W3C - The War Game

We have some suggestions concerning the war game
The suggested changes depend on each other and are listed in the order they should be introduced:

1. Add more mobile unit types, including some that have specific capabilities in defense or single type of weapon units.

2. Allow mobile units to participate in the defense of the country if they are within fighting range of the attacked target.

3. Add an auto response mobile unit that can attack various targets when the country is under attack. This in addition to the stealth bomber units.

The unit will consist of ballistic missile launchers that will attack selected targets automatically when the country is under attack.

4. Relax the rules for fed wars and allow more support by def members that are in different war levels.

Features 1 - 4 will improve the capability of countries to defend themselves.

5. Introduce limitations to the use of (temporary) war protection.

The limitation can be achieved by:
a. An increase of the cost of war protection. This will make the defense and auto defense option more attractive and reduce the use of war protection.

b. Limit or even eliminate the use of nuclear weapons if countries in the empire are under war protection.

c. Rethink the option to place many countries under war protection. War protection could be limited to countries with population and assets above some level and/or countries you own longer than a certain period.

1. Why can't we design our own units?

2. How exactly will they participate in the defence?

3. That's taking automation one step too far.

4. It is reasonable.

5.
a) Nothing against it.
b) That's just not logical. A very poor approach.
c) If to be in place, then only time in one's control should be the criteria.

Sounds like a) is the best. The other two are overcomplicated.

I'm sorry, what is the big push for all this defense stuff I am reading about regularly? Why are there mobile units, is it to raise cash or help military actions? Why not balance the offensive and defensive capabilities and let the players sort it out. If the good players get to big or bully people push the reset button on the server and start over. I don't mind starting over it would give the game a fresh outlook. I would like to see mobile units go away and rather pay more per month if that's needed. I dunno I haven't been around very long but it's just some thoughts...

We had resets before. Not many happy campers about it.

1. is because they want people to know what they are buying from the space station. but for the most part the mobile unit templates aren't really workable units.

and with #2, allot of people are asking that question. is their a limit to the number units that can respond? what is the range? will this work for fed defense?

5)c. seems to defeat the purpose of the other ideas. I would then keep a main, secured, and a war slave full of my assets in WP, an older country or big pop country, and still have all the options I have now.

about #5.

the idea, is cool, in its own way.

if you make a country as a war slave, over load it. then build an econ slave, keep it in war protection, and use it to pay for the war slave. you are effectively only risking half a country. the concept, of all or nothing is cool.

the problem i see, with WP being an all or nothing type thing, is that it gives a HUGE advantage to multi's and account sharing. If i have 6 countries, i can only effectively fight from 1-2, while the account sharer, will be able to fight from more of his (theirs.) allowing me to protect some of my empire, so that i can focus on a couple. is probably better in the long run. unless W3C actually starts doing something about account sharing.

really, the thing that people have been complaining about, is the use of C3s in PvP wars. And it isn't even the use of C3s itself. but the exclusive use of C3s. taking a player C3, doesn't have the same rewards as an actual C3. while the attacker can just take more, at vertually no cost. and keep on doing it.

originally, 2 years ago, when we began these series of war game changes. one of the concepts, was that if the defense fights hard, you shouldn't be able to "just walk away," how ever the exclusive use of C3s, does not offer a way for the defense to do enough damage to cause the C3 user to stop.

when first joining a planet, we have a 21 day rule, (or atleast we did, i haven't tested if the rule still exists) where you couldn't just jump on a planet, with out warning, and start attacking people. why can't their be a 21 day rule for EACH country. that is, once you've gained ownership of a country, you can't declare war with it for 21 days?

Andy

GREAT JOB! For once and im sure youll like this, IM 110% SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THESE UPDATE. I love them all with NO complaints KEEP THEM COMMING!!!

Side note how much will fed war level be relaxed?

Funny. Many years ago, the extension the 21 days for new countries was rejected in a similar debate.

I could come from another world, set up shop next to the player I want to attack and peacefully build an all for purpose war slave. And today, with space trade, that would be a bigger problem.

The problem is not C3s themselves. The problem is using C3s as vehicles of war. Then, solve your problems as close to the source as you can.

