W3C - Game News Sept. 7, 2017

I did name that thread, its a good read.

Still leaves me smirking.

waste of time.

The cost of ammunition is of course included.

Luckily the subject is trivial and does not make any difference to anyone.

Weapons and ammo are bought in large quantities once in a while.
The cost is treated as capital expense not as defense cost.

The monthly use of ammunition is computed, multiplied by the market price and added to the defense cost. The reduction in value of ammo in the country is compensating the capital expense of the real purchase.

Could be in billions, depending on the number of weapons but we never compute it separately.

we compute the maintenance cost per weapon, including everything used, then multiply by the numbers of weapons and add them all up.

The use of ammo in the maintenance of special forces will increase in the next upgrade from 7.8 to 12 pieces of ammo each game year.
Countries with many such units, can expect a slight increase in the total cost of defense.
It will be 4.2 x The current market price of the ammo x the number of units in the country and divided by 12.

"waste of time."

I am glad you are here to tackle this subject with great interest (sarcasm intended).


"The cost of ammunition is of course included. "

oh, okay. Because you say so? I feel better already. Wait. Included in what? Heeeyyy..


"Luckily the subject is trivial and does not make any difference to anyone."

Try the war game sometime, or, at least, try to consider other players. thanks..


"Weapons and ammo are bought in large quantities once in a while. "

Welcome to the 80+% I was talking about, and the GM said I wasn't giving enough players credit.


"The cost is treated as capital expense not as defense cost. "

Definition= A capital expenditure is an amount spent to acquire or improve a long-term asset such as equipment or buildings. Usually the cost is recorded in an account classified as Property, Plant and Equipment. The cost (except for the cost of land) will then be charged to depreciation expense over the useful life of the asset.

Nope, you found some fancy words. They sounded good when you typed them, but they did nothing other than demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.


"The monthly use of ammunition is computed, multiplied by the market price and added to the defense cost. "

Oh, goodie. You bring any data to back this up? My finances in CC2, and the rest of my LU empire is open if you don't happen to use weapons to defend your own country. Ah.. found you. You are on LU. Your war levels is (drum roll) 0!


"The reduction in value of ammo in the country is compensating the capital expense of the real purchase."

Again, I am sure you can show me where this is on my finance page. I would say your own but you protect your countries with FAKE protections, not weapons.


"we compute the maintenance cost per weapon, including everything used, then multiply by the numbers of weapons and add them all up. "

You get lost in your own thought? We were talking about ammo, not weapons. That could be considered a capital expense.


"The use of ammo in the maintenance of special forces will increase in the next upgrade from 7.8 to 12 pieces of ammo each game year.
Countries with many such units, can expect a slight increase in the total cost of defense.
It will be 4.2 x The current market price of the ammo x the number of units in the country and divided by 12. "

Oh look, you can copy/paste game notes. Very good


You don't appear to have a vested interest in this Romeo. If you don't want to participate in the diplomacy on your world, that is fine, leave it to the adults in the room, but don't tell me something is so after spending less time on the subject than I have and then come here with no data to tell me I am wrong. I have been proven right enough that I deserve the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I am a frequent poster of game facts and I don't believe when I state something about how the game works I have even been shown wrong, even on the multiple occasions I have said something that differs from what the GM said. I could give multiple examples, but it would be embarrassing, and not to me.

I have seen a lot of false information here in the past years and in most cases, we decided not to intervene as it did not damage anyone.

The designers and developers of this game really know how it works while many players are guessing.

What is said here about ammunition is nonsense. There is no way to compute it. The numbers you can find do not need to add up as you miss essential data.
We have never tried to provide all the details. Simcountry is complex as it is and if anything, we will simplify, not add details.

I made the mistake to comment.

In fact, whether ammo cost is included or not, does not matter.
The total defense cost will not change because there is nothing to change. I should have let it go.

The "Truth" is not important. The perception is.
I am sure that players have their own view of the game and how things are computed.
It does not need to be the same for everyone and it is not important if what anyone sees as correct, or false, is really correct or false.

If you think that things are this or that way and you have a "way" to compute, fine with us.

