Someone point out what I'm Missing

There seem to be more, seemingly weird limits on fun here these days that don't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I guess no one asked.

This is a "returning to the game again and here's my experience post." I return over and over to this game. I think I've started from scratch 6 times now, and have played in an ongoing state for probably close to a decade. This game has so many good elements others don't and has always had massive potential. I will have my fun, I will try to generate interaction with others, and I will make friends and foes. But there are problems here and significant areas that could and probably should be improved.

The intention of this post is to point at what I believe are regular pain points for players (both new and old) and ask if someone can explain why those pain points exist, are created, and are seemingly increased every time I return.

I was interested in expanding to the other side of White Giant, but realized I'd have to go up 2 war levels just to have range to relocate or buy a C3 with a list price of over 200 gold coins. I recently started again and don't have much game cash yet. Going up two levels will probably require several real life weeks of cash accumulation and waiting on weapons to be delivered. Will inexperienced or truly new players stick around for that experience?

"Why does no one fight anymore? Very few players seem to do war levels."
"Why do we have a smaller player base?"

- Few players can make a profit at all - it's much harder to make cash than it used to be, and *especially* at smaller country size. The beginner boost is ok, but 20b a game month doesn't help you achieve anything of note long term, in my opinion. That's not going to help you really even get to war level 2 in any sort of reasonable time.
- When players do make profit, the war guides are poor
- What do you do with one country and a little cash? What fun do people have playing that way relative to being able to have a few countries, or dare I say, even an "empire" that looks cooler on the map?
- You can only fight at each war level once, so it gets extremely expensive extremely fast with zero opportunity for repeat gameplay, testing, or practice.
- It *feels* like there are new extreme limits on gameplay in new ways every time I come back and start over
- Players who don't buy tons of population probably don't feel like waiting many real life months for migration to give them a big enough country to do stuff with, and there seem to be few alternatives
- I understand the game is meant to be a marathon, not a sprint, and it can take time to build. That said, most new players don't sign up for the "one-year-plan" without having fun along the way.

All of this in a game where 1/2 of the products are weapons, ammo, or gear for weapons and ammo (like military services, gasoline, military supplies). One might suppose it was intended or built to be a war game with a new world based around new weapon types.

Speaking of, I wonder how often the new weapons with targon will be used? They're currently only for defensive weapons, and C3's don't do a lot of attacking. Even if offensive weapons are added, you can only play each war level once, so is it really worth the hassle of expanding to a new planet just for one or two war levels of slightly better weapons that aren't necessary? PVP wars aren't really a thing anymore, are they? How many players will actually use targon weapons?

A new world is interesting, but this one won't attract new players to the game. It's more or less a "rich and very experienced players only" world, of which there are less and less it appears. The concept is fine, but I just wonder why a world for experienced players instead of for new players, or peaceful players was built. I think it's a really cool concept, and I'm glad it's getting tested out. I just wonder why of all things that could be created or invested in, this is it.

Ok then, I guess I will ignore war and expand some other way. I'll buy my countries. Oh wait, this first 30 mil pop computer one I looked at costs 200+ gold coins. 20 dollars? I only spent 12 dollars on my 3 month membership. Not super appealing. There's no way to search for countries that aren't exorbitantly priced either? :/ Even if I do find a way to expand without war, what do I eventually spend my game cash on?

It seems there are more and more limits on any sort expansion or having things to do in the game without high payment. People want to *play* - and that's now increasingly limited.

Ultimately, I feel that many recommendations have been made for years on the forum that just don't get implemented, are ignored, or not prioritized that could create a more playable and more popular game. Many updates are about reducing player cash, reducing player expansion, driving players away from playing the war game, from having empires, and from having reasons to log in. It's now mostly a single-player, isolationist-oriented, and smaller-scale game.

Shrugs. Just pointing out what I see. Someone point out what I'm missing please. I truly do not mean this to put Andy etc on blast, but would like to hear from others what they think. Andy does care about the game and wants it to do well, and perhaps feedback like this (or feedback from other players) can help steer the game back towards the days when it was actually hard to find open countries on planets.

Last thought for now: What I'd like to see is a game that's less expensive for players to play and with more things to do for each player. More players, each playing more, less expensive per player resulting in similar initial revenue. Sure that helps current players out in costs, but that truly isn't my point. That's probably a better formula for community growth and retention.

