Game News

War booster - Giving 20gcs to the attacker may encourage players to attack weaker players for a quick 20gcs. Attack a few visa noobs a month and its easy money.
Transfer of pop once a war starts- Maybe this should apply to the aggressor only... Its they who choose to take the risk of war.

I personally have had pop removed as I was taking a War Index to zero. To attack a 60 mil pop country and end up with only thirty after winning is well . . .devastating and BS. And no I didn't nuke the country in question.

Highly populated countries should not be undefended .

I agree with Vali. What's to keep them from declaring 6 months later? All this does is milk GC from a player so they have to buy more from W3C. I don't see how this wouldn't be abused.

You could just choose to put up a defense and fight. Killing pop goes both ways. You kill mine, obviously I should come back and kill yours. Its like cause and effect. Anyone killing my pop or "attempting" to milk my GC, should have an effect on me.

1. Build a defense in highly populated countries I own
2. Learn how to fight and get some revenge.


It adds realism and gives some "thing" to do other than play endless eco game.

Blackout Times were abused AND useless from the outset. One sets times for a blackout, then declares, comon gimme a break.

Players all to often get caught up focusing entirely on ECO game only to build a decent country and get caught with no defense. Most Vets will answer this comon question: Newb1 "So how Do I learn how to fight?

Vet1 "Build your economy first LoL, until you do that you shouldn't even think about an army."


any questions

I have to agree that this (war stop booster) would just turn into one country demanding tribute from another. it actually incourages behaviors i thought the gm discouraged. it would have to be cheaper though to just buy WP.

Also is this just going to stop one war dec?
What if there are multiple countries declared on the weaker one?
Say i have four slave all dec'ed on, do i have to pay 30GC each?

I just think the means to avoid war are already in place.

I question how else to answer that question, in my experience many people get frustrated after getting in debt from failed attempts to figure out how to win a war, only then will they ask about warring. So then all i can really say is well you're in alot of debt why not work on that first.

and yeah the stop war booster is a bad idea

I agree that it WOULD add a degree of realism to the game.

But, like others are saying, wouldn't this be counter to what the GMs are trying to do on LU? Or are they just trying to find a way to get their cut?

I completely agree that players need to have defenses. And I'm already on the record for agreeing with raiding/wars.

And the advice is to build an economy to support the defense, not to ignore it.

"And the advice is to build an economy to support the defense, not to ignore it."

exactly. build up a strong eco in your untouchable main then worry about armies. nobody is forced to obtain slave countries

This is my email to W3C about this idea

Hello,

This is a horrible idea, there are already players out there that do not care one way or another how much damage they do to themselves as long as they can trash someone else.

There would be nothing stopping them from declaring war, fighting to the point they where going to lose and then using this booster. Not only is it possible they have done major damage to whoever they are fighting but 20 gc's is not going to replace assets most probably lost.

Additionally this would leave them with thier country still in place ready to build up and continue again.

I'm sorry but most of those people complaining about losing countries in war where the one's that provoked the war in the first place.

On the one hand you keep installing minimums for defense which indicate you want people to protect thier countries and on the otherhand you want to give people a way out when they don't?

I have either lost or given away as many highly developed empires as anyone else in this game. The only time I "bitched" was over someone being able to fling a military into a 6M pop country larger than my entire empire. You supposedly made changes to prevent that.

People want to war but they don't want to lose .. that is a fact of life, either it ends in a draw or someone loses the game.

All you encourage with these types of things are the abusive players who know no matter what they do or say know they cannot be touched. This game was alot simplier when people kept thier mouth shut or where at least "respectful" to other players.

No matter what you do there will always be a group that targets new or inexperienced players, those new players need to learn how to interact with others and form alliances with people that will keep the wolves off thier backs until they have a decent chance themselves.

I use to interact with a lot of players in this game, I now avoid the simcountry "flash chat" like a plague and rarely help or relate anything I've found to other players (unless specifically contacted and asked "nicely") simply because most of the people now in this game are not anyone I care to associate with even in a chat room. Game changes such as this have gone along way toward making the demographic in Simcountry what it is today.

A pure and simple fact about multiplayer games that involve a "war feature" is you cannot tell what is needed or how to be successful against another player until you have experience fighting another player.

I've played multiplayer:

Submarine simulations
Naval Simulations
Aerial Combat simulations

Players simply do not fight in either strategic or tactical sense that would be successful, or standard policy in real life simply, because there are no conseqences. There is no fear of anything, at least if you have a country you've worked hard on to lose it might cause to find a more diplomatic approach, at least when diplomacy has a chance of working.

Anyway that is my "two cents" worth on this idea,

Yankee

I was starting to wonder how the Gamemaster inferred this from what I said, specially when I ended with two possible broad solutions. This is far simpler than one of them and more traditional than the other. Nothing similar to what I had in mind, though.

In essence, this is quite good. Doesn't make war inevitable and it makes a more-than-anything symbolical cost to avoid it aware. Two things I was aiming for.

However, the cost to avoid it is in-game, it is technical, not social. Even so, it buys time for the player to get ready for war and/or gather support - social activity. I can see this becoming a vehicle for extortion too, but extortion is a matter of the administrative forum and in a game such as this, when it grows enough and well, I expect it to be somewhat self-cleaned.

