W3C - Game News Feb. 18

1. Rapid Deployment Units

Several errors in the deployment of RDU have been corrected. The errors caused delays in the functioning of the units and were old. The errors were exposed after the introduction of the immediate deployment of such units and a fast buildup of remote bases in C3 countries.

2. Using a new acquired country to start a war

Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired.

This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month.

3. The Use of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are currently used in wars where recently conquered countries are used to attack others, with a small risk to the attacker.
A country that attacks another country with nuclear weapons will be required to have a population of at least 20M.

More steps

quote 2. Using a new acquired country to start a war

Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired

There goes the ability too take over inactive fed mates outside the 10k limit by the time two weeks are up all the assets would be absorbed back into teh game or the ability too aid fed mates and build a quick warslave anougher screw tightens for simcountry members

2. still doesn't fix the issue with c3s. Maybe change it to when decing a country of X population, the attacker should be within 5 mil pop?
3. The pop number should be alot higher, like at least 40 mil.
4. your just adding more to the cost of warring, by needing more units to protect each and every target. Aren't garrisons supposed to defend each target?
5. This is fine but the weapons number of the defense,ie. interceptors,are still the same causing more losses to the attacking air wings, creating more military cost.
8. stop adding new weapons and improve the ones we have now. You're just adding to the cost of military.

Steve, you're going to have far more mobile units to accomplish these goals. It's just a case of adapting your strategies to fit.

More or less the same thought to you Keto.

Lets be honest, 95% of the complaints have been about Wendys tactics. These changes should mainly inhibit riskless C3 warfare.

Something needs to change about the availability of GC and pro soldiers/officers though, particularly the soldiers/officers to allow these mobile units to be functional.

I is so much harder now to take over a C3 country. I wish the long range division units were bigger but they are getting smaller. The cost of replacing my lost units is increasing, I was told that it would be decreasing? The time it takes to replace those lost units is increasing because of the lower monthly spending cap on military equipment there by increasing the cost of C3 wars, time is money.

Crafty, they have made complete changes to this game because of one player?

What you call C3 wars are a problem for a very long time and we need to make those wars less attractive. We do not like limitations but something had to be done.
you will however be able to attack such countries and they will be able to fight back.

The cost of weapons and ammunition is declining.
Shortages on the market can of course change the price but the trend is down because the base price keeps going down.

Building units is also cheaper as the number of weapons you need is smaller. we will recheck the numbers of casualties and difficulty in fighting C3 countries but as the size of the large garrisons declined too, this should remain largely unchanged.

You do not need mobile units to defend.
In fact, you do not need mobile units at all.

The garrisons remain there and the defense system will continue to function as before.

Mobile units, as we have published many times before, will allow for a bet

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

2. Using a new acquired country to start a war

Using just conquered countries to start wars will be delayed to avoid risk less wars by countries without assets.
A new acquired country will be able to start a war two weeks after it was acquired.

This feature will be added to Simcountry later this month. <!-/Quote-!>

I don't like this. In every actual war I've fought in, I've used c3s to help augment an attack somehow. I take these c3s DURING the war. I understand why this rule could be seen as beneficial, but it is extremely limiting. What if I manage to take a big country during a war and want to then turn around and use it on an opponent? I have to wait two weeks? I understand that you don't want wars between countries that have little assets, but there is a two day (12 game month window on the planets I'd be fighting on)

I think the updates are just and called for.
The nuke option is good and C3 had been limited, I do agree with EO though about the 2week rule, I think the player either needs 2weeks or to have the 20M pop needed anything over 20m shouldn't need to wait.

But otherwise the updates are all just and sound fair to me.


Andy.... any word on increase C3 war level cash income...... (whispers) go back to 1.5T per level..... please

Andy

I just realized, what's to stop long range nuking?
C3 where an issue yes, but what's to stop a player(and it has been done) from being just inside the 10,000KM range and start nonstop nuking, it would take me time to take nations near by to war, plus with the 2week issue. Unless I'm wrong.

Your saying I'd have to wait 2 weeks before I could use that nation to war. Meaning I'd have to wait 2weeks which is WAY TO LONG to war, 2weeks of someone non stop nuking is a HUGE problem.

With regards to nuking can we set something in place where the attacking nation must be withing a certain range it be land or air force. The fact they can sit and nuke me non stop for 2weeks well I wait to counter attack is a BIG issue in my book.

The nuking isn't as much an issue as the 2 week waiting period. 10,000 km is within counter-attacking range.

i dont want to wait two weeks to take out a country out of my range. In my recent pvp wars and in my pvp wars over the summer ive been attacked by several countries at the same time all being around 10,000 km away meaning while getting nuked by subs ive had to at the same time take several countries all over the world to get in range to land troops in my enemys countries, already taking much precious time i couldnt imagine waiting 2 weeks just to take out the country attacking me. i hope this rule wont go into effect because i see an advantage for my enemy. Also if a fed mate is being attacked i would like to quikly set up next to him (if i wasnt already) to be involved in the war while it is accurring.