It is hard to disagree with what you say.

I think honestly the focus is changing away from a multiplayer game in which you involve yourself with other players versus a Single-player game with multiplayer social elements. I think the current game discourages long term players by giving them far less incentive to continuously play.

I also do not believe that it is putting Andy on blast at all. We all love this game and try to make it better. I’ve voiced my opinions before on how war can help keep interest alive.

When it all gets boiled down, I think that when you see long term players making the same complaints it’s worth visiting. The war engine and lack of war is a consistent complaint that has never been fully addressed.

Eeeee OOOooo,

I've read your post, it's not exactly clear what you are asking.

To touch on some of the points raised.

1). Empire sizes. Managing multiple countries requires significant micromanagement. As such players requested that they be able to grow their populations larger inside their countries, rather than having to take more countries. Players tend to have fewer countries, but each country is larger, this makes them easier to manage, without reducing the total populations under a players control.

2). Tiny Atlas. Most people seem to be using this as a late game challenge, a way to test their skills in a much harder environment, with the role playing bonus of carrying out a true space colonization program, building the planet from the ground up. I doubt many people are genuinely there just to harvest Targon.

3). The reduction in total country profits. Simcountry was suffering from a glut of money, many players were amassing thousands of trillions of dollars, and making hundreds of billions more every month. It reached a point where the money was basically worthless. There was nothing left to spend it on, and so much more was coming in every month. A rebalance was necessary, so that money would have any meaning. Even now, I make $50B-$70B profit every month, in a single country, and that's with me actively trying to spend my revenue on improving the country, rather than trying to make a profit.

Thanks for your response, Daniel.

The intention of my post was to start a discussion. I've played off and on since 2008 and upon each return, there are fewer players playing, less interaction between players, and less to do for each player. This is my opinion (except for the less players part - that's almost certainly fact).

Here are some questions for you:

- It sounds like you play with one country and make 50b-70b profit and have played that way for years? You play entirely single player, yes? If not, which players impact your country? How do they do that?

- Do you think that's an appealing way to play that many other players enjoy? If so, why are there so few players who play like that?

- How long does it take to get a big country and at what cost? Do new players see this as a reasonable reason to keep playing or a target to aim for? If that's the main way to play, are new players going to decide that's reasonable after 2 weeks where they average 20b profit starting with no cash reserves and buy a membership? If so, why don't more players stay?

- What do you think the downside of making it easier to acquire more countries would be? It doesn't appear that it'd impact you.

- What is the problem with having too much cash? I'd argue that more players have not enough cash and quit than there are players with too much that cause people to leave. You have 318T cash reserves in your country, and you argue others shouldn't be able to make much cash? Maybe you'd say you accumulated that over time. Do players have to play for years to have much game cash? Is that fun then? Is that a way for the game to grow?

- You seem to be content playing solo with one country. That is fine. What is the impact on you when other players have more cash and what problems does that cause?

Eeeee OOOooo

- It sounds like you play with one country and make 50b-70b profit and have played that way for years?

Yes, I've played for years, with only one country.

- Do you think that's an appealing way to play that many other players enjoy? If so, why are there so few players who play like that?

Looking at the Presidents list on LU, there are roughly 315 countries with player presidents, 220 of them are the only country, or primary country in the empire. Of the 95 countries that are secondary nations, most belong to only a handful of players. So objectively speaking, the vast majority of simcountry players only have one country.

- How long does it take to get a big country and at what cost? Do new players see this as a reasonable reason to keep playing or a target to aim for?

I've never used real money to buy gold coins, beyond the basic membership fee, the cost is $0. As for how long, there isn't a set period of time, there was no point at which my country was "finished", it's a process of continual improvement.

- What do you think the downside of making it easier to acquire more countries would be?

In the past the GMs have mentioned the server load of a large number of countries per player. I've also noticed the workload of managing large empires burn out players over time. Or lead them to neglect most of the countries that aren't considered their 'main'.

- What is the problem with having too much cash? I'd argue that more players have not enough cash than there are players with too much.

It's very difficult to say if the average player is profitable or struggling. There isn't a tool that lets players see the average profitability and cash balance of player countries. Andy says there is still plenty of profit. As players, we can only really speculate as to the average profit and cash position of other players.

- If you have too much cash, what is the impact on other players and what problems does that cause?

