| Monday, February 22, 2016 - 04:57 am |
First, a thanks to Aries for a great fight, he's a better fighter than I am at this point in my SC career and maybe even better than I was in my prime, ranks right up there with the greats that fought on my side and against me.
I was able to fall back on some old strategies that were effective enough to get me not a full win but him down to 3 on the war index with just painting left to do and ultimately a peace treaty. I'm not calling it a win because I know he could have just drawn it out with c3 warfare for a while and ultimately gotten his prize, I'm calling it a draw which is probably a win for him because I had two 300M countries to fight with. And even more of a win for him because he was an ethical enough person not to go that direction, mad props.
It was intense, a little bit scary, adrenaline filled and ultimately a lot of fun. But, it reminded me of the reason that I haven't gotten involved in PvP wars since I've been back and that was always my passion with this game. I've always been one to want a great warrior to fight against and before I went through the last 24 hours with Aries, my theory was that with the way that you can just transfer infinite amounts of weapons via space, battles against the best players would be just constant loading/reloading of weapons from space that would make wars that already took too long, take even longer.
Aries was great, set up several countries, took his time and was meticulous in his preparation. But he could have gone the other way and just started loading up c3's with space centers and shuttling in weapons, losing one c3 after another while being a pest that needed constant attention and over a period of a week or a month with 10 or 20 c3's he could have just drained all of my resources while risking little of his own.
*OVERALL POINT 1* You shouldn't be allowed unlimited transfers via space, it needs to be limited just like spending space in a country is limited. This will actually help the GM's because people will have to actually have war prepared countries which cost more money (although they'll have to stop being greedy with the maintenance units for military that suck up so much game cash in order for that to work).
Another issue is that because of the complexity of the war engine, war is extremely SLOW. It would take 15 seconds to get a screen to load once I selected a target which is annoying in and of itself, but worse than that, it allows that much more time for your enemy to transport in more and more defense. My assumption is that the slowness/lag in the war engine is due to mobile units/quality calculations.
*OVERALL POINT 2* Factoring in quality makes war even slower and further, it clouds up the view of your opponent creating unnecessary uncertainty. It also creates a situation where you have to invest so much in upgrading your military assets that you become way too attached to them and unwilling to lose them. Think about what it takes to build a mobile unit, buy all weapons and ammo at 330Q (expensive), upgrade at 2Q points per month for 60 months to get to 450Q, move to mobile unit and then take another 75 months to get to 600Q. Not to mention all the difficulty of making sure you keep the higher quality weaponry/ammo separated from standard ammo and the cost of professional soldiers/officers. Best case scenario you're out 135 game months and hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to produce one mobile unit.
If the GM's want this game to get more popular, war is needed. As much as I know they took so much flack from the victims of war, it was always the driving force behind the game that created the popularity and interest. Go back to the glory days of the forums and read some of the old posts, there was so much bitching but you know what, there was interest in this game and there were thousands of truly active players.
The war levels are blamed for a lot, but I know for certain that they did pretty much exactly what was intended. Protected brand new players with assets from raiders and allowed econ players to play without the threat of war. They weren't implemented in the best way, but they have nothing to do with why there is less war other than the fact that players who were war mongers preying on the weak had less assets.
*OVERALL POINT 3* Keep the war levels, lose war protection (other than temporary, max 2 weeks) and implement all out war (all countries in all worlds must be out of war protection in order to declare war and must remain out of war protection while declared wars are taking place), if war is declared on you then you may place countries in war protection.
Lastly, be a respectful player and remember that this is only a game. Aries declared war on me out of nowhere (although if I had been active I would have noticed him setting up on me, my fault for not noticing) and although I did send him one quick message letting him know that I was active (and hoping that he would just let it be at that point), there was no crap talking between us nor did I go on the forums complaining that I was being victimized. After it was over I also didn't crap talk him nor did he to me, we had a respectful back and forth about strategy, strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing wrong with having enemies but there is also nothing better than having an enemy that you share respect with (like Jojo in my days). Hockey players stand in a line after each game of beating the crap out of each other and shake hands, if they can do that after actual physical harm, why can't we after we lost or won fake assets in a game?
