STOP SPACE WARS (Little Upsilon)

meh, Josias, you cant have everyone getting the same amount of military, cut it like that and you make it completely level. Mind you, thinking out aloud here, it would make the smart fighter, the one who uses good tactics as opposed to overwhelming firepower, the victor...

i agree with you. the point i was making was about military size, and production.

but yes, it would be silly to start a fight that you have no advantage in. but much of the past of sim country, has all been assets. the war that happened about a year ago, proved that skill over comes assets. at least to a degree. you aren't going to take 100 i wings down, with 1k bombers.

but prior to war, their is RL weeks and months of preparation. during which time, you come up with a plan...

so by the time you declare war. you've put allot of effort into being ready. and you should have an advantage that you are comfortable with. oddly enough, it often seems that any advantage that a player works for, is "unfair," but thats beside the point i'm making.

i'm not suggesting that every one be reduced to the same amount of military. far from it, i was painting a picture, if have 100 bombers, being reduced to 25, and you have 200 being reduced to 50, we'd have the same relative strength. but i'm not advocating that, just making an example.

no, the current limitations to weapons and ammo, in the long run will reduce overall military sizes... and most likely those with better econ skills will be less effected than those that ignore econ and just go straight for war...increasing the production and availability of weapons and ammo, goes the opposite direction. and takes us back to hours and hours of endless clicking...

i mean really, do you want your oppenent to make so many units that the map loads slowly... so slowly infact, that you're talking 30-60 seconds between shots, hours and hours of shooting units hundreds of units... because every one has huge armies?

were as, if (for example,) every one had 25% of the weapons and ammo, it'd work out to 25% of the clicking... stream lining war, making it less tedious, and more attractive. a counter concern... is with less units to destroy, would countries fall faster... possibly. unless you can still get the same "relative," power, with smaller armies. so that in theory, as it is now, when you run out of weapons or ammo, and have to wait for the next game month...

please, i'm not suggesting that W3C should just reduce the stock piles we have. i'm saying, that with limited resources, it adds a dimension the the game that was lacking before, attrition.

i mean we kinda had that, i've been known to sacrifice 400k heavy jeeps to run my enemy out of heli missiles. but now, a stronger econ, means more weapons and ammo that country can purchase. because of limited avaiblity. making it possible to have your enemy practically defeated before the war dec. its not quite that yet. but its moving in that direction. i mean for all those people that want realism... here it is. wouldn't it be cool to be able to cripple a countries ability to war, before you dec. kinda like the fall of the soviet union?

i mean, the concept i'm throwing out itsn't so cut and dried, it'd need tweeking to make it work right. but if you want to make war easier... reduce military size, not increase it. what we have now, is still a throw back from the old war engine...

I cant see it. People would still want bigger armies than the next guy, so it would still escalate. Put a cap on armies and lots of people would get max army, all the same. You are just taking a 0 or two off the numbers. The only way to improve in the direction you want would be to have far far quicker server access speeds. (or maybe more efficient programming).

I have always tried to make ammo/weaponry unavailable to my adversary anyway, up to them to have stocks or friends to sell it them. Thats so easy now with space centers and shuttles.

SC is like UK nowadays, "you cant touch me, thats the law, so I can do what I like...", sucks, but I'll deal with it some way.

the escalation of military is of course going to happen, thats a no brainer. the point is, making it harder, means that what is possible now, will not be possible in the future. because its HARDER.

but its ok. W3C for YEARS has been trying to reduce the size of militaries. they have said this many times. increasing the man power of weapons, increasing base cost, increasing monthly costs, and ironically, nerfing the supply system... all have an effect. but it hasn't made the war game playable for more than a handful of hyper active players. the time and tedium of war isn't the only thing holding back the popularity of war. but its the current subject. their are 2 other magor problems with the war game, that will not be solved by rules.

in the past they wanted to reduce the amount of game cash. to do this they intoduced Finincial Service fess for high levels of cash reserves, and they lowered the interest rate of loans... players were rather discouraged about these huge costs... and suggested that W3C could just remove a digit to lower the cash level. W3C had a long explanation as to why they couldn't, and came to the conclusion that it was easier to make game changes that force the players in the direction they want them to go... we saw that again a year ago, with all the defensive changes, to counter aggressive war lords, such a my self *tips hat.* maybe they could just remove a digit, but considering how long they've been working on this. i doubt it.

a side point of the FF, they have recently started reducing the fees, and the fee thresh hold (or raising it rather.) as they accomplished their goal, those limitations where no longer necessary. and they are cautiously taking away hinderences...

as far as a cap goes, i favor a max UNIT cap. but i also would tie in number of bases with it...

for instance, (an example only, just to get you the jist,) say a defensive airport can support, say 20 units, and create 5 units per game month... that means if you have 6 defensive airports, you'd be able to have 120 total i wings, and h wings... and could replace 30 of them a game month... for an offensive base, try taking the same numbers, 6 o airbases could support up to 120 wings, and create 30 new wings a month, (or maybe a smaller number would be more appropo for O, shrug,)

that change would leave it possible to have hundreds, and hundreds of units, but with some draw backs. you can have more if you increase your number of bases, but then you have to defend them. and, of ocurse they can be destroyed, dramatically reducing your fighting capability.

keep in mind the numbers i suggested, may not be the most apropo, i was just trying to get across the jist. i've suggested this in the past, with little positive response. so i don't expect any one to agree. its just a change i think would be good.

---
Tom Willard

Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 11:28 pm
Reducing the number of weapons in general is an old issue.
this applies not only to aircraft but to all weapons.

Today, the numbers are much smaller than they used to be. we had wars with millions of weapons.
we have reduced and want to reduce more.

when we reduced the size of mil. units by 10% there was a lot of shouting. but we want to do so again and again.
this will reduce the cost of war. just smaller numbers of weapons and smaller numbers destroyed in each attack.

this will also reduce shortages.
---

There's already a limit to how many weapons a base can hold.

At least we are both on the same page Josias, looking for ways to spice the game up, get more involvement. The negativity here sometimes drives me to screaming point.