It's about finding the right balance. Too much money, and it loses it's value to people. Too little, and they struggle. The GMs attempt to make it possible to make profit, without that profit being so huge as to render it meaningless.

Thanks for engaging Daniel, this is the type of discussion I'd hoped for.

"Looking at the Presidents list on LU, there are roughly 315 countries with player presidents, 220 of them are the only country, or primary country in the empire. Of the 95 countries that are secondary nations, most belong to only a handful of players. So objectively speaking, the vast majority of simcountry players only have one country."

When I joined in 2008, there were ~2500+ countries with a president on Little Upsilon. As you say, there are now 315. The planet is dead, relatively speaking. This is my point.

The reason so few players have expanded beyond one country is likely they don't know how or don't stay around long enough to try. On the entire planet, only 9 players have won a war against war level 1, which is exceedingly simple to do. Every player starts with enough weaponry to do it. Andy even made a guide that pops up for new players with step by step instructions to do this.

"I've never used real money to buy gold coins, beyond the basic membership fee, the cost is $0. As for how long, there isn't a set period of time, there was no point at which my country was "finished", it's a process of continual improvement."

This isn't my question. My question was how long does it take for a new player to get a large country that's fun like yours? Does "hey, play for 5 years and then you can have fun" attract new players?
I'm hoping we could increase player retention and get more new players to the game. Most of the suggestions I make probably wouldn't impact you. You've been here through thick and thin anyways.

"In the past the GMs have mentioned the server load of a large number of countries per player. I've also noticed the workload of managing large empires burn out players over time. Or lead them to neglect most of the countries that aren't considered their 'main'."

With respect, you've only ever had one country, I'm not sure you'd know. In 2008, there were 2,500+ countries on Little Upsilon. Surely the servers aren't worse now? Players who get large empires *seemed to have wanted them* instead of staying with one country. Who's to say that they didn't stay way longer because they had more things to do instead of log into their one country for a couple minutes a day? I would never have stayed (and played for 15 years) if I only could have one country.

"It's very difficult to say if the average player is profitable or struggling. There isn't a tool that lets players see the average profitability and cash balance of player countries. Andy says there is still plenty of profit. As players, we can only really speculate as to the average profit and cash position of other players."

Andy owns the game, he doesn't necessarily know what's fun or what's enough cash. How does cash "lose value" to people? What's the negative of that?

I understand where you're coming from but I think you're sort of proving my suspicions correct. Many/most current players have very little idea what other players do or what drives them because they play almost entirely solo. I do not say this to insult you or as a slight, I say this to highlight the lack of multiplayer and community. Your reference is Andy, not a single other player.

Eeeee OOOooo,

"When I joined in 2008, there were ~2500+ countries with a president on Little Upsilon. As you say, there are now 315. The planet is dead, relatively speaking."

I remember the planet used to have a player with over 100 countries, and others with 50+. Number of countries isn't the same as number of players. While there are likely fewer players than in 2008, it's normal that a game has fewer core players as it gets older. Even massively successful Online Multiplayer Games like World of Warcraft have fewer players than they used to.

"On the entire planet, only 9 players have won a war against war level 1, which is exceedingly simple to do. Every player starts with enough weaponry to do it."

It's no secret that the vast majority of players don't engage with the war engine and consider themselves to be peaceful players. Even though, as you said, they start the game with all the tools needed to conquer another country straight away, and it's very simple to do.

Thanks again Daniel. Thanks for the discussion. My point is to try to discuss state of the game and ask about certain changes that could be made to retain more players and keep more new ones.

"I remember the planet used to have a player with over 100 countries, and others with 50+. Number of countries isn't the same as number of players. While there are likely fewer players than in 2008, it's normal that a game has fewer core players as it gets older. Even massively successful Online Multiplayer Games like World of Warcraft have fewer players than they used to."

Sure. There are massive penalties for playing like that and those empires almost instantly go bankrupt. Did these players negatively impact your gameplay at all while you play with your country in secured mode? My point stands though in that there used to be many times more players. Additionally, many many more players had more than one country, and generally, there were way more players who interacted. There were numerous federations that'd squabble. War? Sometimes. Politics and activity, more. I feel some current game mechanics reduce all of this while not really impacting single player play.

I get that games tend to fade over time, but that doesn't mean we just give up and let it go without trying to make it better, right?

