The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

I could see how a GC cost could limit the problem and if added in with a few free decs per month for free it shouldn't be too costly for most players, perhaps even a sliding scale? 1-10 dec=free, 11-20 is 5 GC each and 21+ is 10 GC with 5 GC going directly to the defender and the other 5 to W3C? I would still think that the 1/2 nominal value should be implemented along with it as a further deterrent, I know as that there are ways to work around it as there are with any rules that can be put in place, but the idea is to make the workarounds as difficult and costly as possible...actually I just thought of this: for the 1/2 perhaps only nominal value above the standard $10 value counts. So if you have $100 main it is technically $90, you must have another $90 in value outside of that out of war protection/secured? That would actually solve the problem completely...we could even go to 75% in wp/secured then.

As I said Windy...shut up, your points are stupid and have nothing to do with this thread, if you want me to address them take them elsewhere.

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.
----------------------------------------------------

So four people make up the entirety of the SC community? LOL!

And MEEEEE!

Keep up the distractions Windy...4 people...not at all:

Me
Beast
Jojo
Abe
Orbiter
Serpent
Keto
EC
SuperSoldier
Daelin
Diz
BrokenAmbitions
Whitedarkness
CrazyEye

All those for a fact and the following although they haven't commented I'm fairly certain support a change.

Steven
Rob
Homer
Budman
Slade
Kaymen
Lolosaurus
Who knows how many others from GREF
Who knows how many others from WGC

So far Windy the ONLY people I know who don't think there should be a change are:

You (although you swear you don't care but you keep trying to distract and disrupt)
Biggie (because he is fine staying in constant WP)
Nix (who knows why)

I'd venture to say that a whole lot of other people would be lobbying just as strongly as the rest of us if they had the pleasure of dealing with it...you're adding to the list every day...keep it up.

Me too

Well then, on with the changes. I guess you better hope it gets put in faster than space trading, and with a new world coming along, I guess I'll need to maximize my time frame, Like two years left LOL.

This may have been mentioned already, but maybe a c3 needs to have a minimum population(like 30 or more mil), or the c3(s) need to be an active country for at least 2 real months or more before they can dec another country?

I just hope at the end of the day, all these discussion(s) on WP that the GM leaves WP intact for econ only players like myself.

You know what would be real phunny, is if the incorporated all your eyedeers into this new world.

Maestro - That is a big part of this, war protection for econ players is not something that any of us want to end...at least not anyone that I'm aware of.

:o

This is intense!

WB - Thanks

I hope they leave WP intact on the 4 "peaceful" worlds, for econ players. But on FB, the one war planet in this econ/war game, I think there should be no WP (except vacation and noob WP) and econ players should have to defend their countries, as the game was intended.

And don't forget, no multis.

No watching accounts, one account per IP etc.

Until I see stuff like that happening, I'll make whatever change work for me.

JoJo - Even for my one token country on FB?

Just a thought. Why not instead limit war protection to only 2/3 of countries in empires with over 5 countries. Also, if they Dec with any country over their 5 country limit, they lose wp on one of the other countries. I'm particularly interested with Dubltar's opinion on this idea.

I think Jojo's point is that FB is the WAR world...constant war protection kind of goes against that theme. I'm not 100% on board with that, I'd say at least a main in WP should be permitted but I'm open to that debate. The idea would be that war should be encouraged on FB, it should be somewhat of a free for all, which would be fun although I know how we all have attachment to our countries and their assets so that can be a little scary as well...

I don't think mains should be given a pass, on FB.

q: Why does an econ player build a country on the war world, anyway?

a: Easy WP has wussificized the world so much that FB is just seen as just another econ world, not as a war world.

wussificized...LOL Jojo!

wussificized, Took a second to decipher. Had to take it one syllable at a time. Is FB really just full with them? Them the wussie things.

My take on War Protection In Simcountry

I see everyone's points above, so here is my argument for the use and regulation of War Protection.

1. War Protection a Good Idea
War protection was created to allow players to protect their countries from war, for economy players and war lords alike (and everyone in between). It was in fact necessary, from what I have experienced first hand, that without it, players could dictate who can and cannot join their world.

For example, after some of my wars, my attempts to start empires in other worlds were blocked by players declaring war on me upon my arrival. Newbs were also decced these ways also. Or if a group of players did not like a player, they were able to keep that player out of their world...and this was solved by War Protection.

2. War Protection Usage Should Stay, Even in Fearless Blue
War protection does its job...allows a country to be protected from war, which is why it is used. Players should have that option, that if they desire to take part in the war game, they can. If not, use war protection.

I hear JoJo's argument about Fearless Blue becoming "wussificized", at which I have to disagree. I, for example, benefit greatly from the peace of mind that during my busy weeks, my game "assets" (GRRR W3!!! Revolution people!!) are protected and I can build while not under threat from already established and well militarized nations. However, even I wont remain in war protection and will join the arena of war in Fearless Blue...FB IS FUN!!

