The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

Lots of good ideas out there that should not be forgotten. Perhaps highlighting a list of them and adding a priority to their importance could help keep things in the limelight and organized. The following would be my list but isn't designed to consider every great idea right now, just the top ones floating in my head at the moment. Comments are welcome or tell me about your own list.


1. Unit Simplicity (revised)

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25577.html?1456859816

2. Unconquerable countries/Unable to get all painting points.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/9/24851.html?1430779348

3. Unlimited Forts (through contracts) issue.

-Allow war score to apply the greatest value of country damage between

This is all good however there is a bit of a focus on war players -might add to have incentives for econ players as not all on this game are in it for war

It is true that the game is not just for war. In my view, the econ game already receives adequate incentives at each stage. If you do an adequate job getting your country going, you generate cash. Cash is needed to put together everything needed for the war game and can lead to generating products on direct trade and in space for player trade for coins.

You can easily hit early game level and rankings awards in a short time. Rankings awards are repeatable obviously with continued country maintenance. Higher level game level awards are available as your country grows.

The econ game also has a high level of detail and allows fine tuning of countries beyond simply seeing the population grow and adding more corporations. Managing and growing your country's investment fund and a good understanding of your country's consumer spending can offer tools for your country to improve over a time of "real" years.

In short, I al

I thought about an old post tonight. Check this out. An oldie but goodie.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/21792.html?1363212181

Couple interesting things about it, other than it was posted exactly 3 years before this thread. First, you will notice a form of both my first two suggestions were implemented into the game. It used to be that you could raid hapless computer countries continually at the same war level and each win a cash award even more than what is earned today. I suggested an end to that and the game changed to force an automatic advancement in war level with 4 wins at the same war level. The second suggestion was to encourage some type of benefit from not being in some sort of game war protection. This was implemented and a mild welfare benefit exists if you choose to drop war level protection (another of my suggestions) and a

So it is your fault we can't raid to build an empire.

Thanks a lot.

Wouldn't giving production bonuses to 'war gamers only' give them an economic advantage over econ gamers?

I think the cost of producing weapons and ammo should be reduced, plus a slight reduction in the importance of weapon and ammo quality. The war game should be more about strategy than who can field the most expensive military.

Increase the number of civilian casualties incurred in war. Artillery should produce tons of civilian casualties while precision bombers and cruise missiles should not. Painting should cause civilian casualties too. Nobody likes foreign military forces taking over their farm.

With the "production bonus", are you talking about the Natural Resources idea or the welfare bonus that already exists in the game with dropping war level protection? With the war-level protection thing, what you describe is already in the game. The effect is minor, however.

The idea behind "Natural Resources" is to give war players something to fight over, similar to traditional conflicts over land and resources in the real world. Though war players may experience an economic advantage by holding such a resource, this would be balanced by the fact that they would be required to defend it, without the assistance of some type of war immunity offered by the game.

If you check game updates, the cost of weapons and ammo have been reduced many times, about a few dozen the last time I counted. Your belief that this would lead to a situation where wars would be then decided more by strategy by such changes is false. The result o

and that's right Johanas, it's my fault you actually have to build an empire to build an empire. You can't simply fall over cash repeatedly raiding at war level 4 and 5 anymore. For that matter, most of those players didn't bother to build an empire at all. What was the point?

You're right, I don't like the idea of an economic advantage for wargamers only. As you already pointed out, it (and any other economic boost) will only result in even larger armies in the field.
And again, you're right; I don't know anything. I'll just quit making suggestions.

I am still unclear of which "economic advantage" you are referring to. As far as "larger armies" one of the primary issues contributing to it is that there is seldom an incentive to fight a war. Consider that the largest Simcountry armies have been building for some time. The lack of something to fight over is the single largest contributor to the imbalance that exists between a relatively new war player and a veteran that simply stocked weapons and ammo for years with little reason to pull them out and use them.

I would be interested what you consider to be a "wargamer". As I mentioned earlier, I think these tags are overdone. Am I a "wargamer" because I fight a PvP war here and there? I have fought about 8-9 different player opponents making me one of the more experienced war players you will find. Now, check my empire on LU, my main country is Candinnalm. I have an empire of well over 2.4 billion population. In an

Oh, and on you making suggestions, I am more implying that I may not know something. If you check my suggestion pages, for example, you will notice that the trend is that I will point out my game observations, identify something that I think should be corrected or could be better, and offer a suggestion. This gives one the ability to add to the discussion if they have different observations or perhaps have the same observations but have a different solution, and so on.