I'd really like:
- It to be easier for smaller players to get cash so they can play more. It's easy to get cash *ONCE YOU'RE BIG* but not so much until then. By the time you're big, you don't need the cash. Let new players have more opportunity to play and tinker, and give them more to do.

- More guides in the game. Perhaps some veteran players could assist with creating and reviewing these. I'd be happy to write first drafts about certain topics for others to review. Clearly I love the game. If someone else is better able and willing, even better. Most games don't require you to go to a forum for basic instructions.

- There to be more incentive for multiplayer activity. Not requirements, but more incentive and bonus for team activity, as this is a multiplayer game.

- Restrictions around war level requirements loosened. I truly don't see the point in forcing players up. Why restrict the ability to get more countries so heavily? Why do you have to go up a war level each time? The idea of having experienced players not fight less experienced players isn't even relevant at this stage. If it's fun for someone to have a lot of countries, why can't they have them? Players don't appear interested at all in war levels, why are we forcing this? Government costs already exist.
Let players play, don't create roadblocks.

- More types of endings to wars. There is currently only "conquer country, and end war. There's opportunity for a variety of additional endings. If we're worried about people getting conquered, it makes sense to adjust the outcome of wars. Enforce war reparations where the losing party pays 10% of income for 20 game years. Generate an "overextension" malus for conquering player countries - and have it reduce over time. Create an "integration" period after conquering where there's upheaval, massive government costs and so forth. Create "core empire" status where countries only are fully integrated after a real life month (or any time decided upon), and at which point government costs normalize, and the people "adapt" to the new culture and leadership.

- More added to federations and common markets. Give small bonuses for participation in either - the more players and the more countries the bigger the bonus. Create more features and incentivize use of both.

Thanks, guys, for all of your perspectives on this subject. I'll say my two cents. I love the game; that's obvious since I'm still here. I've had great times and met great people and some interesting characters, the game has many great features, as everyone has mentioned. I have a couple of concerns and dislikes, etc.


1. In the past, there were calls for the game masters to add features allowing people to spend excess cash reserves. Andy attempted to address this by creating Tiny Atlas. However, that's not necessarily what people had in mind. The Game masters also increased the price of weapons and added Windfarms. Fine, that's great. The Problem is the Game masters thought we meant to make things more expensive, which was not the case. While on TA, I'm strictly there for Targon and wonder if I may or may not use it. I'll have to test their effectiveness.

2. Security Council. Over the years, I saw many suggestions that would help increase gameplay and slash interactions. While I understand some people like to play solo. However, the game itself should firmly push for exchange. We have a Security Council that has limited power. It's hard to give out aid because of the two trillion dollar asset limit. It's weird because 2 trillion is a small amount of money. Electing players to the council would increase gameplay and add more features and powers. The boycott feature needs to be updated and essentially goes unused because gathering the players required for such a move is challenging. The Security Council should be allowed to sanction countries, of course, with the approval of the general assembly.

3. The Game Map. As previously mentioned, the game map is not easy to use and must be updated. Revamping the map and making it easier to find occupied and unoccupied countries is a significant benefit. A new Map would also help in the war sector. I feel like I have to do a lot to see where the enemy is, an enemy fed, etc. I think that increasing Countries' sizes would be fascinating. Having countries small and big would increase player interaction as many would desire larger territories. The Countries should be limited to players capable of actual warfare.

4. Federations & Common Markets: EO has mentioned that there needs to be some incentive in the areas. I know in the past, Andy has talked about creating a way to move your countries. However, I have yet to hear any updates from him. Some Feds are obsolete because of distance, and the limited distance for aircraft makes it hard to defend fed mates from afar. A fix to the Navy would help this. Navies are expensive and, for the most part, ineffective. Some may disagree, but from my experience, that's what it is.

5. Worlds: A big issue is that there are too many planets, and interaction is complicated because the player base is spread apart. If the game masters ever discover a way to move countries, getting rid of the least populated planets would be a good idea. Also, 200+ GCs for a country is expensive. I've come against many restrictions limiting my empire size; a big one is Government Cost. It's hard to argue that although the countries are separate, the primary country has to pay government cost for the empire size while the countries themselves pay government cost; it just never made much sense to me. I can't imagine this day and age where simcountry is worrying about server overloads. Going to war level to conquer a new country can be a pain, especially for new players.