I don't know what my plan is at this point, I'll either try to distribute/sell assets or just cancel the account and let the GM's have what they don't deserve. If anyone is interested in assets (country, CEO, military) for real cash, reach out to me. Thank you all for the great memories, I've made some great friends and frenemies in this game and although I'm frustrated with the current state of the game, nothing can take back the wonderful old days or the reminder of those old days that Aries provided to me over the last couple of days.
| Monday, February 22, 2016 - 05:12 am |
In regards to limits on space transport I'll add that there already are limits on space transport, in that the amount of cargo shuttles is like bandwidth. As we all already know, you can only send so much within so much time depending on how many shuttles you have. and so the limits are the physics of the space dimension. If you think that shuttles move too fast or load/unload cargo too quickly, than that is something I would agree with you on, but not just throwing on hard limits from some number somebody will think of.
I think spending space limits are really lame. I log in multiple times a day just to buy ammo and trade commodities. I buy ammo and make trades several times a day, every day, because of these limits. I have been stockpiling ammo for I don't know. . .somewhere around half a real year now?? and I'm still not at the level I'd like to be at. I'll likely be working on building the pile for quite awhile at this rate. . . .
If you asked me I'd say we should:
1. Remove all spending space limits
2. Allow creation of multiple units at a time (a box to write in how many units of the kind to be created)
3. Multiple attacks at once, rather than one unit at a time (checkboxes beside units??)
As it is game seems sort of tedious. If anything, I think spending space should at least be increased dependent upon scale of country/enterprise (that could be based on total assets, or [employee] population, or whatever). The only limit from my perspective should be how much currency do you got?? and so of course that's up to what you do with it.
I haven't even bothered putting my perspective up for vote though, because I have an idea the GMs are set in their ways. I suspect they'd rather we load the same pages over and over to input the same data over (creating units) and over rather than provide us some boxes, and as well checkboxes to speed battles up a bit huhh. . . otherwise they'd have already added these years ago ????
The spending space limits at least I get it's probably there to keep markets [eerily] stabilized .. .. but you know, in the real world there are no spending limits; there is only supply and demand. Money talks it never sleeps (and sometimes bubbels burst and markets crash).
Just my .02 . .I don't mean to take away from the war that just happened or anything, I'm just sharing my perspective on a couple of things you brought up.
| Monday, February 22, 2016 - 06:12 am |
It was a great fight. I knew the war would be massive. Been preparing for (real) months. Even at that, it exceeded expectations. Whiteboy is far and away the most powerful opponent I have faced. It is hard to describe the size of forces involved and lost. The battle swayed several times. There was a few times where I thought I was close to delivering a crippling blow and was foiled. On the other end, I was kept busy marshaling reserves, reforming weakened units, and ultimately battling for control of my map as a result of an unexpectedly powerful counter-attack. Great fun. Finally, a war worthy of a "war world".
| Monday, February 22, 2016 - 09:30 pm |
As to length of wars, I think the biggest issue has been the pattern of game changes with the mindset of "war is too expensive". What has always been forgotten is that is if war is made "cheaper" it is also cheaper for everyone else. As weapons have been made easier to obtain, players simply have more of them. The many obstacles to there actually being wars, even on the "war world", means wars are rare. The result is players simply keep obtaining more and more weapons and have little opportunity to use them. I have participated in more wars than most, for example, but that still only accounts for about 2 wars against players per year.
When it is finally time to utilize weapons, the war system filters their use into units that are too small to practically use. A large war, like the one just fought, is like trying to conclude a war the scale of World War 2 with a war engine that supports squad sized-battles. After 9-10 hours of Simcounty warfare and endless clicking, it is possible to review my remaining military assets and wonder if anything is missing. Further, as Whiteboy said, trying to launch attacks to break through a defense is difficult because it is possible to simply reinforce faster than damage can be dealt.
He concludes limiting the rate of reinforcements. That may help but I still predict countries can maintain sufficient assets to make this exercise little-changed, especially if maintenance costs are lowered, as Whiteboy suggests. I would instead conclude the the scale of battles need to be bigger. Unit sizes are too small for the reality of the war game.
