War Level significance in Federations

So, one issue that many of us in federations have is that we are torn between two desires. The one, is to be able to progress up through the war levels, and the other is to be able to still protect our allies.

I would like to get feedback from everyone before putting this up for a vote. So, give me your thoughts on how we could do this.

I was thinking perhaps allow auto counter-attacks regardless of war level as well as for defense helicopters and interceptors to work. Perhaps even making all defensive weapons and counter attacks free of war level restrictions.

Clearly, the war levels are here to stay, and I support that decision, but that is to prevent veterans from taking out new players and preventing them from growing their empires. Many of us though, are not interested in attacking new players, we just want to rise in war level while still being able to defend our federations.

What do you all think?

why would you want to raise your war level?

The GREAT GREAT majority of vets were not and never were interested in taking out new players. War levels are just another attempt to, for lack of a better phrase 'dumb down' SC.

It is soooooo easy to properly defend a country. With just a little effort, the defender can make it extremely costly and difficult to have their country conquered. This is the purpose of federations. If at times you get lazy (which I have done) then you are vulnerable. Thats the way it should be. But of course there are those that dont want to learn the military aspect of SC, so they have changed the game to fit that style of play.

Because before a new player would build his country, BOTH economically and militarily. If he focused to much on military his economics would suffer. If he focused only on eco then he was vulnerable to attack. The balance and the struggle to maintain that balance was much of the allure of SC.

However now with this 'dumbed down' style of play you can play only the eco aspect without regard to a real simulation where you must have a balance between eco and mili. It also largely defeats the purpose of having federations. Previously, federations provided protection for their new members and taught them the game, thereby improving the learning curve and fostering a type of community and belonging, now thats gone!

So as long as war levels are in place it will be difficult to make federations relevant.

when I'm a millionaire ill buy out SC and put serpent in charge

you hit that right on the head serp

Well, the reason to increase war levels is clear... game rewards. Game level 11 is much easier with war level 7 than 6. That's not to mention the score bonus, and the bonus for actually reaching those war levels. But, as we know that totally precludes us from most military action afterwards.

Now, Serpent. I think we know that war levels are here to stay. But, I wonder if some sort of compromise is possible.

I agree with serpent.

I've been here 5years, and i know of only 3-4players that would attack new players. Heck in most cases myself or others stepped in to stop them either would talks or force.

The war levels are hurting SC, in my opinion the war level shouldnt matter in feds. for example

Player 1 - war level 4
Player 2 - war level 3
Player 3 - war level 10
Player 4 - war level 11

If all 4 players sign the war dec if ANY of them are attacked they SHOULD be allowed to dec back, this should be the ONLY time someone of a higher or lower level attacks. The ability for someone to attack a lower level but know the highers can support them is huge. It would "protect the noobs" but still allow feds to play a active roll in defence.

How is game level 11 easier with a higher war level?

as serp says, but with a few things. in the past, fed "protection," was more commonly an establish social pattern, that would ostracize, and vilify, any would be aggressor. their where aggressive groups, but they were usually small, with their strength based more on organization, and skill, than size. with large federations recruiting players, to beef up their numbers, and be difficult to defeat based on sheer numbers.

the second type of fed, was the most common. recuiting players, en mass, became more and more relucant to actually fight, as the skill to player ratio continuosly declined, these feds created a social system that would value war players, but vilify any one that would choose to fight. creating allot of players that where just waiting for some one else to start something, while the most influenctial players did everything they could to prevent any damage to their power base, even to the point that their own soldier/members would quit from boredom.

eventually, a group formed that despised the social pecking order, while being highly skilled, they began fighting to recreate the game. my self, i originally fought against them, and eventually with them. how ever, the GM, remembering the pre-secured mode days, and valuing the players-that-be, actively tried to prevent an aggressive power shift. one thing led to another, and we got war levels.

war levels provide protection for newbs, and a safe means for federations to grow their power base. but it also largely removes the need for federations, allies, and even friendships.

although, i'm not entirely convinced that it so much is the war levels, as the extreme levels of defense, and the over all cost of an aggressive war, compared to the gains. if their was more value to winning, their'd be more war. as it is, when it comes to fighting, it costs more to win, than the value of the conquest. if their was more to gain, things would be different.

well said orb

Super soldier, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for your eloquence.

