Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game

W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Topics: General: W3C - Game News March 30, 2017


Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 11:54 am Click here to edit this post
Reduced numbers of workers in weapons and ammunition producing corporations

A further reduction in the number of workers in nearly all corporations producing weapons and ammunition, will free more workers and managers and make it possible for countries to build more corporations with the same population numbers. This is a further reduction following several previous ones and the end numbers are in sight. We do not expect any more large reductions but rather some corrections and reductions in several types of corporations that were not affected before.

Also the impact of having weapons and ammunition producing corporations in your country will be reduced and as their profitability is high, they could become more attractive to build.


The use of robotics is increased and many corporations will start using the product. The numbers remain small at this stage to prevent huge shortages on the markets but more robotics products will be used in the coming weeks and the number of corporations producing them will increase too.

Nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons can currently be used against a small number of targets, mainly fixed assets like cities and military bases and cause 100% destruction. They are not usable against many other targets and considered an overkill.

We are now looking at the entire functionality of these weapons, their use, targets and their price and may try to make them more attractive.
There is also the additional issue of potential damage to neighboring countries.
Although such weapons are unacceptable in the real world, they might be more acceptable in the game and contribute to a - do and don't do - discussion.


Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 08:42 pm Click here to edit this post
I am concerned that the look into making nuclear weapons more "attractive" misses the mark on the most pressing issues in the war game. Currently, very few players seek to participate in it and most players take advantage of the overwhelming options available to them to opt out of it altogether. I don't know of a player desire to make offensive options of any type, including nuclear weapons, any more useful than they are currently.

Making nuclear weapons any more useful can add to one primary factor in the lack of participation in the war game, federations, or game diplomacy at all. That factor is that it is simply much easier to create a threat to another country than it is to both have the skill and put in the effort to protect a country. With regard to nuclear weapons, any given country has at least 25 targets vulnerable to attack. Larger countries can have many more cities, I know of countries with 100+, and, therefore, many more vulnerable to these attacks. Having the necessary nuclear defense batteries and weapons to protect the targets is no small feat. In addition, nuclear defense batteries are quite vulnerable themselves to several types of attacks, making the possibility of punching a whole in such a defense not that difficult.

I still believe that necessary systems that teach the skills and provide incentive to enter the war game need much more attention. The War College and Battlegrounds ideas that have just completed community voting can help. As far as the balance between the ability to create a threat to a country and the skill and effort needed to protect one, I would urge that new changes do not push the balance in the wrong direction. It is currently much more difficult to create threat than to prepare a defense.

Thank you!


Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 09:50 pm Click here to edit this post
I'm in agreement with Aries.

Nuclear weapons where threat pre-war levels. Such as when people could C-3 war using nukes.
I would think we need to look at making federations more important to security again and some war level changes.

However, my suggestion to nukes is allowing chemical and tactical weapons to attack military units and targets.

-Tactical nukes should be able to attack land based units with 100% accuracy and damage. (Killing all soldiers and destroying weapons within the unit.
-Chemical weapons would do 50% damage to a unit killing soldiers only but not destroying weapons.

This would allow both assets and casualty damage to happen to an enemy nation without allowing nukes to become an overpowered weapon. Also this would increase the need and demand for having mobile nuclear defensive units.


Friday, March 31, 2017 - 07:03 pm Click here to edit this post
Taking into account what Aries and Super have both just said above, should the threat of these weapons be increased, perhaps consider introducing requirements before launch. By that I mean, countries shouldn't just be able to obtain and fire nukes so easily once they reach 20M pop. A 20M pop country is still a small country in many respects, perhaps index levels should play apart, military size, game level and most importantly war level. Should nuclear weapons suddenly gain some wrath behind them, it should be hard to acquire them and possibly a challenge to launch them. Just my thoughts gents!


Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 10:42 am Click here to edit this post
The current restrictions are just fine. As it is, you have to level up, and build corps, start an Enterprise, or spend real money in space.

In the real world, magor governments send allot on diplomacy and espionage to keep nukes and chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists, and third world dictators. We've fought real wars over this in the 21st century.

Their have been quiet a few newbs, that show up, looking for nukes, for many players, it is a goal, often higher than actually learning how to play the game. What was that dudes name sup? AK47 or something?

The GM are right to review the use of them and to make them a more attractive part of the game. Perhaps they should review the SC, SC Resolutions, and boycotts. It might be advisable to allow the SC to vote players WL up or down, to deal with aggressive nuke users.

Johanas Bilderberg

Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 01:37 pm Click here to edit this post
Here is my thought.

Remove all restrictions to war and let me handle the rest.

I will incinerate billions of imaginary sim people to satisfy our Dark Lord Jozi's bloodlust.


Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 10:38 pm Click here to edit this post
A couple of worlds have nuclear bans in place -implemented by the Security Council of that world. As a Security Council member of a couple of those worlds I am in complete favour of the continued ban of nuclear weapons on those worlds (KB being one such world). Let FB the war world obliterate itself -way you go Johanas.


Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 10:44 pm Click here to edit this post
On a couple of worlds there are nuclear bans in place -KB being one of those worlds. This was implemented by the Security Council of that world. As a Security Council member I am in favour of continuing the ban on nuclear weapons.


Sunday, April 2, 2017 - 05:07 pm Click here to edit this post

AK47(Crackcocaine), We waged a war over the principle of nuclear warfare back in the day. Nani banned him from having nukes after he threatened new players and was nuke happy. But that was years ago when we didn't have restrictions or limitations.

Still that was a real precedent moment considering his entire game was nuking and was to cause as much harm and damage as possible.


Sunday, April 2, 2017 - 05:20 pm Click here to edit this post
The issue with nuclear weapons is not their functionality but the excessive restrictions on their availability. They can't be produced on most worlds and they can only be launched from a country with at least 20 million population. That means only a small minority of players can use them.

That's boring. Requiring use of the space program to buy some weapons and materials helped to kill PvP and to drive players away from the game. Very few players have nukes because very few players want to use the space program. Trying to force players to use the space program doesn't work, obviously.

What is the point of changing the functionality of nukes if very few players can get access to them?


Sunday, April 2, 2017 - 06:27 pm Click here to edit this post
Anyone with a nuke has the power to sell it to any player they wish. Nukes are not as out of reach of players as you would believe.


Monday, April 3, 2017 - 01:44 am Click here to edit this post
yea i remember, you sold him all his nukes in space, then took them back on LU. The triple team on a newb got you and jack on wendy's radar, which only encouraged me to do some work behind the scenes. good times.

David Keirnan

Sunday, April 30, 2017 - 09:02 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree with aries on this nuclear weapons should be much rader to accquire and harder to launch . New players who become premuim with the required amount of population to launch is a possible threat as we dont khow enough about them


Tuesday, May 2, 2017 - 05:49 am Click here to edit this post
After Reading a bunch of this. It is amazing to see how easy it is to travel down beaten paths filled with the same unintended consequences we all believe need to be remedied. It is even more confusing or frustrating to see the suggestion of fixing problems by using the same means that brought on the current set of issues and genuinely expecting a different result.

Without question Sam said it best.


Remove all restrictions to war and let me handle the rest.

Limiting players options to play the game the way they see fit, or creating arbitrary limitations based on individual preferences rather than open options tailored for a variable player base is complete nonsense.

One player assumes this way is right and this way is not. That is all fine and dandy. That player is able, within the construct of the game to impose his moral code on everyone else to play according to his or her own mantra through game play.

Let me demonstrate the hypocrisy of the notion presented here this way.
Player x doesn't think players should acquire nuclear capabilities until that player has reached some arbitrary levels of success in game level or index or country size. Therefore it(nuke capability) should implemented in this way.

Player y doesn't think players should come into the game, acquire weapons easily, and begin to recklessly wage war against other players without rhyme or reason.
Therefore it shouldn't be possible to do such things.

Player z doesn't think countries and defenses should be strong because it would take too long too conquer other nations.
Therefore it should be impossible to create or deal with effective defenses that would make attacking another nation less attractive.

These are issues that players should be dealing with IN THE GAME. The devs shouldn't be spammed with constant thoughts of our preferences and ideas of what we think should be right or wrong as far as how players choose to play the game.

Should players agree or disagree with the way anyone plays the game, they are FREE to find other like-minded players who will impose their ideas on those who don't agree with their ethical or moral gospel.

More importantly, if we as players are left to deal with players in this way, it will promote union, federations, politics, mutual defense, treaties and the like to the extent that the game has some substance beyond the economic grind that it has become.

Less restrictions. You guys say you want improvements and a revival of the war game, but also want everyone behaving as if every world were Kebir Blue or White Giant. You can't have both. Which is it that you desire? We need to begin creating and dealing with situations that arise in the game with our own individual or collective solutions rather than looking to the GM every time a player is doing something you don't like or agree with. To expect that outcome is unrealistic and unfair to them. Instead of focusing on improvements, they constantly have to micromanage everyone's feelings.

I could go on and on but I'll stop there.

As far as Aries comments toward improvements that make the war game more attractive, I agree. However,, I don't think that means neglecting nuclear weapons, or not improving their usefulness or making them more attractive to player regardless if they are new or old.

Other points made for not addressing nuclear weapons are moot. North Korea , to the detriment of the economy and citizens is pushing forward with a nuclear program as I type. Limiting these or any other weapon to a certain war level or other economic achievement is not only silly but in no way realistic. If someone wants to pop off nukes to enjoy themselves give them the ability to do it. The only player that needs to worry about these things are players who neglect defense. There are remedies in the game available to counter this called nuke defense. Use it! Apply the principle of this to countless other situations and hypothetical issues in the game and, boom; We have a game!