As I have posted in several other places, the Simcountry reality is about 10 times the real world. World on Simcountry have about 70 million people, Earth has about 1/10th of that. Weapon numbers are similarly inflated. My solution is simple. All unit sizes are increased by a factor of 10. For wars against the computer, multiply the cash award by 10. This will allow a war to be concluded with a 10th of the clicks currently required. This will allow the pace of the battle to keep pace with the current pace of reinforcement in a reasonable way.
| Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 08:07 am |
Limits on spending space are about knowledge and utilization of resources. As a war player, it was extremely important to me to know and understand the enemy I was facing and the assets at their disposal. Lack of spending limits means there is a lack of knowledge and that means war is less likely. I turned two countries that had next to zero in military assets and other than forts, literally nothing in defensive assets and turned them into the #1 and #2 war ranks in less than 24 hours (the ranking system lags a bit but based on the assets in the country at the time of the war they were easily 1 and 2). That makes war almost impossible for anyone other than those with the most desire, because they have no idea what they'll be facing when they commit to a war which puts their assets on the line. Further, I understand the point about the bandwidth limit being the number of shuttles, but the richest players can afford the most shuttles and thus, have a very unfair advantage over everyone else because they already have a weapons advantage and now they can also avoid the penalty that goes along with that weapons advantage (the cost of maintaining those weapons).
John - There are much easier ways of building up a huge cache of weapons/ammo other than logging in every month. You just adjust your order strategies to set a reasonable monthly purchase amount of each weapon/ammo type and then set a cap of where you want it to stop. Further, if you'd like to really accelerate your growth the key is c3's, you use that same strategy over 10 or 20 or 50 c3's and you can build weapons and ammo extremely quickly. Not to mention using the same strategy to at the same time build weapon/ammo quality upgrades (that's not military spending space so you can do both at the same time).
Aries - First, thanks for the kind words. As far as your ideas, I don't disagree, unit sizes used to be far larger and although with standard units there are still infinite options of weapon mixes, mobile units only allow for a very small number of options (just however many different types of mobile units there are). Plus, the defensive mobile units have a decided advantage over the offensive mobile unit options.
Mobile units and quality impacts were a huge death knell to the war game, combined with the reduction in size of military units and the ability to replenish the military with no spending limits. Not to mention that only the smallest fraction of players actually understand/use space trading.
There are just too many barriers to entry and too many unknowns with the current state of the game to bring back the interest that used to be. It bums me out and especially because the GM's either don't care or are so committed to their current strategy (that is clearly killing the game).
| Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 03:12 pm |
In regards to: "the richest players can afford the most shuttles and thus, have a very unfair advantage over everyone else"
. .Isn't that what being rich is all about ??
What is the point of attaining wealth if it doesn't give advantages over others without ?? One of the perks of being wealthy is getting what you want when you want it !!
In regards to: "You just adjust your order strategies to set a reasonable monthly purchase amount of each weapon/ammo type and then set a cap of where you want it to stop."
Are you referring to the Trade>Order Strategies and Quality page???
damn I just noticed you can change it from "in months" to "in units." If that works how I think it does, then I've been wasting a lot of my time thus far doing some things manually that otherwise could have been automated.
Clarification: If I set really high numbers, exceeding my spending space limits, does it automatically split that up into multiple small orders? Or would I need to constantly readjust these numbers to fit within spending space limits ???
| Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 03:45 am |
It's true John, it is what being rich is all about but just like in the real world, being rich should come with additional costs, like the US having the biggest military but that also means that they have the biggest military budget as well. The space trading game effectively makes you able to have the biggest military like the US but have the operating costs of Iceland because you can keep all of the weapons in your CEO with all of the ammo in your countries. So, zero operating costs and just the cost of transporting when you need the weapons.
As far as the ordering strategies, you're exactly right, Trade > Order Strategies and Quality and then change it to 'In Units' for the weapons/ammo you'd like to automatically order. But, it won't go past your spending space and it actually won't order at all if a single order goes past your spending space. So, typically what we'd do is set the ammo we want at maybe 10-15K per month for things like AAM, DM, MI, IM, HM, etc. (cheap ammo) and then maybe 5K-10K for expensive/offensive ammo. It really does depend on the cost of the ammo. Same deal with weapons. It won't order everything every month because presumably the total of all of those orders would exceed your military spending space, but the system orders as much as it can to stay under the spending space cap (assuming you have cash in the country, an old trick was that having cash didn't matter and you could just run a c3 up to $50T in debt and then pay it off when you wanted to transfer the ammo out but that doesn't work anymore).
| Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 03:00 pm |
I was able to watch some of the process, very epic. I have to agree to one of the main points; there seems to be way too many steps involved in resolving one attack. It boggles the mind. Even after reading through the documents and some discussion with other war players, like Aries and Zen, it's still very complicated to predict, could be just me though. Mainly understanding each type of weapons effectiveness, intended purposes and which weapon takes place first, it takes some level of memorization. Reading the war logs/news reels was very indicative of this. One attack resulted in a "stack" of results that had to be resolved, initial attack, counter attack, stealth and conventional counter attacks, interceptor wings then the allied assists by three neighboring allies (Aries really urged this point to me, and I can clearly see why now), very very complex. I think this may be one factor why so many players are "gun shy", it's a lot of investment and forgetting one piece of weaponry can ruin a whole chain of events that would leave some other weapons useless targets.
(keep in mind, I am not a war player, feel free to correct anything I am trying to convey lol)
I also agree that SC is very inflated, in general. At first I thought maybe there were too many weapons involved, thousands of tanks for one battle. Unless it was something like the battle of Kursk, (Soviet and Germany in WWII) tanks are not used in such large numbers. This is just an example. Then again, we are talking about trillions of dollars and billions of people on 5 fictional worlds.
I spend a lot of effort and resources in upgrading defensive units then "mothball" them to save on costs, (I'm all for shuttles, so put me down for no shuttle limits), and that's just the thing, the costs are staggering. However, I may be one of the few who think this IS realistic. Comparing military expenses to the real world, no other nation compares to the US. The billions (not trillions like in SC) spent by our industrial military complex (Pres Eisenhower warned us about this happening) consumes so much national costs. Countries like the Peoples Republic of China may spend a higher percentage of their budget on defense, but the US spends way more. I'm off topic, sorry.
Ok, in short: high costs ok with me, that's real life and war is supposed to be painful, not to just the soldier and families but also to the national economies. One of the basics of "The Art of War", avoidance is victory for the nation.
I've received good advice on defenses, that is all I'm interested in. I have no desire for PvP, at all. But I still want to be defended.
Either way, good show. WB, we never really crossed paths, but sorry to see you leave if you do.
Good show guys.
| Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 05:00 pm |
WB Thanks for the knowledge, it's much appreciated as I'll see if I can get it configured where I don't have to log in several times a day just to make orders.
In regards to space overhead I think you're onto something. There is sort of like overhead because shuttles have limited usage and require replacement, eventually (and of course there are monthly payments to lease docks). I will agree the overhead seems rather low for a space program.
Perhaps there should be a monthly maintenance fee for space shuttles? Something like a fraction of a coin, because people have a lot of shuttles, and they did cost a fraction of a coin to acquire anyway. Perhaps .01 coin/month per shuttle. I don't know if that's the best idea to resolve that issue, but I agree there is little overhead in maintaining a space fleet.
What I do know is I'm against slapping on hard limits just to make the game more fair though. There's already too many of hard limits throughout the different areas of the game in my opinion.
| Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 09:47 pm |
On space shuttles:
"Richest players can afford the most shuttles and thus, have a very unfair advantage over everyone else".
I have found that skilled players always have an advantage in collecting assets and using them to greatest effect. There is nothing wrong with that. In regards to shuttles, I think it is necessary to check the current market for them. Top of the line shuttles are available for .27 coins. A very respectable fleet, by any measure, of 100 brand new shuttles can be had for 30 coins or so. What may not be known is that when players have very large numbers of shuttles, the rate of transport does seem to have a cap. In my experience, rate of transport seems no faster once you have maybe 200 shuttles.
How attainable is 30 coins? If you haven't already, check out my "Game Level" and "Path of a Warrior" guides on the Beginners forum. Simply achieving game level 4 and war level 6 pays 260 coins (even more on FB). Those levels are easy, repeatable on each world, with plenty more levels beyond those, and if a player is unable to reach them they have problems beyond participating in high-level PvP.
John: in regards to upkeep, Whiteboy wasn't suggesting any type of space upkeep at all. He was simply looking to a system that currently makes it advantageous to store all weapons in an enterprise, to escape upkeep costs, and use shuttles to deploy them only when needed. Applying an upkeep to shuttles themselves would not solve any problem in particular in the game. Perhaps, you should add your reasons for this beyond realism. If you provided a realism standard to the game, many many game systems would be under similar scrutiny. Lets limit suggestions to those that improve game-play.