Reinstate these two old rules:
- Forbid the purchase of military material when in debt.
- Allocate a maximum percentage of LLWs and MLMs as military personal.

Or just make them easier to conquer back:
I think that imposing a maximum of one fort for every 500 000 you have in population would do wonders. C3s generally have 10 million in population, so this would mean a maximum of 20 forts to bust and move on.

A combination of this rule with the ones above would do wonders.


Then we have nuclear weapons... I'm quicker to point fault at the defence and game mechanics than to limit their usage.

i wasn't thinking 21 days free protection, i shoulda considered that

lol, 20 forts, paint, and probably zero corps, that would be quick and easy, i like that, like 5ish or less minutes, and not much ammo. costing less to get rid of the threat, than the threat cost. which i guess is the theme

but give this a try LG, set up a country with a skeleton of what you'd need to fight off a nuke attack. keeping in mind, if you just have nuke defense, you'd be weak from a conventional assault. then wait for your war rank to level out. you'll find that players just aren't doing that. previously, when players weren't keeping up to a level of preparation, they changed the rules so you wouldn't need to. ei, war levels. but war levels are not preventing C3s only wars.

Any improvements are welcome by me. There is currently no war game. That died a while ago. With the introduction of war levels and the reduction of income, it currently is too expensive and risky to even consider warring on a big stage.

The veterans have built up assets from a different age of profitability and new players don't have the income to compete. It takes them months to get a mini war slave set up because of the current low income, and then there is no reason to risk it at all against players who have an army size 20x larger + know how.

I don't like the idea of increasing the cost of war protection. The people most using it really are the people afraid of being attacked by c3s. I am currently war level 4 on LU. If I EVER decide to really focus on econ, I NEED war protection to avoid my countries being tasty bait for c3s. Without war protection, I need to spend probably 1/3 or more of my budget on defense. It's quite annoying.

C3 warfare is an issue, but not THE issue. THE issue is the extreme unprofitability of the current war game and the protection of war levels. I originally started playing the war game to raid inactive countries. I built much of my first empire by conquering countries of inactive players. They clearly weren't using their assets, so why shouldn't I go get them? Many of those countries house dozens or even hundreds of CEO corporations that get screwed by the country resetting to a c3.

I understand W3 has little incentive to make inactive player assets available to the general population, but as of now there is virtually zero incentive to ever reach war level 3. The risks FAR outweigh the rewards. Essentially, the war game as it stands, is not worthwhile (in my humble, yet somewhat experienced opinion).

Food for thought.

The above post by EO, pretty much summed it up.

Might I add, why not improve the Navy before introducing new mobile units and such. The use of navies can reduce the use of fighting from c3s where a player risks nothing against an opponent who has a nice empire.

I gotta agree with EO

Out of personal suggests WP should remain as is but needs to be come all or non instead of 1nation in WP.
The cost of WP is fine but players being to hide only there best nations we'll letting the weakest fight. An all or non solution would easily fix this problem.
Also siding with Laguna there needs to be a factor for forts, being able to pop out 100 over night before war is unfair the attacker HAS to blow them up to win, a limit should decrease this, either it be xxx amount of pop or some other measure.

Lasty in reguards to the weapons post I like the factor of lower base cost. Something the GM needs to consider is the real cost of making weapons. 250k make 500 anti air missiles that's only ammo for 100 batteries, for 1 attack. You need a min of 600 batteries just to clear 130 c3 helis in 1 attack.
So really I need 6cors to make 1 Attack worth of ammo.
The GM needs to boost these numbers no matter how low they go in units they will not make anywhere near enough.

if the GM wants to keep ammo production rates low then that fine but some weapons need more accuracy.

Really it takes 5battereies and 30missiles to shot down a singlehelicopter?

1,2 and 3 sound ok as long as it dosent make it nearly impossible too take a country 4 no good either you have war levels or you dont any war level still provides air cover for fed defence. 5 no good if your country goes into debt if you arent around then your weapons get sold off automatically and would be left with no wp whatsoever, a/ the cost of wp is already way expensive b/ do not eliminate use of nuclear weapons in any way c/ The option of war protection should be left up to the member to utilise as a paying contributor of sim country

+0.75 to the GM.

