W3C - The War Game

also, if your gonna make defense that strong, can you asign defensive values to offensive weapons? why can't a MRMB shoot back? now that defense is super assist. that way, it would make a military presence in a country, harder to push out. kinda leading up to the country resources we've been teased with.

i know why, just saying

All sounds like a massive cost of offensive weapons and no prize if their is too much defense then whats the point also sounds even more complicated.

I have tried Crafty, I am simply too true to myself. My game ethics are a mirror of those I favor in real life. How does it go, "Our moral integrity suffers when our principles are allowed to remain underground." My moral principles cannot be escaped, and as long as I stand on them, the fabric of my being will never change.

To quote Popeye, "I am who I am and that's all I am."

I do miss that cartoon.

To give a word on King Hez comments on c3. C3s as a form of cash flow is on the way out. I am just not sure how long from now. Also, with 300 qualities being run in c3s, the population swap is about mute. There are still ways to do it, but without the right numbers in your face, making it a worthwhile venture is not going to be as it was with the old salary difference.

that sucks.

We are not out of the woods concerning the fed war with mobile units supporting the defense.

having the mobile units defend fed targets is indeed a possibility and fits within the mobile units model.

I don't think we need to have offensive weapons shooting back, we have and we will have more auto response units that will actively counter attack as a response to an attack, like the stealth bombers.

If implemented in this way it will make it easier for countries to defend themselves and will make it harder to attack a sleeping president, only to have him discover his country is gone in the morning.
The defense can be such that some countries will become safe and cannot be taken.

The other part of it must be a reduced use of temporary war protection.

It could be that the money spared off the war protection will buy very strong defense and while the cost of war protection is on going, a bunch of mobile defense units plus mobile auto response units can last very long at a low cost of maintenance.

Andy

I don't think its a prob of war protection but a real cost of war.
Let's say I wanted to make a fighter wing 450fighter jets
450jets * 200M per plane on LU = 90B for 100Q, 300Q = 270B.
plus that 200M cost is half of base, meaning it be around 800M per plane at Max. making a single wing cost around 1T SC$ in a high demand market.

The problem isn't war protection in place of defence its because war in general costs to much.
No one is complaining about the cost of WP only stating its cheaper then defence.

If you look back in melichor I just upgraded 300inter wings and my monthly spending was 10B give or take a bit higher. That's just intercptors. that doesn't include Helis, offensive forces, or garrisons. As mentioned by players the cost of weapons in just to high to be effective, if anything what the GM needs to consider is reducing these costs by doubling production and tripling ammo this would drop these cost and wouldn't flood the markets as there are little of these corps anyways.

Do this and I'm sure you'll see changes.
Also reduce troop numbers on weapons. Offensive and defensive should see unit sizes but basic troops needed for these shrink that would also help to reduce these numbers

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It could be that the money spared off the war protection will buy very strong defense and while the cost of war protection is on going, a bunch of mobile defense units plus mobile auto response units can last very long at a low cost of maintenance. -Andy<!-/Quote-!>

i'm am not for an increase in WP costs. but a point to be made. the cost of WP, both in monthly end over end, and intial set up, is MUCH cheaper than a proper defense.

after you consider the amount of money for the initial investment into defense. add the fact that even a mediocre defense, has a higher running cost than the monthly cost of WP.

how ever, with the planned defense changes, it would seem possible that 10-15 mobile defense units will be more of block, and easier to set up, than several hundred garrisons.

also about the mobile units. can they be used in a sort of advanced defense. that is, if they are with in range of units i've put into an enemy territory, would they defend those?

previously, you said that all units "with in range," when looking at the range in the documentation. that'd mean that every unit, and garrison in the country, will respond to every attack. it wouldn't be difficult to put in enough defense, that the first 50+ attacks on the country do zero damage, while the entire attacking unit is destroyed. effectively meaning, you have to run the other guy completely out of ammo, to get anywhere. ???

is this how it is gonna work?

Andy -

The cost of maintaining a defense that could keep an experienced player at bay for a game month would cost many gold coins in maintenance and ammo use per month. Unless a country has very stout garrisons and plenty of air defense, it is quite vulnerable to an experienced player. If maintenance costs decrease DRAMATICALLY, then I agree, war protection is something that could be made more expensive.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The defense can be such that some countries will become safe and cannot be taken.<!-/Quote-!>

What does that mean? Are you just saying that it will become more difficult to take player-owned countries?

I'm not sure there is a bigger need for aid for "sleeping players" than just decreased defense costs. Most players that lose countries just do not have enough deployed defense. I say this from experience, having lost a non-c3 country while sleeping during a war on Fearless Blue before.

I'm not sure how to implement it, but perhaps defensive weapons/maintenance can be reduced in cost relative to offensive ones? This would allow players to have a better defense whether they are around to fight or not.

Also, thanks for listening to our opinions. That's all we can ask for.

Just bring on the changes. I'm going to kick some royal arse either way. The route of game changes just seems like a self inflicted wound by way of an unnecessarily increased work load. Poor engineers. Andy, I don't envy your position. More credit to you than I have previously given.

In the past, we used to have unlimited defense and although it did not guarantee a country will survive, it deterred attacks because the price of winning the war was prohibitive.

the price of setting a very strong defense is not a price per month.
The maintenance cost is a fraction of the total cost of putting the units in place. The cost of weapons and ammo is declining.

