The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

Lots of good ideas out there that should not be forgotten. Perhaps highlighting a list of them and adding a priority to their importance could help keep things in the limelight and organized. The following would be my list but isn't designed to consider every great idea right now, just the top ones floating in my head at the moment. Comments are welcome or tell me about your own list.


1. Unit Simplicity (revised)

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25577.html?1456859816

2. Unconquerable countries/Unable to get all painting points.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/9/24851.html?1430779348

3. Unlimited Forts (through contracts) issue.

-Allow war score to apply the greatest value of country damage between either "remaining forts" or "forts destroyed".

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/16295/24916.html?1435096125

4. Player Power Rankings

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24236.html?1451569550

5. The War College

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25043.html?1453899584

6. Battlegrounds (revised)

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25045.html?1439461174

7. Natural Resources

-Allow players to choose a bonus for an existing country they own. They must pay for it in gold coins. The bonus only applies if the player is war level 4+ and has removed war level protection. The bonus for that country, once paid for, applies permanently for that country for any owner as long as the current owner is war level 4+ and has removed war level protection.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25184.html?1447874172

8. Total War/All-Out War

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24038.html?1434986948

This is all good however there is a bit of a focus on war players -might add to have incentives for econ players as not all on this game are in it for war

It is true that the game is not just for war. In my view, the econ game already receives adequate incentives at each stage. If you do an adequate job getting your country going, you generate cash. Cash is needed to put together everything needed for the war game and can lead to generating products on direct trade and in space for player trade for coins.

You can easily hit early game level and rankings awards in a short time. Rankings awards are repeatable obviously with continued country maintenance. Higher level game level awards are available as your country grows.

The econ game also has a high level of detail and allows fine tuning of countries beyond simply seeing the population grow and adding more corporations. Managing and growing your country's investment fund and a good understanding of your country's consumer spending can offer tools for your country to improve over a time of "real" years.

In short, I already find adequate incentive to constantly optimize my countries years after my account registration. I find no lack of incentive in the econ game and find the game is not lacking in a general sense in this area. I do find that the fruits of the econ game have little use due to a fairly stagnant war game. Indeed, this is the area of the game due the most attention right now.

I thought about an old post tonight. Check this out. An oldie but goodie.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/21792.html?1363212181

Couple interesting things about it, other than it was posted exactly 3 years before this thread. First, you will notice a form of both my first two suggestions were implemented into the game. It used to be that you could raid hapless computer countries continually at the same war level and each win a cash award even more than what is earned today. I suggested an end to that and the game changed to force an automatic advancement in war level with 4 wins at the same war level. The second suggestion was to encourage some type of benefit from not being in some sort of game war protection. This was implemented and a mild welfare benefit exists if you choose to drop war level protection (another of my suggestions) and are of least war level 3.

The other interesting thing is that I made these suggestions back when the reverse of balance between econ and war players was true. Players focused on their economy were hopelessly outclasses in gaining assets compared to a war player, who could ignore their country and repeatedly follow a simple guide to mega-trillions. This was obviously out of balance and required fixing. My suggestion to curb unlimited raiding cash was not popular to some but needed to balance rewards with the econ game. Today, the econ game offers rewards on par with what can be gained in most conflicts and carries no risk. The balance has changed to deter players from advancing into the war game.

None of my suggestions on this thread would return to the silly imbalance that used to exist. Indeed, I remain first an econ player though I think classifying players as one or the other as kinda overdone. Players have choices to choose their participation of the war game (remember that war levels are figured by world) and the option is there to enjoy some of both. What exists now is a difficult path, for most, to enter participation in the war game at a steady,non-frustrating, pace. A change that offers rewards for participation, in-line with the game, that will offer tools and lessons needed to compete with more experienced players is needed. Many of my suggestions at the top are towards that goal.

So it is your fault we can't raid to build an empire.

Thanks a lot.

Wouldn't giving production bonuses to 'war gamers only' give them an economic advantage over econ gamers?