If you simply offer a suggestion without the underlying data, it is more difficult for a reader to understand the purpose of your suggestion. When I ask questions about one's suggestions, my goal is to understand the basis of your observations and the purpose of your suggestion. In this way, I have the opportunity to test on my own or share my own similar observations and move the discussion forward. Indeed, I ask because I don't know.

My definitions are almost entirely arbitrary, as I suspect are anyone else's. I consider a wargamer to be someone who has made the decision to pass into WL3, and leave secured mode permanently (there's always the exception of buying it with GCs, of course).
An econ player is one who has made the decision not to leave secured mode.
By my definition, one cannot be a wargamer or econ player until one has made that decision. We all start out as econ players by default. So the question is: did you decide to leave secured mode for good?
And yes, clearly, you have mastered both sides of the game.

Imagine an 800lb gorilla, like yourself, who is well nigh unassailable by military means by all but a select few players, suddenly obtains 100X the production of a half dozen natural resources. You flood the markets on all worlds and depress the prices forever - leaving everyone else unable to profitably produce their own. At wil

This game isn't moving anywhere. Not now, not ever.

However, i do agree with Jdlechs most recent explanation.

No, I have not left secured mode. I have it active for my main country in both of the worlds I am on that have it available. By your definition, I am an econ player.

I am lost in this next set of text. Like my last post, I would prefer to know what you are commenting on. Instead, I have to put myself in a fantasy scenario that has little basis in Simcountry. Newer players have an unrealistic view of how it is possible to manipulate the market. Again, I appear to be equipped with real game data and observations, you either lack such data or chosen to not share such data to back up your Simcountry market fantasy.

Indeed, I have around 4000 corporations that I control on LU. "Flooding markets" and "depressing" prices is both unrealistic and would not even be in my benefit. Sure, I could make 4000 clothing corps or some other concentration of production that would oversupply one product or two but why would I want to run a bunc

I believe there is an important trait that separates a successful player from one that is less so. As a new player, it is possible to see large empires run by successful players and play the game with a goal of building your own large powerful empire. This player seeks to learn from such players, reviews their empires and finds out how they work and why they work. They find out that these players often invite even small new empires into their federation. When conflict occurs with their fed, they see it as an opportunity to learn about war strategy. They continue to use what they have learned to advance game levels, advance war levels, and obtain the tools needed to be a greater and greater force in the game.

It is also possible to view the large empires as a threat. You recall playing many games in the past, many played in the 1st-person, where the sight of higher level players meant that you were about to be beat with a very big club. You play wit

Farming c3's was around long before you started playing then.

Sad to see the only way to build an empire is gone by the wayside.

Only if you ignore my Path of a Warrior guide, Game Level guide, and C3 guide. A handful of players have followed my guides to a lot of success. I would assume you would be an advocate of the War College and Battlegrounds suggestions too. The only question is if you read them and chose to complain anyway or you didn't read them and chose to post to this thread a second time without giving the topic a chance.

I have no idea what jdlech is talking about...

But, I will ask Aries, although the prior ideas were ultimately implemented, did it increase the participation in the war game at all? I obviously don't have any data on that but I can still see right now that the war game is dead. I think you saw a bunch of players constantly raiding and thought that if you took away their incentive to do so, that they would then turn on other players and reignite the war game, but that didn't happen.

A big deterrent to the war game is actually that you can't raid c3's endlessly for profit in order to build an empire. You've got to understand that the more difficult you make it to acquire assets, the less likely that anyone is going to be willing to put them at risk. This is why the GM's really screwed up the game when they completely changed the GC value and didn't allow players to sell cash for GC. Back in the day you would

I started a longer response but I just noticed nothing you wrote would indicate you read my suggestions at the top of this thread. I took the time to offer real suggestions that I believe are the best ones out there to add to the war game. I will give you the courtesy of answering your long post, point-by-point, if you extend me the same courtesy of reviewing the suggestions that I took the time to put together and telling me what you think on those.