Sunday, May 7, 2017 - 02:31 pm Click here to edit this post
alright wendy, you made some good points. but your argument is flawed.

as a person that witnessed the collapse of the Federation system, you should know the consequences of unrestricted aggression

hindsight, when the game had large federations, and allot of game politics. it would seem that about 90% of fed members where only participating do to necessity. these politics, created a sim-culture morality, that held back 10%

but those 10%, eventually cut loose of these moral bonds, and the 90% where dead in the water. having never had any real motivation to do more than collect weaons, in a 5 world cold war.

i'm curious to your thoughts to not repeat that blood bath, and mass extinction of the casual player base?


Sunday, May 7, 2017 - 03:50 pm Click here to edit this post
I have to agree with Wendy.

I haven't played for a few years, as I just started back a couple weeks ago, but what the heck happened?

I know some changes were being made even back then to protect players, but the "unrestricted aggression" you are referring to......umm, why do the changes even protect c3's? lmao You can't raid c3's without your war level shooting up....the system seems very flawed.

Nukes are overrated....if players allow nukes to be dropped without repercussion, shame on them. If you can't set up a proper nuke defense....use WAR PROTECTION!

I never understood how "econ" only players would cry about war.....when, if they were a decent "econ" player, they could simply use war protection (aka, the ultimate defense) War could be totally eliminated from the game for them, a decision MADE BY THAT PLAYER....NOT BY GM RESTRICTIONS. #On a side note, I remember many econ only players that made a large fortune by selling weapons to the players who did fight wars ;)

The pendulum has swung WAY too far the other direction.

Seems the government needs to give power back to the people. Wendy is 100% with the issues IN THE GAME.....BETWEEN PLAYERS.....NOT MORE RESTRICTIONS FROM THE GM's!!


Sunday, May 7, 2017 - 08:54 pm Click here to edit this post
I wouldn't necessarily agree the war game is dead at all in my opinion however it certainly could be improved as there are very few countries that you can even attack, for example there are probably around 3-8 empires on GR right now that are even at a high enough war level to attack. I certainly agree there could be improvements however the war game in my opinion is not dead at all and I have participated a few times myself. Unfortunately now I have almost no potential targets to attack to expand my empire in GR and would have to look at other worlds. I would certainly participate in any war that I might have a chance at wining, however there are certainly some players that look grimly down on war and would even go to war to defend another empire or send aid in the form of mobile military units preventing the war from even starting.


Monday, May 8, 2017 - 02:13 am Click here to edit this post
In the discussion about requirements to meet in order to use strategic weapons, those who believe there should be no restrictions seem to have made their view clear. The GMs should stay out of the war game and players should settle the disputes on the field. That seems fair enough.

I think the problem is that the other side has not made their position clear. Those who believe there should be restrictions I believe are concerned that, in an environment where there are no restrictions, it is possible for an aggressor to threaten nations and cause great damage with powerful weapons without having their own assets at risk. This is because that the facts of the game are that systems such as secure mode and temporary war protection can allow that aggressor nation to shield their own assets from a conflict they started.

I therefore wonder if the side that is arguing for less restrictions, more "realism", and a system where conflicts are resolved on the field between players would go a step further from freeing the aggressor nations from such restrictions and likewise free the players who are the victims of such aggression from restrictions. I believe that this would placate the side who would otherwise argue for requirements to be able to wield nuclear weapons. How about this?

-War decs and war starts occur as they do now. Replacing the current requirement that a country hosts a minimum of 20 million population and any other considered limitations, there are no requirements to host and launch strategic weapons. Should the owner of the country that made the war declaration launch strategic weapons, all of that player's countries on all worlds will not benefit from the protections of secured mode or temporary war protection for 24 hours, though war levels would still apply. This change would not apply to the receiver/defender of the war declaration.

This change seems to be right up their alley of the side wanting less restrictions and more realism. In addition, I would think this would be acceptable to the other side of this argument as well. So guys, what do you think?


Monday, May 8, 2017 - 02:21 am Click here to edit this post
I think it's a good and reasonable idea and it seems realistic as if a real country launched a nuke it would certainly put them at a huge risk. You could possibly take it a steep farther and have their war level increased by 1 in all of their countries if it is below 4.


Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 08:29 am Click here to edit this post
welcome back ec, good to see you


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 08:59 am Click here to edit this post
I do half agree with you Aries. But shouldn't we really consider that those who advocated for more protections or restrictions and those the restrictions were meant to please, by and large have since left the game?

This whole thing continues to be blown out of proportion. The simple topic is being broken down into several circle arguments that have more to do with complex morality, rather than a simple assessment of the game as it was "then" as compared to "now".

Which is more preferred? History has given us the answer.

In the past, some weapons were too strong.
In the past, some players complained about war.
In the past, some players risked very little, to gain very much.
In the past, some players would warmonger.
In the past, "insert random complaint"

I would pay more attention to...

In the past, there were many active players.
In the past, there were many active, large, engaging federations.
In the past, there were many weapons, even powerful ones.
In the past, there were many wars.
In the past, there were many eco-centric players.

and I would pay even more attention to...

In the past, there were more players to

* complain
* fight wars
* make federations
* play economically
* hide behind war protection
* to c3 war
* participate in general
* fill the chat
* fill this forum with nonsensical posts regularly
* spam the gms with all manner of questions and complaints
*** fill the worlds with other players to play with.

This is the only measure that should matter at this point. Just my opinion. Not looking to dominate the conversation, just add a bit of perspective. I'd rather not rehash these arguments of which style of play is correct or fair or offensive. I'm more concerned with restoring player numbers back to previous levels or exceeding those of the past and not repeating the mistakes of the past. A past where months and months of these circle arguments about style of play where there is no right or wrong eventually led us all here.

Reset the game to it's previous state. This is a proven model; for membership, participation and so on. This new model has shown itself to be flawed and has shrunk the community to levels I cannot fully understand. I would literally put money on more and more older and integral players returning to the game they knew and loved, and likely still do today, should the opportunity present itself.


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 04:32 pm Click here to edit this post
I think we both share the same goal. A lot of text there but what you advocate for is limited to one sentence. As you mentioned. Many players who would understand what you mean by "reset the same to it's previous state" are not around anymore. Even I, who have some idea, am not sure if you mean both changes limited to PvP rules or also other systems including rules dictating war levels in relation to wars against computer (C3) countries.

I am fairly certain the rules without some measure of protection offered to players who wish to play only the econ-game are a non-starter. I am of the opinion that the pendulum of balance between player freedom/control/realism has swung too far to the GM protection side, where even the game docs describing the purpose and state of the "war world" do not resemble that world's reality. Several systems I have suggested to loosen this have made it into the game, such as the ability to drop war level protection, the presence of which could be a useful start to other ideas. However, a full-scale removal of war levels is unrealistic.

Likewise, other changes that would reintroduce asset enrichment through a system of unlimited c3 raiding is very unlikely. The GM has made clear that such fake wars, which offered nothing less than cash for click system with no real skill needed, should not be an unlimited asset system.

So, again, it is easy to state the reality of player participation and use it to advocate about anything. As you posted earlier, players can have various opinions. The state of the game doesn't make their ideas any more or less valid. How about making clear what you are actually thinking needs changed and why you think your ideas will have a positive effect. In addition, I do not see you address at all your previous position that an aggressor using strategic weapons should have no restrictions and whether you believe that the victim of strategic weapons should likewise be free from restrictions to strike the aggressor back similarly. It certainly seems fair that any lifting of restriction on one party should be mirrored with the other and is consistent with every argument I have seen made for lack of restrictions in the use of strategic weapons by the aggressor nation.

Johanas Bilderberg

Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 04:33 pm Click here to edit this post
It used to be simple.

People who wanted to play peaceful had war protection on their single main country and were untouchable.

People who didn't were fair game unless they paid for war protection.

Raiding was the path to build an empire, which had to be protected by joining a Federation, and learning how to fight.

PvP wars were common and the way to settle disputes.

And it worked.


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 04:52 pm Click here to edit this post
^^ That is about it. I'm sorry I can't summarize things as well as Sam.

Aries, I will answer you, but I'm on my way to the store. Give me a few minutes.


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 05:00 pm Click here to edit this post
+1 Wendy
+1 Johanas

It also used to be simple as far as a player throwing around nukes recklessly. They would be dealt with accordingly by federations in the game...not by GM restrictions.

The fact that the forum can go days without any topic having a new post should say something....communicating with other players used to be key to survival. Most aggression could be avoided simply through communicating, joining a federation and learning to defend yourself along with your fedmates.

Obviously, as stated by a lot of players commenting here, the pendulum has swung too far....time to give decision making back to the players.


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 05:15 pm Click here to edit this post
Both the history and the current state of the game highlighted issues with those systems.

1. Purchased war protection is too inexpensive and too timely.

-Too inexpensive. Players would pay for year-round war protection. It was, and is, simply cheaper than paying for defense. In an environment where leaving it up is almost a "no-brainer", the price simply has to be on a level where it makes more sense to participate and count on a federation and your own force of arms rather than simply logging in here and there and purchasing a few more months of guaranteed protection.

-Too timely. Aggressive nations are given the luxury of walling off their assets with this system on the eve of a war they would start. In my opinion, this is what led to adding restrictions to strategic weapons use, where, at least, some manner of assets were in play with the offensive use of strategic weapons. There must be some system that does not allow a game mechanic with the intention of protecting assets while unavailable, like on vacation or some emergency, to instead be used for an active aggressive player to remove options for the defender.

2. Econ-players have built empires within the current game rule-set and should not be thrust into game-play they didn't sign up for, except for one exception. War level protection should exist except for on Fearless Blue, where no protections should be enforced beyond the newbie 21-days protection. Player have and continue to play on that world based on the promise described in the docs, that war restrictions are loose and players make the rules there. As we know, this is not the case.

