The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

The problem with C3 warriors is that they put forth very little energy into a country, and it takes considerably more energy and time to take it. For those of us that spend a lot of time building up an empire...it's just not fair to get harassed into spending 2-3 hours to take a 100 War Index C3 when it takes about 15-30 minutes to take a 60 War Index C3, buy 100 forts, and declare War.

The 2nd problem I have with C3 warriors is that they are the aggressor and they risk nothing while the defender wastes (loses) RL time and gets nothing for it. If you are going to war at least have something to fight with AND...use it or or lose it if your gonna declare war on me.

Proposed changes

1. Make inactively defended C3s easier to take (less time)...currently the War engine focuses on forts and it is all too easy to buy 100 forts in a C3. So limit the number of forts you can have in a small undeveloped country under 16 mil pop (allow 5 - 7 forts per mil population):

As an Example using 6 forts per million population in a country:

- 17 mil pop countries can have 100 forts (6x17= 102)
- 8 mil pop countries can have 48 forts (6x8=48)
- 12 mil pop countries can have 72 forts (6x12=72)

The key here is "inactively defended." If someone is actively preventing you from taking their C3 by either un-painting the map and / or destroying your ground troops, then the C3 will last longer. There is nothing more wrong then wasting 3 hours blowing up a C3 with an aggressor that is not even actively defending the country.


2. Countries must have 5-10T in military assets to declare war.

Edit on #2...or units / garrisons installed so that the amount of military assets equals 5-10T.

These are good ideas, imo. They would make it more difficult to wage a war where you have nothing at stake. They would change the overall war game somewhat, but that's okay.

*yaaaaaaaaaaawns*

Let me know when something changes I'll show you a new strategy. Its what I and others do well at this game. adapt, improvise, and succeed.

Quit yer Itchin.

Itch itch itch

--Jojo the Hun, adaptating since 2007

Hehe ;)

I'm sure you will Windy because you are an exploiter of the game...not an asset to it. Glad you admitted it though...a rare glimpse of the truth from Psycho Spin...itch, itch...

As far as complaining about C3 warring, clearly, something needs to be changed, but be careful what you ask for. Every one that wars, still wants to use C3s, the key to what is wanted is not being able to wage "never ending war" from only C3s. Care should be given to not allowing a person to fight via C3s, and 1 secured main. As i've seen that abused, and not just by Wendy.

Please don't get me wrong. It is ridiculous to allow one person to risk nothing in war, while the other has to fight to hold onto what they worked hard to gain. As Wendy already pointed out, if you based it on 50% pop being exposed, or nominal value, she'd just reduce herself to a secured main, maybe even sell down the pop in that country, just to make sure she can continue the "never ending war,"

Honestly, a better option, might be a "war weariness," factor. We already have one of a type, but make it more empire based. To the point that troop moral drops (and unit effectiveness.) And/or cases of continual wars with-in an empire, a country may refuse to dec a player, or possibly defect, (and dereg itself,) if the War Weariness index gets to high. I like this option, because it can be linked to a crime/law index. As employment drops, wages drop, empirical wars continue, boycotts, and empire wide loans rise, crime would also rise. With a corruption factor that would reduce income, the WI, or what ever effect... Making it more and more difficult to wage continual wars over long stretches of time. You would of course be able to build police stations to quell some of it, but just like building hospitals to maintain pops over 80... it would get much harder the higher the WW index would go.

Another thing i like about this. Is that when W3C moves on giving government type specific effects... Governments like communist, or dictatorships, would be able to control war protests, with a reduced income, or welfare index. Government types like democracy, would get a small welfare index bonus (like 5 points,) but war weariness would increase faster...

i do like limiting number of forts based on country pop. but there are ways around that... so i think thats a good step, but not enough.

This isn't a bad idea but I think it is dancing around the easiest answer which Jojo, myself, Abe and many others have suggested...at least half of an empire's nominal value or population must be out of WP AND SECURED modes...this will solve the problem immediately and the system will work as it is intended. Allowing those who go on vacation, as well as those who are interested in only econ protection from war. I really do not see an argument against that. Even those of us who are into the war game but have an econ slave or two would be perfectly fine under this scenario.

I don't dislike your idea Orbiter and it is certainly much more nuanced and more closely related to real life, but it is definitely something that will take much more time to implement and much more time to for both the players and the GM's to adjust.

We all know what war protection is for, I wish we could all agree to use it for that reason and not to manipulate the system. But as always, just like personal fireworks on 4th of July, someone has to mess it up for the rest of us and require the government or in this case the GM's to intervene.

