W3C - Expected New Features

Matt Patton coughs around ignorance. Ignorance composes. Why won't the shed invalid swing? Matt Patton colors outside the pant.

Sorry, but thats what your posts sound like to me! I cant understand them at all.

Tom - why are War Levels being used as the standard for Game Levels? Reaching a new War Level is easy - all you have to do is pay for an army big enough to take a level "x" C3 for as long as it takes to fight a war against the C3. In contrast, reaching a new Game Level through Peaceful indices or the defensive indices is a great deal harder, because they require long-term effort. Peaceful requires a *lot* of corps, and keeping a *lot* of cash in one's countries. The defensive indices require a *lot* of money to be spent on the upkeep of the defence. How is this balanced?

In the past, and even partially now, your game level depended among other indexes, on the defense indexes.

this is not a good indication for your warring qualities. it is a measure of your capacity to purchase weapons. (and pay for their maintenance).

long time ago, we have introduced the war levels and announced that your war level will become one of the indicators for your gaming level. The dependency on the defense indexes will be reduced.

A high defense index however will be required for high game levels. holding a large army is a major cost for a country.
It is economically very difficult to keep a very high game level when you need to have a high defense index and with it a very large army.

economic players do not have this cost and their work force is working and not recruited into the army.

also, achieving a high war level is not easy and more war levels with increasing complexity will be introduced.

I don't think you're following me :P

Imagine this: it takes $10 worth of weapons and ammo to take a War Level 15 C3. On the flipside, it costs $5 a month to maintain the defence index required for Game Level 15, and $5+ to purchase the weapons and ammo.

Player A goes with the War Level option to get to GL 15. He pays $10, fights a war against a C3, and moves *permanently* up to that Game Level.

Player B goes with the Game Level option. He pays $5 for the weapons and ammo and $5 to maintain them for a month so that he can move up to the next Game Level. He's now moved up to Game Level 15, but if he wishes to stay there, he has to pay $5 a month - which means, after the first month, he is paying way more than Player A.

It doesn't really matter how much the weapons cost to maintain - if the cost is above $0, Player B always ends up paying more. Now, considering that Game Levels help determine score, why does Player B have to pay through the nose for his points whilst Player A only has to beat a C3 in a war? Even if Player A is inept, it will *always* cost him less money to get to and stay at GL 15, even if he has to purchase $20 of weapons and ammo because he's so inept.

And in regards to economy players - maintaining oodles of corporations, massive indices, and huge populations is just as hard, if not harder, than Player A's route.

Where is the balance in this? The game shouldn't be trying to push every player towards War Levels because they're the only economically viable route to a higher score.