FORTS

Hi GM's
I need clarification GM on what is going to happen with the Forts.
I have countries with 1000 forts which cost me a pretty penny each month to maintain.
I see players not being happy with this situation. I also saw a comment you made saying something about if changes are made they will be made without much affect to anyone.
How can this be possible?
I can't, see if a change is made, how I and my investment is not going to be massively compromised?

Peace&Hardcore.......Nix001.......MNA

I estimate 1000 forts would cost about $12B/month to maintain. Deploying garrisons can easily be more expensive than this cost. I say players simply be refunded for their forts, in your case about $1.4 trillion each for those countries with 850 extra forts, and a mechanism that caps forts at 150 in countries, regardless of purchases or contracts.

Some exploits should NOT be abused!

I avoided this one, once they "change" it hahaha i will stop here.

A 1000 forts seems to be costing me around $30B a month. But the costs are still rising by $750M a month with no let up......

I don't get these figures though....

ON LU:
Fortification 732
Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries 9,944 + 726 (same for other weapons)
Number of Soldiers 1,101,348
Monthly Running Cost 38,132.81M SC$ (was $34B before it rose $4B when I dismantled units and garrisons)

ON FB
Fortification 874
Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries 454 + 450
Number of Soldiers 879,754
Monthly Running Cost 33,181.67M SC And rising

Fortification 1,000
Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries 440 + 440 (same as other weapons)
Number of Soldiers 954,585
Monthly Running Cost 34,372.25M SC$ And rising

EDIT...I'm also not sure why when I dismantled units and garrisons I used another extra 200,000 soldiers and 100,000 officers? just for the weapons to go into storage? And my defence costs increased over $4B last month?

Fluctuating costs are generally caused by market price variations in maintenance products. Checking different countries of mine, it appears I can verify that defense forts use military base maintenance. Check the market price of that product on FB. It is going up...

Good thinking Bro This bright idea about forts, that was brought to my attention, is starting to get some cloud cover LOL

EDIT./....WOW the price has gone from 446,000 to 759,000 in a year.....If thats all that is influencing the cost rise....with 1000 forts that seems to equate to 10B a month in extra Military Bases Maintenance costs? Where's my calculator

What is planned for the forts?

Instead of eliminating forts from your country and limiting them to 100(where it should be) and further compensating for the loss of the forts you paid for, the GM is going make it extremely expensive to maintain them and force you to to get rid of them yourself due to cost, thus screwing you both ways. Of course, I could be wrong....

I would agree that 100 forts should be the cap. Anyone who invested in additional forts should be reimbursed. Changing the costs to run forts further complicate economies and budgets. Those who like the security of additional forts should consider garrisons in cities, town, counties, and corporations. Protecting population areas might want to be considered an economic stimulus by the game masters for those areas.

Game News 219. July 2 2013

- The maximal number of fortifications in a country is increased to 150. During war and in peace time, each fortification represents 0.33 points in the war index. In the near future, military bases will also count as part of the war index, reducing the war index weight of fortifications and replacing part of the war index by the number of military bases in the country.


150 is the limit.

I have over 300. Only because I forgot to cancel my contracts to myself (duh). You can't sell them, maybe you can destroy them. I have no idea of the upkeep costs. I do feel if the game is capped at 150 this issue should be resolved somehow. It seems like a "cheat"; if you build a corp. (or two) for Forts you could go off the scale and become untouchable. I may be missing something but this has gone on and on.

New players coming into the game have no idea that the GM "updates" game rules and functions in an obscure manner by posting on the Forum, but does not update the game documentation which also serves as a game manual. This lack of updating, one could argue, is false advertising.

Since newer players obviously rely on game "documentation", their initial understanding of fort limits is based on the following, taken from the current game documentation regarding forts:

"Deployment of garrisons to defend fortifications is effective as these units, when stationed in the fortification are more effective than near cities and factories. If the defensive army is large enough, 100 well-protected fortifications form a major obstacle. The maximum number of fortifications a country can have is 100."

When a new player enters the game, that is what they read.
100 forts is, in fact,the limit we played under for 6 of the 8 years I have participated in this game.

100 is the limit.

Game updates currently take precedence regardless of what one chooses to read. Updating game docs is worthy of its own thread and is not an issue limited to forts.

I honestly don't understand what you just wrote or what your point is.
"Game updates currently take precedence regardless of what one chooses to read."

How does a new or even current player know where to get the latest game information? He or she presumably will seek it in game documentation. Is that not true?

"Updating game docs is worthy of its own thread and is not an issue limited to forts."

I have no clue what you mean by that.

In the the tab located in your country home page labelled "Beginners Support" , where a new player would seek "support", item #23 reads as follows:

-23. Game Documentation [ top ]
"Everything you need to know about Simcountry should be covered by the documentation set, available from the menu at the top of each page. More documents are being added from time to time."

Any new player is going to assume that Game Documentation is current and any current player is going to reasonably assume that updates posted on forum that they may have missed will be found in game documentation.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case with forts and other issues.

Your beef with the game docs is all very interesting. You should take it to its own thread. In clearer terms, the information currently included in the game news is the most recent additions to the game. If its info differs from game docs, the game news information is correct.