3. Raiding as the undisputed way to raise cash didn't make sense for several reasons.

-In an environment where cash made in the game overwhelming came from raiding, it made no sense to spend time building an empire. In the end, the game encouraged an environment where there was little to fight over. Why spend time nurturing an economy in an empire when 40 minutes of raiding could yield $40 trillion? This simply made no sense with the game's investment in a complex economic system and the promise of powerful empires being the game standard.

-There must be a balance and room to gain assets in econ and war. Overall, this balance is pretty good now. An incredible head start can be achieved in war against the computer, as detailed in my "Path of a Warrior" guide in the beginners forum. However, the game now smartly has limits on assets that can be squeezed from mostly defenseless computer countries, transitioning the player to need to find some economic base for long-term play. Proper incentive exists to participate in both raiding and econ, though I have said, and offered suggestions, to make actual PvP play more lucrative, as it seems the natural progression for players who have cut their teeth against the computer.

Address these issues, and I am on board. I would be interested to see other fully thought out ideas to incentivize actual PvP play. My ideas for War College and Battlegrounds have been available on the suggestions forum for some time and have no comparable peer in this area.


Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 05:19 pm Click here to edit this post
Players recklessly throwing around nukes was, frankly, too simple. That was possible because they had nothing to loose, either because they had nothing, because raiding helpless computer countries was king, or their important assets were protection by another game restriction you guys seem to leave untouched, despite the argument against restrictions, in temporary war protection. Why are game restrictions okay for the victim but not the bomb throwers?


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 12:30 am Click here to edit this post
See, Aries, not to be rude or provocative, I would indulge you, but then I would nerf my own points earlier. We'd be going back and forth over the same no "right or wrong" answer arguments that should take a back seat to the facts that are staring everyone in the face.

Everyone who wanted protections and less powerful weapons got everything they wanted and everything they didn't as a result. Now the game is tilted to favor the garden variety type play, and strikingly, this was done to preserve and in the best case grow the community, yet the exact opposite has occurred.

There is no need to argue the merits of any previous configurations of this game except based on participation. Presently it is at an all time low, following what I can recount as an all time high.

Also, assuming you are correct, and nukes are so overpowered. Who cares? Do players casually land nukes on you? Haven't seen any in the news lately. What is to stop players from duplicating your successful nuclear defenses. No, why do that when they can just ask the GM to make the weapon obsolete and forget trying to put in the work.

Also, assuming c3s is a seemingly "easy way" to achieve wealth. Well, you click for it, and make money economically, because it pleases you to do so this way. Some players, and clearly many, many more enjoyed accruing assets the old tried and true raiding way. I realize you don't agree, but no one is forcing you to play in this manner. Do you have a problem with a persistent raider challenging your Quads of assets and thousands of GC with his or her raiding riches?

Also, purchased war protection is too cheap? Says who? And Why. Should a player do what is required to purchase what was a few months of war protection for a gold coin, why should they not be able to do so simply because you disagree. Apparently, many players spent many gold coins on war protection for various reasons. It doesn't matter. It was a product in demand, so why not sell it?

I shouldn't have responded in this manner because I think the circle jerk of response and counter response will only drown out the larger point many players are realizing have more legitimacy than the narrow view of the player sitting at the top of the game's riches making moral arguments for how 'this or that' should be.

Facts and realities are the only thing that should matter here. On the business side the answer is even more simple. Players were appeased, the community shrank from a community that was vibrant and active, even if a small(extremely small) sample were ultimately unhappy. Many of the unhappy which I also do not see playing or participating in this forum today.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 01:49 am Click here to edit this post
Almost every paragraph you just wrote talks about player participation again and very little addresses the points I made. You then threw in some talk about overpowered vs. under-powered weapons which makes no sense since at all weapons are just as powerful as they ever were.

Your argument isn't good enough to say there happened to be more players before so its time to roll all game rules back. There are many more possible reasons for decline in active players. Maybe we are not just getting the younger folks, who are looking for more mindless entertainment with superior graphics, or many similar reasons. You will have to do better than say everything you suggest makes sense on that point alone.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 01:51 am Click here to edit this post
That's the point Aries, I'm not addressing any points you made. I only address the relevant one. There is NO argument, ONLY facts.

There was a game, and there is less of it now. This is a brain, making simple observations. You need to face reality. Carrying on like this with you in circles is like one's brain on drugs.... Any questions?


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 01:57 am Click here to edit this post
Even More Astounding....

we have a browser game, that is also being ported as an app... and your target audience is primarily the 55 and up community not looking for any instant gratification and somewhat better graphics???

Nah bruh.... You'll have to do better. You nearly disqualified yourself from making any legitimate comment on the topic... like ever..........

Just stop please...........


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:08 am Click here to edit this post
I can understand why you would want to quiet me. You simply have no relevant answer to my valid points. Though what changes you think are actually warranted remain mostly unclear, other than some going back to the past, and the reason you state for them is empty other than it is assumed it will bring back some panacea for player participation, now the best you have is some worn out old commercial quotes and some competition who can type the most dots. Classy


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:19 am Click here to edit this post
By gawd I won that one.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:31 am Click here to edit this post
A long time ago, before many improvements, you could choose to either play a peaceful game or war game and there was no secured mode. There was either peaceful countries that couldn't war, meaning empires had to be bought, or you could play non peaceful countries and there was war protection but you only earned something like 1 month of wp every 8 game months or something like that. The war game wasn't nearly as refined but there was a lot of participation and communication. As years have passed there has been more and more forced separation of players due to secured countries, paid war protection and war levels. The level of participation and communication has dropped as there has been more and more improvements in the name of safety. This is a war game though and even though I've never been great at war it has been one of the biggest attractions of it for me. That and communication with other players, the problem is there isn't much of either anymore. I never saw the need for more protections, to protect a few who wanted the economical benefits of non peaceful countries while being protected from attacks while cheating many people out of chances to war never made sense to me. I like the current war game but in my opinion it is too time consuming to attract the interest it used to have, its technically far better but simplicity made it much more playable for many more people in the past, the now distant past which made for a more active world. This is all just my opinion, feel free to disagree, it doesn't matter much anyway since I can never manage more than a few consecutive months of active game play anymore.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:32 am Click here to edit this post
stay classy my friends!


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:37 am Click here to edit this post
What's your beef with dots... Aries...?


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:38 am Click here to edit this post
Not beef. Definitely more of a poultry. Possibly chicken.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:45 am Click here to edit this post
chicken is practically a vegetable. Have a beef for Gods sake, gods of war aren't supposed to do poultry


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 03:49 am Click here to edit this post
I know right? Dots=poultry. Stick with beef. Aaron said it best.

Johanas Bilderberg

Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 04:03 am Click here to edit this post
3. Raiding as the undisputed way to raise cash didn't make sense for several reasons.

Not everyone has the time or desire to micromanage an economic empire.

Raiding should be returned.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 04:10 am Click here to edit this post
Raiding exists, and offers plenty of rewards, as my "Path of a Warrior" guide shows.

Fighting just 36 computer wars on just 2 worlds, many of those newbie-level, yields some $78 Trillion and 640 gold coins (worth another $128 Trillion at current market price). A return of nearly $6 trillion per C3 war. Not too shabby and in not too much time. If you don't desire to build an empire and don't put in the time that others have decided to, than others might receive a different set of rewards that you do not. Is this not fair?


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:11 am Click here to edit this post
I would agree I've even made around 400Billion per C3 country fighting at war level 3 (Fighting to Expand Empire. You can make quite a bit of cash quickly but unfortunately your war level increases which can cause players to not want to fight wars against a C3 when it could increase there war level.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:34 am Click here to edit this post
Nobody is interested in your version of "Path To a Warrior"

C3 raiding as form of entertainment is like asking boxing prospect if he is interested in a title fight versus the heavy bag.... For the boxer, a real opponent versus hitting something that will never hit back kind of seems boooooring, useful albeit but boring.

Where is the support for these coding tasks for battlegrounds from actual genuine players 6 months or a year into the game. I don't mean the flock of try-hards who swear by the gospel of Aries, I mean actual players.

It also puzzles me how you need to drown out everyone who brings up the topic of improving the game by rolling back these obvious conceptual failures that have been implemented. It's almost as if the whole idea of the current configuration was your idea and you are butthurt that anyone would challenge your proven wisdom. If your ego is bruised becuase you got it wrong its ok I mean it can be undone with a few rollbacks.

Your version of the game is as it is today. Where not much of anything happens and we all log in to perform relentless ipo chores and come to chat and boast of taking 600 corps public.

Might be your pace and all, but not everyone likes watching jeopardy. Perhaps it is a demographics issue.

Unless you are a GM. There is no need for anyone pointing out what is obvious to prove anything to you or explain to you why common sense should prevail. Unless you're happy with failure. In fact, it should be YOU who explains why this model should continue and why it is beneficial for the general activity of the game to suffer by allowing it to continue on this current course.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:18 am Click here to edit this post
Who is attempting to drown anyone out? You were the one asking me to "stop" and said I am somehow "disqualified" from comment. I have made no such demands nor statements. I am the one willing to debate changes based on their individual merits while you appear to be absolutely disturbed at the thought of needing to justify your game demands. I trust our intelligent players to read this discourse and determine whose ego is on full display.

If I recall, Battlegrounds and War College passed a player vote by a tally of 11-1. After months of being available on the Suggestions Forum, an actual player who actually plays the game suggested I put it up for a vote. So I did. Can you find 11 players to support whatever they can figure out you are suggesting? My guess the only ones who sign on are the ones you can get to buy that bunk that a binary choice exists between what exists now and some fantasy cloud cuckoo land.