A bomber used to come a 1.5 to 2B now it is a quarter of that and the units are smaller. a military base can handle 20.000 weapons and the cost of the base, per unit is not significant.
we would like to decrease the number of weapons per base but then, the cost per base, already much lower than before, will keep dropping.

we would like players to choose for defense instead of temporary war protection and we will have to make it attractive for them to do so.
If not attractive enough, the war protection will remain an option.

The idea of mobile units capable of participating in the defense of a country, their own or one of a fed member, with or without a war declaration, by just being close to an attacked target, presents an opportunity to expand the fed function and cooperation and the possibility for multiple players to participate in the same war.

We will have to improve the way these units are listed, where they are and by type and location to make it easier to see where your forces are.

also the supplies of such units, if not owned by the country where they reside, will be part of the challenge.

The entire structure needed for this was created with the mobile units and these functions are easier to implement.
We think that such functions will improve the war game but they remain optional.

If this game had a hex system for territory and an avalon hill method of military units, keeping the economy system the way it is...

-------------------------------------------
It seems you are talking a different game.

I would love to try it when you finish development.

The gamemaster

There are some more issues that will need to be resolved in the war game:

1. The war level should be account wide for obvious reasons.

If you are a great war player on one world, you are a great war player. period.
All empires should have the same war level.

we will start planing to close that gap, one war level at a time.

And no, resetting of war levels will never occur.
we are not able and you are not able to wipe out your knowledge of the war game.

This part is easy to implement. we will announce exact dates ahead of time.

2. We need to prevent a country with no resources, low population and no economy, from attacking a large country, especially with nukes.

this can be prevented by requiring a minimum of assets in the attacking country before it can use nukes.

A war should be a risk for both. a war where you have nothing to lose is no good.

This issue is not very simple and it is a problem for a long time.
we are also receiving some ideas/thoughts from players.

It will be solved in the coming weeks.

Sounds like good changes

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

And no, resetting of war levels will never occur.<!-/Quote-!>

You would rather me start over then?

I can if it is a must. No problems there.

kinda along those same lines

their should be some sort of provision, maybe via the security counsel, where a player can petition to have their war levels lowered. if it goes through the security counsel, then the player base is signing off on it. perhaps adding to community involvement. why would some one just sign off and allow some one a chance to rampage, unless that person has demonstrated a change in their sim goals. and how would any one know, unless that player gets involved?

shrug

i would independently of the opposite, offer giving the security counsel, and general voting, the ability to raise an aggressive players war levels.

their might be min conditions, like the player had to attack x number of players in the mast rl month, idk, shrug

or perhaps it can be limited, like if a player is going on a rampage, the security counsil and general voting could raise some ones war level, by like 2, for maybe 90 rl days, for just that planet?

Andy

If war levels are going to be account wide there need story be better income from C3 warring.

The difference from war level 7 to 11 is about 200Q 3dozen more units and a ton of stealth attacks. In the end you only make 4T more which is nothing. Can the GM go back to the old 1.5T per war level. Honestly C3 income really needs to increase. If war levels are going to be set on a board level. Sure I might be good on 1world but if I move to another I'll be an arm and a leg before I can get another nation set up

Get rid of war levels, period. Give the security council some teeth so the player base can punish/prevent noob bashing, gang rape etc. A limit on the number of one fed that can be in the sc at one time to prevent 'fixing' sc votes.

It used to work fine, except a few bleated about being picked on. Why would it be any different now?

Ok, I know it wont happen. But does anyone really believe that just because someone remains at WL 3 or below, they aren't a war experienced player, no, I think not. Take Wendy, or Laguna, or even myself for instance.

And I dont reckon it's right to force my GR empire, which is basically the only place I make money because I have kept it unassailable, should be made to incur defense costs because of increasing WLs game wide. Maybe if the game sees 50T of military, then fair enough, up my war level, but if I have no military it doesnt matter how experienced I am.

I just attacked a C3, WL6 I am, halfway thru painting I look and .....
---------------------------------------------------
if you have a problem, please put it in the problems section.

this track was about something else.

Your newspaper or the war page should give you complete logs of any losses you received. The stealth do attack your units at home I believe.

Crafty,

i do understand where you come from.

FB is a war world.

On the other worlds, if you never fight, maybe the rule should be different.
once you start a war, any war, you should move to the empire war level. maybe this will be a better solution.

I'll be extermely pissed off if my war level goes to 6 on all planets.

Was about to reg a country on KB and play econ only. Think I'll be holding off for the moment.

The war levels should not be the same account wide. Like Crafty says some players are low war lvls on different planets for economy only, we do not wish to fight, so we remain at war lvl 0.
If war lvls will be the same account wide, you might as well get rid of all worlds except one and have everyone play on one world.
War levels or not, players can still have their empire, except for secured mains, taken from them in war. You can never dispute the advantage veteran players have of accumulating mass weapons and war experience from years of playing versus newer players.
Also, if a player has different war levels on each world, what war level would the GM pick? The highest? The lowest? I would say if anything put my account to war level 3, then again, I could also start over.
One more thing, maybe eliminate PvP wars on all worlds except for FB. After all, FB is the war world!

It sounds like the GM would move you to your highest level Keto. That's why I said 6. My highest level on fb. Im level 0 on 2 planets. Getting bumped up to 6 would suck.