I think the cost of producing weapons and ammo should be reduced, plus a slight reduction in the importance of weapon and ammo quality. The war game should be more about strategy than who can field the most expensive military.

Increase the number of civilian casualties incurred in war. Artillery should produce tons of civilian casualties while precision bombers and cruise missiles should not. Painting should cause civilian casualties too. Nobody likes foreign military forces taking over their farm.

With the "production bonus", are you talking about the Natural Resources idea or the welfare bonus that already exists in the game with dropping war level protection? With the war-level protection thing, what you describe is already in the game. The effect is minor, however.

The idea behind "Natural Resources" is to give war players something to fight over, similar to traditional conflicts over land and resources in the real world. Though war players may experience an economic advantage by holding such a resource, this would be balanced by the fact that they would be required to defend it, without the assistance of some type of war immunity offered by the game.

If you check game updates, the cost of weapons and ammo have been reduced many times, about a few dozen the last time I counted. Your belief that this would lead to a situation where wars would be then decided more by strategy by such changes is false. The result of these changes is that the war players, in general, simply have more weapons. If you watched the recent war with Whiteboy and I, you would know that hundreds of thousands of weapons were lost on both sides.

Take a look at my first suggestion, Unit Simplicity, which tries to remedy the problem caused by a series of making weapons less expensive and keeping unit sizes relatively small. Now, it is too easy for top war players to reinforce their defense relative to an attacker's ability to achieve a decisive war result. Try to grasp that, literally, Whiteboy and I spent 10 hours shooting at each other in the most intense warfare that Simcountry currently allows.

As to damage caused by war, did you check the casualty numbers I posted about the recent war? I will add here for convenience:

Aries Total

Dead 1,742,500
Wounded 3,965,000

WB Total

Dead 2,675,000
Wounded 7,400,000

I believe damage done by weapons is about right. Remember, that these were inflicted within one game year. I would also note that I don't believe Whiteboy's total includes any civilian casualties at all, his being all military casualties. Jdlech, have you experienced a PvP war yet? I am wondering what you are seeing to suggest some of these ideas.

and that's right Johanas, it's my fault you actually have to build an empire to build an empire. You can't simply fall over cash repeatedly raiding at war level 4 and 5 anymore. For that matter, most of those players didn't bother to build an empire at all. What was the point?

You're right, I don't like the idea of an economic advantage for wargamers only. As you already pointed out, it (and any other economic boost) will only result in even larger armies in the field.
And again, you're right; I don't know anything. I'll just quit making suggestions.

I am still unclear of which "economic advantage" you are referring to. As far as "larger armies" one of the primary issues contributing to it is that there is seldom an incentive to fight a war. Consider that the largest Simcountry armies have been building for some time. The lack of something to fight over is the single largest contributor to the imbalance that exists between a relatively new war player and a veteran that simply stocked weapons and ammo for years with little reason to pull them out and use them.

I would be interested what you consider to be a "wargamer". As I mentioned earlier, I think these tags are overdone. Am I a "wargamer" because I fight a PvP war here and there? I have fought about 8-9 different player opponents making me one of the more experienced war players you will find. Now, check my empire on LU, my main country is Candinnalm. I have an empire of well over 2.4 billion population. In an average "real" year, I login and manage my empire several times nearly every day. In that same year, I fight maybe 2 PvP wars total. My economy is the best is Simcountry, it isn't close. Am I an econ player? How do you think I paid for all these weapons in the first place?

The truth is, ever since the update that removed unlimited low-level C3 raiding for megabucks, it is no longer possible to be a successful war player for long without being a very good econ player. In the long term, this is how I have always planned to defeat any potential opponent. My econ is much better which means I can replace my stuff much faster than my opponent. If you are worried about the relevance of building econ, your worry is in the wrong place. None of these suggestions would change that.

Oh, and on you making suggestions, I am more implying that I may not know something. If you check my suggestion pages, for example, you will notice that the trend is that I will point out my game observations, identify something that I think should be corrected or could be better, and offer a suggestion. This gives one the ability to add to the discussion if they have different observations or perhaps have the same observations but have a different solution, and so on.

