The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

Doublestar - How could my preferred scenario be abused? I haven't come up with anything which is why I ask.

Orbiter - Interesting idea.

John L - I've got another idea, make the system work as it was intended. This isn't about 'haves' and 'have-nots', the player to most recently use this tactic excessively which has sparked this debate is sitting on thousands of GC's and probably over a Quadrillion in loans and direct trading...not what I would call poor and malnourished. As far as EO goes, imagine if instead of being out of WP so that you could get your revenge, he instead attacked you with only c3's and then stayed in WP permanently with his slaves...wouldn't be nearly as much fun would it?

...

Well WB, I was thinking, is 30 C3s really a big deal? Would actually be more available to the attacking person.

If I were a C3 warrior and were forced to use 30 c3s, then Id use all 30 c3s to launch the attack and to annoy the person Im attacking. Would be easier also for weapons movement as I would have many more states before (since Im forced) to attack.

Im a bit extreme, so maybe it would be rare? But that again depends on the person and how far they are willing to go.

Removing war protection on all your states if you declare on a human owned country would be better.

yawn

How come C3s have Garrisons?

I think guerrilla war is good for the game, for two reasons:

1. Guerrilla war is realistic.
You all call it "c3 war." When I started playing it was called "suicide war."

Guerrilla war has a history partly associated with suicide. During WWII the Japanese used kamikaze pilots. Today Al Queda uses suicide bombers. The game documentation doesn't say that war exclusively has to be conquer-oriented.

Sneak attacks prove that the game allows non-conquer-oriented war. Sneak attacks aren't going to conquer a country, are they? Sneak attacks are military strikes that focus on destruction, not conquest.

Likewise, guerrilla war is another sneaky, non-conquer-oriented war. Guerrilla war is mostly about military strikes and attrition, not conquest.

Anyone who thinks guerrilla war is not realistic should check out the history of the Viet Cong and Al Queda. Their guerrilla wars lasted, or have lasted, at least a decade. If a player continues a guerrilla war real month after real month, that's realistic and not wrong.

2. Clicking is not a skill.
Conventional Simcountry war has too much tedious clicking.

You can conquer any country if you click enough. No defense or fed can stop you. Click a bunch of times to buy weapons, then click a bunch of times to shoot weapons. That can be thousands of clicks.

Any monkey who has had less than 3 lobotomies can click thousands of times.

I lost 5 lbs one weekend because I was so busy clicking thousands of times to win a war. Maybe that's the only good achievement of a big Simcountry war: losing weight. Other than that, one has to become a loser at life to be a "winner" at a big Simcountry war.

By comparison, guerrilla war is smarter and fun because it requires much less clicking. At least guerrilla war adds variety, so that war isn't limited to massive clicking.

First of all, Who loses 5 pounds clicking???

And second of all, I dont evan understand what your saying. It just

Third, Why do they give C3's Garrisons? I dont like that.

I'm speechless Vicious. Great Points you have made.

Doublestar - In my preferred scenario (75% of nominal value above the standard c3 price of $10) you could take 1000 c3's and it wouldn't make a difference, there has to be assets above c3 value equal to at least 25% of what is in WP to even declare war.

Vicious - I see your point and I would agree that c3 war is basically terrorist type warfare. However in relation to this game it is then 'state sponsored' terrorist warfare and just as in real life, the county being attacked would then enter that state to control the terrorists, this is not an option in the game. I think the Japanese Kamikaze example you use is what is most like this game and we all know what happened to Japan in WW2. The Viet Cong were defensive guerilla's and Al Qaeada are not state sponsored, the state that was harboring them Afghanistan, is now basically under US control.

You mentioned sneak attacks, wouldn't that be the equivalent of what Al Qaeda does, sure they take credit for their attacks but they don't have to, just like in the game. The attack knocks out a city, a base, a corporation, etc. just like Al Qaeada hit the WTC. They did not however, take over 30 different countries in a week or so, transfer in nuclear weapons from their massive arsenal of nuclear weapons (kept somewhere where no one could attack) and then launch them at the US.

As far as your description of conventional warfare in Simcountry, I do agree that there is far too much clicking, however you massively underestimate the strategy side of it. Saying that anyone can just buy a bunch of weapons and click a bunch of times can take a country is quite an exaggeration, I would call that the Visa warrior route which usually ends in the experienced and strategic player winning a bunch of assets. If it were the case that it was so easy, I think we'd see a lot more wars and a lot more people taking countries from people. The fact is winning a war, especially against an experienced player with a good size well defended country is VERY difficult and it involves a lot more than just clicking.

It is nice to say that something should remain just because it 'adds variety', but when that something results in hours a day for weeks or months on end of wasted time simply because a player feels like it, it doesn't make much sense.

MightyMouse knows everything lol, no matter who talks...

Only his opinion matters. LEts all prepare to change the world for him.

I hear the new World will be made of butterscotch and lollipops. The Cat and the MightyMouse will play in peace and there will be no more war protection for anyone. And real markets that can collapse too.

He uses strategy better then just about ANY player (aside from me). Truly amazing really. V makes wendy look like a girl scout.

mathematics eh V?