A lump sum worth of gc will take care of any of you(you being the little whiners). WP or not, C3 or not. I'll make you spend that much to play if need be. I can and will without a worry. If I want to be a headache to you,I will be. I'll do it whatever way I have to. Cause that is what I do. Since the early days.

Bring the rule changes.
I do what I do with c3s to change your ways, and your thought processes. Your arrogance, or bully tactics. Its always fun to stomp people and take their stuff, while you have a bunch of players who can fight and fight a bunch of avg or mediocre opponents. It isn't always fun to fight without a reward. Again I haven't seen WB fight a fighting FED by his Choosing.

We keep hearing about How on LU they wanted a 'good fed war'

But lets look at the sides.
ON WB side, we have Serpent, EO, Keto, Wildeyes, (backed by).

On the opposite side we had BC, Alarich and Daelin.


Yeah that was going to be a very good fight.

It was an asset raid, as was the first run at DTA.

Other than that WB has never fought a fight against a player he thought would be a challenge willingly. And don't say 3ms becuase you were brought into that war with a ready made empire.

Name me one other person, capable, to fight a good fight. You didn't build shit on LU you raided inactives, from Nute, L3, and EO gave you half his empire.

So here we go, in poker or any card game, you know private games (or not) you have 3 high rollers who put in 25K each, then WB comes along and the house gives him his 25K on credit. In a private game you'd get bounced becuase now you want to have a shot at taking someone else money, without really bringing any of your own. Shit doesn't work like that.

Now you want the rules changed so you can continue your gang style tactics confident that you have sufficient backup. Just like EO bum rushed John and Jack, knowing he had sufficient means to ambush players that weren't warring (but had assets) and now what is the coincidence that the day EO gets his country took, cause his country got nuked to almost nothing by John L's country and my c3s(which is what EO did to John and Jacks countries that had defenses, nuked them until they went into reserve, and actually saw that they were already going into reserve before he decd_) you come on and there is spamload of like 5 threads on most forums now about c3s and wp. But lets check this fun fact out. Immediately after EO took John and Jacks Countries, he sold his best countries, and kept a few oput thinking there would be no reprisal. Guess where his second war slave is that was about to get handled, in WP. Why is it WP, and Why does Steven Ryan hold his other Country Soul Collector? Is this no different than someone waging wars with c3s and placing countries into WP? Its the same thing.

As you say, I have never taken a single country from you. I am no threat to you. all your words. Last week I told EO I was going to dec him. He was so cocky he said and I aquote, 'I won't notice'. SO whats the big deal. EO got that azzz taxed with countries that weren't worth taking OR c3s, SO NOOOOW nobody wants to fight.

See the bottom line and moral of the story is, its always fun taking sum1 shite, but it's never fun to lose it. Now... "something has to change"

And that is about the only thing you got right so far WhiteGurl. The stomping of players by advanced players is going to stop because if need be I'll keep this up for as long as I please. Until you learn your lesson, until you cry so hard your eyes turn red, and you are doing enough crying already and I haven't even started on you.

I fight c3s on LU because I was fighting a superior opponent in LDI. And regardless of what I built (proper by your standards or not) they would have took it, so I did what I could to show them not to funk with me. It worked too, we got on for a very long time. It worked with GREF the first two rounds because I was little more effective each time at bat. It'll work this time too. But don't characterize what I am doing as something IMMORAL (LoooL) by your standards becuase all I hear about is how I better keep wp on this, keep wp on that. BS, if that is the case I'll stuff these c3s down your greedy little throat. Rule changes aren't going to help anyone I am after, I understand the game works more than you and how I can F**K you in the arse if you keep bugging me any day of the week, regardless if I hold the ,military assets to outright roll over you or not. I could keep on but you are a poor excuse for a player, you're just a little B***H crying cuz you can't get your way. As usual. 10 days sissy boy I got my HOF and I'll gladly burn that half a quad of cash and all those Gc in my account and drop some good cash on this game til you get through your little peanut head not to go messing with people, much less anyone else especially me, you just got here you don't dictate ISH in this game rules changes bring em nothing changes for you. I hope they give you what you want, so I can punish your candy arse til you sound like Zeba, tap the mat "I QUIT" I got cash for dayz little boy that or any change isn't gonna make any difference for you.

Oh and the solution is the golden rule,

Treat others....... Its Universal I don't have to type it out.

And that is the only solution.

I see an exploit to your position WB. I could play econ via CEO and just use crap empires-ALL C3's-with no secured main.

1/2 of crap is crap. still risk nothing.