Good changes, especially with the changes to Federations. Very good news, although there are some criticisms. I pretty much agree with Laguna and EO on their points.

I agree with EO that increasing the cost of war protection is not the answer here. For people who have large empires are going to have reduce their empires in size since they won't be able to afford paying gold coins to keep them safe from attacks, whether it's a C3 country or a player, especially if their military is small and hold trillions of SC$ worth of assets of which I would do this option myself if I had a large empire.

Also like Keto says, the navy seriously needs improving before introducing those mobile units that i'll probularly never use anyway.

Like EO also says the game does very little to make inactive player assets available to the general population. There should be option where you can raid these countries since their president has'nt been present for a long while. However with my renewed 3 part document of the 'Overall defence index levels' idea to maybe integrate with or replace the war levels, this could be possible.

If anyone wants to read this renewed 3 part document, of which i've already sent this to few players personally on here, i'll paste it all on the suggestions forum as I believe it's ready to read.

A big thankyou to the GM for putting this out for players responses. I think it's great that they are considering our views, and maybe getting some ideas they haven't thought of.

All I ask them to remember is that the game is advertised as partly a war game. All mmorpgs have a war element. It's vital to the fun and ultimately the success of the game that interaction between players is encouraged and facilitated. Federations, politics and the war element are the biggest part of this. (oh, and a new forum & chat system too )

Directed at Andy, I'm wondering at what point the fact that some players continue to get owned will stop being a reason to change the war game. Some people will lose, and some will win. that is the nature of conflict. C3s aren't the problem, people are. When I adapt and find a reasonable method to accomplish the same objectives. Will we change the game even more? What are we going to do when you guys force me to steamroll countries instead of forcing some form of conflict resolution, make a provision for country givebacks? Because once I start doing that, of course that won't be fair. When I exploit a weapon imbalance that has been in place for a long time will we change the way weapons work, and give players back their lost assets, as in the case of Steve? I know you think you are doing the best thing for the players involved who are crying about this or that, but at first glance these things(changes) are always 'the best way' forward but consistently have the undesired effect.

Maybe it's you that needs to change Wendy.

Just saying...

We can dream Crafty but wendy changing is like me becoming the first man on the sun

Wendy has been and can be a royal pain in the HINDQUARTERS. I know, as she's had her fair share of fun with me over the years.

However, she has played within the current rule structure just the same as everyone else. I understand her tactics can be irritating, but she rarely picks on new players and does create some interest, activity and drama. The NLUO war was the most active LU has been for a bit.

In regards to Andy's post, I don't like the idea of too much automated defense. Isn't that what ints and helis are for?

The war game is already quite complex as is.

I like your option "C." Not sure what the exact best way to implement it, but I think there is something there.

That can be arranged...

/me kidnaps SuperSoldierRCP and locks him a shuttle travelling to the Sun

Bring me back some souvenirs. Light in a bottle sounds nice.


So, W3C, yes, no, maybe, never, go take a hike? What's the deal?

hahaha..

Luguna

As a player from the old school, The many changes of the war game is both a positive and a negative. Players who have years of experience are put back on a somewhat level playing field with new members overall, with the updates of war. As a nation who was nuked out of existence. I personally miss the old way, but welcome change. As long as c3 fighting does not change too much. C3 fighting is the bread and butter for SC$ and population without purchasing gold coins. Hopefully we can maintain this.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

A big thankyou to the GM for putting this out for players responses. I think it's great that they are considering our views, and maybe getting some ideas they haven't thought of. -Crafty<!-/Quote-!>

big agree


as long as we are talking about the war game.

i'd like to ask some clarification on the new response of all units in range.

also, do units assist fed members, could i park a dozen mobile defense units in a fed mates country, and help? because if we can do that, maybe no level restraint changes would be needed, as a fed could just fill up they fed mate with units. with out directly gunning at the bad guy, i could see a problem with feds beafing up one country, and going all out though, shrug, probably need something to keep all the fed members out of protection. and war levels could prove an issue.

but for larger fed operations, ie feds of more equal strength, they'd have to figure out where best to send their resources. might add a level of strat? but then we'd need more competitive feds for that to work.