STOP SPACE WARS (Little Upsilon)

Someone posted this on the voting poll.

Lets all vote and maybe if we lucky the GM will listen

Why stop space wars?

Yes i agree supersoldier, there is still so many things to fix down here on our planets why should space features be added when we can still make planet features even better. Space should have never been built the way it was, it should have focused more on adding space stations and building international space stations and also spy sats, and weapon sats, and communication sats, space stations should have been built through country efforts mixed with space programs, and than once a station is built those who built it would be than able to sell to everyone and store their products their. Space would be open to buying from everyone but selling would only be allowed to those who built a station by themselves or with other people or those who rent one. Space should have been different and not the way it is done now. I have steered clear from space and have only used it three or four times, right now i see no reason to change that.

I totaly agree, adding more space features is not only the least of our worries right now it would slow the server even more.

i for one think that adding space war will add a flavor that the game has been missing. provided it gains popularity.

Don't get me wrong its a great idea Josias

BUT

at this current times not the best update/addition here's why

Feds stills cant support each other due to war levels
War levels in general
Common markets need more meaning
Quality has no effect in countries (why bother getting higher Q)
Navies are STILL stuck @ 100Q
Navies have very limited attack
Some weapons are worthless (Like seals, Land to sea, Off Anti air)
Corps use of goods and production is out of control(either use to much workers or make to little)
Weapons cost to much (said yourself) war in general costs to much
Security counsiel needs more ways to be involved globally
There's still no transportation of goods(they just seem to magically appear with no need for roads, rails, sea transportation
Loans are totally ruined(your lucky to make any money)
CEO's are taking a

FYI, about 14 [earth] months ago:

W3Creative Releases Version 4 of its Simcountry.com Virtual World Simulation Game. Simcountry 4.0 Includes Space Travel and Many Other New Features.

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/w3creative-releases-version-4-of-its-simcountrycom-virtual-world-simulation-game-simcountry-40-includes-space-travel-and-many-other-new-features-156183.php

BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS, June 14, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Simcountry, first released in 2004, now runs 5 large virtual worlds, with thousands of countries run by players who take responsibility for all aspects of leadership, from education to warfare.

W3creative founder and CEO, Jossi Gil, said: "Simcount

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

SC is a shell of its former self.<!-/Quote-!>

Like you would know SS.

Apart from the thing about war levels and feds, every point you made is about stupid, or has been discussed and agreed/disagreed by the game makers. Agreed items such as quality in countries are on the list we have been told. Weapons should be expensive, see real life, and as Psycho has said, devaluation of GC compensates some. Security council? see UN. Common markets are usable. "Some weapons are worthless (Like seals, Land to sea, Off Anti air) " transalated means "I dont know how to use them". No transportation? HUH? Space... well, a work in progress I hope. Cant say I use it much.

Anyway SS, I know you try to do good for the game, but you mostly just parrot what you hear from other people and not what you have learned from your short time here. And most stu

(note that i talk to Crafty in the chat)

Crafty shared some views and now I know his point of view on space I do agree with him. I love the idea of space(and wars)otherwise I wouldnt moved 10M trucks and several million interceptor missiles when automation first came out) and i still make shuttles/use space. My issue is that we will keep using it and forget a lot of old things that need to be fixed. We as players can remember the issues we have for awhile because we play. The GM doesnt and they only add what is most popular or discussed.

December 21, 2010
132. Max Fighting Level [ top ]
The maximum fighting level of all military units is now increased to 180.

276. Navies [ top ] ----(This update was supposed to be in 2010)
Navies in Simcountry have always been very large. There was in fact no limitation on the number of weapons per navy ship. This is of course unrealist

Side note I had a discussion in the Chat room. Make the worlds more social. Has the GM ever thought about expanding the Sec Counsel.
If the sec Counsel consisted of 10 chairmen of the 10ten global feds. Then you have federation competition If there chairmen is in power gives them political standing in the world. Jobs of the counsial
Stopping nuclear related issues (production, sales, buying nuclear weapons or materials)
Forcing a peace treaty for XX amount of time
(high enough vote) ending a war.
Be able to ban a country from buying weapons/ammo from the world market for XX amount of time
The world bank is run the same all CM would have a market leader. Top 10 leaders of there CM join the world bank. Its jobs would be
Sending Relief/Development aid(cash only maybe also say they must have at least 500B in there country and no loans)
Boycotts of a country(s)/CEO. If 50% vote for it then a level

I like the ideas from SS in the post above.

im not going to bother reading all of it, but i'll point out that the part about navies being reduced in size, and then complaining that they are still 100Q as proof that W3C is not keeping up... well, navies were reduced to 400 max usable weapons LONG before fighting levels. and the max number of weapons per fleet, is now less than half of what it was... come on, quit trying to stir the pot just because you haven't had your V8

truth is they have allot of thing that they can fix. but Sup, for the most part, you are blowing smoke.

I agree with you SS, gm should get their heads out of the clouds and fix the world problems first.

