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 - War Levels

Topics: General: W3C - War Levels


Saturday, July 22, 2017 - 10:09 am Click here to edit this post
We will welcome a constructive discussion on war levels.
we agree that the current situation is far from ideal but previous discussion on the forum did not lead to any "great idea" on how to improve.

If you want to participate please forward ideas.

It does not make sense at all to write a full page with many ideas.

Please try to make one point at a time. tell us what the problem is, and how it should be improved. Make another point later.

We will not "rewrite" the war game. we can change the rules, add new ways of evaluating situations etc.

We think that a gradual approach, easy to understand for all participants has an excellent chance to pass here.

if it becomes complex with tens of ideas/conditions, nothing will happen.

We also think that such a gradual approach, even if we have to redo some of it at a later stage, can be done quickly.

In the past, players where promoting features that will fit their own specific aims. This always shows. We need you to think for all types of players.

The main keyword however is constructive. We will dedicate more time to it but a shouting match is not what we are looking for.

Let Sie

Saturday, July 22, 2017 - 01:00 pm Click here to edit this post
My observations:

- the rules for warring are so strict that it hampers the war game
- there is no reason to go to war with players other then that you don't like somebody's name/person/nick etc There are plenty of c3's around to farm. So why bother with players?

Possible solutions:
- lower the barriers a bit for declaring war. Sure up to war lvl 2 you should receive protection but after lvl 2 things should become a bit more nasty.

- Other games have penalties for declaring on weaker players. You can still declare the war but you would for example receive a growth or money penalty if that person is weaker. This prevents stronger players from continuously farming weaker players. An example how that could work here would be if somebody was 2 war lvls lower you could receive a money 'penalty' or a welfare penalty or something along those lines. You can increase that for bigger differences in war lvl. It doesn't even have to be high. Just cumulative.
That way 'big players' can still target people but they can't do it to often.

- It would be nice if there would be some form of special reward for winning pvp fights. This is still a game and games need to be fun. There is a reason it works like that in 99.99% of the games in the world.

- reduce the number of available countries. That would force players to interact more and stop people from living on their own island.

Sheepman Barren

Saturday, July 22, 2017 - 01:07 pm Click here to edit this post
1. Make mobile land cruise units, convetional missile units exist and would be more useful for cruise to. Would be useful in essence like navy but without all the filler units, but utilizes special mobile soldiers to utilize, as well as air base construction units.


Saturday, July 22, 2017 - 08:18 pm Click here to edit this post
Dear Game Master,

I know in the past I've been very blunt about the war levels, but over time I've warmed up and can see they do have value. I would like to ask players to not think about CREATING new incentives to the war game but rather then tweaking whats in place. We don't need new incentives and reasons to war. I was here pre-war levels and there was always a REASON to war, we dont need new reasons we need bring back the ORIGINAL reasons.

I have 3 suggestions I think might help to simulate the war game.

First, Anyone should be able to be attacked. I think keeping the current spread of +/- 2 war levels is fine, But the lower war levels should be able to be attacked. War level 1 and 2 should be able to be attacked. The only people who shouldn't be allowed to be attacked is war level 0, other then that your fair game. I think this should remove the "Hiding" we currently see and would force players into federations.

Second, Federations should have no limits on who can declare war. I believe that ANYONE in a federation should be able to protect an ally. As it stands I'm in WL 11 and if a teammate of mine is attacked and hes war level 3, Even if i signed a war dec, I wont dec war. If my federation declares war anyone not in that war level is excluded. I know the first thing I thought of was how would we prevent this from allowing the strong to gang up on the weak, This is where the Security Council comes in with their power. I believe this addition will benefits the powers of the security council AND the powers of federations.

Third, I think to prevent C3 warring which was a huge problem in the past. I think the GM should expand on the nuclear limitation in place. I think that in order for ANY nation to declear war the country must have a population of over 25M. This would force players to invest time and energy into a nation and would prevent C3 wars from happening, unless of course someone wanted to spend huge amounts of real money in order to "Troll" other players.

These are my suggestions I hope they help.


Saturday, July 22, 2017 - 11:18 pm Click here to edit this post
I only have one real suggestion.

Coming from a war background, to eco, i think there's a fundamental disadvantage to beginners or less experienced people.

I think war should be set out as described by SS, but, with limitations on those who are far superior in the game. Maybe having a set number of weapons that the specific empire can use in an assault against a less skilled player?

E.g. IE AN EXAMPLE... 100 TOTAL units (1 batt, 1 squadron 1 etc etc etc) at any quality.
This would mean that beginners would have to at least armour up against players or face losing a capped amount of cash or resources.

If you allow players who go for Wl1 to be attacked by anyone, one player so to speak, e.g. Josias, SS, Blue etc would wipe them out alone, maybe an entire federation alone. I think bringing back the ability to attack anyone and everyone is superb, but there has to be limitations.