We are very happy with as many players as possible who have a good understanding of what happens in the game and even make a lot of effort to help others.
If someone is successful and happy playing, it does not matter if the "model" or "Simulation process" he or she see, is "correct".

We should only intervene if the wrong information is really hurtful and in such cases in the past we have even removed it.

This case does not at all fall into this group and everybody is welcome to follow the numbers as presented here and believe what they want.
If a new generation of Simcountry players will think that ammo cost is not added to the Total defense cost, then this is OK too.

In cases we do intervene, you should however realize, that we here, on the software side of it, looking at the facts, and the code we have programmed, really know what we are talking about.
When we intervene and say how something works, than this is how it works. period.

Again, this intervention was obsolete.
You should have the freedom to decide if ammunition is added to the total or not.

A player who suggests that he know better, based on some numbers, against our word, is going too far. Pigs can fly but these numbers are incomplete, and if they were complete, and fully correct, would show exactly how much was spent on ammo and added to the total cost of defense.

I promise not to intervene in any discussion in the future, if it is not damaging the game.

Very well Andy. For the record, I again made a suggestion not for my own benefit. I figured this out years ago. I see it difficult to fault my methods by anyone, given my success in building the largest collection of assets in the game. I can continue and have done so where so many other players identify the current state of the game as being a hard environment to do so.

The problem, at a minimum, as I see it, is that no player, that I know of, who provides for their own defense has found the tools available to them on the finance page as comprehensive in determining the true monthly costs for defense. I provided you my own accounting. That includes the monthly cost values for all products used by the military, save ammo, and monthly military salaries, and I can account for 95% of the costs displayed as "Total Defense Costs". I assume the remainder is the portion of gasoline and electric power devoted to their use that I cannot discern from other use on the finance page. Again, this is without counting any of the costs associated with monthly ammunition use.

In the end, would it not be useful to ask war players if they find the finance tools adequate? You know where my vote is. Perhaps, if and when war changes come and more war players are available to poll, more opinions will be forthcoming. I would be interested to see if any other player in the game exists in this arena or enters the arena of PvP defense with weapons and has a comparable or superior accounting method to my own. I do not believe it currently exists.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

We are very happy with as many players as possible who have a good understanding of what happens in the game and even make a lot of effort to help others.
If someone is successful and happy playing, it does not matter if the "model" or "Simulation process" he or she see, is "correct". -Andy<!-/Quote-!>

Andy. this is not indented for your response.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/25099.html?1442676781

AKA Orbiter, Josias of Jorvick

At the time of "Pissing Contest," I had gone through a series of arguments with Aries. Where I was trying to display my game knowledge. Honestly, I was just trying to brag, with the hope that some one would gain from what what I said. And Aries tried, (mostly successfully,) to steal my thunder.

The problem was. I really knew what I was talking about. I just didn't want to take the time to explain it in detail. Further. Aries was consistently able to win based on the bottom line. For most of a rl year, I was doing a flush of my country, grinding my teeth, knowing I could best his econ in 2 weeks.

Then My flush was done. And after nearly a year of forum retreating, I posted the "Pissing Contest." Knowing that Aries can not concede a single point, I was able to make many points of econ.

To you players that seem to think that Aries is the Omega of SimCountry, He is excellent, no doubt. But their is a level of quality, he will never reach.

Is it I who is "indented" to respond?

I will admit. My finance understanding was high going into the thread, but higher still after. I started my strategy of differentiating the quality of products that influence the welfare index and are compensated by your population and products that also influence the welfare index but are, instead, a straight government consumed product. As I typically do, I shared this information with everyone shortly after and listed a number of products I recommend to purchase at low quality, such as road/train maintenance.

As far as comparing your econ, fundamentally, you wanted to poor your effort into one country and then compare it to one of mine. I was willing to concede this, as I was putting equal effort into my 10 country LU empire. I was also much more successful in generating actual assets through econ, fancy indexes aside.

Don't know what you mean about achieving some level of "quality". If it is based on your bragging on that thread, I would assume it would mean some measure of a perfect country. As that is not my goal, you would be right on that point. I look for the most effective means to generate assets, when I am active, and the most effective means of retaining them, when I am not. In those measurements, I have yet to meet an equal.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I will admit. My finance understanding was high going into the thread, but higher still after. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

Thank you. Your message should have ended their.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

As far as comparing your econ, fundamentally, you wanted to poor your effort into one country and then compare it to one of mine. I was willing to concede this, as I was putting equal effort into my 10 country LU empire. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

My poor effort, was better that you. How does that make you feel?