Whiteboy suggestion was to create a balance between rate of reinforcement and the pace of combat in wars. I believe the rate of reinforcement can remain the same, spending caps can remain the same, and so on if, what I believe is, the real problem of the pace of combat is resolved. To achieve this, the game simply needs to increase unit sizes by a factor of 10. Whiteboy may be unaware that my LU empire already maintains much of their defenses, and very significant offensive forces, on station. A change in rate of reinforcement, again, would not correct the core issue of the pace of combat being too slow.
| Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 10:40 pm |
I look forward to a report of if there will ever be a Whiteboy versus Aries rematch?
| Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 08:49 am |
It's true Aries, I wasn't proposing a cost on transport or even further depreciation of shuttles and I have noticed the same thing that you noted, I have a huge number of shuttles that just sit when I have transport requests in...very annoying. I wasn't aware of your LU empire maintaining a large defensive force, good on you for doing that, but as someone who has made 10's or 100's of trillion of dollars based on being able to maintain huge countries because of close to zero defensive costs required in my countries, I still think it's an unfair option (but one I was happy to take advantage of as long as the system allowed it).
I have to start with the thinking of 'Why was the game much more popular a few years ago?'. My belief is that it was much more popular because the war game was far more active which created a level of drama and interest. Not to mention that people (especially people that enjoy games) like to compete and the clearest competition in this game is the war game.
So, if the game was more popular due to the war game and the war game has tailed off considerably, the next question is: Why?
I feel like the answer to that question is where my main points came from, those are the things that if changed, war will become more likely and although that means some people losing assets and others gaining. It also means SC winning, because it is even less than a zero sum game due to so many weapons/ammo being destroyed in the process, and because it drums up overall interest in the game. The latter of the those two is a win for everyone who loves this game and the former is a huge financial win for those that run SC.
You're welcome John, there are way too many 'clicks' involved in this game so it's great if I saved you a few. We still don't agree on spending limits because caps on overall spending or penalties for overspending (which is also a great option) are what makes competitive games like this or sports much more interesting. If you're from the US, you can see this very easily by the change in popularity of professional baseball vs. football over the last 20 years.
| Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 12:06 pm |
I don't post often on the forum, but I will in regards to why this game isn't popular. I believe that it takes way to long to accumulate wealth and power in this game as a beginner, I've been playing for a year for the most part every day and I find it difficult to build. I have two empires on two different worlds and multiple corp.
This game is time consuming, I have 13 nations in my one empire to transfer the 400K people every game month is basically a full time job. From attacking the nation to then looting it, I don't even loot it sometimes as I have to weigh is my 5 mins worth 100B then the building of a corp or two every game month per nation costs 50-100B each nation, its like I never get ahead. I'm always expanding for the sake of expanding and never getting ahead much. I got my corps basically to the 750 corp level so I'm not expanding them any more. But you have to figure in that if a player takes part in the pvp that that person could potentially be throwing away hundreds if not thousands of hours away... and to be quite honest I love the little numerical people of my empires. I don't want to see someone come in and destroy what I've worked so hard for. I like how Whiteboy and Aries came to a peace deal, I'd hate to see anyone completely lose their stuff here in SC, as I've stated its hard to get off the ground.
I just feel like people won't truly embrace this game as the functions of the game are kinda wacky. There should be a "transfer" all products to a nation instead of wasting 5-7mins each time looting a nation, there also should be the same "transfer" button under My Empire to transfer the 400K pop. every game month with a nation drop box of sender and receiver instead of copy and pasting the name of the nation under the employment tab... if they could simplify things that would be great. But I know when I first started I read on the forms how people are sitting on 1000 Trillion if not more of game cash, and I had like 2 Trillion. If your new and reading this, with time you can grow and easily make 50Trillion in a day.
Well that's my two cents on the matter.
| Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 04:25 pm |
I think the biggest obstacles for beginners, and others, to join the war game is one of incentive. There is a lot of risk to earn the same stuff that can often be readily earned while at peace. For Elrood looking at the long road to gain assets, check out my "Path of a Warrior" and Game Level Guide on the Beginner's forum. Both described ways to gain considerable assets without having to fight another player at all.