I don't have much against it. I see it has being rather amusing actually. Still not opening hand from Imperialism though.

Yah well I'm going to start calling you "zoltar".

Wait until someone comes around and involves you in a war costing you millions in pop, trillions in hardware and opts to end it right before you punch the WI to zero.

I think the idea sucks both in theroy and practice.

And yes once war is declared I don't think either side should be able to move population in, out or place offers for sale.

Even though I'm more likely to move pop IN to keep the WI up some.

For somepeople it may be worth the GC's just to mess with them. You attack a country/fed you know you have no chance against, do some damage then buy out and go back into WP. Not smart but its there and 20GC can repair a lot sure but you don't get your time back and you don't get the satisfaction of the fight to the finish. You don't want to war then only have yopur main on anyworld other than FB. problem solved. no need for this at all.

Ah, I thought about that when I saw it this morning, but I forgot it in the meantime. This "booster" shouldn't be applicable when the WI is lower than 30. 30 because... Something about civil targets.

Don't mind being called "Zoltar". To kill then revive is currently on my book. And anything that is added can be removed. It's all a matter of time and circumstances. When this becomes unnecessary or something better shows up, I expect this to be gone.

From what I'm reading, players are posting from the perspective they already know the game. This booster is not aimed at those player. It's for new ones. They have the GCs because of the Game Levels.

If anything I'd say this "booster" shouldn't be available when the WI is lower than 80.

If you are really that timid you want to pay someone to leave you alone fine, do it before the war starts.

As for me I'll make any payments I have toward the prevention of war through the purchase of weapons and ammo.

War comes along fight, if you did it right you can come out on top and if you don't want to fight boost your WP.

All the tools are already there, and if you are boosting WP at least you get value for the full 30 gc's.

A country without forts, has less than 80 WI.
WI counting solely on civil targets is 45.
30 for the new player to realize he's going to lose.

From a gain and loss view, to the attacker, this booster can be quite ridiculous, hence I find it amusing.

Between limiting to new players (conditions to be defined) and not being implementing at all... I'll just go with the first for now. The difficulty comes in limiting it to the appropriate people, and that's why it is presented as a booster usable for all.


In the possibility this is introduced, it would be best for the thread to define as to who gets to use it, instead of being applicable to all. I largely prefer Imperialism, so... I'm not going to wonder much about the criteria.

"30 for the new player to realize he's going to lose"

THAT is exactly my point, if they didn't want to fight they should make those arrangements BEFORE the tide goes against them.

And if they are out of WP they should realize they are at risk of a fight.

I can just see this turning into both an extortion ring and a case where every player that comes down the pike tries to hump your leg until they get a few kicks in the crotch.

Then of course they'll all want to quit. Don't force ME to live next to someone with aggressive tendencies, I have every right to be able to take thier country and throw them out of my area.

Letting them fight until they see they are losing and letting them go is simply NOT anything I would like to see introduced into this game.

If you don't want to fight either go to the shallow end of the pool such as LU, WG or GR and sit there in a secured mode country.

If you are in FB and you don't wish to fight stay in WP.

Currently I am in FB and not in WP, no I do not "want" to fight, but yes I will fight should someone come after me.

I know my countries are at risk but MY trade off is rather than spend GC's for war protection I slam all the weapons and ammo in my countries I can afford per game month.

All anyone has to do is look around their area once and awhile to notice a fight coming.

You CAN develop both an economy and a military at the same time and make money doing it. Where people get into trouble is building an economy and forgoing the military.

Then they keep pushing that military back because they love the game cash they are making.

Good lord, even a moron knows not to pull out a wad of cash big enough to choke a mule at some convience store a neighborhood like this.

And there is a flip side to the coin why should someone that has spent the time and effort to build to the point they are able to take me down have that effort thwarted simply because I "thought" I could kick thier ass until the tanks started rolling?

I think this stop war booster is a horrible idea, but if WC3 is determined to intall it, I believe the stop war option should only be available before war actually starts.

And it should involve every country in the empire of the person that chooses to use it. All of them otherwise people will simply take out those they are losing with, or know they can't win and use them for fed defense.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Good lord, even a moron knows not to pull out a wad of cash big enough to choke a mule at some convience store a neighborhood like this.<!-/Quote-!>

Good point.

The proposed booster.


Horrible idea.

Simple answer...

Bring back peaceful mode.

Player who wish to play a sandbox version are able to do so with ease. Everyone else is subject to the laws of the neighborhood.

[IMAGE] You have 1535 new messages.

Yah right, like I would actually read them

It's bad enough waiting for the page to load so I can delete .... hope nobody wanted anything important.

I have to agree with the majority of posts here. I don't like the idea of the booster.

We already have WP and Secured mode, which I believe is more than enough already.

Simcountry is a game that lets players participate in both war and/or econ,it becomes flawed when you take away the war aspect.
It is then just an econ game.

If you do not wish to war, put up wp or build a defence to hopefully deter.

The majority of new players that start and then leave, is imo down to them not wishing to pay gc's each mth for their empires.Very rarely to do with war.

Usually them that leave through war didnt know when to keep their mouths shut.

Horrible idea is my vote.

"The majority of new players that start and then leave, is imo down to them not wishing to pay gc's each mth for their empires.Very rarely to do with war"

BS, you are alright, on the other hand this feature will make the game unrealistic.