Considering that I have a life. I have a disabled wife, and 2 autistic sons. I work 12 hour shifts in a foundry. Which is what you don't seem to get...

Aries, You are a sim-bully. I pause as I say that. Because, given the opportunity, so was I.

You are like the cyclops, back handing people out of your way. Each hero's in their own right. You will continue until Ulysses finds the need to defend his crew. And (knowing you,) you will complain that the rules need to be changed.

Sorry, I was going for "pour", and you were going for "intended".

Yes, you have me beat in life excitement. I am the disabled one in my family. My wife is not used to either being the provider nor managing money. I effectively have a part-time job of seeking benefits that we qualify for and stringing along my creditors, until my disability comes through. Hopefully, I can trade in that job for one taking care of my health a bit better. I have had to put so much off.

Oh, and lately, I have not played a wink of this game. Have you seen my countries? I don't think I have done any in-game actions, at all, going on 9 months, maybe longer. Just check my countries and you will see. You don't have time for the game, I don't either. Oh, and these last few months, I have had to do more than usual since a foreclosure complaint was filed on my mortgage. My only move is to get more time for my disability and pray it comes through before..

I certainly won't agree with sim-bully. I have done everything I can think of to elevate the level of competition, short of advocating a policy of simplifying or cheapening the game (like a return to button-mashing for dollars). I share everything I do to generate assets and post my guides right here on the forum. Every suggestion I make is for the benefit of other players. Nothing needs to change to perpetuate the position I now hold.

Aww yes, you tone down. After going up one side of LG and the other. And Sam, and any one else. Don't get me wrong, I've done it myself. But these are guys you'd be better off reasoning with. I don't reason with them, because I've done the very thing you have done. Even a little worse.

Look. You are known to be on for 20 hours straight. You want to play the sympathy game. You win. But no one, healthy, will ever compete with your activity.

Listen, NO ONE HEALTHY will play the game at your level.

Now confused, but I will now nod my head and agree.

OK, earlier in this thread I mentioned my issues with the reactivation limits on transported weapons. Still no progress with that, but I have come across something else that really grinds my gears.

Why in the hell am I buying weapons just to find out they are being delivered deactivated? This rule was supposed to be on transported weapons only. I find it completely unacceptable that you would have to reactivate weapons that you purchase. As Sheepman would say, complete and utter bullshit. Fix this please.

Double post.

+1

Weapons you purchase on the market should not go into the reserves.
I will have it checked tomorrow and fix if it is wrong.

Just purchased 50 nuclear defense batteries and got them immediately.
they are active.

Please let me know what you bought and where so we can look into it.

As I see it now, weapons you purchase on the market are active.

So let me see if I have this right. The only weapons that come in active are ones purchased off the market, but not purchases from a ceo? Same money, same spending space booster, different result. This rule was implemented to cease large stockpiles from being injected into countries by shuttle transfers, not to limit cash transactions that are ALREADY limited by spending spaces.

Nope. Still total BS. Using this logic is why I have to wait ten game months to activate 4 air wings worth of weapons to take a C3 that will take me no more than five minutes to conquer. So a thirty minute max time frame it should have been has turned into a two day reactivation fest FOR ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE REASON WHATSOEVER. Please inject real logic into your rules, it is seriously lacking.

In all cases we have seen, the CEO happens to be owned by the same player.

The whole issue is to reduce the possibility of sudden increase in military power by moving in weapons that were stored in other entities or space stations.

The problem was discussed before and is quite trivial.

There are 12 game months between war declaration and the start of the war and it takes only 10 game months to reactivate everything you have in the reserves and it can be done by a single activation that continues until everything is done.

We will do everything possible to give new players, and players who did not build their armies during several years, a chance to have a more balanced fight.
This will of course include a much larger fighting capacity in such countries.
Such wars used to be trivial and the attacker did not suffer much losses. This will change. Fighting will not be trivial and losses will be large on both sides.

