W3C - Planned update to to Simcountry (not war related)

Hi Rob,

war cost cannot be compensated, because then people will always play expecting for that. war cost should be a detractor, so when somebody sees a new player with wise defence, he could reconcider the attack as looting will not cover the war cost.

the only thing that can be compensated is part of the value of the country defeated if you want to take it over, or you could rely on security cauncil decision.

I think for that reason security cauncil needs to contain representatives from all largest federations, to ensure honest decisions.

I started a discussion about this to separate from the general discussion about planned war updates.

ok

OK. My second attempt to take a WL12 C3. I took out the 10 helicopter wings. Took me around 30k oaabs and 15k mrmbs at Q320. So took out all interceptor wings and all other defense units. Took me around 350k oaa missiles. Also several thousand mrmbs for clearing mobile/land defense units.

But i just calculated i have to take out 28 fortifications as well, plus additional ones because painting is a hell.
Every garrison costs me 3.3k mrmbs at Q320. So 18 cities, 18 factories, 28 fortifications, times 3.3k mrmbs, is 212k mrmbs.
Total costs to take WL12 C3? 262k mrmbs and 35k oaabs and tons of ammo.

I also lost several Drones (useless btw), precision bombers and stealth bombers to try out, but after losing 35k oaabs and 50k mrmbs, being stuck at War Index 51.81 and calculated how much I need to sacrifice more, I just threw in the towel.

So please clearify why 30k mrmbs are too much if you need like 262k+ (!) mrmbs to clear out defenses of a WL12 C3 please?

lol. but tanks have been made a bit more powerful, so it's fixed now.

To correct my previous msg. Not all forts were garrisoned so made it to WL12 at the costs of like 60k mrmb or something like that, on top of the 30k oaabs.

Thanks for the info.
The numbers are huge.
We will start such a war for testing and may draw some conclusions on the power of C3 countries in the higher war levels.

will need to do much more on several fronts.

In the mean time, any ideas you have on how to reduce the sizes of armies might help.

Now that countries can reach sustainable populations of 600m armies will be much larger. We've seen armies of over 6,000,000 troops in countries of 100m population. 36,000,000 strong armies will now be possible.

Attacking a large nation is no longer feasible. Players who want to fight will only attack much weaker players or c3 countries.

I suggested making weapons and ammo very expensive. Will this work when a country of 600m will be able to turn a monthly profit of over 1T?

Lots of players already have invincible armies but no one to fight and vast sums of money but nothing to spend it on.

Military power needs to be about more than cash and population size so what about making army unit upgrades automatic instead of being bought with game cash? They all start at 120 and increase based on experience and welfare. This is realistic as experienced soldiers are better and soldiers from countries that have happier and healthier populations have more to fight for.

Andy,

the below numbers are minimal I think per country:

Defense weapons:

150 forts

50k anti air batts + 5M ammo
50k defense missile batts + 5M ammo

20k helicopters + 10M ammo
20k interceptors + 10M ammo

1k anti nuclear defense batts + 10k ammo

Offence weapons:

200k Mid range batts + 3M ammo
100k Anti air batts + 5M ammo

If you could think about how to make this minimum amount cheap( staff and maintenance wise), that would be very good. Currently even this minimum is very expensive to maintain not even talking about adding navy and other less effective weapons.

The prospect of much larger armies is not a happy one.
however,
600 million population can only be achieved with gold coins.
natural growth will not go much higher than 120 millions.

The numbers advised here are larger than we would like to see.
but making it cheap, also weapons.
I thought you (Mndz) were calling for more expensive weapons and affordable ammo.

I am still on that Andy, but I also need to reflect the reality. I currently have around 1 million of each batteries and tens of millions of ammo.

If weapons are more expensive then numbers might change but they will not change if weapons price is not increased by tens of times.

This is what I can buy with single budget having maximum price as market is in shortage. What I should think when seeing this numbers? Shouldn't I spend at least one full budget for 1 type of weapon?



