The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

The problem with C3 warriors is that they put forth very little energy into a country, and it takes considerably more energy and time to take it. For those of us that spend a lot of time building up an empire...it's just not fair to get harassed into spending 2-3 hours to take a 100 War Index C3 when it takes about 15-30 minutes to take a 60 War Index C3, buy 100 forts, and declare War.

The 2nd problem I have with C3 warriors is that they are the aggressor and they risk nothing while the defender wastes (loses) RL time and gets nothing for it. If you are going to war at least have something to fight with AND...use it or or lose it if your gonna declare war on me.

Proposed changes

1. Make inactively defended C3s easier to take (less time)...currently the War engine focuses on forts and it is all too easy to buy 100 forts in a C3. So limit the number of forts you can have in a small undeveloped country under

Edit on #2...or units / garrisons installed so that the amount of military assets equals 5-10T.

These are good ideas, imo. They would make it more difficult to wage a war where you have nothing at stake. They would change the overall war game somewhat, but that's okay.

*yaaaaaaaaaaawns*

Let me know when something changes I'll show you a new strategy. Its what I and others do well at this game. adapt, improvise, and succeed.

Quit yer Itchin.

Itch itch itch

--Jojo the Hun, adaptating since 2007

Hehe ;)

I'm sure you will Windy because you are an exploiter of the game...not an asset to it. Glad you admitted it though...a rare glimpse of the truth from Psycho Spin...itch, itch...

As far as complaining about C3 warring, clearly, something needs to be changed, but be careful what you ask for. Every one that wars, still wants to use C3s, the key to what is wanted is not being able to wage "never ending war" from only C3s. Care should be given to not allowing a person to fight via C3s, and 1 secured main. As i've seen that abused, and not just by Wendy.

Please don't get me wrong. It is ridiculous to allow one person to risk nothing in war, while the other has to fight to hold onto what they worked hard to gain. As Wendy already pointed out, if you based it on 50% pop being exposed, or nominal value, she'd just reduce herself to a secured main, maybe even sell down the pop in that country, just to make sure she can continue the "never ending war,"

Honestly, a better option, might be a "war weariness," factor. We already have one of a type, but make it more empire based. To

i do like limiting number of forts based on country pop. but there are ways around that... so i think thats a good step, but not enough.

This isn't a bad idea but I think it is dancing around the easiest answer which Jojo, myself, Abe and many others have suggested...at least half of an empire's nominal value or population must be out of WP AND SECURED modes...this will solve the problem immediately and the system will work as it is intended. Allowing those who go on vacation, as well as those who are interested in only econ protection from war. I really do not see an argument against that. Even those of us who are into the war game but have an econ slave or two would be perfectly fine under this scenario.

I don't dislike your idea Orbiter and it is certainly much more nuanced and more closely related to real life, but it is definitely something that will take much more time to implement and much more time to for both the players and the GM's to adjust.

We all know what war protection is for, I wish we could all agree to use it for that reason and not to

A lump sum worth of gc will take care of any of you(you being the little whiners). WP or not, C3 or not. I'll make you spend that much to play if need be. I can and will without a worry. If I want to be a headache to you,I will be. I'll do it whatever way I have to. Cause that is what I do. Since the early days.

Bring the rule changes.
I do what I do with c3s to change your ways, and your thought processes. Your arrogance, or bully tactics. Its always fun to stomp people and take their stuff, while you have a bunch of players who can fight and fight a bunch of avg or mediocre opponents. It isn't always fun to fight without a reward. Again I haven't seen WB fight a fighting FED by his Choosing.

We keep hearing about How on LU they wanted a 'good fed war'

But lets look at the sides.
ON WB side, we have Serpent, EO, Keto, Wildeyes, (backed by).

On the opposite side we had BC

Oh and the solution is the golden rule,

Treat others....... Its Universal I don't have to type it out.

And that is the only solution.

I see an exploit to your position WB. I could play econ via CEO and just use crap empires-ALL C3's-with no secured main.

1/2 of crap is crap. still risk nothing.

I could finance my wars with a CEO and just load down C3's and raid active players.

There is always a way around.

perhaps when a country reaches a certain value only half that value is lost when you lose the war.

wb, it wouldn't solve anything. I realize that your are frustrated with the situation, and want a resolution asap, but this would not fix the problem

in the case of nominal value, my LU main, has a value of 131.80, atm. and thats with over 200T of military assets, mostly OA2A, PBombs, and land based cruise. enough to take down a reasonable empire. no weapons... so following that, i take over say 10 C3s, when i transfer weapons/ammo in, their value, of course increases... so now i'm able to the same thing, from one country. i mean its nothing to take 10 c3s, i do them in waves of 5 every day!!!

additionally, their are good months and bad months, so waiting for a poor income month, watching the NV drop...

it only limits the tactic, but not my much. not enough. infact, the best it'll do is shut her down a week. if that!!!

as you said, the real problem here, is how long this has been going on... creating

The idea is to prevent worthless c3s from carrying on a war, where the player has no value at risk. If you load up the c3s with military they aren't worthless, and it's more of a fair fight--the defender has something to gain by winning.

