CC: Added Game Vote: rough idea on war simulation battles

This is a proposal for the GM to add an option even if it cost us a gold coin, to allow a simulated PvP battle vs a player. A wager by the countries./empires involved is the prize, but the game allow this to be a simulated battle. Here's what the game does: It copies the selected country and allows the 2 players to fight without loss. The whole battle is simulated and the countries act like its a new country, no one take control at the end of war and only the wager is consumed. The country has no wait time in war and it does not matter about secured mode or war levels in this simulated battle. even at 1-5 gold coins (i'd hope for 1 g/c) i'd and other players would love to test their skills against another player. Here is the catch, the limit the new state is created as simulated (uses no goods/services ect) is limited to 6 game months or what the GM would find acceptable. SO: simulated battles w/ no losses or war level/protection used. it copies the country as is and freezes it. you cannot transfer in or buy more goods. It allows us to contest without losses, which many would like to do. It would liven up the war game for us type of players and would be a realistic war game function to the real world. like using blanks and lasers to simulate a naval battle. W3C: you benefit from having us pay for this simulation and its limits. It may make the game a better conceptualization and allow more income to flow. It may help us gain more players as well. Most don't want the real loses and allies should be able to contest without loss in a simulated fake war battle that will also appease us high war level players that want to teach new players how to play the game. Its an all around plus for the game, its future, and the players. Please vote YES, if you'd like to see a new function even at a small cost to the war game, or NO to leave as is. Please take this as a rough idea with room to grow into a real concept. Thank you for your considerations!


Please send ideas to this game vote via this forum post. Criticizm, additions, ideas, or comments would be nice as this seems like a cool concept that I have talked with many of you about using different means. Really would you pay 1-5g/c to have war games like the US and other countries do. fake, no losses, may cost a bit of your coins, but it would allow us to practice and teach each other many aspects of war to allies and even blow out so steam with a friendly wager of who can do what better. lol Please respond to this vote whether its favorable or not and thanks for your help to make simcountry a game that can draw more players.
Best wishes all.

I am against this idea. Fake wars already exist against against the computer. I don't think additional features that further the idea that real wars against players are so terrible are needed.

If you want to spar with a player, use existing game features. Each take a C3. Send in your weapons and go at it. The idea that I am going to continually stock weapons, that I never will use, so that I can simulate them for a fake war with another player seems too far fetched to me.

aries, I agree with part of what you say. Yep we can take slave and do it ourselves or have the game allow us to do it. In c3 wars, you can't use some weapon types and it has limits. Of course reason why i semi-agree with you is that it has the potential to be abused and leave wars to becoming fake all the time using such feature. Maybe a limit on how often you could use such a feature or you must be in same federation to use this feature would make the idea more sound.
The intent of the idea was a practice mode for some of our new players, so they can build and learn at same time. It was never meant as you speak of it, maybe i should call it a temporary training mode, i just expanded the idea past the original intent.. It wasn't about sparing as much as about teaching and getting practice with weapons you don't usually use in c3 battles. Of course with more than just counter strikes as a defense. I see your point nonetheless. you are prob right about the abuse of it. Both would have to agree to it, so it may or may not eliminate the existing real war features, 2 players who don't agree would never enter a simulated battle.
Thanks for the opinion and response. i think its very valid.

War games do exist in the real world. They are definitely a valid training method. However there should be some cost like maintenance and supplies for example.

I like rage styles comments about war games being in real world.

Perhaps a feature could be added to allow fed member to participate in war game with each other? It would add some more interaction in that department and more cohesion when defending and attacking in PvP wars.