I have mentioned this and will keep advocating for better guides. While it is excellent for veteran players to help newer players, we shouldn't have to. As a new player, an easy-to-understand guide should give me all the necessary information. Simcountry has Guides; however, those things are outdated and massive. As a new Player, I won't read a book on how to play the game. Luckily, I had mentors who helped and taught me; however, only some people will have that. Just my two cents.

I think the root cause for a lot of these issues is that this gaming format's hayday was almost 20 years ago, and the current players are stubborn dinosaurs.

@ Banedon. Out of curiosity, in my last post, I listed 6 suggestions in bold. Would implementing any of those negatively impact your experience in simcountry? Do you think the additions of any of those might make for a more positive experience for other players?

@Joel, I like all of your suggestions. They'd all be improvements in my book. Many of your suggestions are based around expanding features and concepts already built into the game (security council, for example).

Part of what I've seen is the squeaky NEW wheel gets the grease, some new players failed miserably quickly and cried, instead of looking at those that succeeded Andy decided to add guard rails and bumpers to reduce the failures. The problem is those guard rails and bumpers reduce the ability to play as you desire and has made it a "safer" but less fun game.

Not everyone is meant to play a large, complex, slow game like this. Adapting the game for those that its really not for and will leave either way in time just drives away those that like this type of game.

Another issue I must agree with Joel, there are too many worlds for today's player base, the game needs to be concentrated, this would be easier on the server stress as Daniel pointed out as well as increase player interactions.

- It to be easier for smaller players to get cash so they can play more.

As a new player, if you log in everyday the bonuses give you something like +5M population and +2-3T cash. That's a fair amount of help right at the start.

- More guides in the game. Perhaps some veteran players could assist with creating and reviewing these.

There are good economic and decent military guides already, they are just buried in the forums.
If these guides got actively linked in game, or the default AI behavior was set to use those settings, users might feel more supported.

- There to be more incentive for multiplayer activity. Not requirements, but more incentive and bonus for team activity, as this is a multiplayer game.

While this would be nice, it's hard to setup multiplayer without giving opportunities to trolls. It's also hard to setup tools to deal with trolls that can't be abused.

- Restrictions around war level requirements loosened.

Because if people want to have an empire, they need to pay for it. I don't know what Andy's day job is, but I doubt it's managing SimCountry.

- More types of endings to wars. There is currently only "conquer country, and end war. There's opportunity for a variety of additional endings. If we're worried about people getting conquered, it makes sense to adjust the outcome of wars. Enforce war reparations where the losing party pays 10% of income for 20 game years. Generate an "overextension" malus for conquering player countries - and have it reduce over time. Create an "integration" period after conquering where there's upheaval, massive government costs and so forth. Create "core empire" status where countries only are fully integrated after a real life month (or any time decided upon), and at which point government costs normalize, and the people "adapt" to the new culture and leadership.

Not sure how well it would work in practice due to limitations of the game/combat engine but I agree there needs to be more than just "Conquest or Quit". Fellow Europa Universalis player?

- More added to federations and common markets

What more would you add?
Federations are only useful if they are close enough to provide air support. Unless you're getting attacked their isn't much to do with them.

Common Markets are good to pad your score, but are also a major hit to your economy, and a NIGHTMARE to setup and manage.

Thanks Banedon. I appreciate the feedback and questions helping push the conversation along.

New play bonuses of 5M pop and 2-3T cash is great.

That's not enough cash to win against war level 2 c3s. One spending space at 330q is more than 3T cash. We're saying to new players "you can buy a bunch of nice stuff once after a month of onboard?" That's not enough pop to have a country generating tons of wealth. It's a *great* thing that those are included, but I'd argue it's not enough, and it doesn't help with planning. I've seen players tend to look more at their monthly balance sheet when planning. Some players don't need assistance, but compared to veteran players who have stacks and stacks of cash, giving new players an extra 5-10T here and there *doesn't matter* in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really hurt anyone. It does, however *let them play.*

For example, could some government costs get turned off below 50M pop? I see little downside to players who have less than 50M in their main getting an extra 15-20b profit per month. Finance index could ignore the savings. If there is messaging to explain this and when it will end, it seems reasonable to me (I currently get popups indicating extremely small shortages, some of which are only a few billion in value, why can't we get additional popups about government costs). There are a variety of additions that could be made to this.