In terms of forts, 150 is the number you have to have to max your war index. If you click on "my war index" from the "war" drop-down on your country page, you will see it say "Maximum number of fortifications: 150 ".

Aires, you don't own the Forum. I'll post whatever I want, whenever I want and where ever I want.

That aside, because of old game documentation and hundreds of game up
dates that overlap each other and cancel out each other, we have nothing but confusion. For some strange reason, the GM reports updates in game news, but never updates the documentation which is at least categorized and easier to use. Instead, we have to sift through hundreds of game news updates and hope the update hasn't been undone by yet another update. Players, especially new ones, don't have time for that kind of crap. Under the beginners support tab it clearly informs new players (and we all were once new players):

"EVERYTHING you need to know about Simcountry should be covered by the documentation set, available from the menu at the top of each page. More documents are being added from time to time."

Regarding the forts, we now have the following scenarios depending on whether you are a new player, moderately new or a vet.

1. New players are told, per the game documentation they are directed to review, that the max number of forts is 100. Which in fact was the max number up until 2 years ago.

2.Some players still think that 150 forts is the limit because that is what the country home page misleadingly indicates. This has led one player to post within the last few days that he thought he might be banned because his country exceeded 150 forts and he didn't know why.Another player complained that she had double the forts she wanted because she forgot to get rid of her fort producing corp.


3. Most if not all vets know that there is an unlimited number of forts a country can have.

Here is the stupid idea the GM came up with an October 2014 game update, which cancelled out the other July 2013 "150 fort per country max limit":

"The number of military bases in a country used to depend on the numbers of weapons and military units.
The rules became confusing when players started trading in military bases and were limited in their trading policies by the size of their own army.
We have now simplified the system and removed the dependency on the size of the army.
A country can order a max number of 100 military bases or military airports of each type. When the number is reached, manual orders for military bases and airports will be prohibited.
However, corporations that contract such bases and military airports or fortifications to the country will be able to do so without any limitations."

I never recall anyone clamoring for forts to go up from 100 to 150. I never recall anyone complaining about "trading issues" with forts and asking for unlimited amounts of forts. This was a contrivance by the GM. There never was a fort issue until the GM created it and completely screwed up the war game.

100 forts use to be the max and it should be returned to 100, because that is what new players are told and because it is less expensive to maintain. The GM claims they are making war less expensive when in fact the opposite is true.

.

The goal of making war less expensive is a whole different topic and was a dubious goal. When you are talking an item like forts, you can only be referring to wars against players. Sure, a few less forts are a bit less expensive to maintain but additional arms will be required to compete with the arms race among players. The money saved on forts will simply be needed on equipping garrisons or deploying map blockers, who effectively add targets similar to forts.

A game update can make weapons and ammo less expensive but it makes wars no less expensive as players simply stock these items in greater numbers. This has led to war players requiring more unwieldy numbers of weapons and units to effectively defend empire assets that dare leave some type of war protection. This has led to a need to simplify the management of war and to my war simplicity suggestion.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24775.html?1427724961

Perhaps if FB cost for war was 10% of Regular cost, more people would flock to FB and just pound each other until they learned the war game. I've played war games with two servers, a war server, and a mega war server (planet).

Are you talking weapon/ammo cost or upkeep costs? If you lower the costs of equipment you would have to overcome the fact these arms could simply be shuttled to other worlds.

Upkeep costs consists of maintenance products, salaries, and ammo usage. Some FB subsidy paid to the countries for maintenance cost, so product cost stays the same, or lower/eliminated ammo use could accomplish this.

However, I still don't think cost is the primary deterrent to war activity. I think the first hindrance is the lack of rewards for victories in player wars. You can earn coins fighting the computer, for meeting index thresholds in your country, and don't get me started about player rankings but not for victory in a player war. Players who can afford the expense still rarely see player wars.

- #2 is the abundant options available to simply abstain your countries from the war game. Even on FB.

I thought this was about forts. Take this to another thread...

Mi'lords Aries and Emperor Vespasian both make valid points.

My pardon for chiming in, but as the poster who was afraid of being banned, I feel comfortable doing so.

On the documentation being updated, I have made that suggestion in the past. As a new player that is really the only source of information available, as you cannot even access the forum for the first 48 hours or so. Once you start hitting wrong information, any reasons for consulting it lose precedence. I am loathe to start any more threads dealing directly with the administration.

"The number of military bases in a country used to depend on the numbers of weapons and military units.
The rules became confusing when players started trading in military bases and were limited in their trading policies by the size of their own army.
We have now simplified the system and removed the dependency on the size of the army.
A country can order a max number of 100 military bases or military airports of each type. When the number is reached, manual orders for military bases and airports will be prohibited.
However, corporations that contract such bases and military airports or fortifications to the country will be able to do so without any limitations."

No reason given at all concerning the number of fortifications.

Fortifications were not dependent on the number of weapon systems at any time I've played the game (to the best of my knowledge.)So I'm unsure why they were included at all in the same update notice.

Further, I've experienced problems with contracting fortifications to a country with a corporation outside of the country to receive the fortification. I'm not sure if this is part of the problem, or a completely separate one.

Marshal, you are absolutely correct. The building of forts was never dependent on weapons systems. That is what I meant when I stated no one ever complained about issues acquiring forts up to the then max allowed or asking for the max number of forts to go up from 100 to 150.