If you simply offer a suggestion without the underlying data, it is more difficult for a reader to understand the purpose of your suggestion. When I ask questions about one's suggestions, my goal is to understand the basis of your observations and the purpose of your suggestion. In this way, I have the opportunity to test on my own or share my own similar observations and move the discussion forward. Indeed, I ask because I don't know.

My definitions are almost entirely arbitrary, as I suspect are anyone else's. I consider a wargamer to be someone who has made the decision to pass into WL3, and leave secured mode permanently (there's always the exception of buying it with GCs, of course).
An econ player is one who has made the decision not to leave secured mode.
By my definition, one cannot be a wargamer or econ player until one has made that decision. We all start out as econ players by default. So the question is: did you decide to leave secured mode for good?
And yes, clearly, you have mastered both sides of the game.

Imagine an 800lb gorilla, like yourself, who is well nigh unassailable by military means by all but a select few players, suddenly obtains 100X the production of a half dozen natural resources. You flood the markets on all worlds and depress the prices forever - leaving everyone else unable to profitably produce their own. At will, you can embargo an entire world as often as you like, for as long as you like. And you can squash others who dare produce their own - either by flooding the market again and making it unprofitable, or by military invasion and the destruction of their country and factories.
Now imagine a half dozen of those aforementioned select few obtain similar control of their own half dozen natural resources.

Argument #2.
Why would any small player want to both leave war protection AND obtain a reason for you to invade him? As you have demonstrated, your military is larger than most empires. How is a level 4 or 5 player supposed to protect a country with something you want against a player of your size and calibre?
As it stands, 90% of the countries in the game exist because of either war protection, or the fact that they have nothing you, (and a select few other 800lb gorillas in the game) want.
I've heard of players in World of Warcraft who have high level characters. But all they ever do is go about beating up on low level characters and taking anything they have. And the only way to stop them is to run away. So how is anybody supposed to 'run away' from a guy your size? Countries can't run away; they can only hide behind secured mode.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but the suggestion to tie production bonuses to leaving secure mode is essentially asking the Gamemaster to give players something which you can take and the ability to beat them up.

Think of the corollary argument; if you can't beat them up (because of war protection), then they shouldn't have any production bonuses for you to take.
I know I'm picking on you, but the argument applies to all the big, experienced players. You just happen to be a good foil for the argument.

I like the idea of bringing individuality to all the countries. But individuality should be for all the nations. Especially since that is where all the new players start.
The game is kinda moving towards a multi level game, where big players like you should move on to bigger and better (in space?) and leave the sandbox for us kids. I feel like a 9 month old baby looking at a 12 year old with his enormous sand castle and thinking "there ain't no way in h*** I'm leaving war protection".
Just a thought.

But there's nowhere for guys like you to go. The sandbox is getting more toys, but it's the same sandbox for us all. Mastering the country/enterprise game should be the launching point for the war and space games. Mastery of which should be the launching point for an even more epic game. But in each case, the 800lb gorillas should be moving on and leaving only their footprints behind for the new players to play in.

This is actually the reason why a lot of war games have to keep launching new worlds. As the older worlds mature, they become dominated by a few 800lb gorillas, and nobody wants to play in the shadow of 800lb gorillas. So they launch new worlds, which puts everyone back on a level playing field.
(Whew, too much typing)

This game isn't moving anywhere. Not now, not ever.

However, i do agree with Jdlechs most recent explanation.

No, I have not left secured mode. I have it active for my main country in both of the worlds I am on that have it available. By your definition, I am an econ player.

I am lost in this next set of text. Like my last post, I would prefer to know what you are commenting on. Instead, I have to put myself in a fantasy scenario that has little basis in Simcountry. Newer players have an unrealistic view of how it is possible to manipulate the market. Again, I appear to be equipped with real game data and observations, you either lack such data or chosen to not share such data to back up your Simcountry market fantasy.