Multiplayer Activity: There used to be significant multiplayer activity in this very game. Changes have steered it away from this. Almost no gameplay requires thinking about a single other player in the game. What trolling activity have you encountered in your time here? If you could take gameplay action against trolls or recruit other impacted players to take gameplay action against trolls, would you do that? Let's make mechanisms to impact others - even if they're really minimal. Gestures count.

Aaron Doolavey talked about short term events in a thread on White Giant. Why not have month-long competitions, weekend-long competitions that pop up for score increase, employment index increase, game level increase, welfare level increase. Don't tell players they're coming so people can't prepare. Make it so almost anyone might have a chance to win. Prize could be 5 gold coins for top 5 players. Reward and incentivize activity and a variety of forms of competition. People appreciate unexpected prizes more than expected ones, so again, don't let people prepare. Encourage players to be looking at what others are doing. New players who look at top players' setups and strategy have the chance to learn faster.

Different ends to war: This shouldn't be impacted by the war engine, it'd just have a different conclusion after the war index hits zero. If it's possible to create new planets for Targon, surely this is also possible. I think the new world is a fun idea - my point is simply that my suggestions don't seem impossible to add. I could list another dozen war endings.

Yes I am a EU4 (and paradox games in general) enjoyer. Used to play a bit competitively online as well . There are so many possibilities beyond what I proposed.

More added to federations and common markets: You nailed it exactly about federations, there now is very little *function* to them, as it's just shared air defense. This should be adjusted. What simple bonuses or mechanics do you think could be added to the game based around federations? Common market bonuses are for trading in general (with or without a corporation). You can end up buying goods from a producer in your common market out of the world market.

I was taught how to play by players, not in game tutorials or guides, and the players who taught me were the ones in my federation. Similarly, I'd like to think I've shown many players how to manage different parts of the game, and I teach/show the players who join my federation the most. Federation activity is a key opportunity for making friends and foes, learning the game, and connecting with game concepts. There are tons and tons of possibilities here though for federations and common markets including:

Add flavor events -- ESPECIALLY for new players or players in the first year. New players get popups for bonus cash and population. Have a corp "develop new technology" and get a 50b bonus for trading with a common market partner.

- Have federation members prompt "training exercise" - some units gain weapon quality (quality has to be maintained at high levels, so it would be a temporary boost exposing players to boosting quality)

- Periodic small bonuses of ammunition (for clever training, elite general, whatever you want to make up), but make it related in messaging to being in a federation.

- Get 1% discount in weapon purchases from players who've been in your federation for more than a real life month. This could be "long-time ally" bonus. Or quality boosts in purchases. Anything.

- Get small bonuses when any players in your federation conquer a new country (new markets opened! new federation resources!).

- Have common market events related to player government types - Democracy, Republic, Theocracy, and so forth. Small bonuses have little to no impact on gameplay, but can expose concepts to players.

- Have events that trigger when you have corporations selling products that are in extreme red demand

- Have negative events around unprofitable corporations that are feeding your common market or are even run by other players in your common market

- Small boosts in score for having more players in your federation or common market

- Have federation and common market stats incorporated into the game. Have top common markets allow players to build corps 1 game level above where they're at.

- Give flavor events for having 10, 15, or 20% of your country on contract either internally or in common market. Have leaderboard showing top contracted nations. Warn that it's not profitable, but it's fun.

- Periodically allow players to make bribes for a security council spot. Minimum bribe price enters you in a lottery. Maybe 1-2 spots on the council are rotating and volatile.

Players can literally ignore all of this ^ and play the same way as they were before - but there's suddenly a lot more to do, and a lot more goals created for players - some of which have small rewards. In most games, players quit where they're bored, when they're not sure what to do and so on. Help address these challenges.

One more: Make the international newspaper more visible and add more to it besides earthquakes and wars to generate interest in other countries, types of events, types of successes, and types of roadblocks.

I'm just spitballing, and I'm sure I (or we all) could generate some fun ideas better than the ones above. There's room for fun updates to the game on top of the ones that get added in.

I'm not sure how you play, but I didn't need more than about 1T to take down a C3 on WL1 or 2.
The hard part was learning how to spend that 1T to get to proper tools, enough ammunition, and have some left over to clean up the mess.