Unfortunately I do see a big loophole with using nominal value as the metric. You just move a lot of cash into the c3s, declare war, then move it out. It's too easy.

So, two ways to go. Limit the amount of cash that can be removed from a country at war, just like you can't move out pop when a country is at war. Or, instead of using nominal value as the metric, use military value as the metric. It's more difficult to move it around.

Orbiter, you have a good point, focus on the real problem. I see two real problems: wars dragging on and on, and also the non-reciprocity of attacking with worthless countries.

The dragging on and on problem is a problem even with

Yeah lets hope it is implemented faster than the space trade because at 5 - 10T in military assets per c3 WB will be bankrupt by then.

No doubt the 'fix' will involve more than one thing. For example.... What about the WI? Why not make it so that if a target is not garrisoned, it does not contribute to the WI, or at least it's contribution is drastically reduced?

Lol wendy.

Just quick adjustment to your statement. John was the one who I was fighting. You fired less than 10 offensive shots at me - you weren't fighting me well enough to consider taking a country, so leave any credit to John.

Second, my country is in war protection now, but it was out of war protection since last year. It has fought in a war less than a month ago, and it was out of war protection during this war.

I no longer wish to risk it because it is deactivating from nukes and from whatever caused it to deactivate before the nukes (which is a good reason to go into war protection) - I have not launched an offensive from war protection in an unprovoked manner, nor will I maintain it for months. If I want to take a country, it will be using my own country, not a c3.

You know what Windy, shut up. You've hijacked enough threads with your BS lies, the only one I'll address right now is the 'the FED' war, which was, and everyone involved will tell you:

Myself AND Beast (EO) AND ....no one else...Wild wasn't back yet and Serpent and Keto didn't even know Beast was back in the game at the time nor was I really close with them yet
vs.
BC, Daelin, Alarich, Crafty, Klarina and if they chose to involve their training fed 'Free Nations' at the time, then it would have been budman and slade and I don't know how many others...10? 20? Not sure.

That was 2 guys (1 of which you claim has no ability) against the largest fed with the most military on LU at the time....yeah real raid...and once we found out that they didn't want to fight we backed down, made a deal to recoup our costs and left it at that. Daelin and I are really good friends now and I

WB has never fought a fight against a player he thought would be a challenge willingly. And don't say 3ms becuase you were brought into that war with a ready made empire.

Name me one other person, capable, to fight a good fight. You didn't build shit on LU you raided inactives, from Nute, L3, and EO gave you half his empire.

Are we deflecting now?

I think the consensus is that a couple things need to be done in order to curb the C3 warrior and why it should be done.

Most are in agreement with the 1/2 empire rule in WP, but can see the loophole using either population or nominal value as the barometer.

- seems the best fix is to use a combination of population and military assets, which would be the Nominal value, AND limit or stop the amount of assets, cash, and population you can transfer out during war IF YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR.

- The more I think about it...the main should be included as a country in WP. As WB points out...if you always have half or your assets on the line...the C3 aggressor can get continually weakened and lose all there assets if they wage endless wars.

I really do like orbiter's suggestion of a war weariness index and think that is something for the future.

An easy fix that adds realism to the game would be the fort idea...a

To all...I would suggest we ignore any hijacking attempts...the GM will read this thread as they recognize there is a need for a change...and this is a good discussion.

If need be I will pass on the info directly to the GM though.

sorry to be the nay sayer in all this.

anyways, as far as the forts go, i'd rather not say the work around, even though i'm sure that many people already have an idea, i'd rather not clue some one in that doesn't

a thought to limiting C3 wars, the war process is rather time consuming. for the casual player that can't justify logging in at all hours to defend their country... using C3 warfare as a means of retribution, seems fair. but at the same time there should be a limit to how long that can go on!!!

here's a fresh idea!!! why not make it cost you Gold Coins to dec a player country!?! even like 5gc would be huge over time. For players that plan out their wars carefully, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but for people who dec 5+ countries a day, every day, that will add up. make you more carefull... and if you are stopped, it would be a significant loss.

additionally, W3C would

Orbiter...not crazy about paying to War dec, but that would work to cut out frivolous decs for sure. The GM fixed other loopholes with the forts to stop people from getting more than 100, so they should be able to implement restrictions on those C3s as well...it might just need fine tuning over time.