Indeed, I have around 4000 corporations that I control on LU. "Flooding markets" and "depressing" prices is both unrealistic and would not even be in my benefit. Sure, I could make 4000 clothing corps or some other concentration of production that would oversupply one product or two but why would I want to run a bunch of corps that would be inherently unprofitable in that way? Every time I am asked on the forum or in chat, my advice is to make stuff that are constantly in demand, I often use the word "stable" when describing corps I like to run. I follow my own advice.

-----------------Important stuff-------------------
I guess that last paragraph was an argument since there is an "argument 2". Again, please tell me what you are commenting on in the initial post, what observations you have made in the game to come to your conclusion, whether you see the same problem I do or not, and ,if you still see some type of problem related to what my suggestion is intended to fix, your alternative solution. This would be a more effective discussion my friend.
---------------------------------------------------

About argument 2, I guess I am lost at the get-go. I feel we are talking about a 2 player game. If it is a 2 player game, obviously, I feel good about my chances in that scenario. Simcountry is not a 2 player game. Simcountry has 5 worlds, including more than one in which I have no presence. Simcountry allows player interaction, including player defense pacts called federations. I feel we need to talk about Simcountry.

Talking about Simcountry, obviously I would think the incentive would be there for a small player to join a federation. I remember when something called diplomacy used to happen in the game. I am generally not difficult to reach nor are some of the other players that you compare to large animals. You might be surprised to hear that I invite new players into my federation. You may be aware that I have posted some of the best guides going on the Beginners Forum. I am very interested in players who advance with my C3 Raiding guide and Path of a Warrior guide. My pattern is to defend such players from others that you describe as large animals as I did in the Battle of Camp Foxtrot, found here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/3711/25234.html?1447529218

As far as I know, it is currently rare for these large Simcountry animals to attack new players. Again, do you have any data? No? That is okay, I guess I will supply enough for the both of us. Here is more stuff that actually occurs in Simcountry:

Here I defended several players from another player. Like the Battle of Camp Foxtrot, I didn't actually declare war on anyone and helped some new players organize their defense:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/3712/25013.html?1440096777

This one is a long thread. It was back in the days of another player who would attack new players. Not sure it was clear in the text but I ended up retaking countries that acorn lost and returned them to him:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/22622.html?1376531340

The interesting thing about all three of those conflicts is that none of the players I assisted were in my fed when they needed help. You might consider that very few players in a stable fed, mine isn't bad, have to deal with this aggression in the first place. You also might consider that not every player with the means is out there to beat the "little guy".

I would be interested to hear you comment on the War College and Battleground suggestions as they are right up the alley of that small player you are concerned about. How about we be fair here? Again, tell me what suggestions you wish to comment on, what you are observing, whether you see the same problem I do, and how you might resolve the issue differently. C'mon, my friend, we can be more constructive than this.

I believe there is an important trait that separates a successful player from one that is less so. As a new player, it is possible to see large empires run by successful players and play the game with a goal of building your own large powerful empire. This player seeks to learn from such players, reviews their empires and finds out how they work and why they work. They find out that these players often invite even small new empires into their federation. When conflict occurs with their fed, they see it as an opportunity to learn about war strategy. They continue to use what they have learned to advance game levels, advance war levels, and obtain the tools needed to be a greater and greater force in the game.

It is also possible to view the large empires as a threat. You recall playing many games in the past, many played in the 1st-person, where the sight of higher level players meant that you were about to be beat with a very big club. You play within every game protection you are given, yielding to play in which game realities and lack of game experiences keep you endlessly confined. Your empire stays no bigger than a few countries and your game level and war level advancement is slight.

Here are a few world statistic posts on LU that were taken in the first few months I played the game (I started play 12/10/2012):

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/21323.html?1356726698

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/21628.html?1360305743

Farming c3's was around long before you started playing then.

Sad to see the only way to build an empire is gone by the wayside.

