VOTE: Remove/change the War Level System (Kebir Blue)

How soon before we learn results? I've stopped all donations pending outcome. No point spending money on game if there is pending massacure.

Really doesn't matter about having it as a voting topic. It has already been sated by the GM that it isn't going anywhere and honestly from the numbers on the vote there isn't going to be enough player push to make them reconsider.

You're tilting at the wind mill.

Yes they are. Silly addition, play the game. Stop suggesting radical changes. This is a learning experience for those involved in the conversation leading up to War Levels.

Be careful what we push for. Most things in this game are a double edge sword. Cause and effect. A perfect balance of Karma.

"Maestro2000 has the best idea!
If I knew I had two huge countries in safe mode, I'd be willing to build some military companies and take a 40 Million pop country to war - just for fun. That way I could continue to enjoy climbing the econ ladder and also participate in war games. If I lose 40M population - who cares?" Emily Foncque

War Continent idea. It works well for econ and war players alike.

Wow, maybe I'm just an old-fashion gamer. Just to set in my ways to keep up with you young'uns.

This seems a rather foolish and pointless conversation.

Currently any president who wants to war at level 3 or above can go to FB and play. War is possible at any level above 3 pvp. The absence of a large group of players on FB playing war leads me to believe that not enough players want to play war as opposed to Econ. On FB always the same (few)players maybe once every 6 real months going to war with one another. So why change? Just to raid?

I'll respect the request if there was a bit more honesty. Are you dying of boredom? Or Raiding Withdrawal?

I think the only way is to be able to declare war with another player from war level 1 upwards and have done, no restrictions, as the player should know of the dangers that lurk in this game.

Let me tell you, I knew of the risks and so should the others.

I dont think its a personal thing Wendy for anyone posting here, about boredom or wanting to raid. Its more about trying to get the game community more interactive, through allies or enemies, either is good. Note how most everyone moans about you all the time, but most all are glad to see you back.

Thats all, just trying to get some of the SC spirit going again.

Wendy has good point. Pro War players above are not interested in war. They are too scared to fight on FB. Instead they want to raid the econs with no army - then declare themselves 'war chiefs' with the words 'soldier' in their names.

Agree with Emily also - I would cease focus on space game & send a country onto Meistro's war continent from time to time & fight real soldiers. Just dont want to be raped with no army by some loser who thinks he is White Boy but is just too cheap to donate, and wants to steal.

There is a fundamental dichotomy within this game which polarises players over war and it's centred around the fact that the game takes a long time to learn to play well, a long time to build an empire and a long time to reach higher levels. It's therefore natural that, when some players have spent a long time and a lot of effort growing assets, they don't want to lose them. It's also natural for some players to want to raid others and take those assets, rather than building their own slowly.

In the 'old days' there was no secured mode and few people could afford permanent war protection. Wars arose because of a genuine grudge and were less cavalier because both sides had something to lose. With the advent of secured mode, and the growing ease with which to gain GCs and stay in WP (fuelled by the changes in the game which saw the uses for GCs grow, and therefore the need for the GMs to supply more) we experienced the rise of C3 warfare, where those players who wished to raid would keep their assets in protection and fight with C3s which they were happy to lose. Other players who did not wish to play a purely econ game lost their motivation for putting-in the time because their empires could, and sometimes were, taken down and the choice became: play econ or play war, because if you don't stay in WP you can (and probably will) be raided. The space game enhances that even further because it allows players to keep a protected empire on one planet, and quickly build up a warring set of C3s on another.

War levels are the GMs' attempt to redress the balance, but putting a subroutine in place to counteract the effect of a main routine never works. If the main routine is broken, it needs to be reprogrammed.

IMHO, the 'broken' aspect of the war game is that the game needs to be reconfigured so that, if players go to war, they are both risking their assets. Sure, keep two war levels in place to protect the newbs, - one where you can attack or be attacked and one where you can't - but the game needs an element of risk to be re-associated with war. That means removing the ability to build a country quickly to be sufficiently war-capable: if you want to go to war, it needs to be with a country that has taken a long time to build to that point, and which will make you think twice about losing. That will do more to achieve the GMs' goals than their current WL initiative.

Defence and offence also need to be balanced better - the game has always favoured the aggressor. And if the GMs really want to make the war game fun to play, they will concentrate on building the tactical element - one which offers a range of attack and defence possibilities and requires both sides to really think on their feet and respond to the other's moves. At the moment, there are two or three ways in which to attack and the only variable is really distance. But that is hugely complicated and would take hellish amounts of work, both to change, and to understand.

If the GMs are set on keeping war levels, they would better serve the game, and the players, to judge those war levels on war capability - not purely on the experience a player has, but also on the weapons within their country. And I don't mean a points-based system as we have now, but a system that realistically evaluates their offensive and defensive capacity and the potential effectivity of their weapons-combination. By all means, keep the C3 WLs in place as a teaching aid - I think we can all see the advantage in that - but the PvP war game seriously needs to be re-thought.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Would any veteran player say it's difficult to get to war level 3, or even to war level 7?

