

28 Add a feature that will make war more attractive, rewarding war players.
Specific suggestions are welcome.

29 Levels of C3's

We decided to include this not because we agree but to acknowledge the effort and make a point. C3s can be attacked because the countries are free. We cannot create levels as new players joining in every day can take these countries. In addition, the purpose of the war game in Simcountry is not attacking C3s but playing a full war game against real players.

30 Expand wars to the entire universe - not relevant
Not relevant but may expand the war game into a new dimension. If we allow the transport of military units on cargo shuttles, and allow war declarations across the universe, it could add to the war game.

Just an idea.


We get additional suggestions, for example to reduce clicking and others. These are good, we read and keep them in mind but we are now trying to solve a different problem.

Is the desire of many players to have their def withstand any offensive onslaught? If so, that is unreasonable. I dont mind giving a bit more help to the def, but lets not go overboard here. As somebody said somewhere on the forums(cant remember who), YOU CANT DEFEND YOUR WAY TO VICTORY. I think that says it perfectly. Therefore thats why it is important for players who chose the full game to learn the war engine.

For a very long time many of those in my fed didnt use wp because we tried to stay vigilant with our defenses. Not only the def though, but offensive weapons as well. Other feds/players can do the same. As has been mentioned before, it was not lack of def that cost WGC, but it was lack of 'shooting back'. No passive def can/should stand up to an active offense. If players do not wish to spend the time involved in doing that, then simply buy WP and play peaceful, not try to do both.

There are many good suggestions on the table. But remember the larger issues surround c3 war dec'g larger countries ie... players attempting to gain everything while risking nothing. The rest of the suggestion seem to be pivoting around this central idea of c3 dec'g. And many of these ideas are good ones.

"the purpose of the war game in Simcountry is not attacking C3s but playing a full war game against real players. " -tom

just wanted to highlight this one.

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.
A new idea here is to have the max number of defense partners, depend on the number of attackers!
---
i like that, if you want a buddies help, their will be higher risk, but 2 people clicking is more of an advantage, than the increased damage would do. so how does this work? normally one on one, the country being attacked would get one fed air wing support? but with 2 players on one side, the country being shot at gets 2 i wing support?

following this, it would create an incentive not to have 5 countries against one, as the air responce could be decimating... how ever, 5 players clicking, is still an advantage that would counter the extra damage... but if their were 11 i wings responding to an attack... it seems that would out way the advantage...

i like that idea.

and would if their is fed counter decs, would it work the other way?
---
17. Sneak attacks could be made more powerful and include more weapons.

14, with the start now button. even though the aggressor has the advantage of prep, both players still get to know when the shooting starts, i'm against allowing a player to start shooting with out the other player having ANY knowledge war has started. how ever, to allow something similar... give the defender the ability to use sneak attacks in war...

currently once war is declared, with the waiting period, neither country can sneak the other, allow the defender to make some enhanced sneak attacks, and follow the plan to enhance sneaks... that will give them the counter attack option, with out going into full war mode.

so combine part of 14 into 17...

Im like a dog with a bone on #24

The ground units are indicated to be complex for the GM..... granted.

How about simple steath Bombers and stealth fighters to begin?

To avoid encouraging C3 warriors from adding another feather to their hats, these could be allowed only in larger countries. The amount would depend on country size.

For instance, for every 20 mil pop you may have 3 stealth auto response units, up to 9 per country of at least 60 mil.

This way a player can not leverage these units to such a degree that they would become another co opted weapon of the war lords who know how to leverage the most out of weapons.

if we limit the amount of these auto response units the pendulum will not swing to far in the favor of defensive war. offensive players will have to account for these. not impossible. the uncertainty around whether these units exist in a target country will make the pre war planning more interesting.