I lost 10 pounds in that war and I have carpal tunnel to this very day.

Good to see you back.

VICIOUS,YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.WELL SAID.
BIGG E

Wendy - I'm pretty sure what has been going on is an open and honest conversation about what many perceive as a problem and some do not. People have made points, shared their opinions, their ideas and I just like so many others have responded with my points, opinions and ideas. Did I tell anyone they were stupid because of their thoughts or ideas? No. Did I agree with many of the ideas but point out other arguments? Yes. That's a debate, it's how problems can be solved and is the basis for the world we live in today. I haven't noticed you paying the same amount of respect to people's ideas and opinions that are contrary to your own, it's just name calling, sarcasm and general disrespect.

Your opinion is that there is not a problem, I disagree with that opinion. Does that mean that I know everything? No, it means I know my opinion and the facts and arguments I have to support it. I believe the points I made in response to Vicious' post are quite valid and I look forward to his opinion on the points I made, if you have a dispute with my points I'll read yours as well and will respond in a respectful fashion.

Yes WGurl. There is a problem, you are your own biggest problem.

Interesting argument Wendy, I disagree and think that perhaps you should look in the mirror when making that statement.

Still, not sure what it has to do with c3 warfare or war protection rules, or with Vicious' argument or with the points you made above which I disputed.

Biggie - Did you enjoy losing that 100 mil pop country to EO during the NV v 3M war, when he used nothing but c3's to take a couple hundred dollars worth of assets from you? I'm EXTREMELY surprised that you are supporting this argument that c3 warfare is appropriate considering you lost the biggest country with the most assets that I have seen lost to that exact type of warfare and were REALLY upset that you couldn't counter attack. I could pull up the forum posts but I think you'll remember. That's also the reason you've been paying for perma-wp ever since and since you are in perma-wp I guess you have lost the perspective of not being in perma-wp. Try and find a little of the perspective that you had before...you might have a completely different opinion.

c3 warfare and bankrupcy warfare are about the only way that a weaker empire can stand up to a large contingency of attackers. it's a war of attrition and in some ways levels the playing field, even though the c3 strategy is more of a nuisance than a major threat to a large empire of well ordered fed. i say keep it the way it is.

Whiteboy - WGC broadly supports the idea of a change to the game rules so that one player cannot spoil the game for the rest of us by harassing those who do not make war without good reason and simply want to enjoy playing. So you can add another 38 players to your list of those in support of the debate.

Doublestar - you are right that before Secured Mains were brought in, players were driven from a planet completely. When used fairly and with justification, it was a good way of dealing with exactly the question in hand but, of course, it was abused and, though we hated it at the time, W3C were right to introduce it.

I would like to thank Zeba for introducing this debate. There are some good ideas here, although I would warn against complicated solutions as they will take a long time to implement, even longer to tweak until they are right and will be easier to work around.

Doublestar's idea that, if you declare war, you should not be allowed to retain any countries other than your secured main in WP, is simple and easy to implement. However, it would not prevent a C3 warrior from keeping a Secured Main and supplying C3 war countries. If the player in question wanted to build an empire, it would prevent that, but if all they wanted to do was to harrass other players and spoil their game, it would not be effective. It's also worth making it clear that this should only be for players declaring war, not those who are declared upon.

Whiteboy's idea that a given proportion of your empire, based on assets, would have to be out of WP is also simple and effective, but is really geared towards players with considerable assets and I question whether it would prevent a player having a reasonably-sized secure main (worth around $30) and 9 C3s with which to war.

If those two ideas can be developed, separately or in conjunction with each other, they seem the best way forward.

Hugs and respect

Jo

@Vicious: Harassment might be a part of real life, but who wants to voluntarily subject themselves to it in a game?

There need to be checks and balances in the game, the way I see the game. If you're strong, there need to be some features that kick in to make it progressively more difficult to keep getting stronger and dominating. If you're weak, there needs to be some means you can take advantage of to defend yourself, and in the worst case a secure place you can withdraw to when all is lost. The game rules and players' environment of approval and disapproval should work along these lines.

It screws up the balance when the strong take up the tools of the weak. Strong players keeping their valuables in WP and using "guerilla tactics" to fight both strong and weak...that's just wrong.

To fight it you can try to make it costly. If a player doesn't care about the cost the only tool you have left is public moral disapproval. I think that may work to some extent, but the trend is more towards players thumbing their noses at that. The rules as they stand tilt towards everyone adopting that strategy: keep your valuable countries in WP, and use c3s to take inactives and to harass the big stupid players who don't use WP. Eventually they'll dry up, and all valuable countries will be in WP. Then there's no war game at all, right? That's where I see it headed. I'd prefer a change in rules.

I think this is likely the most thoughtful debate Ive read in some time on this issue.

The game has change so much that its become very easy to take assets of the board, so to speak, and stash them in other parts of your universe, free from risk.

I still firmly believe that players who want to badger, or more ominously, set up on another player empire (or fed of players for that matter) with the intent to take everything from you, can do so with proper planning. Even with smallish countries.

