Fixing War Levels (Fearless Blue)

Any word on this?

i put a vote in the voting section

What's wrong with them?

I think since fb is the War World that there should be no war levels on fb.Anyone should be able to attack anyone else.I do agree with a certain amount of time to let a person get established. Maybe a month or two even.

'War Level 0'...why is that?

There is no 'Game Level 0', and there already is "War Protection: Secured Mode" for all world except Fearless Blue.

Maybe there are some that would like --1 country-- at 'War Level 0', but that is exactly the same as "War Protection Secured Mode", so it is mostly redundant.

As suggested by others, "War Levels" should be like "Game Levels" and provide for achievements. Using them as a part of the war-related score, rank, indexes, and 'Simcountry' (leaderless) fighting level, when attacking a country, generally make sense. Federations already exist, and have for some time, to help protect countries not in "War Protection" of any kind. See the other topic in the General area of the forum for more details.

But, using "War Levels" to restrict wars in general doesn't really make sense, because there are already other ways to manage that, like "War Protection: Secured Mode" or "War Protection: [Temporary]".

Also, this connects to the "Natural
Resources Search" corporation that was planned to be introduced a long time ago and disappeared. The idea there was to limit the corporation types per country based on the natural resources or other factors in each country. If some limitations and restrictions were placed on these "peaceful countries", then it might make sense..like limited population, limited corporations, limited natural resources, limited locations (fewer choices where they could be located on the world map), and limited Empire size (like "single-country Empires").

Having 10 or more countries in an "Empire" at "War Level 0" doesn't make any sense whatsover, unless maybe 1 world were designated a "Peace World" where it would be no war at all. Nevertheless, Fearless Blue probably should return to a "War World" where it would have no war level restrictions (like it was before the change), since the 'Gamemaster' from the world description page labels it a "War World" with lower "Asset Security".

Not sure what the exact solution would be, these were some points that were made for further discussion, and not trying to figure out a solution now. But, maybe some ideas could be organized and presented in the next "Jozi Chat".

Thanks,

War level 0 makes level 1 a trophey for new players, it makes a lil sence and seems pointless to change.

War levels should be used to prevent newb bashing, From a new comers view FB map looks like a few red countries are set up to do just that with slaves in every province.

I suggest to start FB players with war level 3.

Here is the "pop up" description, which actually sounds reasonable:

reference: (country page > war page > War Level at top of page)

https://sim03.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=warmain

"War Level
This is the war level of the country (empire). It is an indicator of the capabilities of the player. To get to higher war levels, you must fight wars of increasing complexity against computer controlled countries."

I think war levels for the purpose of fighting are ridiculous. But I do like war levels as an incentive to learn war and gain awards, as is the case with country levels. This adds new challenge perhaps to those players who haven't played war before.

The game, as the way I see it, is this: You purchase a country, you build it, you make it defendable. The same should go with an empire as you expand. This is the way it has always been done - econ or otherwise. The game as it stands now has halted war practically and has taken away the fun, the challenge, the thrill of gaining assets and just good natured fighting. I mean, I could just sit at War Level 0, never buy a defensive weapon, and exist. That to me seems silly.

I've played off and on for 4 years. I have never begrudged paying war protection, and I think those who are serious about playing the game shouldn't mind it either.

I am for no war levels for the purpose of fighting or secured countries on FB. It is a war world. Everyone should be game. If you don't want to war, don't go there. If you do and still don't want to war, buy necessary war protection. The secured main in the other worlds make it possible for players to always have their main country protected. Again....purchase WP on other countries if you don't want to be attacked. If you can't afford, then do what you have to do to make your country defendable to ward off wargoers. Look to federations with established players to offer protection.

I strongly urge the GMs to rethink war levels and the restrictions they place on warring. I also urge them to LISTEN to the game's customers/players on this issue.

I strongly encourage players to voice their opinions. From what I have read above, I believe there are polls on this issue in the public voting section.

There is alot more insentive to fight c3's with war levels. Camping at 0 is silly but it's called the econ game. Just keep econ game out of FB, problem solved. Otherwise it's a sound system. I encurage FB to evolve with the rest of the worlds, or consider an alternative that works rather than killing it entirely.

Personally in my opinion War Levels should remain with some benefits.

- Keeping the war levels to determine a players C3 level for raiding to get cash = AMAZING. I dont think this should be changed its nice to get the extra income.
-Remove the War Levels needed for PvP warring its ridiculous. Once you hit level 1 on any world you should be vulnerable . Free should be able to war frees and free can war a paying but only if a paying decs them (they cant dec paying). Warring starts at level 1 problem solved

Most of you know my opinion on the matter.

then shh

lol Blue

..

when i first started playing i was intent on war...war war war....against anyone even the largest empires i would rally my population with nationalisitc fervor and manufacturing and crush any armys that dared my dreaded mountain passes....i built a huge army (somehow i didnt know where all the money was coming from i later found out it was beginners income booster apparently to be used for building schools) and was ready to invade and conquer my region....none of that happened i enagaged in boring monotanous warfare with a C3 and then i built schools and began role playing to combat my boredom......i would have loved this game if some giant empire declared on me and gave me a good fight (even though the wargame is mediocre but thats a discussion for another day) instead i had to settle for pretending that this game is good which its not...it has amazing potential...but when it comes down to it it is terrible

and only a select optimistic few can handle the apparent complexity but in reality simplistic gameplay and restrictive options and superficial style and that sir is the SC community you and i well we are all losers whos playstations broke

Yeah but its not like the game has to be a major time commitment or anything

My playstation still works.

IMHO the problem is the worlds are too large and that they are of fixed size.

Their size should adapt dynamically to the number of players to keep some kind of proximity and competition between players . This is quite common by other on-line games by now.

It's almost as if we don't pay enough to have a proper forum.

Yes. Can we please have a proper forum Andy.

I put in a vote a while back and it passed. GM said the old days on FB would not return. War levels will remain in place. Bad dukes