If you increase the price 10 times I would think that I might need 10K or so as a default, but not 50K. If you increase the price 100 times (as I recommend by the way) then I will really think about numbers.

Ha. 10 times!

we think the the price should increase but we cannot pull the rug under players who have a plan to purchase and will be hit unreasonably.

so yes, the price will increase but in smaller steps.

we are also increasing the power of land weapons but also this is done in small steps. next upgrade will see land weapons increasing power by additional 10-20%.

you are making a good progress but i am here to challenge even more

there could be 2 ways, if weapons remain cheap then i want to have big numbers of them in large units. million of interceptors is just a number and i used to have tens of millions back in the old days. what need to be fixed is maintenance cost, both on military supplies, staff, innactive weapons and ammo side. cost can be reduced by x times without damage to anyone.

other option is with very expensive weapons, then units need to be small and have various weapon types in them, weapons number participating in attack should also be small. maintenance can stay as the current level it will not hurt. weapons deactivation/reactivation need to be big percentage.


land units must be stronger in any of the scenarios, when you think is the time you can also make forts being destroyable by land units only.

just my thoughts as usual

Raising prices of weapons will benefit weapon assets rich players because it will inflate military (weapons) assets value. It will hurt smaller and newer players, because they need more SC$ to build an army. Lowering prices of weapons will have an opposite effect, but will hurt your aim to reduce military army sizes. Also, with lowering prices you are banking on the assumption most smaller players will actually seize the opportunity to increase their army sizes, which I dare to doubt given what I wrote earlier.

Military assets rich players were able to accumulate their military assets due their SC$ earnings power (aggravated by no SC$ spending alternatives). As long as their superior earnings power remain (+reserves) their ability to have larger army sizes than their earnings power weaker opponents will remain as well.

Andy, you wrote that the aim was not to limit the size of the army, but the aim is to make sure that a large army costs more than a small one. Later you wrote you want to reduce army sizes. The most effective way in my opinion would be to introduce a very steep progressive military assets tax on the account level. Even more effective: let them pay in military assets (aka reducing quantities over time, instead of quality as you considered earlier).

Any attempt to reduce the strength of stronger players by reducing their military assets will fail due their superior earnings powers (+reserves), unless you hard limit them and exterminate any circumvention. But then you are basically saying: "hey, you played this game way too well so we are going to cripple you for this". I believe a better way would be to reduce complexity of the game and to eliminate the current disincentives to not to war pvp against stronger players. The aim would be to weaken the stronger players by strengthening the current weaker ones. And weaker players are more likely to stay, which imo is more important than any of this all.

Mndz
I agree. and most of it is already underway.
question;
You used to have a larger army. what made you reduce the size?

neutralsc

I agree.
we are determined to help new players and smaller players to become stronger more quickly. It will not close the gap.
I do not think we should hurt successful players but if weaker ones become more powerful, it will help.

we have many ideas as to how to help new players and ones who are playing for only weeks to 3 months.

both in population, cash and high quality military units and garrisons.

Andy,

I did not reduce, i moved a lot of weapons to ceo, most of big players have done the same. Now i have moved something back to countries because:
-time to establish an army from having innactive weapons on ceo to active units in countries is very big. i want some of them active all the time to simply save time.
-quality of weapons in active units can be upgraded beyond 330 which allows me to have more powerful units if they stay active
-maintenance cost prevents from having too many active, but i would deploy a lot more if needed during major war
-army staff is limited and i could not have more than staff allows, they would be deactivated and i need to be wise to chose active weapons not to end up in the situation where i could not defend or attack

i count how much i need to max defence in garrisons on main targets and leave the rest for land defence and supply unit.

with the current cost level it is not possible to max defence in garrisons, each garrison could be around 1k weapons and having to defend few hundreds would make me deploy 200-300k batteries only for garrisons, not talking about air defence and attacking weapons.

Thanks.
I hope some of our ideas to improve the war process will help.