As for "Path of the Warrior", I typically mention it when I hear loathing regarding the absence of raiding rewards. If you can do better, go ahead, but I will not accept the perception that there are no gains to be had in raiding. It just isn't true.

Johanas Bilderberg

Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:28 am Click here to edit this post
Lets put egos aside for a minute.

I prefer the term aggressive recycling.

And it is not just C3's. I captured many hundreds of millions of population, rebuilt countries for later sale, and built huge stock pile of weapons/ammo. Not even mentioning the dozens of rebuilt countries I sold or gave away over the years.

So yes I did better. But that was then, this is now.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:00 am Click here to edit this post
I can do better, actually I don't have to do better, the game actually did better on substantive factual figures not simply opinions. Exaggerated opinions about this or that, ethical, tactical or otherwise led us here. A stagnant Republic of Aries. Where 11 people voted yes to anything but "this" but that doesn't disqualify the obvious reality the game was better then, not now. And when I say better, I don't mean I liked it better, I mean better from every conceivable category you can measure it against today. Better as in every aspect we can point out that is missing today, was very evident in the previous configurations for good reasons or "bad" (according to a very tiny presently extinct minority). I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you.

It is a binary choice, a player micro managing or approving every other players' choices according to their own whims gets us to this version where that singular player is apparently very happy playing by himself or an otherwise largely non motivated dwindling player base(Seem Familiar? Look around you.) For an older gentleman, I don't fathom how your vision for things never extends past the point of the nose in front of your face, yet has almost nothing to do with the visual acuity of your eyes.

I probably can't get 11 players to vote on anything these days because... of the hopefully 11 active players with enough sense to figure out how to reach the forum the rest can't gather how to get to the voting mechanism. This too, is a result of diminished communication throughout this community. Presently, there is little incentive to even speak to another player or post on this forum unless a player cannot figure out something economically going on within their empire. Aside from that, they creep back into their own countries, or lose interest in the game and move on.

It is a binary choice, and discussions and methods to "improve" things for all the crybabies from there would be far less complex than trying to figure it out from this end. The contrasts of then til now is as black is to white. That justifies the position of a binary choice. Disagree all you like but the facts and every measurable category of success are on my side without question. There is no argument here. There is only you debating with yourself if you can stomach anyone other than yourself enjoying this game.

My keyboard is getting hot... don't make me strike these keys like this....


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:15 am Click here to edit this post
Concerning the real issue here.

-Problem. Too many protections were implemented and now clearly have proven damaging to the game overall.

-Solution. Roll back to a clearly proven previous configuration of the game.

* Those who enjoy raiding, can enjoy raiding, rewards for that raiding can be easily tweaked.
* Those who enjoy PVP war, can enjoy warring and all the fixins that go hand in hand with this added possibility.
* Those who wish to play an economic game, can use easily accessed war protections via gold coins or secured mode as it was in the previous configurations. Thereby avoiding warmongers, lil kim jong uns armed with over powered nuclear weapons, wars, federation wars, becoming inadvertent casualties to wars they don't wish to participate in due to complex politics/, or war altogether.

**Players can go back to playing the game having options to suit their desired style of play. Increasing satisfaction of premium members and offering a more robust game with more robust options for new free members considering premium membership. Expecting an ultimate outcome of expanding the community back to previous levels or exceeding them altogether.

Okay, there is the problem and the solution put in a format programmers are taught to how solve them.

Why create problems where none actually existed? There was nothing broken in the first place. Just a small band of players exaggerating a bunch of nothing into smoke and mirrors and clearly by and large weren't loyal enough to the game to stick around to enjoy their newfound utopia, save 1(The God Of Snore). Give it a rest and take a nap old man. With all Due respect of course. Good night.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 04:41 pm Click here to edit this post
I realize at first read, some may see this conversation as a clash of ego's.....I definitely do not see it that way. Any discussion to give the game a kick in the arse is a good step.

As far as player votes....that system has NEVER been reliable as a decision making tool. I don't know exactly why it doesn't work, but it has always frustrated me to the point of wanting to punch myself in the face. For some reason, players either can't figure out how to use the system, or just don't care. Either doesn't work.

The game used to be alive and flourishing with players. It is now a shell of what it used to be....actually very sad to see what it has become. I was really excited to come back and establish relationships with players again. Well, I was more that a bit surprised to see that it's basically like pulling teeth to try to get players to communicate in the game.....then I realized it's because there AREN'T MANY PLAYERS ACTIVE now.

I've been away for a few least 4 years I think. When I left, the new restrictions against warring players had just started to be implemented.

It used to be, I could come home from work, take down a few c3's or the occasional country that had been abandoned by it's president for over a month. Raiding these c3's and countries was a blast...helped me to expand my empire and most importantly, it helped curb the itch to go to war.

Forcing up war levels by fighting c3's has never made sense to me....period. I'm not saying that following Aries warrior guide isn't lucrative, it certainly is, but the levels haven't worked since the day they were introduced.

Economic only players have always been coddled. They can eliminate ANY threat to their assets by simply investing in the cheapest form of protection in the game....war protection. It's far cheaper to use wp than it is to establish proper defenses....and it's unbeatable.

War protection IS THEIR CHOICE to not war with other players.

The system now is broke...just look at the activity now compared to a few years ago.

I'm with Wendy 100%. Reset the game to where it was 4-5 years ago. Both econ only players and warring players could both have it their way. (Utopia seems to certainly be the proper description)

Good discussion guys (And gals)



Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 05:49 pm Click here to edit this post
I guess fundamentally, I don't understand the appeal of a PvP environment that Psycho Honey, EC, and Johanas envision. My understanding is that they see three categories of players:

1. Econ-only. The smart ones never get of PvP war level (though maybe they believe war levels themselves should be removed. again, their views are some fantasy cloud cuckoo land rollback that hasn't been explained). The ones who are not protected by war level are expected to purchase gold-coin protection for all their slave countries. Those thatfail to renew this will fall into the next category.

2. Inactives/The Prey. These are the players who didn't renew their war protection. These players are highly vulnerable either because they are not available to defend their empire or never intended to and lack the skills and resources to do anything about a war declaration.

3. "War Players". These are players who never intend to build any country/empire of any value. Since they can mash buttons for cash against a mostly defenseless computer country (It doesn't shoot back) as often as they want, there isn't reason to seek any other income source. Between these fake wars (the GM's own term on this), they search their world for Inactives/Prey for easy conquests of what other players have built. They have little or no intention of actually fighting any challenging war ever.

In this game-state, there is still little role for federations, since war protection is the only defense that makes sense, and little incentive for war players to build something worth fighting over. The way I see it, the game should incentivize building things of value and having those things outside of game protections. The end game should be an environment of federations having a central role in the game along with careful diplomacy to protect player assets. The game isn't there yet but certainly should not move backward.

My list in that direction looks like this:

1. War College - A system similar to game levels that focuses on teaching PvP basics and ends with advancing the player to war level 10 with all rewards.

2. Battlegrounds - Real player PvP fought over a neutral ground.

3. Natural Resources - Allow players to choose a bonus for an existing country they own. They must pay for it in gold coins. The bonus only applies if the player is war level 4+ and has removed war level protection. The bonus for that country, once paid for, applies permanently for that country for any owner as long as the current owner is war level 4+ and has removed war level protection.

4. Total War/All-Out War - A system to spark fed/large wars.

5. The War World - Remove war level protection for all Fearless Blue countries. Only 21 day protection applies here.

6. Gold Coin War Protection - Increase the cost of gold-coin purchased protection to 4 coins on FB and 3 coins elsewhere per 4 game months. This should be reserved for vacation/emergency use. Perhaps increase it a bit further than that and offer a small allotment of free protection for each month of purchased premium membership. This protection should also not apply for the duration of a war declaration against another player.

The goal should be real PvP against players and participation in federations and diplomacy to protect game assets. Not a system of fake wars against the computer and PvP limited to preying on inactive/defenseless players. Lets take the game forward, not backwards.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:07 pm Click here to edit this post


I guess fundamentally, I don't understand the appeal of a PvP environment that Psycho Honey, EC, and Johanas envision.

Jeebus H Aries.... We didn't envision it, we remember what already existed.

Its really sad that one cannot follow what you make of what everyone is saying despite clear concise posts about their desires. It's cool though, I will just reference...


-Problem. Too many protections were implemented and now clearly have proven damaging to the game overall.

-Solution. Roll back to a clearly proven previous configuration of the game.

* Those who enjoy raiding, can enjoy raiding, rewards for that raiding can be easily tweaked.
* Those who enjoy PVP war, can enjoy warring and all the fixins that go hand in hand with this added possibility.
* Those who wish to play an economic game, can use easily accessed war protections via gold coins or secured mode as it was in the previous configurations. Thereby avoiding warmongers, lil kim jong uns armed with over powered nuclear weapons, wars, federation wars, becoming inadvertent casualties to wars they don't wish to participate in due to complex politics/, or war altogether.

**Players can go back to playing the game having options to suit their desired style of play. Increasing satisfaction of premium members and offering a more robust game with more robust options for new free members considering premium membership. Expecting an ultimate outcome of expanding the community back to previous levels or exceeding them altogether.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Roll back to where? Maybe I should say, when? For the majority who likely didn't play then, why don't you explain what that means? You have a problem with robotics? Yes yes, very unclear. Very unfollowable.

Also, every one of your outcomes can be argued are in the game already. Raiders can raid. PvPers can PvP. GC war protection is still there. There is no explanation of what your "solution" does to change any of those things. It could be said that since all of your outcomes already exist in the current state of the game, your solution is not needed.