Lots of time and skill coupled with a collection of large assets gained over time, mixed with a smidgen of intent, evil or disguised as something else, will produce a player who can cause harm.

Place a couple of those players together and you can destabilize a world. On those occasions we have seen the GM step in and stop wars.

They haven't done this to Wendy so they must not perceive her, or her tactic for that matter, as an unmanageable threat.

Sadly one players "harm" is typically the other players "fun."

If forced to choose a position I think I'd like to see all countries, with exception of the secured main, out of WP if you are the aggressor. this may stop many decent players from being too aggressive....

But, again, players with war as there main reason for playing, and an abundance of time, and lots of skill will find many ways to get what they want. And sometimes they want to do much more then just nuke the crap out of people.

My response to wendys tactic would be to defed and isolate myself(Hopefuly to get her to attack meand not them), keep my nuke def up and do the best I could for my newer (ex at this point) fed mates who don't know how to get nuke def up quickly.

Im sure you did all this. Its a tough situation. feds can be a pain sometimes;P

Barney, I thought you were the one who was inactive. Awhile back I found half a loophole in the war engine. It's not much but it helps. But you had no active CEO or country to message. If you give me your username, I can message you to the in-box on the portal. Or please, just message Vicious2010.

I'm very sorry to hear that the vodka war gave you carpal tunnel.

Parsifal - I'd agree with you to an extent if that is what the tactic is being used for. Right now the tactic is being used by a player with loads of resources to declare wars of their choosing when they feel like it...not because they are being repressed or beat down...sometimes out of spite and sometimes out of dislike. This isn't a 'level the playing field' tactic as it is being used now.

Jojo - Well said, that is exactly where I see things heading. The war game becoming every asset in WP, people just waiting for someone's WP to slip and then deccing with c3's...why risk your own when no one else is willing to risk their own. There needs to be some skin in the game for people to fight.

Jo - Thanks for the support, I totally understand that this is a complicated issue and a solution isn't easy so I see where you're coming from with that.

Barney - You make good points and you get to the heart of why I think this is such a huge problem. The fed structure is good for the game as it provides both a training structure and a social structure for new players. I don't think there are many people out there who have had success in this game that didn't receive a lot of information and assistance from a fed at one point or another in the development stages. Many feds have forums and guides for new players to teach them simple things (although they don't seem simple when you begin) like taking c3's or IPOing corps or what to set your automation at, etc. stuff that in a game like this is extremely difficult and time consuming to figure out on your own. These kinds of tactics are destroying that fed structure, players doing exactly what you said, isolating themselves to avoid risk to others. I don't know about everyone else but I think the biggest problem in this game is the lack of new players or the lack of new players who stay. Look at this forum, the people commenting, I don't think any of them have been playing for less than 2 yrs.

Anyway, that's enough pontificating from me. I completely agree with you Barney, for the most part this has been a *very* thoughtful debate and big thanks to everyone for sharing...even if I disagree with you...it's always important to get perspectives other than your own otherwise you just get stuck in your own spin cycle.

WHITE BOY,I LOST BIG TIME TO BEAST'S C3'S AND I TRIED TO COAX YOU GUYS OUT OF WP BUT I NEVER PUSHED FOR A RULE CHANGE TO MAKE THE GAME SUIT WHAT I WANTED.I BELEIVE YOU WERE ALSO USING TOTAL C3 WARFARE IN THAT WAR ALTHOUGH MY PART OF THE WAR WAS CENTERED ON BOBO AND BEAST.
BIGG E

There is already an existing solution to the so-called problem of guerrillas: use secure mode and/or war protection boosters.

Yet year after year there are always players asking for more protective features.

That's why W3C introduced:

• war protection boosters,
• a waiting period before a new president can attack a player owned country,
• military restrictions imposed by the Security Council,
• secure mode.

But no amount of protection will ever be enough for some people.

Existing features already provide that nobody needs to spend a single minute fighting another player. No rule requires anyone to fight war, or to be exposed to attack.

Therefore, the game doesn't need any change to deal with guerrilla war.

I prefer that the programmers spend their very limited time finding ways to make this a much less clicking-intensive game.

Hey, no one is forced to click excessively.

Vicious - That's exactly the problem, people shouldn't have to live in WP simply so that they don't have days and months wasted fighting c3's. This isn't about additional protection, if you want to take away war protection/secured mode completely, that would be fine with myself and my fedmates, although I can see how many would not enjoy that and would take away big time the side of the game that many others enjoy playing exclusively, the econ side. The way things are working out is that it is the war side of the game that is being eliminated just as Jojo stated above, everyone in WP looking for the people whose war protection drops or for the new guys who don't realize they have to pay an extra GC everyday just for safety. The option should not be:

A) Stay in WP constantly or
B) Deal with c3 declarations for weeks or months on end

There should be another option, make WP work the way it was supposed to. As far as making this a much less clicking-intensive game, taking 30 c3's with 100 forts in each of them in a month is pretty clicking-intensive...and a complete waste of time.

You didn't respond to my comments on guerilla/terrorist warfare unfortunately, I was interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.