Phil, no, not because of one player. It would be totally wrong of me to say that and I'm sorry if I implied it. My meaning is in this recent rant for war game changes that some of wendys wars are cited.

There have been and will be many more of these rants, caused by any number of players.

I use the word rant because I ran out of words today.

The population requirement will be implemented ASAP.
In addition, an asset requirement might be added that will turn the "worthless just conquered" country into a less worthless country.

There is a clear need for more exposure of both countries and assets during a so called C3 war or in fact any other war. There might be a trade off between the time delay or an increase of the cost of war protection during the war (which is a long time consideration anyway).

The possibility of enforcing a partial removal of war protection during war or in general, seems too complex.

You might be able to make some difference by not allowing newly taken countries to use any raised quality weapons/ammo. That would make them less potent and easier to conquer.

Just an idea, not really thought through.

The current fast track on war game follows the introduction of the mobile units. We have said long time ago that many new developments will follow after these units are completed.

Many older ideas, including improvements of the navy, intelligence, espionage, terror and counter terror features can now be implemented more easily.

However, we have an issue with some bad taste wars, trigger happy users of nukes and unnecessary use of war protection.

Nukes will remain an option of course but why not use a conventional missile unit to fire 100 missiles and destroy some of these nuclear installations after they were used. Using nuclear weapons with impunity is the problem, not their use as such.

Improving the navy could/will eliminate the need to take a c3 close to the enemy.
I see an issue with most newer players thinking nukes are the way to go so they threaten and or use nukes believing they will win the war, which in the real world it could happen. In SC it will not happen.
Like I said before Andy, introducing mobile units and such is fine, but it only adds to the overall cost of maintaining an army. If players have to continue to purchase gold coins to be able to afford the military maintenance, they will all quit playing this game.
The game today is very hard for a players economy to support just a basic defense.
Bottom line, lower costs of military, level the playing field of offense against defense weapons, allowing a players knowledge to win a war, not how many weapons he/she has.

The game should imitate real life once a country is conquered it should be able too be used as seen fit. How can mobile units replace war protection i hope this isnt the case if your saying that enough mobile units deem the country unconquerable in effect no war game. Mobile units seem too be just an extra cost as a good war slave will now require mobile units and fully stocked garrisions that seems to be costing out any offensive campaign in effect destroying the war game altogether.

Andy in regards to your comment most players like myself when warring keep my garrisons heavy in anti air and missile defense, meaning I'd spend a lot of missiles to blow up the target plus Helios would destroy them when they attack.

If I can make an honest suggestion and I'd like everyone's input.

During war if nukes are used stealth bombers SHOULD auto attack those batteries like Helios would with any other unit.
During a auto attack they would have a 10,000KM range allowing them to attack any target, the only defence would be inter wings. If I fire a nuke the stealth would respond in an attempt to blow up these batteries, if the enemy has enough land and air force they would prevent me from destroying it.
Doing this would only make stealth more attractive in war and would give players more chances to prevent nuclear warfare

The Limit should be both ways. Assets of x country = assets of y country. Add to that the inability to transfer those weapons.assets out via space and then you've got a game.

But you're not serious, you're addressing one side of a problem in a very one sided manner, and as such, even those you are attempting to please are not happy. Imagine that. It would have been easier to reset my war level to zero, or asked them to just play the game or change their style of play.

But by all means have it your way. If you are hell bent on appeasing certain groups even though you can never achieve that, then all you are doing is ripping the game apart and accomplishing zilch by doing so. You're pampering a bunch of babies and they don't even have the appreciation to thank you for their dry arses. I'm hoping this will prove it's worth in changes some day down the road but you are a looong way from that day.

I will b

I think Wendy is a dude!

If I agree with her or not, her 'tone' (if that can be sensed online) sounds like a dude!

Yep, you got me, I'm also Gay and married to myself. I produced my children through spawns in the deep of my buttocks, which no man will ever know. :s After reading that last sentence, I'm not completely sure that I'm still Gay?

You have a point! Cant procreate if your gay... well unless your some sort of lizard or something.... hmmmm... maybe thats it!!!!

Coming from a Serpent ... :p

anyways

Andy is this something that can be done? its not unfair and it would add uses to stealth bomber making them a much more useful weapon in war

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Many older ideas, including improvements of the navy, intelligence, espionage, terror and counter terror features can now be implemented more easily. -Andy<!-/Quote-!>

yay!