Only if you ignore my Path of a Warrior guide, Game Level guide, and C3 guide. A handful of players have followed my guides to a lot of success. I would assume you would be an advocate of the War College and Battlegrounds suggestions too. The only question is if you read them and chose to complain anyway or you didn't read them and chose to post to this thread a second time without giving the topic a chance.

I have no idea what jdlech is talking about...

But, I will ask Aries, although the prior ideas were ultimately implemented, did it increase the participation in the war game at all? I obviously don't have any data on that but I can still see right now that the war game is dead. I think you saw a bunch of players constantly raiding and thought that if you took away their incentive to do so, that they would then turn on other players and reignite the war game, but that didn't happen.

A big deterrent to the war game is actually that you can't raid c3's endlessly for profit in order to build an empire. You've got to understand that the more difficult you make it to acquire assets, the less likely that anyone is going to be willing to put them at risk. This is why the GM's really screwed up the game when they completely changed the GC value and didn't allow players to sell cash for GC. Back in the day you would get 400-500B per GC and there was constant buying/selling, at that value players could take their game level awards and any rank awards and actually build their own large militaries. Now that it is 36B per coin, you can't build anything with that and taking away the ability to constantly raid c3's for 1T a pop (plus whatever else you could milk out), took away (almost) any other opportunity to build a large empire without expending tons of real cash. At 36B per coin it takes you 28K ($2,800) coins to gain a quadrillion in military assets and that makes the barrier to entry far too high.

At some point this game is either going to go away completely or someone is going to finally realize that they need to loosen up on the asset trading and allow people to gain assets with their time in addition to not allowing people to have unlimited assets at zero cost to them. Before space trading you could be a dominant player on any one world and there were barriers to entry for anyone else who wanted to enter that world to try to compete with you, you could have a reasonable amount of assets and really have a good time. Now, with space trading, you are either completely dominant or no one.

Our battle was a battle of two people with a dominant amount of assets and it was fun, but my guess is that at this point in time, I could go after almost anyone else in the game and take them down very easily with the huge asset advantage in addition to the strategic advantage (we may soon find out).

I started a longer response but I just noticed nothing you wrote would indicate you read my suggestions at the top of this thread. I took the time to offer real suggestions that I believe are the best ones out there to add to the war game. I will give you the courtesy of answering your long post, point-by-point, if you extend me the same courtesy of reviewing the suggestions that I took the time to put together and telling me what you think on those.

I will add, I pay $180 Billion per coin. It is on this forum, it is on the trade forum, and I will add it here. If you give your coins to the GM for game cash, you are a sap.

HEY EVERYBODY, I PAY $180 BILLION PER COIN!

{I am offering 1 million electric power in direct trade at 300 quality for .5 coins. This amount of power should sell for $90+ billion on your world most of the time (any time market price is 30,000+). This provides you a return of $180 Billion per gold coin, which is 6 times greater than the GM offer. To take advantage of this, go to direct trade and follow these steps:

1. Purchase the power. 2. Transfer it to your country following the link "exchange products with countries and enterprises". 3. Sell it to the market at "Best Price" (The power will likely sell when the game month changes). }

In fact, it is very difficult for me to point out any player that has posted so far has read any of the suggestions. What, nobody thinks it is a good idea to fix countries that are impossible to conquer?

Whiteboy, you got nothing on unit simplicity? You ready to go another 10 hours with me before you think the game needs an update in this area?

Nobody thinks the game needs a ranking system that actually shows something other than who has the lowest score penalty?

What player thinks after dispatching enough C3's to hit war level 3-4 that they are ready for PvP? War College and Battlegrounds have no merit?

Is this the best you guys got? Complain about the state of the game but offer NO suggestions and don't even take the time to read and comment on ones made. Really, you guys need a complaint thread. Then you guys could at least stay on topic. Who wants to do the honors? Whiteboy? Jdlech? Johanas?

