W3C - Units will become smaller

As explained in the game news, all units and garrisons will decrease in size by 10-12%.

This is the third time we are decreasing the size of the units.

The weapons that are moved out of these units are moved to the country stocks and their quality is taken into account (increased by a factor of 2).

Why is this done? (also explained in the game news and earlier when the previous change was announced).

Current wars in SC cause the destruction of a very large number of weapons. One attack could destroy hundreds of tanks, or airplanes.

This is unrealistic and the cost is very high.

Decreasing the size of the units will immediately decrease the number of weapons destroyed on both sides without changing the relative power of the units during the fighting.

It will reduce the price of war and it will reduce the cost of upgrading the units.
It will also decrease the size of the army

So what size will the defensive garrisons be now when attacking a C3 country? such as forts or cities?

Tom, I'm not going to argue with the logic of your decisions, but I will quarrel with your use of the word "unrealistic". Air/mechanized war on Earth is in fact very expensive, and does often result in the destruction of hundreds of weapons in single battles. This was true of the Second World War, the three Israel-Egypt wars, and the two US-Iraq wars. (4 of the last 5 in fact looked very much like C3 raids in this game.)

If you want to increase "realism", simplify war and reduce costs, the place to look is the artificial distinction between offensive and defensive armies. Real weapons and units are used interchangeably for both.

Would it possible to see some of the realworld statitics being used to assess what is "realistic" or not? I'm confused why the GMs are seeking to make this aspect of war more "realistic" with the current unrealistic move to have land and sea based weaponary traded exclusively in space.

Our war game was never realistic.

The numbers however are far too high and there were many requests to reduce the cost of the war game.

if you vote to increase the cost of war, we will go with it. It will spare us a lot of work, and some fruitless discussion on the forum.

Currently, in a single attack, 400 airplanes may be destroyed.

In all their wars in the past 50 year, Israel, the US and the entire NATO together, did not have 500 airplanes lost, let alone in a single attack.

Israel, with one of the largest air forces world wide, has probably less than 500 airplanes.

Brittan, France, Italy and Spain, were out of ammunition in Libya after a week or so of sporadic bombing and had to ask the US for some.

many countries in the game have millions of missiles.

Well backed up there by Tom.

The costs of war were excessive and should be reduced.

"It is our intention to continue such changes and decrease the number of weapons destroyed in wars by at least 50%"

Less military unit production means less profits(more losses) from the various military corporations we players own.

Perhaps the game could add some new corporations for building the soon to be added professional armies and allow player ownership. (I saw the post stating no player ownership but disagree with it. We players should be allowed to buy/sell and build everything in the game.)

Most times there are shortages of weapons and ammunition and the shortages might be reduced.

vote for stopping the reductions.
there is a vote going about it.

I think instead of prefined limite top and bottom we should make them anysize we want. If I want to send 1 bombar or 10000 I should be able to do so

Learn to change and adapt people. An economy heavy on weapons and ammo corps was never a good idea anyway.

Dave, we had this in the past and it pushed players to purchase millions of weapons and bankrupt.
I remember an attack with 1.000.000 jeeps.

you could never build a reliable defense.
If someone is building a strong defense, does not neglect the country, then some security should be in place even without purchasing war protection.

if we allow any numbers, someone with a lot of money could smash through anything and with large numbers, the first round killed nearly anything and the attacker had only small losses. (each attack has about 10 small rounds with alternating attacks by the attacker and the defender. If the first mini round kills the defense, there is nothing to fight back with and the attacker suffers little or no losses).

with the units, you have a fighting chance. The attacking units can be damaged.

but this discussion was about units becoming smaller, or how many losses each side will have.

It's also more realistic to have limited unit sizes. There are only so many planes that can be commanded by a single squadron commander before they become ineffective and disorganised.

Thanks tom that sort of makes sense

well, i for one, want to see units smaller. i think the direction w3c is going, is good. i mean, few weapons, makes war more accessable to new players.

one of the turn offs to war, (and their are many,) is that its takes so much game cash, and effort to have enough... making units smaller, partially corrects that problem. so new players will be able to have a decent military, with out a huge amount of effort. sure some of the big guys are loosing what they worked so hard for. but if we don't give up something, this stuff we've horded, wount be good for anything.

really, from how i understand it. this is the right direction for the game. and i'm excited.

and if you really think about, this leaves room for soooooo many other possibilities. lets move out of the sim dark ages...

Making the army smaller will not hurt players with large armies.

They can keep weapons in the reserves or build more units if they insist on having a very large army and they can sell some of their weapons and get some money back.

we are careful with the computation of the quality to avoid damage to these players by lowering their quality that was paid for in the upgrading process.

"we are careful with the computation of the quality to avoid damage to these players by lowering their quality that was paid for in the upgrading process." Tom

well, as long as you mentioned it Tom. as it is, when weapons and ammo are put into a garrison, the garrison automatically starts at 80q, no matter what.


it does not matter the quality of the weapons or ammo themselves, or the quality of supply units. thats means, if you buy 250q stuff, you loose 2/3s of the value, if you actually do anything with them. would you please address this?

When you have weapons with quality x and you put them in a unit, they end up with quality x/2 and a minimum of 80.
if x is 100 they will end up at 80 and when taken out if the garrison becomes smaller, will go back to the country at quality 80 x 2 = 160.

if they were purchased at Q 250, they go to the garrison at 125 and if placed back, the quality will be back to 250.

We know that in some cases it is not precise but you do not suffer any declines.

the reductions will take place several times and stop. It is not a long term thing that will keep coming.

Wait... what? Why is their quality reduce by half?

So... if I increase the quality of these weapons to 200 and I dismantle them afterwards, I get 400 quality weapons. One weapon quality upgrades one weapon by one point in quality? Same for ammunition?

Please read the original explanation of the quality upgrading products and about the quality of weapons and ammunition.

We have explained what happens when units are dismantled.

If YOU dismantle them, you are losing quality.

when we are taking out weapons from your units, during these reductions and we place them back into your country stock, while you did not ask for it, we double their quality.

That still doesn't really answer why do weapons and ammo lose half their quality when placed in garrisons?

Even with high Q supply units, not that that should matter in peace time. I can see no reason or logic for this, all it means is the need to buy uprades even though you paid top money for the weapons in the first place.

What is the official reasoning behind this please Tommi?

They don't lose anything.
the quality starts at 100. it should start at 0 so the real quality is actually between 50 and 160.
average maybe 80.

we did not want to change the base from 100 to zero because of other reasons so
so instead of cutting 100, it is divided by 2.

seem to work just fine for a year now.

All this really confuses me. I won't be bothered with it. I'll just use 100q as always. The most I can lose is %20 if the quality degrades to 80.

Am I right in this assumption?

weapons and ammo @250Q. Supply units @236Q. Result is a garrison that is @80Q. I am getting this result everytime I try to put up garrisons. Best garrison put up so far is 100Q. That means I lost all that cash buying @250Q. What a waste of assets.

So I can buy weapons at 100Q, put them into the garrison, then take them out and they're magically 160Q?

That's....interesting.

I agree with sirsmokesalot, why waste money buying at Q250 when its all lost when setting up