Squanto, if you are ranked as a war player, the requirements are either a defence index of 1170 so some ridiculous number, or war level 7.

me and super have been talking about this problem for a couple of years now, we have tried to explain it on the forums in the past due to certain situation in wars with other fed members but again another major faux paux in the game.

thanks jack, you rock, you are a sim-superstar, out of your time, i hope you stick around, i hope sim-country comes back, to the AF/UC days, i still see that war as the high point of simcountry, ironically, a war i wasn't in, and never really on that planet! but wow, that one was fun to watch! with shock waves that only recently stopped!

we need a middle ground, dayly blood shed only cost players, but the endless grey void we are in, does the same. true power struggles, between the likes of ameche, and diz, between Sam and Dirt, LDI and VS, WGC and Manny, even Stewie and Wendy, these things are what build drama, and make the game fun.

but when the GM change the rules every time a player quits, you can guess their is 3 more players that will quit, and 4 more that just wont stick around.

myself, i've just moved across the country, 2300 miles, with my family, to make our life better, people grow, change, and move on. with out the game drama, to draw in new players, the game will become stagnant, the GM have to loosen the noose, or they will loose their own game.

Huh

I am just a observer on this topic, but i really enjoy hearing about the good ole days of simcountry..
and i love to hear the stories about the past players & the awesome war scene this game once enjoyed, i have even read old wiki's for
information about this games amazing history, whats even more amazing is how damn long this game has existed that's one heck of a
accomplishment not many games have acheived such success, even with all the problems.

I saw this game several years ago while searching for related topics on the net, i took a look but never joined at that time....
which is something i deeply regret, because i clearly missed out on some great years.

Hope in time the few like me whom never had the chance to experience those days, can at least try to reignite that spark and carry this game
into the future & i hope the remaining vets keep pressing the GM/owners of SC and make them fix what they broke.

We think that the was level limitations, in fed wars but also in one to one wars, should be relaxed.

we will look into it in the coming days.

which meanz squat, until you do something, and you've hinted at such before!!

considering this is a suggestion forum, and every thing else, what are your thoughts? to "relax" this?

-------------Playing both sides-----------

Andy has made much more of a resent effort in the forums compared to a year ago. When he made non, The GM is listening to us just not as much as we would like, i really think having a Jozi chat or something to that extent would help the play base MASSIVELY.

On the same token, i think the GM wants to see quality ideas from the players. I think the GM wants to keep the war levels to help foster new players and non paying in the chance of making them paying members. The problem as pointed before is the MASSIVE amount of cost to take a nation. Maybe we should as players identify the issues to better help the GM

For example...
-Why don't nukes effect the war index?(dead should lower the war index)

-Why does GROUND warfare cost MORE then air-based warfare in some cases?

-How come ground based weapons are weak and easily destroyed? Considering the massive amounts of work needed to drop them into an enemy county?

-Land based weapons SHOULD be extremely effective in destroying targets. I don't understand why 850 tanks/art need several attacks to destroy a target. They should be able to do it in 1

-Some players like myself like helping others. Why aren't there points and GC associated with helping others during disasters(give incentives to be more political)

-Change the Security council make it more effective.
The first of every month the top 15 players are added to the council.
Allow the council to ban a nation from buying weapons on the market, allow them to issue boycotts(with public vote), allow them to send money to a nation after a war/disaster.

Thanks Andy, this would be a great change

As always well said Super

Yes,
we owe you the details of the planned change.

I will make sure it is published here in the coming days.

Supersoldier
I appreciate your constructive efforts, just please don't swamp us with numbers and specific proposals. These very frequently miss the point and are then ignored.
stating the main issues and the logic behind them in a short way, helps a lot.

we will listen to reason as we always did, and will continue to make changes to improve Simcountry.

Sometime it is hard to find the pearls between all the shouting.

i wasn't expecting you to say that, if anything, right on! i'll wait patiently

I understand that Andy

I think both of us have been working hard, I know we haven't had the best of "talks" but i know you care, and i know you know i do to

I just want to see your game become a success and I'm willing to do what i can to help, as MANY others are.

Just give us an idea of what you want to accomplish and I'm sure between the many vets of SC and your future of this game we can achieve something great

hahahahahaa Serpent good timing.

Totally agree with supreme I listen with envy to stories of "the old days". It seems like players where very active back then.

I too stumbled across this game years ago. I actually started playing it but didn't continue. Unfortunately I was a bit to young to understand the concepts.

I really do think this is a great game. Just wish there was more of a reason for interaction between players in game not just the forums.