We are building this up, step by step before some limitations on the war game are being lifted.

If and when we achieve a more balanced war game, we might reconsider some of the measures.

Wrong. If you have units drawn up already it can take MUCH longer than ten game months to activate weapons. I just went through this and it took me four days to reactivate everything. Whatever.

Gamemaster shortened the message.
we are not interested in destructive messages that are baseless.

Some players do not like the reduced capability for sudden increase in military power.

we want it.

It will reduce the imbalance between very large war capable players and new layers who, in the current system, have no chance of ever reaching the same capabilities.

As some players said here, they can destroy whatever they like.
This is true, and will not change.
However, the price they will pay for it will increase and their taste for it might change too.

Simcountry clearly cannot keep everyone playing and supporting the game and be happy.
Any single change make people angry beyond any proportion and they threaten all kinds of things. This has always been the case. Welcome to the internet.
People easily type all kinds of things from behind their keyboard and play heroes.

We will change the war game to make it more balanced and some will probably hate these changes.

Until now, a small number of great players with unlimited resources, destroyed many new ones.
from our point of view, this is not a good way to run this game.

We are determined to stop it one way or another.
If the changes we plan now will not be good enough, we will need to find other solutions.

We could divide the war game into two groups. One for those in the very high war levels and very high assets and another, for players in the lower end.
War could be absolutely free within each of these groups with all limitations removed, and no wars possible between these two groups.

How often do "large" players destroy "smaller, new" players? Anyone see this? It's just a question...

The changes also seem to disfavor those who had spent years, real life years, building up what they have. That is dedication to a single game, something that should not be rewarded, yet should not be punished, rather left alone. The long time players earned it all by their own merits and dedication, by adjusting to every single change thrown at them; if anything, this is a testament to resilience and impressive ingenuity of those who have remained dedicated to SC.

Edited my message like an experienced censor. You may want to watch out, your communist is showing. Nothing about that message was destructive, you just didn't like what it said because it was a fact.

What don't you understand by double penalty? It shouldn't matter where you purchase it from, you are still using spending space, which is by your explanation, A LIMIT.

You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't occur with war levels. Maybe you should spend less time censoring your players and more time concentrating on ways to improve the game instead of hinder it.

We have no plans to punish anyone. We are very happy about people who are here for years and we would like to maintain the qualities of the game to attract people for years.

Nothing will be done to destroy any of it.
When we are done with this war update, we would like to move back to the much larger, peaceful part of the game and improve it.

But I do not see how anyone will be in any disadvantage.
If you do, please show me please.

If you have no plans to destroy new players, or ones that stand no chance to survive a war with a large and rich country, than nothing changes at all.

There have been messages right here, very recently about the ability, intention and will to destroy whatever they want if we make changes they do not like.

Also, in the past, and we all know, many new players were destroyed because it could be done.

The answer to your question is "very often".

I didn't speak to my communist for some time.
did you speak to yours?

There are good ways to express your criticism.
This game was frequently formed and developed following criticism from players.

I think we all know what the objective of these changes is.
It was stated repeatedly.

We want just a little more balanced wars and we do not want sudden surges in military power.

If you have better ways to achieve this, please let us know. I would love to do it in a better way.

The focus is on more balanced wars and we will achieve this whatever it takes.

I do not mean that a beginner will be suddenly too powerful and will be able to bring any experienced player into any danger. I am sure they will stay away from deadly risks.
But if attacked, they should be able to draw serious blood.

Wow, how very condescending of you. Censoring people is a communistic act whether you decide to accept that or not. Think before you censor.

1000 bombers and 600 fighters isn't going to defeat anyone. That's what I bought. It seems as though you cannot math very well. Let me know when you find the instance where a player acquires 1000 bombers and 600 fighters and 'totally dominated' another player. Your words sound nice, but they do not ring true. You had the fix to this issue by limiting space transactions. If anything, with these weapons being deactivated, you put a newer player in MORE danger because they aren't even remotely familiar with what is needed for a war. However, you don't think that is good enough, so you limit purchasing as well. You act as if the spending space (even with booster) can buy a vast wasteland of weapons. Simply untrue.

You have no answer for this other than censorship. Very telling.