So yes. Your solution is as plain as mud and your outcomes can be said to have succeeded in the current state of the game.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:32 pm Click here to edit this post
Yet, the state of the game is a shadow of it's former self

I don't have all the answers to fix it, but I do know that it used to be better than what we have now...with many more active players


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:39 pm Click here to edit this post
Exactly EC. We agree there is something wrong. We both think changes are needed to accommodate game-play outside of just econ. I just don't buy that since some former time had more players, the answer lies entirely in rolling back the game to that time. I do buy that war players need more. They need more incentive, they need their war world back etc. as I have described.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 06:59 pm Click here to edit this post
Well Aries, how do you explain the current diminished state of the game... oh you can't. You keep attempting to by attacking common sense. It amazes me how you're arguing with people who can see clearly the stark contrasts from then til now who have been here longer than your present incarnation.

But I'll play ball.

1. War College - A system similar to game levels

Really, because war levels are a stunning improvement backed by any data that supports that position? We should task resources and engineers to code a similar concept that has clearly failed in every aspect... Try again.

2. Battlegrounds - Real player PvP fought over a neutral ground.

Similar to a battle royale world suggested by myself many years ago. The devs liked the concept, but rejected this idea because it would have to be coded and they weren't sure enough players would be interested to justify undertaking such a task.

More importantly, it would take away from war within the game. War in the game is important. It provides substance and history. A reason to log in, to read the news, to come to chat, to promote and interact within federations. By replacing this with a system with no consequences, it diminishes the overall benefits of war brings to the game. (Note, assuming forces for warring are even and not based on arbitrary levels, I'd easily kick your ass all over that "arena" *facts* exactly why it wasn't introduced, made this point a while ago as well. You don't really "want it".)

3. Natural Resources -

Albeit interesting, a menial and pointless coding task, creating new subsets of problems for coders and devs in terms of balance and watching mega players dominate those resources, widening the gap between players who have tons of resources and those just starting the game hoping to compete. Similar to the notion, the rich getting richer and the poor stay that way. Easily a non-starter. Assuming these resources would be balanced for everyone's benefit, they again become really pointless and add very little to the game. Perhaps there is some benefit to this addition after much discussion and trial and error, but it isn't the easiest path toward achieving the goal of "restoring the game". An idea better suited for a different outcome.

4. Total War/All-Out War - A system to spark fed/large wars.

Is this a joke? The main reason war levels and added protections were introduced was allegedly econ players being swept into wars and conflicts by war mongers they otherwise had no interest in participating in. This idea limits the ability of players playing econ and war to have an opportunity to represent a federation despite their style of gameplay. We are goin gback to player satisfaction and giving choices to players, not forcing anything on them. This limits that and has been identified by scores of players present and gone as a primary factor in putting them off to the game.

5. The War World - Remove war level protection for all Fearless Blue countries. Only 21 day protection applies here.

OMG... its like you want to agree with everyone and just let it be how it used to be. No $#!7! Who would've thunk it?

6. Gold Coin War Protection - Increase the cost of gold-coin purchased protection ....

Um... why? Becuase you don't like the price? How is the game supposed to know when each individual player has an emergency, or a vacation, or any other legitimate reason to protect their assets? Why can they simply be offered the choice to never participate in a war game they don't wish to indulge? Again, you are micro managing everyone else's decisions and style of play based on your own whims. Make it so expensive so that only players like you and I can afford it, while the new and not so profitable player's assets are swept aside? This makes sense how? Are we trying to bring players in or chase them away.

You have to do better...


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:40 pm Click here to edit this post
Where are your ideas?


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Objection!!! Asked and answered!


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:51 pm Click here to edit this post
I'll just throw this in here because I'm new and don't care.

I've read the thread. Digested it. There is one thing I am not seeing in anyone's argument.

This is the way the game is played now. Not many see it changing or reverting back to anything. Why are we not recruiting more people that would be attracted to the game as it is played now? Or for those of you that prefer the major war game, why aren't you messaging players in game and working with them to reach fighting shape and level? If you did this, the population of warring players would increase.

Seems like all the answers for me anyway go back to the that people are more inclined to have a game cater to and form around their playing styles...when in reality it should be the players operating within the game catering their gameplay to the game rules. The rules as of now still allow wars etc.

Don't let the game master you. Master the game.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:58 pm Click here to edit this post
Heisenberg.....if you had been around a few years ago, you would have seen the full chatroooms and the popping forum.

The changes didn't work

The game is half of what it used to be

The community has dwindled

Nobody can deny it that played back then


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:03 pm Click here to edit this post
I get that. But the past has passed, it's really up to us to decide if there is a future.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:03 pm Click here to edit this post
I haven't included it in my answer because it isn't the argument I am trying to make. I am not going to defend failure. It's irresponsible, like making excuses.

I think if you want to pose a more applicable subject then here's one.

For everyone who thinks the game is okay... assuming "they" are doing everything Heisenberg assumes is every players responsibility to do...

Why isn't it working? For those who message and work with players and mold them into the non existent fighting base absent today, how is that working out for you? If it isn't working out, then why? Why were these tasks so easy and productive then, compared to now?

Very important side note, most of the great econ players are gone too, this isn't jjust a war thing. But an outcome of too many added protections. It has destroyed both active player bases. New and old alike. I want that improved. Most of the past greats are here for nostalgia and nothing more. Why waste an asset of experienced players like that.

I noticed Sam, Dub, Romeo V. Stephen Ryan, Rob K, Aaron, Yankee and many many more here. yet oddly disengaged from the bigger picture. That is telling.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:15 pm Click here to edit this post
I think some changes should certainly to improve the war game or perhaps we just need a completely new and reworked war game. Regardless I believe there are 2 major problems currently that make the war game not practical and extremely difficult and time consuming and should be addressed soon at some point. Additionally there is another problem which could be addressed sometime in the far future.

1. To Much Clicking!

This is one of my greatest problems with the war game. The clicking is literally insane. Improvements could be added such as possibly making it easy to simply search for forts and then select them all and then you would be able to select which units to attack with. To make this balanced the attacks would not be instant but would use realistic times which could be calculated by the distance from the attacking unit to the target.

For example if a air force bombing and attack wing is 1,000miles from a target and if it did fly at 200mph it would take 5 game hours for it to get to the target and another 5 to get back.

Of course you would be able to use multiple air wings at a time with each of them taking time to get to the target and back. therefore the more air wings you have the more targets you could destroy at once. This would be a huge improvement to the game and make wars easier to fight as significantly less clicking would be involved while being balanced with non instant attacks which would take flight and travel time into account.

2. Not many countries to attack and very few potential targets:

Currently there are very few countries and targets in some of the worlds which also significantly affects the war game in negative ways. I am proposing changing the way war levels work based on activity, premium membership, and other factors based on how new a player is.

I believe that if a player leaves the game and or is inactive for large periods of time they should be vulnerable to attacks such as players with higher war levels could attack them after a certain time period.

Additionally players without premium membership perhaps war levels would not apply to them or they could be vulnerable to attacks in other ways. This would also provide another reason for players to purchase premium membership.

Finally it could also be reasonable for new players to receive war protection regardless of any changes to the war game, and with the additional help by war guides which simcountry should update explaining in very simple terms how to defend your country effectively based on current player attack strategies .

3. To Many Worlds

Currently I believe there are to many simcountry worlds that have very few players above war level 3 such as GR which is essentially dead. It would be reasonable for simmcountry to consider discontinuing or finding ways to merge some of the worlds perhaps sometime in the future. This may seem extreme and it certainly is currently but at some point it may be something that is a reasonable idea considering many of the worlds are too big with few large empires.

I hope that you at least have considered these ideas which could in the future be implemented in limited forms, especially the problems with the extreme clicking involved in large scale wars with hundreds of forts and corps.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:19 pm Click here to edit this post
I'm not here for the war game. So I plainly could not care less about this entire subject. The way I figure it is if the GM is running this game the way they want to, that is all that matters. As far as I know, and have experienced in other games, ideas from players are taken, and sometimes implemented at the GM's discretion. If people did not enjoy the changes, they quit. In the overall scheme of things, money talks...and obviously the money isn't telling the owners of this game to change back. Maybe if the benjamins slow down coming in, then the GM will do something.

Withhold your cash if it is that much of an issue.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:28 pm Click here to edit this post
I may not renew my premium membership in the next 2 months if the war game is not fixed in some way or if the game masters don't announce a upcoming fix.

There probably won't be a future for this game if changes aren't done in the next few months.

The game is in a gradual decline and to fix it the GM's need to advertise it along with lots of fixes and major radical changes to the game.

(It's only a matter of time before their money tap dries up and stops coming in)


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:36 pm Click here to edit this post
Well, that's blatantly false, I was brought here by an ad. So the Gm's are actively advertising this game.

I've noticed a lot of newer players enjoy the game, as it makes them think. Two of the players I've brought in have already stated they don't have any interest in conversing with people, and one of them said a read through these forums disgusted them and they'd never participate. But I have one friend who thinks he's unlocked the secret to the war game and he plans on going that way.

To each their own. And this game has something for everyone in my estimation.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 08:48 pm Click here to edit this post
Well they certainly aren't working hard enough as there are numerous complaints and issues involving the war game. It's pretty obvious there's been a major decrease in the number of players playing the game.

Look at the participation in voting polls on game suggestions.

If you scroll down to see the results of multiple polls you can see almost 5 to 20 times the players voted on polls 4 years and more ago opposed to the more recent ones when only a few player voted.

(You may say players just don't like to participate in votes anymore but any reasonable person could tell it's a result of inactivity and game decline.)