Short answer.....No.

It's simple to get to war level 3 if thats what you wish.

"Currently any president who wants to war at level 3 or above can go to FB and play. War is possible at any level above 3 pvp. The absence of a large group of players on FB playing war leads me to believe that not enough players want to play war as opposed to Econ." Wendy

I agree with Wendy and thats why I believe the war continent idea is the best option for the game. War and econ players can dabble in player vs player warfare on the continent. Have big wars/small wars while their super tanker 100 million population countries are safely tucked away off the continent. Players can move any amount of countries to the continent. Only those countries moved to the continent are at risk with other players.


Cheers,

Maestro

For once, i have to agree with maestro. Fearless Blue lacks econ players because it is simply too risky to build there. Asset security is very important to econ players. IMO there needs to be an incentive for econ players to set up enterprises and empires, whether it be higher profits or no corp relocation penalties...
We report- you decide.
T

So basically Maestro, you will consider "letting" us players who do enjoy war, have a small space on your planet to fight amongst ourselves???

Gee, how thoughtful of you.

The war continent idea is not only unrealistic for war strategy, it is unfair. Make that doubly unfair considering the idea is coming from someone WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A WAR IN HIS ENTIRE SIMCOUNTRY CAREER. What makes you think that you....WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A WAR IN HIS ENTIRE SIMCOUNTRY CAREER, knows what is best for war?

Your enthusiasm in this matter is appreciated, but stick to what you know....economics and war protection. I, as a war player, would not recommend that you, as an econ player, be quarantined to a one continent on a planet...even if that would actually make more sense and have less of an impact on you economic style of play. It simply does not make sense.

GM's, seriously, this is the biggest issue to hit your game in a long time. Please respond with something more than the carbon copy response you have been posting. It isn't settling the problem. Something needs to change. You are dropping the ball and leaving your paying players in turmoil. War levels have killed federations, teamwork, interaction and half of the fun in this game. That's how I, EC, feel....not quoting anybody else, or speaking for anyone else.

Currently, I am at war level 3 on White Giant. Not because of my skill level, but because I choose to stay there. So, war levels aren't even a realistic representation of how much experience a player has with war. If I were to declare war on another player on White Giant at war level 3...which there are many...does it make it fair? Hardly. The same goes with other MAJOR war players who have sandbagged and are setting at war level 0!! Once again, a farce.

So, to this point, the changes haven't worked...an econ only player seems to be carrying the flag for how the "future" of SimCountry warfare needs to be carried out....I imagine he is currently running a campaign through in game messages to his econ friends to vote againt war...did I mention that HE HAS NEVER FOUGHT ONE WAR IN HIS SIMCOUNTRY CAREER?????.....and all we are left with is frustration.

Something has to give.

Please consider different ideas, excluding the ludicrous "war continent" joke. SimCountry used to be the best online game out there. Now....it is a shell of it's former self. The intent was good with the introduction of the war level system, but the result has swung the pendulum too far the other direction. There has to be a better balance. I hope you, the GM's, help us find that balance.

Thanks, EC

EC...i totally agree with you. If anything, there should be an econ continent as it doesnt matter to econ players if they are next door or on the other side of the map from their customer.

Meanwhile, creating a war continent would take away all strategy and planning and simply become a load of LRDs smacking into each other.....

I don't agree with any of this silly econ or war continents idea, only a extreme capitalist like Maesto would think of such an ridicoulous idea, probularly thinking they're could be money to be made from this for him, its unrealistic.

This game definitely needs to ease its war level restrictions down from war level 3 to at least war level 2 and we'll see what happens from there. Meaning for instance if you're at war level 3 you'll be able to declare war on a war level 2 player.

Quote
"For once, i have to agree with maestro. Fearless Blue lacks econ players because it is simply too risky to build there."

What are out talking about even on FB you cant war till level 3. You can go there now and never be attacked.

Thats what people are saying. Players go to FB to war not to have a million econ players crowding it when there's 4 other worlds. Even with the 30day protection back then i never saw some random new get killed off unless they did something to someone.
I personally played econ for 2years i understand where econ players are coming from. I agree they have there own sets of issues. The reason people dont move up in war levels are reason that arent even real there "ASSUMED" fears.

News assume
-Nuclear weapons will help win a war. You can win without them. In infact they provide NO help. I was non stop nuked from 13M to 5M and i never went below a 90War index. even though i lost 8M people over half my population. My military was still working and me people continued like it never happened
-People think a fed will protect you when they cant. War Levels apply to feds. If a war level 3 is attacked by lets say 3 other war levels 3 the level 7 in the fed cannot assist because they are to high up even though there fed mate is facing several players. In order for a fed to be helpful you all have to be the same war levels.
-Players assume CM help them when they dont. The only difference between selling to a non-common market player and a common market player is a small score boost. There is no other incentives. Players think they can sell for cheaper prices(ect) but when they cant.
-Players think contracting food @ 333Q or high Q helps when in fact it makes no difference until the GM update(god knows how long it will be) 370Q bread and 100Q bread makes no difference other then a bigger check to buy it.
-The fear that level 7 will gang up on news is completely untrue. You cant sell or move population unless its 30M or more. A cost of blowing up 140targets(forts, cities, ect)costs 2T. So even attacking a new player without a single weapon would still cost *Trillions*, with even the default defence your still talking 5+ trillion. Why would i attack a new player with less then 10T in cash and under 30M population when i can war a level 7 C3 and make 25T if i strip it for everything?