I think it would be more prudent to fix the existing game before embarking on this whole new component of space wars....... unless it is the intention to become a space war game :S The game with its original concept I thought was spot on and had such potential for success. :-(

I honestly think this 'expansion' of the game will be a recipe for failure (at the present time). I strongly encourage the game makers to seriously think of improving on the original concept before taking anything else on. What's the saying... don't bite off more than you can chew...

Josias..... I quote you "but Sup, for the most part, you are blowing smoke." This from one who blows smoke out his rear all the time?????

I see super is trying to make a point here that the game glitches need fixed before adding more to it. Whats wrong with that? How is that blowing smoke?

i like number 12 alot of the above.

make a IMF in this game and take out the development loans from sec council. countries deposit money in IMF and get voting right, countries who want to refinance their debt can request money from IMF. loans should be done based on a countries credit score- finance index and loans should be a last resort, instead countries and enterprises should issue bonds and than if their is demand some players will buy it for their enterprises or countries. they all are issued and start at .50 percent interest a game year and go up by .05 each game month they are not bought by some playerss. they are posted on a trading bonds page and on that page shows bond money requested and interest along with finance index score and country assets.

Respect for that SS. And although I am not a great user of common markets I do like your ideas. I like a lot of ideas, and reckon a lot are in the pipeline. I have accepted that W3C are trying to make the game more attractive so have more revenue but the cost of this is a less than perfect product. If it works they will be able to do all kinds of good stuff and it still is a very good game, if it doesn't... well, I guess there will still be a couple of us here.

Something the GM should look into is the amount of soldiers killer per attack( This is be raised and lowered )

The Commonwealth of Majoma lost
38 Anti air batteries
36 Defensive missile batteries
35 Defensive interceptor missile batteries
237 Interceptors
Total weapons lost 346
Troops lost 275-------Troops wounded 803

Firebase Phoenix lost
149Precision Bombers
Troops lost 374-------Troops wounded 1406

What this says is 3people where killed or injured per weapon on the defender side. Yet 12 attackers where killed or injured on the attacker side? I can understand being more costly to attack but come on. Your telling me by just blowing up a bomber it kills the pilots and wounds people K's of miles away? The GM should look into the weapons

Navies/land forces should see large amounts of people killed and wounded as for airforce's very little wounded or killed. This would be fai

^

I agree with the first point made. The number of casualties associated with airborne attacks dont really make sense. However, offensive forces as always need to be more expensive then defensive. Reducing the population cost would necessitate an increase in monetary cost to rebalance it, but I don't think anyone is in favour of increasing the cost of Fighters and Bombers in the name of realism. Besides, why bother changing the number of people killed in a battle when there are far more pressing issues? After all, the issues brought up so far have been established as being so important that space wars should be put on hold in favour of those.

Secondly, the asset damage associated with destroying military units would be negligible considering that many countries have trillions in net cash. Destroying fortifications or towns with hundreds of thousands of people and likely having buildings worth billions barely registers in the WI as it

You know it be well worth it if those updates fixed some War index calculations. It would make warring a bit easier.

Also

If the GM tweaked it so that corps made 4times as much (400% more). Warring would be cheaper

A fighter corp would make 96yearly(8planes a month) each would cost 182M base cost or 365M at max price. Making it easier to buy more. Also at the same time it would make all things like land based weapons/ammo cheaper. In stead of paying 100M per tank it would cost 25M which would be far cheaper. The most costly part of war is your interceptor defense. 200wings = 2.2M interceptor ammo. Which @ 8M per missile(which is its base(average cost) would cost a player 25T in just ammo @ 100Q. 250Q would cost an astounding 63T in just ammunition alone. Even if you bought the max spending a month it would take 22game months(4real days if you bought them each month). If corps made 4times more i

Whats the saying?

Fight smarter, not harder.

W3C has been trying to make the aggressive side wars, harder, not easier. where those changes to the WI might make sence, it goes in the opposite direction.

the concept, (which i'm 50/50 on,) is that after spending a year working on building a country up, it shouldn't fall in hours. increasing the damage received defensively, and decreasing the offensive damage, goes the opposite way that the theme of sim country war is going.

not everything *should* be easier. but the main deterent to war... over all, is the time and tedium of sim war. making wars "easier," should be making military smaller, so that their is less clicking. less tedium. but not making countries actually easier to take over.

realism is cool, but a game needs to be playable. i'm personally tossed between making it easier to take countries over, and making it harder. i think that the harder you make it to win, (as

and no, we don't need weapons/ammo corps producing 4 times as much. what we need, is to see the average military in SC drop by 75%.

if you consider, if *every one* in SC was to reduce the size of their military to 25% of the current... create a new standard. in stead of the standard 100 interceptor wings, it changes to 25 i wing... thats 75 fewer wings to destroy. and if the relative standard offense is decreased by the same amount. the both sides are putting out the same relative effort. and the defense itself is just as strong as it was before. but for the aggressive side, it will take 75% less clicking. although hopefully the same amount of time over all... that would be a huge step toward resurrecting the war game.

the problem, is people such as myself. we have tons, and tons of weapons. where will they go? if W3C magically removes 75% of all military assets, would they offer compensation? and players aren&