To add incentive and to ease the learning curve into the war game, I have added suggestions to the forum for the last year for that purpose. My "War College", "Battlegrounds-Revised", and "Total War" ideas are worthy of a look if you have not seen them before. The idea is to bridge the current gap between fighting a hapless computer opponent to the shock of facing a player with their own strategies shooting back at you. All this while providing incentives that allow the war player to gain the assets they will need to be competitive.
On defense upkeep, you have to consider that it may not always be possible for a player to be available to spend the time to respond to a declaration of war. Though it is possible to operate at very low upkeep and cobble together a last minute defense, the incentive to do this is less once you have countries that are more important for you to keep.
That is the calculation I made with my LU empire. I don't have substantial defenses in place out of some goodness for the game but so that I could make any last minute adjustments to my defense with a few taps on my phone. My defensive doctrine on LU is to achieve victory on a bad day. The investments I have made there deserve no less.
| Friday, February 26, 2016 - 08:40 am |
I feel you Elrood, I'd strongly suggest taking a look at Aries' documentation and further, feel free to message me directly and I can help you out with strategies to develop your assets.
It is a difficult thought when considering all of the time you've spent to build something and then ultimately having all of that work being put at risk. But, I've got to be honest, as someone who has been wiped out a couple of times (once by a fed war when I had no idea about the war game and then once by allowing the GM's to take all of my assets after going inactive), there is still nothing that is more fun in this game or any other than having everything at risk either to gain further assets or fight to protect your own. This last fight with Aries reminded me of that feeling, going from fear to excitement to misery to anxiety to exuberance, while it is happening it isn't all that great but after the fact it is wonderful. Regardless of whether you win or lose, if you win then you've got bragging rights and if you lose then you have revenge to fulfill. If you draw like the bout between Aries and I, then you can still learn valuable lessons and if you were able to hold on to your assets then you can be proud that you fought off an attack and if you were attacking and didn't get the W, you can be proud that you put up a good fight.
| Friday, February 26, 2016 - 04:12 pm |
Thanks Aries and Whiteboy. Yes I've read basically everyone of Aries guides, wished I would have earlier. When I was new I asked Aries some questions, as a newbie in this complicated game it helps having experienced players wanting to help others. I see what your saying Whiteboy about pvping, I think its a huge learning lesson by taking part in pvp.
| Sunday, February 28, 2016 - 05:43 am |
I tend to agree, a lot of time is spent on building what we have, some of us much more than others. A simpler way to manage our populations, wealth, etc would be great.
| Monday, February 29, 2016 - 03:06 am |
Damn step out for a few days & miss the battle of the century ! Won't see many like that again.
| Monday, February 29, 2016 - 03:22 am |
To give some idea of the size of the war, I collected casualty numbers before graphs expired. This is what I got:
In terms of damage, this conflict was about 20 times bigger than the Battle of Camp Foxtrot I posted on the FB forum.
| Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - 08:17 pm |
I would encourage you to look and comment on my new post on the suggestion forum titled "Unit Simplicity (revised) - Aries". Many of the items discussed here I have posted on that thread.
| Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - 04:13 am |
Man. I wish I was there when it happened. Just got back into the game after being gone for a month. I must say, and I'll say it on the forums. I can not believe the potential destruction a 30 some million population country can have on two large almost 300m countries. This war gives me more motivation to get into pvp soon.
I'll have to give you an applause too whiteboy. I don't know you much as I'm new and you were very inactive during my prime time. However the fact that you could defend yourself against a military mastermind with almost limitless high quality units and almost win the war shows your dedication. Even after being semi-active. I guess this war really boosted your testosterone for a few days on sc lol.
Well, you may know or not if Aries told you. That I was the one who filled up and pretty much set up Charlotte, population and corporation setup was by me. Aries buffed it after he took control. Sold to aries for 200gc( A hefty sum of gc for a small country that I gladly accepted )When Aries told me to set up a country for him to come back to FB. He gave me a spot, and said just give me a 30 million population country with all public corps. I did just that. I would've gave him a 50 million population country for the same price lol, but he wanted it quickly. I didn't even know why he wanted the country for the first half I started building it. In fact I was completely oblivious that you were near by. I never was interested enough to hover over the near by red countries on the map. Then I see your name, and I knew what was about to go down.