I could finance my wars with a CEO and just load down C3's and raid active players.

There is always a way around.

perhaps when a country reaches a certain value only half that value is lost when you lose the war.

wb, it wouldn't solve anything. I realize that your are frustrated with the situation, and want a resolution asap, but this would not fix the problem

in the case of nominal value, my LU main, has a value of 131.80, atm. and thats with over 200T of military assets, mostly OA2A, PBombs, and land based cruise. enough to take down a reasonable empire. no weapons... so following that, i take over say 10 C3s, when i transfer weapons/ammo in, their value, of course increases... so now i'm able to the same thing, from one country. i mean its nothing to take 10 c3s, i do them in waves of 5 every day!!!

additionally, their are good months and bad months, so waiting for a poor income month, watching the NV drop...

it only limits the tactic, but not my much. not enough. infact, the best it'll do is shut her down a week. if that!!!

as you said, the real problem here, is how long this has been going on... creating a system that limits over-drawn wars... would not "stop," any one from employing the tactic, but it would slow the abuse of WP over long periods of time. not to mention, in my opinion, enriching the game.

along with the crime and/or war weariness index, i'd be cool to introduce espionage. the higher the WW, or crime rate, the easier it would be to spy on a country. and frankly, a war game with out spying seems to me to missing an important element.

a disadvantage to the WWI would be the "cool down time," the time it takes for WW to calm to the point another war is possible... that would need some experimenting to find the happy medium, that allows active players to war allot, while limiting players that protect their assets.

the truth is, anything that is done to counter a loop hole, will create another loop hole. the best course of action is to make that loop a little smaller, and doing it in a way that makes the game cooler would be the best action.

in the past i've seen things, such as mass IPOing, mass loans, and other such econ loop holes get abused, and often the result of W3C's attempts at bring it back under control, results in nerfing the game.

we shouldn't ask W3C to create static limits, lets ask them to expand the game... and include some real world limitations to war.

The idea is to prevent worthless c3s from carrying on a war, where the player has no value at risk. If you load up the c3s with military they aren't worthless, and it's more of a fair fight--the defender has something to gain by winning.

Unfortunately I do see a big loophole with using nominal value as the metric. You just move a lot of cash into the c3s, declare war, then move it out. It's too easy.

So, two ways to go. Limit the amount of cash that can be removed from a country at war, just like you can't move out pop when a country is at war. Or, instead of using nominal value as the metric, use military value as the metric. It's more difficult to move it around.

Orbiter, you have a good point, focus on the real problem. I see two real problems: wars dragging on and on, and also the non-reciprocity of attacking with worthless countries.

The dragging on and on problem is a problem even with big countries in the mix. After a few days, let alone weeks, it's time to end it already. You're right that the non-reciprocity problem is not so much of a problem if it ends in a few days, the way it often does.

I think both rules would help the game, and attack both problems. The "1/2 the value of your empire out of WP to attack presidents" rule, AND introducing a war weariness index.

Yeah lets hope it is implemented faster than the space trade because at 5 - 10T in military assets per c3 WB will be bankrupt by then.

No doubt the 'fix' will involve more than one thing. For example.... What about the WI? Why not make it so that if a target is not garrisoned, it does not contribute to the WI, or at least it's contribution is drastically reduced?

Lol wendy.

Just quick adjustment to your statement. John was the one who I was fighting. You fired less than 10 offensive shots at me - you weren't fighting me well enough to consider taking a country, so leave any credit to John.

Second, my country is in war protection now, but it was out of war protection since last year. It has fought in a war less than a month ago, and it was out of war protection during this war.

I no longer wish to risk it because it is deactivating from nukes and from whatever caused it to deactivate before the nukes (which is a good reason to go into war protection) - I have not launched an offensive from war protection in an unprovoked manner, nor will I maintain it for months. If I want to take a country, it will be using my own country, not a c3.

You know what Windy, shut up. You've hijacked enough threads with your BS lies, the only one I'll address right now is the 'the FED' war, which was, and everyone involved will tell you:

Myself AND Beast (EO) AND ....no one else...Wild wasn't back yet and Serpent and Keto didn't even know Beast was back in the game at the time nor was I really close with them yet
vs.
BC, Daelin, Alarich, Crafty, Klarina and if they chose to involve their training fed 'Free Nations' at the time, then it would have been budman and slade and I don't know how many others...10? 20? Not sure.