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:03 pm Click here to edit this post
I didn't say votes. I said participate. Period. And going through the votes, your argument is invalid. Even when this game was more populated, averaged 20 to 40 votes. The player base was hundreds back then I am told. So it doesn't seem like they were all that active voting back then too. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's in a direction that you're trying to use a straw man to make your point.

I have seen so far 6 different players complain about this. That is not numerous. That's like saying that since 100,000 people in the US are in favor of allowing people to drink and drive we should just let it happen, because yknow, it's what they want. It doesn't work that way because the GM's have a job to do, and that is to balance their game as they see fit.

Fact is, all you have been talking about since you started was taking out empires. If you'd just be honest and say you don't want war levels because you want to rob inactive, I'd have a lot more respect for your positions.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:11 pm Click here to edit this post
The GM's are supposed to listen to the people who play the game, well they will if they want to continue to rake in money. You yourself have admitted it there used to be hundreds of players back then actively participating in the game and now there is 6 wanting to remove war levels opposed to 1 (Heisenberg) defending war levels, that seems like a huge decrease in players, even when you count all the players that didn't participate in this thread your still looking somewhere between 10-50 active players opposed to hundreds.

[It's pretty clear to everyone except Heisenberg there's been a decrease in active players.]

This should be addressed right now by removing and replacing war levels along with a numerous list of other desperately needed changes followed by a enormous advertising campaign.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:14 pm Click here to edit this post
I said I was TOLD there were hundreds.

I'm also not defending anything. The GM is not obliged to institute ANY change it doesn't want to. You're just another player who thinks just because you play a game it entitles you to some kind of partial ownership. It does not.

Once again, we all know why you want war levels gone.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 09:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Of course there not obligated to change anything, there is no law requiring games to do what players won't. However I'm sure the GM's want to hear these suggestions and it's likely they will want to remove war levels if they want money as otherwise there will be a huge decrease in revenue in the next year.

Also most games that are successful usually suit there games to the players wants otherwise they simply can't sell there game.

If you ever wondered why the GM's have a topic (suggestions) it's so people can post there suggestions and there has been numerous complaints on these issue already.


Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 10:59 pm Click here to edit this post
Alright, was out for Mother's Day stuff and couldn't type much then. As far as your critique of my ideas. War levels and game levels are not the same thing. Reading comprehension can help with that. So with War College, it was obvious you didn't understand it.

I am not convinced you followed the link and even read Battlegrounds. As far as your reply that it would replace "real wars", the idea is that it would instead replace endless raiding for those who miss it. In that respect, it is much more "real" and could create a spat to lead to larger conflict.

The idea with Natural Resources is to create an incentive to have actual empires with actual econ protected with force of arms and federations rather than artificial war protection. This would replace your notion of any econ savvy player should simply throw up magic war protection. This leads to actual feds with actual purpose and actual diplomacy. Thought we were going for "real" here, so I though you would be a fan of this one.

Doesn't seem you read Total/All-Out war. You should take a look. Actual old time war players liked the idea when I introduced it. It still requires players to make a choice to participate.

Glad you agree on the War World. Yes, very limited protections there make sense.

On gold coin protection, the idea is to discourage continuous use of these feature to, again, incentivize use of real federations, real force of arms, and real diplomacy over unlimited and unrealistic game protections. As I said, provide some number of days free each month with membership and then raise the price of additional buys to discourage continuous use. This allows anyone to have free protection for important days/emergencies/vacation.

To sum up. From your first posts you seem to be for more war freedom and less game restrictions but it seems your responses carry a different motive. Which is it then? Do you want anything other than unlimited fake wars and creating a temporary war protection system that is a no-brainer to participate in with those following out of it identified as inactive prey? How valiant of you fake war players who only wish to face a computer opponent or inactive players, both of which don't shoot back. Cowards!


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 12:41 am Click here to edit this post
I can see there are many different opinions on this issue and it's probably best if there could be a compromise on this issue that we all could agree upon instead of simply arguing about this issue. I do apologize to Heisenberg for not considering any of his ideas however I do still believe that at some point in the future or sometime soon changes should be implemented into the game.

I can see Aries seems to support wars against other active players, although I'm not sure if it's possible to be fully implemented as it would lead to conflict against new players who simply cannot win against a player like Aries. However Aries did have other good ideas such as providing reasons for players to choose a war path which could improve the game, unfortunately removing war levels completely is probably too extreme.

Therefore I have proposed a plan below which I hope everyone will at least read.

War Plan for Replacement of War Levels

[I hope everyone can at least consider my suggestions below and I would be encouraged to hear reasonable critique on problems or potential improvements to my solution.] The goals of this plan are listed below my list of changes the plan would in act.

List of Changes that would replace war levels

1. The system would give new players a certain time period of protection. They would be by default econ during this period and after be auto changed to war if inactive and do not make a decision to be econ or war.

2. C3's would have random amounts of defenses with different amounts of cash based on their defense.

3. After the time period of protection the new player would choose whether he wants to be involved in war or be a econ player. (he could end protection early to decide sooner)

4. It would cost the player gold coins to change from econ to war, war to econ would be extremely expensive but not impossible.

5. If a econ player is inactive for a certain period of time he would become a war player and be vulnerable to attack.

6. Economic benefits would encourage players to decide to be war players.

Goals of the Plan:

1. Would allow new players protection from war

2. Would allow players to choose a war or econ path.

3. Would allow active players to expand their empires by conquering inactive targets.
4. Would allow active players to fight other active players in limited ways if they choose a war path.
5. Would give economic benefits to war players.

6. Would encourage players to be active

Overall I hoped you considered this plan and I thank you in advance for pointing out any potential improvements or problems in this plan. This is hopefully a compromise between war levels and no war levels at all.

Johanas Bilderberg

Monday, May 15, 2017 - 12:49 am Click here to edit this post
Trust me new people.

It is a lot more interesting politically, militarily, and towards your sleep patterns to be at risk.

No risk, no reward.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 02:59 am Click here to edit this post
what is a sleep pattern? that must be something people without kids have?


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 07:16 am Click here to edit this post
Why would a any player, let alone a new one, want war with me? I am just a disabled cancer cripple. Why not seek to join my fed and be my friend instead?

Johanas. Your side is only advocating three types of players I described earlier. Those protected by GC war protection (which Wendy wants to keep cheap), those who build nothing worthwhile and look for inactives/prey, and the inactives/prey, who let their protection lapse. There is no role for federations, friends, and diplomacy in that. Nothing of value out there that remains "at risk".


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 09:11 am Click here to edit this post
Guys, why don't we just start a revolution and overthrow the evil GM's we can rebuild the glorious system, for to long the capitalists have ruled over us. Now we will reorganize our glorious system into a modern architectural community of communism and I'll lead us into the future. And naturally comrades anyone who disagrees will be sent to a fun camp especially those GM's.

The future of this community must be built by the people and not the corrupt capitalists. Forward to Victory comrades.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 09:16 am Click here to edit this post
Long live people's republic of Simcountria!


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 10:28 am Click here to edit this post
My god it is such a sight to read Aries turning conversations about something into something that has a bunch to do with nothing.

But ok....

Assuming he is right and one thing that'll come about from a rollback is raiding of inactive "prey".

Um so what? If you're inactive you haven't logged into the game for more than 30 days. If you aren't really playing, why not donate to someone who is? If raiding an inactive was a crime, it is a victimless one. I mean if you aren't logging in regularly, you aren't really that "deep" in the game anyway so... nvm. Assuming war protection is achievable, one could theoretically secure their nations for good by simply logging in once a week. Like Romeo Vicardi, who's empire on FB has been in war protection since I returned to the game nearly 6 months ago. Is anyone killing his assets? No. Is anyone abusing him? No. Is he on the forum crying to Gods for relief, no? He simply chooses to play the game he wishes to play it. No harm, no foul. Many of us know who that account is. Again, another hidden gem, managing to log in regularly to secure his assets, yet completely disengaged from any aspect of the game. I am certain, it is frustration. No forum posts, no chat visits, nothing. Just log in, check the WP levels, rake the cash and move on to real life no complaints.

The only thing about raiding that needs to be considered when talking about a rollback is this. When raiding was an option, inactives were swept up repeatedly by new and old members, you know... back when there were many, many players to do so. Raiding isn't a thing now, guess what else is missing? More players!

Your incessant whining about someone maybe gaining a few million pop or a few trillion in assets is so null and void. Even if you were 1000% correct, so what. Big whoop. It amazes me that you keep pushing this line when the data shows you have no leg to stand on for defending this current state of the game. Now players are cowards or whatever insult you wish to throw around because you have no sound logic to base anything you say on.

Maybe you were the architect of this crap and somehow got the gms to bite and implement this. It is the only way I can figure out why you get in your feelings anytime any real player points out the obvious flaws and outcomes.

Noticeably absent in your last pointless post, any reference to Battle Royale World. Like I said, coward... You don't really "want it". I asked for a battle royale world long before you ever presented that battlegrounds crap like a cheap knock-off from China. They implement that we'll see who the coward really is. You won't be able to rely on your buddies or ridiculous numbers of mobile units to save your candy ass. If you want it so bad, burn your energy bitching about how your 11-1 vote was ignored and push the implementation of that. None of this is relevant to the need for a rollback. If you want to crap talk, we can start a new thread.

You don't want to face facts. So much so that because you can't control the conversation and drive everyone to your posts littered with boring drivel, you resort to naming everyone who actually wants to play a more robust game cowards.... You're the coward... talk about an ulterior motive. Everything about your proposals clearly preserves your position as a mega player, period. That was pointed out months ago. Natural Resources, Making War protection expensive, The GM getting out of the GC/Cash exchange... I could go on and on. GTFO with that "must be another motive crap. Because that is all that is, crap.

This mutha really said coward.... in a conversation about improving the game....wth.... pssshhhh....