Sorry Aries, but to be fair, you went into this topic early on in the thread and I focused my response on it because the overall focus of the thread from my reading was how to fix the war game. All of your points are valid and I wouldn't have an issue supporting any of them depending on the implementation, but all of them combined won't go as far in restarting the war game as the ability to raid for resources went towards killing it. I appreciate what you've done in regards to offering much more value per GC, but it is a bridge too far for most people to understand even how to go about implementing it including having to have either purchased or rented a dock.

And don't say I've offered no suggestions, I've offered many including in the post you were responding to and for the most part, my ideas require little to no implementation time/cost and for the most part would just be deactivating things that were done which shouldn't require more than the GM's clicking a button. I'll reiterate the way to turn around the war game very quickly:

1. Allow exchange of GC for game cash between players with the market setting the rate.
2. Allow countries to be sold down to 20M population as they used to be.
3. Place limitations on space imports in the same way that general product and military spending have limits.
4. Reduce effectiveness of defensive weapons/increase effectiveness of offensive weapons.
4a. Easy way is to eliminate 3 wing fed support and go back to 2 wing.
5. Do away with quality impacts for weapons/ammunition as they cloud up the math and make the war engine slower.
6. Eliminate weapons maintenance units as they make the cost of having a standing military way too expensive.
7. Reinstate the ability to fight WL4 c3's and earn 1T per.
8. Make the navy's as they used to be, as they are now they are worthless because the number of weapons possible makes them useless.
8. Reduce the number of weapons in general, there are close to half of offensive and probably a quarter of defensive weapons that aren't usable and just add further complication.

Those would all be a good start and other than eliminating weapons maintenance and killing off useless weapons, the remaining should just be checking some boxes/going back to programming that already existed.

From your suggestions, I would add all of those in as well to further make things better but I think for the most part they are more complicated programming/time consuming discovery (painting points). I do think the fort issue could be solved pretty easily by just not allowing forts to be contracted at all.

Oh and Aries, I get the frustration with the negativity and I appreciate that you're trying to put some very good ideas out there. I just wanted to point out that there are often unforeseen consequences.

And now that I'm thinking about this, maybe there is a compromise on the space game that would allow for great flexibility for the most part but would have the intended effects when it came to war: Unlimited space transfers as long as there are no PvP declared wars, once war is declared, space transfers have their own 1T per game month limit. Or to make it even a little more flexible, unlimited space transfers remain as long as they are between countries on the same world.

There is no dock required to take advantage of my gold coin offer. Whiteboy, check direct trade. You don't need a dock. You don't need shuttles. Purchasing and accessing the power I have for sale is as simple in your experience as purchasing professional soldiers and officers and transferring them to your country.

Many players are taking advantage of this. I had 3 players purchase a total of 27 million power for a total of 13.5 coins yesterday. Between selling a few items in space and selling power and cargo shuttles, I have had about 200 coins worth of sales in the last 8 days (that is as far back as my gold coin log goes).

FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS CONFUSED LIKE WHITEBOY. NO SHUTTLES NEEDED! NO DOCK NEEDED! GET $180 BILLION PER GOLD COIN TODAY!

1. I have no problem with this one. This has kinda happened already in electric power. I have been consistent in being the market-setter for the exchange of coins to cash for the last 6 months or so since I have and make the most game cash in Simcountry. If I could offer game cash for coins directly, I would similarly take over that market, except I would predict the increased demand might push the market towards $120 Billion/coin. I can't disagree with your idea here as I would benefit, though I believe every idea at the top of this page would help the game more.

2. I disagree here. You are talking about selling population for coins. This had to change since unlimited worker transfers went into effect combined with unlimited war level 3 raiding. This is also counter to the ability to build an empire and economy, since selling population creates an empire welfare penalty.

3. I disagree here. I assume this has to do with the rate of war reinforcement. Check my Unit Simplicity suggestion in detail. I believe it solves this war issue and doesn't unnecessarily effect simple econ shuttle transfers.

4. I disagree here. The balance between offense and defense is very good right now.

5. I disagree here. This would compound the problems I describe in detail in Unit Simplicity. Quality is essential as a force multiplier and is integral to the game in general.