That was 2 guys (1 of which you claim has no ability) against the largest fed with the most military on LU at the time....yeah real raid...and once we found out that they didn't want to fight we backed down, made a deal to recoup our costs and left it at that. Daelin and I are really good friends now and I don't think BC or Crafty have any hard feelings...if they do then I'm not aware of it.

To those of you responding to the actual thread:
Wendy is right in a sense, there is always a workaround, however it is the difficulty of using the workaround that makes a difference. First, forcing a player who resorts to these tactics/workarounds as their only form of fighting will FORCE them down to a main and nothing else, maintaining weapons in that main in order to transfer them to c3's will cause the country to make little money. That in and of itself is quite a bit of punishment to players who choose that strategy. Second, if the player has a main worth $100, then it's $100 of c3's that must be out of wp in order to dec (while we're at it the c3 value could be fixed to something MUCH more realistic), so 10 c3's all out of wp at once and the player has to take on the govt costs of said c3's and the cost of taking all 10 c3's and the time involved in taking the 10 c3's JUST to be able to declare once. At least at this point, the defending player can just dec all 10 c3's and wipe them all out at once instead of dealing with 1 dec every 2-4-6-8 hours. Once just one of those c3's has been taken then the c3'ing player must take another just to do 1 more dec, and if 2 are taken then 2. I'm more than happy to discuss further but I fear a certain someone is going to do their best to distract from this conversation. Although that someone is claiming that they don't care what the rules are...they sure are hijacking alot of threads with BS that has nothing to do with them.

Anyway, I think that this idea is quite feasible, easy and makes sense and I am really interested in discussing further. Send me a msg at 'WB 001 LU HM Econ' on LU, 'RYAKER 001 Home' on FB or 'WB 001 WG LM Econ' on WG and we can set up a time in chat or I'll give you my MSN and we can discuss further. It does really seem that we've got something going here and I really would like to discuss.

WB has never fought a fight against a player he thought would be a challenge willingly. And don't say 3ms becuase you were brought into that war with a ready made empire.

Name me one other person, capable, to fight a good fight. You didn't build shit on LU you raided inactives, from Nute, L3, and EO gave you half his empire.

Are we deflecting now?

I think the consensus is that a couple things need to be done in order to curb the C3 warrior and why it should be done.

Most are in agreement with the 1/2 empire rule in WP, but can see the loophole using either population or nominal value as the barometer.

- seems the best fix is to use a combination of population and military assets, which would be the Nominal value, AND limit or stop the amount of assets, cash, and population you can transfer out during war IF YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR.

- The more I think about it...the main should be included as a country in WP. As WB points out...if you always have half or your assets on the line...the C3 aggressor can get continually weakened and lose all there assets if they wage endless wars.

I really do like orbiter's suggestion of a war weariness index and think that is something for the future.

An easy fix that adds realism to the game would be the fort idea...and I can't think of any loopholes around that...Orbiter?

Also adding value to the C3s will work twofold...it creates reward and punishment...as Jojo points out.

Wendy is indeed trying to hijack the thread, because these 3 + proposed rule changes (1/2 Empire in WP, Limited forts in C3s, increased value in warring C3s) are all realistic, reasonable requests, getting endorsement by the SC community, some are quick fixes, and would curb the C3 aggressor while giving incentive to the defender to put up with the BS.

To all...I would suggest we ignore any hijacking attempts...the GM will read this thread as they recognize there is a need for a change...and this is a good discussion.

If need be I will pass on the info directly to the GM though.

sorry to be the nay sayer in all this.

anyways, as far as the forts go, i'd rather not say the work around, even though i'm sure that many people already have an idea, i'd rather not clue some one in that doesn't

a thought to limiting C3 wars, the war process is rather time consuming. for the casual player that can't justify logging in at all hours to defend their country... using C3 warfare as a means of retribution, seems fair. but at the same time there should be a limit to how long that can go on!!!

here's a fresh idea!!! why not make it cost you Gold Coins to dec a player country!?! even like 5gc would be huge over time. For players that plan out their wars carefully, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but for people who dec 5+ countries a day, every day, that will add up. make you more carefull... and if you are stopped, it would be a significant loss.

additionally, W3C would win with the war cost!!!

but with that, i think X number of wars per RL month should be free, like say 10. for every war dec per world, after 10, it'd cost you 5 gc...

and this should be applied only to war decs on players, not against C3s. and perhaps on FB you'd get a few more free decs per month

Orbiter...not crazy about paying to War dec, but that would work to cut out frivolous decs for sure. The GM fixed other loopholes with the forts to stop people from getting more than 100, so they should be able to implement restrictions on those C3s as well...it might just need fine tuning over time.