Johanas Bilderberg

Monday, May 15, 2017 - 01:16 pm Click here to edit this post
Some of the best times I had in Simcountry was with my Fedmates experimenting with the war engine Aries.

Now there is no point for a Federation. No need to learn the finer points of air defense, range, and how to defeat it. How to set up a forward base for ground invasion, how to use a navy.

All these were necessary skills for aggressive recycling. Now pretty much useless.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 04:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Psycho indeed. Whose ego is on full display? You missed the point. My point is nothing you suggest encourages actual player PvP or participation in federations or diplomacy. As far as my position, I am sure whatever happens I will be fine. Nothing that has been suggested by anyone will change that.

Johanas: What about a rollback encourages federation participation or putting any assets outside of game protections?


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 08:59 pm Click here to edit this post
Allowing players to choose if they want to be a war or econ player would help this to some extent. I have proposed this yesterday if you read my plan. There would be large economic benefits to be a war player. Also there would be no war levels but econ players would remain protected.

This is proboly the only solution that would somewhat increase player involvement in feds and wars. The only other solution is to simply remove war protection altogether requiring participation for everyone, however many players including I oppose removing all forms of war protection.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 09:02 pm Click here to edit this post
I could agree with Aries conflicts between active players are rare. I wonder if anyone would want to fight Aries,I must say a declaration of war against Aries is a death sentence for whoever declares it.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 09:56 pm Click here to edit this post
Perhaps... Aries has trouble with Forum searches. Asking what brings about this or that, when again people, it is all here for everyone to see. This would be more evident the further back you go if we could access the part of the forum that was archived. "What a pittance" (in my Laguna voice)

There have been many wars, federation type wars.

Wars fought over disagreements or asshatery on this forum. Not possible today with an avg new post of -2.7 posts per week. Going backward? Ugh...

There have been wars fought over the very issue of inactive prey. Unspoken rules of raiding inactive "prey". Voilators of such rules would quickly find themselves warring with some of the most powerful federations. This too, gave a minor reason to join federation, in order to earn access to such inactive countries. An inactive country is a nice addition to any new player's empire.

There were two "great wars" which were fought by some of the most prestigious federations to have ever existed. Thorough with player training academies, economic academies , war fighting academies and main branch for senior members. That too can never exist again in the current state, as there is an ever dwindling active player base. I emphasize active because the massive amounts of players in the portal figure is largely misleading. That doesn't count active, I think the voting system more accurately reflects near the total active players engaged in the game.

Players don't need assets out of protection if they don't want them. But a simple forum search would display many conflicts driven by the very thing you are making out to so evil. Inactive raiding.

I don't understand why you care about players bringing assets out of war protection yet defend the system of war levels that prevents the very same thing. Appearing to hold both views simultaneously is paradoxical.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 10:16 pm Click here to edit this post
I would agree on some points as it's obvious there's been a decrease in players however we need ways to fix this. We need solutions to bring back players certainly but the other reason is certainly war levels as it eliminates the need to join a federation possibly causing the game to seem less interesting to New players who would not socialize in a federation unless they needed to.

The decrease in activity is obvious and could be a result of adding war levels, other factors or possibly both. It's pretty clear something needs to be done and I hope the GM's are considering these suggestions.

Both Aries and Pyscho Honey have good ideas but we must work together if anything is to be accomplished, as it's unlikely any changes will occur if there is fierce disagreement.

Hopefully the GM's and active players can find some way to fix the obvious decrease in activity and overall bring the game back to life.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:13 pm Click here to edit this post
If he doesn't agree that is fine. There are more players in this thread that agree with my point of view and more important raw data favors my conclusions. Aries has a small flock of try-hards who inevitably will echo his sentiments.

I on the other hand have past bitter rivals even who not only agree with me in principle but also long for a better game representative of a clearly successful past. Some of them which I have been a complete nuisance to and I bet some of their old allies cringe at the similar sentiments being expressed here alongside my own.

One position is based on facts. The other is only based on assumptions and feelings, none of which have a place in a conversation about business decisions. Also any conversations like this he injects himself into always seem to loop back to his fanciful ideas on other threads with an ungodly number posts to read and tons of his text filled with deflection, inevitably boring any reader who dares, to death. Like the original war levels implementation threads years ago, the WB Final fight thread and any other thread with any real issue. After 3 posts from Aries we've shifted a few dimensions from the topic at hand. Similar to this thread... and he's not convinced I haven't read his other threads, and no $#!7... Nah, I'll pass and stick to what I am dealing with.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:22 pm Click here to edit this post
You have a facile argument and a false binary choice.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:26 pm Click here to edit this post
No... there's a choice based on common sense, or reading Aries month long essays filled with emotional suppositions........ (using big words now and $#!7)


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:35 pm Click here to edit this post
Quoted from Wendy....
"I on the other hand have past bitter rivals even who not only agree with me in principle but also long for a better game representative of a clearly successful past. Some of them which I have been a complete nuisance to and I bet some of their old allies cringe at the similar sentiments being expressed here alongside my own."

Very well put Wendy. The past wasn't perfect, but it was significantly better than what is currently offered. It's actually sad to see the current state of activity.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:48 pm Click here to edit this post
I think even Aries believes and should admit there are fewer active players than there used to be, it's pretty obvious. What we need are ways to fix it not arguing.


Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:54 pm Click here to edit this post
More players do not agree with the Pyscho. I would wager she would decisively loose a vote and more importantly it has been quite clear that removing war levels is a non-starter with the GM.

On the other hand, I have successfully suggested one idea to loosen war levels a bit and my War College Idea would incentivize war players to elevate their war level, similar to the choice Inventor is talking about. I think a model of giving players an incentivized choice to leave war protection and other protections is superior to one of removing choice, which is what removing war levels does despite Pyscho claiming to be a choice advocate.

Inventor: Noone is saying there is not an issue with active player participation. I simply reject the facile argument that it is simply matter of rolling back the game's rule-set to that time to bring players back.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 12:08 am Click here to edit this post


More players do not agree with the Pyscho.

Where they at tho?!?

Even Heisenberg, isn't adverse to what I am saying other than pointing out how I or players with my common sense should be doing more. That comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of business/customer relationship, but I'll listen to what point he made.

If players don't agree with me stand up, speak up, and try adding why, rather than simple statements of support. Give some reasons behind your conclusions based on something we can check or prove. Just try at least if you really can't. I'll wait....


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 12:23 am Click here to edit this post
Theinventor1012.....this the most action this forum has seen since I've been back in the game

ANYTHING to get some activity rolling is a good thing at this point

The old forum posts are proof enough of how active the game was....when it was a complete game....not the shell of a game that we have now.

If you never played in that era, you wouldn't understand I suppose. But those of us who did....WE REMEMBER!

We remember how awesome it was


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 12:30 am Click here to edit this post
I can see there are some major disagreements but hopefully everyone can at least consider my (4 change Plan). The changes I propose below are simple and should not be extremely difficult to implement and are also reasonable and moderate.

[4 Point Plan]
1. All countries above war level 3 can fight any country above world level 3.

2. Remove the feature that allows players to fight C3's to expand their empire without increasing war level.

3. Add incentives such as having a higher welfare index and military spending space being doubled upon reaching world level 3 along with receiving 75 gold coins.

4. Players inactive for more then 4 weeks get their war level increased to level 3


1. If all countries above WL 3 can fight each other it would increase active player combat as there are already few current active players.

2. removing the feature that allows players to fight C3's to expand their empire would make it not possible to attack lots of C3's without increasing your war level.

3. Adding incentives would help, I know there are some currently but adding more would help but not solve the problem on it's own.

4. Inactive players who no longer participate in the game should be at risk of being attacked by other players leading to possibly increased activity.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 12:34 am Click here to edit this post
Or, players can use war protection...or not....that's the point...the player gets to decide


It wasn't broken back is now

Put it back the way it worked


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 02:31 am Click here to edit this post
I forgot who was arguing for what and since I have a headache, no desire to read everything again.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:03 am Click here to edit this post
There are 4 categories of opinions, 1 and 2 is what most people are arguing about.

1. Remove war levels and or incentivize players to increase active player involvement in wars:
[EC, Aries (proboly), Johanas Bilderberg, and other players]

2. Allow wars against inactive players and make C3 raiding easier:
[Psycho Honey, and other players]

In between 1 and 2:
[Theinventor10, maybe other players]

3. Overthrow simcountry and the GM's:
[just silentiger073]

4. Want no changes at all and doesn't care about the war game:


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:25 am Click here to edit this post
See, exactly Yankee, prime exmaple of what happens when you inject Aries into a conversation. It reminds me of a quote from another thread. I think it was (In)Famous Quotes or Forum Gold.

"This thread was perfectly fine until *Aries* came and bitched all over it!"


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:28 am Click here to edit this post
I'm pretty sure we're going to be over 100 messages soon, I guess this must be a extremely controversial issue.

If everyone listed their suggestions for the war game we might find we could be arguing for similar things such as fixing the dead war game, improving raiding against inactive players and C3's while allowing econ players to opt out of war altogether.

These are the major points i've heard so far from a wide range of players.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:38 am Click here to edit this post
Listen, don't lump me into anything. The only thing I've really commented on is your blatant reasoning for wanting a rule change that effects all players. It's facetious. As are your comments about me. I said I didn't care about the war game, not that I disliked it. You're like a dictionary of passive aggressive ad hom crap.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:40 am Click here to edit this post
Inventor, again you are making things broader than they actually are. You are slightly right in some things tho. In a rollback, there are obvious things that will happen. Like c3 raiding, inactive raiding and so on. But this isn't the category I am presenting.

There is rollback for me. Or Implement whatever it is Aries is talking about or basically leaving things as they are.

