| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 09:55 pm 
The game news informs us that weapons quality will reduce over time aswell as ammo quality.
Why should weapons degrade? If my tank gun barrel of quality 200 is getting rusty I will replace it with a suitable 200 quality gun barrel. It wont be left to rust away!
What is the maintenace costs going on? Surely they should be for maintaining our equipment.
Weapons become outdated but they are not left to rust away....well if you have suffienct money to keep it maintained.
Ammo of course does degrade to an extent.
I believe ammo use in training is at unrealistic levels. Live firing is a rarity these days.
Why do you need to fire cruise missiles in training? In life you do the programming and press a buttuon. Use a dummy missile for loading training etc, there is no actual need to fire the missile.
Game ammo is very expensive.. much more so than in real life, I belive the cost of a real cruise missile is around $1million not the $76 million game price. $200,000 for a tank shell? What are they firing? Diamond studded, solid 24 carrot gold shells?
Gold is valued at $6.84 million per ton, a jeep at $4.81 million. That must be some jeep!
Maybe a new corp/s should be introduced to provide training munitions.
Laser equipment for Infantry/tanks training.
Simulators for weapons batteries.
These would incur the costs sim wants us to pay for maintaining an army, but would reduce ammo loss.
Reduce the cost of weapons and ammo to a reasonable level. Current prices are just designed to hit profits.
Expand the war game to incresse costs, introduce a training budget, which uses training goods as suggested above.
Relate training to war performance so players invest in training.
Make costs visabily accountable for, e.g if I traing my pilots once a week, set the avaition fuel useage etc at a set daily amount, set maintenace costs at a set training day cost.
Give power to the player, dont ruin the game through stealth costs. |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:13 am
Anyone else got some suggestions on improving the war game? |
| FarmerBob | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:20 am
Only a few thousand, but I see little point in wishing on rainbows. |
| Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:51 pm
Well, on the positive side, I had a great battle yesterday, 6 hours or so of player vs player fighting. It's a great aspect of the game, when it happens to work out that forces and resources are matched and the war is not a foregone conclusion before it starts. The limitations on navy power certainly help balance offense and defense. Makes the land forces relatively more important, and that's good. More time consuming if you want to set up c3s...that's okay, I'd rather have a real good war once in a while than more frequent "blastings" of countries that don't fight back. I didn't like how the navy changes were made, but the changes themselves do improve the war game, in my opinion.
Fighting an active defense is just so much more challenging and interesting than fighting a player who's not there. I wish there were a way to have WP for a certain segment of the day, every day, so that no one could start a war on you that would start during your "protected time". Who wants to fight a 6 hour war when they're at work, or when they should be sleeping? The attacker should have to work around the real life schedule of the defender, not vice versa as it is now. |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 12:19 am
Automated attacking would be nice. Destroying 100 of the same garrison and 100 forts gets very boring. Fighting on a slow computer is not worth trying.
I want to be able to repeat the last one or two attacks for X number of times. Or until ammunition hits a minimum or casualties reach a maximum. |
| Oren Dekaza (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 10:57 pm
I'm still relatively new to the game, but I have had my share of war games so far against c3s. In all honesty I feel no real connection with my troops or weapons despite that agonizing grate I felt the firtst time I threw 3 whole divisions against my enemies fortified base with 5k+ artillery-defense missle-intersepter-antiaircraft light tank-division smashing combo of doom. What I'm trying to say is, I felt no real loss for my troops, if anything I just pulled out, wash and repeated what I'd done before, until it finally fell. I think when looking at it from a leaders standpoint, more emphasis should go into the production of our weapons, and the training of our troops. I'm pretty sure that in the real world things are crunched down into numbers, but I personally would like a more engaging form or method of preparing my troops for war such as determining training paths, approving new methods and such, or maybe even a simple efficiency modifier we can get for our military units and how much real experience they have from fighting. That's my two cents on the subject. Also I agree with Vali concerning the way too overpriced weapons and amunition, however I think its necessary for the game as is. |