War, in every world, is fun and should always be allowed. Fearless Blue, however, should receive nothing different in war protection than the other worlds, and this is why...

a. Growing players, if they choose, should not be forced to participate in war. Many players these days raid inactive players, but would raid smaller players, if no war protection was allowed. Allowing larger empires to wipe out any country at will, destroys competition, jojo, despite your argument. Attacking new players or players not looking for a war will only cause them to leave Fearless Blue, some of them.

b. The dynamics in the game have changed with the lack of c3 populations. Back in the day, Id agree whole heartedly with you; that there should be no war protection. But, back then, population was easily accessible, with C3's having 15-30M pop each, and you could transfer population between countries far easily, so assets were easy to come by.

W3 destroyed that however, they have destroyed the fun in wars by forcing us to value our countries tremendously. If we want a good/large country, we have to buy the population, or take from those who have purchased. Should we decide to let our population grow normally...we are forced to wait ages.

In the past, a new player who decided to learn could start in a 15 Mil country, attack 5 c3s, and transfer population to form a larger main. They could repeat the process to build their slaves, and should war come it would be fun or a small pain that could be easily rebuilt.

In Fearless Blue, where war limits are more relaxed, players use war protection because they know that with large and very experienced players that are in the world, the threat of war or being invaded is very high. The same is in other worlds, but those worlds are more diplomatic.

3. War a player, lose your war protection! Solves C3 Wars problem
As far as I see it, everyone is making the war protection issue and c3 warlords issue far too complicated. Some of you are trying to figure out a balance of 50% of the empire out of WP because you are still desiring to keep your "forcefully valued assets" (STARES AT JOZI AND W3 IN ANGER).

The Simplest and easiest way to prevent C3 Warriors is this...

KB, LU, GR, WG: "If you go to war with a human owned country, you lose war protection on all your states except your main."

FB: "If you go to war with a human player, you lose war protection for your entire empire."

Players who go to war with other players should be prepared to put their assets on the line, as they are attempting to take another's.

C3 Warriors (Wendy...) would be forced to fight a real war, even if they start with C3s. They would not be allowed to save the rest of their empire.

Reasons why this is good!
Realistic: No country on Earth could fight a war and be allowed to keep 1-99% of it safe. The only exception in SC that should stay is the protection of the main...so people dont leave, LMAO. Poor W3.
Its fair: You are the one declaring war. If you cannot protect your slaves in war, then they should be taken. You are the one declaring war...no?

By the way...should another game similar to Simcountry in scope, with more of a pro-player (not pro-owner) atmosphere, and easily accessible "country assets" arise, and be cheaper to play, Simcountry will be doomed. Note this W3, your tyranny over your players cant last, and Im betting it wont...actively betting.

Some valid points Dublestar, as far as FB: I see Jojo's point and I see yours. As far as new players joining the world and being kept out, not allowed to build, etc., that simply would not be the case, the waiting period of 21 days would remain just as it does now so I don't really find that to be a good argument. I do see how it could make it very difficult for newer players, however at the same time, I'd say that new players shouldn't *start* on FB, so many find the game and see 'war world' and think that is what they want but really don't understand what they are up against until they have learned a bit. Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced that there should be no war protection on FB, but if I had a choice between war protection the way it is now and no war protection (except for earned) on FB, I'd choose the latter.

As far as why we are making new WP rule ideas so complicated: If you allow a main to remain in secured mode, then a player wanting to do c3 warfare can take as many c3's as they want while still keeping a very nice econ country in secured and still risking nothing. So, if the rule was 50% of nominal value max in WP/Secured or as I'd prefer 75% of nominal value subtracting out the $10 standard price per country, then the problem would be eliminated.

Under your scenario: Player A can have a $300 main with 100 mil pop and several hundred T in assets, take 3 c3's and just fight with those, moving weapons into and out of them very easily.

Under 50% nominal value scenario: Player A can have a $300 main in secured, but would then have to take 30 c3's (valued at $10x30=$300) and have all out of WP to declare war. Or, Player B could have a $100 main in secured and would then have to take 10 c3's and have all of them out of wp to declare war.

Under my preferred scenario, 75% nominal value allowed to be in secured but only nominal value above the $10 standard c3 cost is considered: Player A can have a $300 secured main, subtract $10 so secured nominal value is $290. They would then have to have at least $97 in nominal value above $10 standard c3 cost(s) in order to declare war on another player. Player B can have a $100 main in secured minus $10 so secured nominal value is $90, so they would have to have at least $30 in nominal value above standard c3 cost(s) in order to declare war on another player. This would *guarantee* the player has significant assets at risk in relation to the size of their empire assets when they declare war on another player. This also has the upside of allowing players significant size econ countries to be in secured/wp while still being able to enjoy the war game with their war slaves out of WP.

Why not then take away war protection for the secured mains then if they war another player? Im for that, only included it to be diplomatic. Both scenarios above could still be abused.

or how about this, removeing wp from a ramdom country every time a player declares war...

How about a player waging war on another player having to put up a wager equal to at least 30-50 percent of the value of the country he is declaring on. From the time of declaration no assets could be removed from both countries.

Naw! That would not work, once a war is declared then player a or b would bring in more countries and the wager is all out of wack.

Here is another idea. If you are big, wealthy and powerful be nice, polite, courteous and generous and your poor, undernourished, uneducated neighbors might not be influenced to gain recognition in the world by becoming terrorists or suicide bombers. And for goodness sake don't slaughter the little guys, they will come back and bite you in the butt. Right EO!