All I may say, after reading past comments I can see that you're a respectful player. So you have my respects. I hope my country I gave Aries gave you some excitement. Maybe we can form a friendship or friendenemy( which I hope not )
Now that I know the potential carnage a 30 million population country can do I have more confidence in myself.
Also to past comments @Elrood in my short time playing this game. I've gained around 1100T assets. 450T in military assets. The bulk of my asset gain was a 3 month span of constant spending producing and growth. Within 3 months I went from 50T military to 450T military and almost a third 450q-600q. Before I spoke with anyone basically the first thing I said to myself is that I'm going to become a strict peaceful econ player. After getting involved in a little tiny taste of pvp with blackeyes, aries, and zentrino my interest for military has made me a 10 times better player. Wealth gain isnt has hard as you say it is in my opinion however. With my population guide, and economic strategy. I can gain hundreds of T worth of shares and buy/sell on the market for profits.
I guess I can call myself rich. Simply because when needed I can freely spend trillions at a time without worrying because I know I can make it up in a few game months. If I no lifed the game like I used to when I wasnt working I would probably have near 700T military assets, and a much larger account. On one world I can gain 4.8 million population a real day, or 1.2 million population a game month for 4 game months. That being said I can pretty much get a country from 11 million to 150 million population in a month. It only took me a month an a half to get a country on KB from 11 million to 290 million spending gc only on build 3 corps per month booster. So I still think if players put time in the game with the right tactics they can gain assets as well. With the share market and pubic corporations you can make around 200T with a 280 million population country just with share sales. Then have a nice 300B monthly profit from that country. I just need to learn how to put my countries on auto pilot, because going inactive for a month ruined most of my countries.
Well I hope more large scale wars without a bunch of crap talk like this happen soon. Who knows.. My goals and path on this game have changed, I hope to get involved more in the war game now and not just sit collecting assets.
| Sunday, April 3, 2016 - 01:26 am |
No worries Zen, can't fault someone for trying to make a buck or two.
When it comes to war it really isn't about the size of the country, it's about the strategy. The vast majority of my war wins came from c3 sized countries against giant countries. I think I referenced this in another thread, with the way the game is set up now (and really, even the way it was set up before), you attack from small countries and defend from large countries. It's even more true now with space transport/professional soldiers. You can have a massive military in a c3 sized country if you have a lot of mobile units.
| Saturday, April 9, 2016 - 10:31 pm |
A mirror image of reality hey WB bro. Simcountry is on the right path No more War WB? lol Asif you wont go out in a blaze of glory lol
| Friday, April 22, 2016 - 10:37 pm |
If your still here WB Bro.....I mean by 'a Blaze of Glory', fighting until your last gold coin, bullet and man '(If anyone is interested in assets (country, CEO, military) for real cash, reach out to me.)'
But thinking about it.....after going toe to toe with Aries, who else is there who would have fought you and come anyway nearly blazing up your glory lol ;)
| Friday, April 22, 2016 - 11:01 pm |
Hold up? I've just looked at the newspapers on LU and last game month WB and Aries went back to War.
I knew WB couldn't leave if he still had a bullet and a gun lol
EDIT....To all new players. While you stare at your screens waiting for the month to pass so the programe can give you something new to think about....keep an eye on this battle between Aries and WB on LU. Its not often you know when and where a real war is happening. Especially between seasoned veterans like these two.
You don't have to be on LU to see LU's newspapers. Just click on LU on the home page and go to one of their countries (Remember it will take about three real days before they can start throwing punches)
| Friday, April 22, 2016 - 11:39 pm |
Lol Nix, apparently Aries got into a panic and decided to declare war on my population transfer countries. This is not a blaze of glory for me, Aries apparently can't wait to spend a lot of assets taking countries that aren't worth anything to him, so this will probably be an easy win for him as the countries aren't worth anything to me either, but I'll make sure he spends a lot of money/assets to take them. If/when the blaze of glory comes, I would absolutely make sure everyone is aware of it.
| Monday, April 25, 2016 - 11:35 am |
Seems like the only thing he spent was ammo to blow up your countries - you didn't do any damage to him whatsoever. I'm sure his fist is really smarting from the damage your face did to it, though.