Those for moving back are likely, everyone that has commented in the thread except Aries and Heisenberg, Heisienberg also by his own admission "doesn't really care", so can you even count that? Oh well, we'll call it 2 for the dunces

On the other hand Sam, EC, myself, Aaron, and even you.

thats 5 for common sense.

What's more if were looking at about 12 or so active players it's not looking so good for the dunce crew. Also, most of the players who wanted these new changes like war levels are absent. They too didn't want this after playing this way. Those who opposed this altogether by and large have left, and yeah, next time they poke their head in, I want them to see things worth sticking around for. Even if it is only to see me carry on like an ass on the forum.

The thing is, for the most part, leaving things as they are leaves a huge player base with a large feeling of dissatisfaction, even though we may return or hang in there hoping for the best.

A rollback, serves the desires of %100 of the playerbase.

Wanna war, go for it. don't want to? hit that wp button. So fn simple.

Improvements that actually improve things not obliterate them can be discussed as they used to through voting and game news.

This doesn't have to be that complicated.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:42 am Click here to edit this post
Sorry if I've offended you Heisenberg, however most players do support a rule change and I myself want the result to not affect economy players like you.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:48 am Click here to edit this post
heisenberg, why you so mean bro...


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:50 am Click here to edit this post

1. The GM doesn't care what Yankee wants.
2. The GM doesn't care what Wendy wants.
3. The GM doesn't care what Aries wants.

Somehow, someway this game must be making them money so what it boils down to is:


Over the years I have found the GM is not shy about implementing change asked for, unless it goes against a perception of how this game attracts people.

I have begged, I have pleaded, I've even pulled my financial support for years.

My ideas do not fit in with their perceptions, and quite frankly I see NOBODY coming forth with anything new other than Aries (don't necessarily agree, but his ideas are different).

It seems the GM doesn't like his ideas either.

It's really come down to a simple choice. Play the game provided ....... (gotta get my dots in for the competition) or don't.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 03:51 am Click here to edit this post
Yes I do agree certainly that we need changes Psycho, it also seems unclear to some extent what opinions Aries has, as some of us support removing war levels altogether or simply making changes such as my 4 point plan which I've discussed in suggestions how it defers from removing war levels.

The rollback/changes I agree upon are not quite as extreme as a complete war level removal but similar.

I also agree Psycho with you that what Aries proposed simply providing benefits for war players is not enough although I don't know if he still believes in it or if he even had from the start.

Finally Yankee please take a look at my 4 point plan if you haven't already it is far different from any of the plans proposed by Aries and takes into account all the suggestions I've seen players propose.


Johanas Bilderberg

Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:03 am Click here to edit this post
Reasonable plan Inventor.

Heisenberg would have fainted when CEO corporations could be targeted directly in a war. No better way to punish your sim enemies than targeting C3's with their companies and destroying them.

Now that was lulzy.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:20 am Click here to edit this post
As I said Theinventor .. nothing new .. well I guess techincally the increase in WL for inactive players is "new".

Most people simply ask for removal of secured mode for inactive players and complete abolishment of the WL system.

Different words asking for the same thing. I have what I consider a much better plan.

1. You get one secured country.

Who needs anything else??? I played for YEARS with everything up for grabs.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:27 am Click here to edit this post
Yankee I'm not saying that removing war levels is bad it's just more extreme than my plan, I wouldn't have any problem with removing war levels, but other players who focus on their economy and don't play the war game wouldn't like a full removal of war levels as they would have to pay gold coins for protection and it's unlikely the GM's would support removing war levels although it's possible I suppose.

Also removing secured mode from inactive players should certainly be included in addition to increasing the war level of inactive players.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:29 am Click here to edit this post
It is's the way it used to be

It worked


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:31 am Click here to edit this post
Under who's definition would someone grabbing territory be a purely economic player?


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:35 am Click here to edit this post
No ones, I don't believe I ever said anything to support a definition of such.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:38 am Click here to edit this post
Actually, quite a number of my ideas were implemented and are actually in the game, along with numerous bug fixes. For those unclear on what Psycho wants, it makes since. Psycho hasn't explained what she wants out of the rollback. Inventor, for me, don't lump me into the same changes category as the Psycho.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:45 am Click here to edit this post
"but other players who focus on their economy and don't play the war game wouldn't like a full removal of war levels as they would have to pay gold coins for protection"

And why would you need to pay GC's for war protection unless you are stepping outside of your one secured country?

I get it "Lebensraum" :)


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:56 am Click here to edit this post
Aries I know you have different suggestions than him although I still have no idea what they are. I am assuming you support some changes but different ones than Psycho, I would also recommend you read my 4 point plan if you haven't already Aries. Finally Lebensraum is the reason why players buy premium and go to wars. All wars are a result of the need for some Lebensraum.



Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 05:00 am Click here to edit this post
My original opinion categories: Aries is a 1 not a 2, not the same category. However I should update it as some other players apparently support Psycho's ideas now. But this is the original version.

1. Remove war levels and or incentivize players to increase active player involvement in wars:
[EC, Aries (proboly), Johanas Bilderberg, and other players]

2. Allow wars against inactive players and make C3 raiding easier:
[Psycho Honey, and other players]


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 06:49 am Click here to edit this post
Him is a her lol. I get you're new so I won't hold it against you.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 06:52 am Click here to edit this post
I have pointed out exactly what I want out of rollback a million posts ago that nobody will probably see thanks to your essays directing people off the thread Aries. I'll quote it again in case you can't read, or others can't find it now.


-Problem. Too many protections were implemented and now clearly have proven damaging to the game overall.

-Solution. Roll back to a clearly proven previous configuration of the game.

* Those who enjoy raiding, can enjoy raiding, rewards for that raiding can be easily tweaked.
* Those who enjoy PVP war, can enjoy warring and all the fixins that go hand in hand with this added possibility.
* Those who wish to play an economic game, can use easily accessed war protections via gold coins or secured mode as it was in the previous configurations. Thereby avoiding warmongers, lil kim jong uns armed with over powered nuclear weapons, wars, federation wars, becoming inadvertent casualties to wars they don't wish to participate in due to complex politics/, or war altogether.

**Players can go back to playing the game having options to suit their desired style of play. Increasing satisfaction of premium members and offering a more robust game with more robust options for new free members considering premium membership. Expecting an ultimate outcome of expanding the community back to previous levels or exceeding them altogether.

Yankee, I do understand the difficulty in being discouraged with how hard it is to get through to the GMs. That doesn't mean I shouldn't or won't try. I'm hoping the numbers do more of the talking than my feelings on the topic.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 09:33 am Click here to edit this post
I can't read.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:21 pm Click here to edit this post
Theinventor1012, whats interesting, is that with your assement, the 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive. You could do both.

But hey, even with the forums so dead, at least we can still bitch about the rules and how dead the game is.

Its like nothing has ever changed!


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 05:13 pm Click here to edit this post
So under your "plan" all you really have here is 100% bonuses for warring players while economic players would have to pay extra just to play. Undoubtedly, you would have to purchase gold packs just to keep up with the amount of WP you would need. Whereas warring players could then become astronomically rich by raiding c3's.

These ideas are bad. If this is the way the game operated before, I am not surprised it changed.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 05:51 pm Click here to edit this post
The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive but unfortunately not all players agree with both as there is disagreement on the topic whether or not unlimited C3 raiding is ok or even if making it easier is ok.

Most players probably at least agree it should be easier to raid inactive players, possibly implemented by increasing a inactive player's war level to 3 and removing secured mode. Along with adding an additional change that would allow players war level 3 and up to fight any other player above war level 3. Finally players who get to war level 3 would receive doubled military spending space, increased welfare, and 75 gold coins.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 06:02 pm Click here to edit this post
Heisenberg, if your econ only, then what do you have to spend game cash on? you used to be able to convert game cash into gold coins, and keep up wp. but that has been done away with.

the argument at the time, a guy was paying thousands of dollars to do what i could do by C3 raiding, and converting GC, he complained, and the GM agreed. they said that if you wanted to play on multipul worlds, you'd have to pay for each. rather than C3 raid/econ for game cash, and convert that into GC.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 07:00 pm Click here to edit this post
Econ empires don't happen overnight and look like they need a lot more investment than war. Sure eventually if you are successful, you may be able to pay for it. You can't really compare the profit you can make economically to that income you can make raiding. I don't think the two would ever be equal...maybe equalizing when you have an account the size of Aries. (Just an example, it's the biggest I've seen so far.) I'm sure a player like Aries could afford endless WP. I'm not even sure how long he's been playing, but that is years of investment into his economies. Seems to me all you'd need is a good two hours of raiding to equal his daily profit.

Strikes me as an end-around to actually putting work and investment into an empire and playing the way you choose to.

Johanas Bilderberg

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 - 01:47 am Click here to edit this post
Raiding ain't easy just like pimpin.


Wednesday, May 17, 2017 - 03:05 am Click here to edit this post
Ahhhh, pimpin. Such an elegant profession. xD


Thursday, May 18, 2017 - 02:44 am Click here to edit this post
Raiding currently is easy, you can easily get large amounts of cash from attacking C3's if you use high quality units of 750 aa batteries and 100 mid range batteries, I've tested this recently and took substantially less losses than using a air attack. The fact that you can easily gain trillions is my exact point that raiding is indeed easy if done right.


Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:51 am Click here to edit this post
Never a dull moment in SC
*eats popcorn*


Monday, May 22, 2017 - 12:35 am Click here to edit this post
I would just like to point out the fact that the GM's have not responded a single time to any of the over 100 requests/posts to fix and improve the war game. To me this seems ridiculous that the GM's don't care about any of the players who actually pay for the game.

Add a Message