The list goes on and on. The reason nothing changes is because of players like Meastro. Who brings up these things to protect his own greedy ass(why should he pay for WP when he gets it for free now?) In fact why is a Never warred econ bean counter allowed to make comments like he knows shit about war? Most news agree with comments like that or agree to sec con war treatys/nuke bans because they don't know better(they think of it real world. If the GM wants warring to happen and wants everyone to be happy let players war the way it used to but add something for the new players. The hole big players gang on on the little guy is unture. I've been here 2 years and never seen a "big" guy bully a little guy(unless they earned it by making a threat or something). In fact in the old days most players would rally to stop players like that and among the community it remains that way. If a player wants to be econ only then give them an option to where after game level 3. They can choose go econ only(no warring C3/PvP) or war game. That why if a player wants to be econ only they can on that world but each new world is a new choice.
5worlds you could have 4war 1 econ/ 5wars 0 econ/ 5econ no war.

EC,

Again select memory on your part. You used to know that I did in fact conquer a few c3 early in my career. Other than the first which I aborted, all were simple boring victories. Used the Tattoo Priest guide and it worked every time.

For me war in this game doesn't hold a candle to the warfare I enjoyed in other games. Used to play various Paradox games. (Hearts of Iron, Rome, Victory and even Europa Universalis) Also the Total war series.

So I play the Econ game here and enjoy it.

Instead of bashing me, try to put a reasonable proposal here.

Cheers,

Maestro

PS: Thanks for the War Level addition to the game.

Number one on my list to destroy should i ever get the chance.....Maestro.

Which is why War Levels will never go away.

I do hope the GM reads this posting and considers some of the good options pointed out and also considers the points made about feds and gameplay.

What EC is trying to say is u never fought a player. C3's don't count. It takes no skills to fight a country that doesn't fight back. Maybe if u fought a player vs. player war you would get some sort of respect from these players. Instead u suggest things for war when you admit you will never go above your free war protection (wl 0). You risk nothing yet you wanna have a say in what you will never take part in. To all you econ players put up or shut up. Stick to econ leave the war side and discussions to the players who do the fighting. I'm sick of all your crying about wars. If u don't wanna take part in it stay @ your current wl. Keep your comments to your self and let us enjoy what little fun we have with the war side of the game before u econ players try to take that away from us too.

Calm down EC. I was simply agreeing with Maestro on ASSET security.
I find war fun (even though I only raid c3s), and agree with you on most major points in the argument. Bashing me because I decided to post my view isn't going to solve anything- it will ridicule your side of the argument and give Maestro more oil to pour on his *mostly terrible* argument.
I agree that WLs need to be relaxed and that Federations should be more connected in the war game.
A proposal- For players to reach WL3, they must be part of a Federation.
Also, some econ players (I consider myself both econ and war) won't build on FB simply because they associate it with war- they won't create an enterprise and build 300 corps only to wake up and have half of them destroyed in a nuclear blast. Maestro has demonstrated that he isn't confident in a 'war' environment, yet still wants to survive in a world where there will be some PvP action, probably because it would beef up ammo demand.
Of course, I could be wrong, but there needs to be an incentive to build in FB.
T

"Those who do not want to fight, should not get to war level 3. They can play a peaceful game." Andy (Gamemaster)

Thats group includes me.

You should have to pay for WP...

Why cant we all just agree to four levels...

0 newbie and econ mode ... you cant be attacked, period (you can attack C3s)
1 to 2 are learning levels (fighting between 1s and 2s and C3s only)
3 war mode ... you're part of the warring class and can attack or be attacked by anyone else in this group so you better be in a fed before graduating from 2.

WP should only be required above 0.

Econ players are econ players and shouldnt be forced to pay even more than they already do. We buy our countries outright, which costs a hell of a lot more than taking them by force. I'm assuming even an idiot such as myself can take a C3 for 10T in war expenditures. I'll give myself a 100% cushion and say I'd need 20T. That's still 240 GC cheaper than buying it. So I can use all that extra coin to what? Pay for WP for more months than my membership? What's the difference? Except that W3C would make less money from me that way. Econ players already pay more...

GMs should also break up the War Level into its component parts:

War Experience Index - measures your C3 wars for bonus purposes, and when you graduate to new War Level.
War Level - indicates who can attack the country. (See post above.)

This would solve most problems while allowing econ players to play and the GMs can continue adding C3 levels.