I will add, I pay $180 Billion per coin. It is on this forum, it is on the trade forum, and I will add it here. If you give your coins to the GM for game cash, you are a sap.

HEY EVERYBODY, I PAY $180 BILLION PER COIN!

{I am offering 1 million electric power in direct trade at 300 quality for .5 coins. This amount of power should sell for $90+ billion on your world most of the time (any time market price is 30,000+). This provides you a return of $180 Billion per gold

In fact, it is very difficult for me to point out any player that has posted so far has read any of the suggestions. What, nobody thinks it is a good idea to fix countries that are impossible to conquer?

Whiteboy, you got nothing on unit simplicity? You ready to go another 10 hours with me before you think the game needs an update in this area?

Nobody thinks the game needs a ranking system that actually shows something other than who has the lowest score penalty?

What player thinks after dispatching enough C3's to hit war level 3-4 that they are ready for PvP? War College and Battlegrounds have no merit?

Is this the best you guys got? Complain about the state of the game but offer NO suggestions and don't even take the time to read and comment on ones made. Really, you guys need a complaint thread. Then you guys could at least stay on topic. Who wants to do the honors? Whiteboy? Jdlech? Johanas?

Sorry Aries, but to be fair, you went into this topic early on in the thread and I focused my response on it because the overall focus of the thread from my reading was how to fix the war game. All of your points are valid and I wouldn't have an issue supporting any of them depending on the implementation, but all of them combined won't go as far in restarting the war game as the ability to raid for resources went towards killing it. I appreciate what you've done in regards to offering much more value per GC, but it is a bridge too far for most people to understand even how to go about implementing it including having to have either purchased or rented a dock.

And don't say I've offered no suggestions, I've offered many including in the post you were responding to and for the most part, my ideas require little to no implementation time/cost and for the most part would just be deactivating things that were done which shoul

Oh and Aries, I get the frustration with the negativity and I appreciate that you're trying to put some very good ideas out there. I just wanted to point out that there are often unforeseen consequences.

And now that I'm thinking about this, maybe there is a compromise on the space game that would allow for great flexibility for the most part but would have the intended effects when it came to war: Unlimited space transfers as long as there are no PvP declared wars, once war is declared, space transfers have their own 1T per game month limit. Or to make it even a little more flexible, unlimited space transfers remain as long as they are between countries on the same world.

There is no dock required to take advantage of my gold coin offer. Whiteboy, check direct trade. You don't need a dock. You don't need shuttles. Purchasing and accessing the power I have for sale is as simple in your experience as purchasing professional soldiers and officers and transferring them to your country.

Many players are taking advantage of this. I had 3 players purchase a total of 27 million power for a total of 13.5 coins yesterday. Between selling a few items in space and selling power and cargo shuttles, I have had about 200 coins worth of sales in the last 8 days (that is as far back as my gold coin log goes).

FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS CONFUSED LIKE WHITEBOY. NO SHUTTLES NEEDED! NO DOCK NEEDED! GET $180 BILLION PER GOLD COIN TODAY!

1. I have no problem with this one. This has kinda happened already in electric power. I have been consistent in being the market-setter for the exchange of coins to cash

Didn't WL 10 yield a profit of 20T (Holy mother if only that was the case today) (give or take a few t) per country back then?

I wonder if that remained today if we'd have any concerns with purchasing weapons and ammo, or losing them in a war for that matter.

Hmm....

I believe it used to be an amount in trillions equal to the war level, so $10 Trillion for WL 10.

A quick check of the docs will show reaching war level 10 pays 220 coins on Fearless Blue and 100 coins on any other world in addition to $4.8 Trillion in cash. As I pay $180 Billion for coins that means you could cash out at about $45 Trillion on Fearless Blue or about $23 Trillion on any other world. Sunny, it appears the solution you seek in your last post is already in the game. You have also now posted twice looking to complain rather than to comment on game suggestions. Maybe you are our guy to start off the complaint thread.

I still say you guys are on the wrong track. The important thing is that there is parity in the game in how assets are acquired, not how quickly it is possible to accumulate them. If it is easier, it is easier for all. If it is harder, it is harder for all. Parity is what is important . Whether a player chooses to