6. I disagree here. I would bet from some of your comments that you have not seen my LU empire in some time. A strong economy does allow considerable profit even with considerable forces deployed. My average LU country has 60 million less pop in your main but produces 40% more product and brings in $200 Billion more govt income per month. Check CC2 in my empire which currently has 228.5 million pop, 1.6 million soldiers deployed, and makes $300 Billion in monthly profit. I would make some of the changes I suggested at the top, which I believe will make wars more common, and see how game balance changes from there.

7. I disagree here. Plenty of reward can be picked up from raiding computer countries already. I would add the War College idea which adds a bit more. After that, incentives should rest in PvP. I would appreciate you looking at Battlegrounds which would be a more fun replacement to even more C3 raiding after getting your war levels and completing War College.

8. This would be a drastic change and requires a bit more explanation. I will admit that, currently, I found value in every weapon except attack boats, which changed to be a corp supply. I buy just about every weapon when I find a low market price and often find uses for them.

Again, I would be against limits on space transfer. Even adding a PvP limit sounds clunky and would be a shock to a new war player who is not prepared for an unsuspected mechanic.

Whiteboy, I think your ideas look too far to the past. I believe the problems that existed then also exist now. The main issue being that more rewards should exist in PvP itself rather than a system of repeatedly raiding a computer opponent. Battlegrounds, Natural Wealth, and Total War are superior solutions in that they are more fun and reward for effort beyond following a step-through guide.

-------For those unfamiliar with the old way-------

Imagine the game World of Warcraft. Many have played it. Most are at least familiar with it. Imagine that it is still as large and has just as many challenges but the epitome of getting wealth and advancing in the game was repeatedly killing boars (anyone see that South Park episode?). Sure, you could go to the more challenging areas but the boar area is the most rewarding. The entire user experience is spent in this area and then going to the PvP area with your boar loot to kill other players. If you lose, no matter, back to killing more boars.

That is how Simcountry used to be. The epitome of gaining wealth was spending an hour raiding a handful of computer countries using the same method over and over. Those that tried to actually build empires and make money in econ were saps. Most could never hope to make the cash in a week what a c3 raider could make in an hour following a simple guide. Plus, the raider could spend two hours, or, more if they wanted. There is absolutely no limit to killing boars, um, raiding c3s until you got very, very bored (see what I did there) with it.

Sure, PvP wars happened but, like now, were not really rewarded on par with the additional challenge. This was the real problem then and is the same problem now. There needs to be stuff to fight over and there needs to be a system that allows players to fight PvP with somewhat less risk for some reward. Ideas that further that are at the top of this page. Unlimited boaring/boring c3 raiding is not fun and is not in the same league as the War College and Battlegrounds ideas.
--------------------------------------

Didn't WL 10 yield a profit of 20T (Holy mother if only that was the case today) (give or take a few t) per country back then?

I wonder if that remained today if we'd have any concerns with purchasing weapons and ammo, or losing them in a war for that matter.

Hmm....

I believe it used to be an amount in trillions equal to the war level, so $10 Trillion for WL 10.

A quick check of the docs will show reaching war level 10 pays 220 coins on Fearless Blue and 100 coins on any other world in addition to $4.8 Trillion in cash. As I pay $180 Billion for coins that means you could cash out at about $45 Trillion on Fearless Blue or about $23 Trillion on any other world. Sunny, it appears the solution you seek in your last post is already in the game. You have also now posted twice looking to complain rather than to comment on game suggestions. Maybe you are our guy to start off the complaint thread.

I still say you guys are on the wrong track. The important thing is that there is parity in the game in how assets are acquired, not how quickly it is possible to accumulate them. If it is easier, it is easier for all. If it is harder, it is harder for all. Parity is what is important . Whether a player chooses to gain assets through econ or through war the gain should consider the effort and risk.

Again everyone! Today you earn $45 TRILLION for hitting war level 10 on Fearless Blue and $23 TRILLION on any other world! More cash than you can shake a stick at!