My government costs for my main is about 13 B/mth.
Reducing or removing it would be nice sure, but 13 B/mth isn't going to make, or break, a country.
I think a better idea would be to take the advice mentioned here: https://www.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/27969/27978.html&lm=1582721519
and make those settings (all but point 2) the default country economic settings.
It would put every nation, C3 or newbie alike, on a much stronger economic footing.

The main issue with Multiplayer content is that there's no longer enough players, or put it another way, there's to much empty space.
Kebir Blue: 340/3061 ~ 11.1%
Little Upsilon: 367/3467 ~ 10.6%
White Giant: 690/6376 ~ 10.8%
Golden Rainbow: 482/4804 ~ 10.0%
Statistically, it seems the current most "active" world isn't White Giant, it's Kebir Blue!
Andy could close all the economic worlds, roll everyone into Kebir Blue, and even though it's the oldest and smallest world it would still have about 1/3 of the countries open and available.

When it comes to adding functionality to Federations and Common Markets, I like your suggestions.
Enough to be noticeable, but hopefully not enough to unbalance anything.
The only thing I don't like is bribery to get onto the Security Council.
Older, richer nations could always win if they chose to, and new nations wouldn't realize how utterly pointless being on it is until it's too late.

I too would like to have more stories in the international paper.
We already have entries for disasters, players leaving and their nations going bankrupt, players declaring wars, and conquering another country.
What about the formation of a new Federation or Common Market?
Or nations joining/leaving existing Federations or Common Markets?

While most of these changes, and webpage updates aren't difficult to do, they do take time.
Over the years I have come to the impression that whatever Andy's day-job is, it's not maintaining SimCountry.
Even if we come up with a simple, elegant, and useful request, we are likely 3rd, 4th, or lower on Andy's priority list.
It's going to take weeks or months for things to change, even if that change is as simple as adding a button to a page or updating some text.
Changes that require more time to implement and analyze will take exponentially longer.

Thanks again Banedon. Loving the interaction here, and love your ideas!

WL1 was basically free for me. WL2 cost me 2200 bombers, which is the part that was expensive. I posted my record of it in the 'this guide doesn't work' thread. 2200 bombers at 330q is fairly expensive for new countries. When did you last do the war levels? Have you done them since the update this year?

Hear you on the government costs not making huge impact - my point is mostly just that new players are the ones who need spending money, not me, not you, not veterans. Some way to funnel them consistent cash as opposed to periodic rewards that aren't so easy to put in a planner. I see questions on the forum like "when can I afford to build an army," and having consistent financial reports showing profits seems like a good way to decide that.

I'm all for better guide integration. Some of the guide you linked may be little outdated - and guides in general may get outdated over time, but your idea is excellent. Keep it simple, but guide the player to take specific actions and click on specific buttons with specific goals. More popups, more beginner screens with approved guidance beyond "build more corporations to improve your country."

Only comment about security council "bribery" was that it'd operate on a lottery system - it'd be something like a price based off your monthly empire income to enter lottery. Big players require higher payment to get in. My thought was that it'd be a somewhat uncontrollable factor in the game - no player could "dominate" this, and scratch and lottery tickets are super popular lol! The vote could take place once x number of players entered lottery after a certain time. Not a very important change anyways, and I agree, it's not the best idea, but I think adding a lottery with a benefit is interesting as well. What the lottery is for matters less.

GREAT calls on your newspaper ideas. The international newspaper should be placed in a more visible part of the display as well (I'd prefer it above my indices, below my map). With the newspaper, there's a key opportunity to fill players in on other things happening around them.

I agree that changes take a while to implement in simcountry, but am pleased you're participating like this (and others as well!). It'd be awesome if we could find a way to consistently get some player-recommended changes added on to the list of updates.

The last time I was fighting at WL1/2 was about 2-2.5 years ago.
The last C3 I took over was over a year ago, before the latest changes.

As I recall my losses to take the last C3, @ WL3, equalled a bomber wing and 2-3 divisions.
From my starting forces, that worked out to about 1/2 the airforce and 1/3 of my ground troops.

WL14 cost quite a bit. I don't remember the exact cost but I think it was somewhere around 50K OAAMB/MRMB + cruise batteries instead of bombers for the forts.

I agree with Eeeee Oooooo there should be a more reasons for player to interact each other, war can be a good reasons for it. We need more players to play and devt team should find a way for it

Playing solo for long time was boring