It'd be similar to the USA going to war with, say.... the Maldives. It'd be over in an hour.

Open the war game, but limit it to some extent.

Sheepman Barren

Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 06:44 am Click here to edit this post
y dis

Sheepman Barren

Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 06:44 am Click here to edit this post
Not bad bois, but im pushing forward my idea, Mobile Land based cruise units, they serve a good purpose! (And super:) in my defense its not creating; it ADDING) and could be tweaking to) as theres no way to upgrade (atleast i know) land based cruise batteries/ammo current, plus if they are out of range they can atleast now have a fair counterpart for usefulness. They have
mobile conventional missiles, which imo are more useless since they already have massive ranges, vs cruise shorter range.

Thats my idea, it would be useful for all players and makes more use of mobile units for the special unit type.


Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 04:52 pm Click here to edit this post
I would like to discuss these suggestions one for one:
I will get to the other suggestions later.

I think that the main problem has always been:

Free warring against anybody versus protection of the weaker players.

Dropping all limitations is not good enough.
Let See and SuperSoldierCP have both made suggestions related to this problem.

we need to find a way to extend the war game but not wipe out beginners.

25M population? or 20M?
Wars with C3 countries when you have 12M or 15M population?
advantage: you get there at some time. no hiding, but you have time to build up and learn.
more suggestions?
If we resolve this one, the rest will be easier.

Let Sie

Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 05:15 pm Click here to edit this post
I would argue against using population to determine if somebody should be able to declare. It can be really depressing if you are a new player, spend a month or 2 only to get whiped out once you hit that 25 million people mark.
Make no mistake, most new players really like it when their population has grown to number x/y and are really proud of it. If you use population as an indicator growing their country suddenly becomes something dangerous.

I actually like the war lvls. Or at least what they try to do. It might be a good idea to start with lowering the restrictions first. That would make declaring war easier for people.

The more I think about it the more sense it makes to have some sort of penalty for declairing on players that are a lot weaker. It seems like a very easy solution to a lot of problems. Yes SS, Aires and co can still whipe out smaller players but they would have to pay a price for it which would limit their ability to farm newer players.

I'm not sure on the numbers but a welfare penalty seems the easiest. This can be explained by people protesting against the goverment for abusing it's power and becoming unhappy.


Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 06:04 pm Click here to edit this post
IMO, I don't think anyone below WL4, just fighting C-3's, it's virtually impossible for a player to understand what it would possibly take to fight a war with a stacked player. I'd even go as far as to say it's completely unfair. I've been here for a few months now. I still don't have a full grasp on the entire war section yet.

I don't know, I don't see an issue with the current model.


Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 07:43 pm Click here to edit this post
In regards to Andy's comment and the comment of Strong VS Weak.

I want to emphasizes the importance of keeping the war level requirements "AS IS". I do not believe that any player of high assets and experience should attack a lower skilled player. This is why I said we should keep the -/+ 2 war level rule( WL 3 can only declare on WL 1-5 and so on). My thought it is that it would put only players of similar war level. Allowing war levels 1 and 2 to enter the war game would dramatically increase the need for cooperation and communication.

Also I do --NOT-- believe we need to add new artificial rules to make the game better.
I would like to ask the GM and players to think about expanding CURRENT features rather then making new artificial ones. We have a security council, federation, and boycott system that all need updates.
This is our chance to FIX the issues with federations, give the Security councils more power, and a chance to add economic features and expand on things like boycotts to improve the diplomatic side of the game.


Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 07:47 pm Click here to edit this post
Regarding war levels, at least 90% of countries are unattackable because they have low war levels. The solution is to keep war levels as military training only. Remove war levels as preconditions for war declarations.

Regarding amount of population, that should not be any precondition for declaring war. Players already earn lots of war level awards. Weak players can use those gold coins to buy war protection boosters. That's enough protection.

To promote balance, prevent players from using ridiculously huge arsenals. Specifically, stop countries from direct purchases of weapons from enterprises and space stations.


Sunday, July 23, 2017 - 08:22 pm Click here to edit this post
In my humble opinion, on all worlds except FB you have ONE secured mode country nobody can attack.

If you want to play the economic side, you have one country and the ability to get two ceo's as a premium member.

If you need "Lebensraum" and wish to expand your borders, well, that's building an empire take the same chance everyone else in history took.

The entire idea of player protection was originally presented as a way to keep someone from being wiped out.

Between your account, one country on each world nobody can attack, CEO's and the ability to move assets between them. How can you wipe anyone out unless they are simply not paying attention?

If you are worried about someone taking your additional countries it's easy to design your empire to make money to transfer, generate military assets to transfer and yet not be worth someone's effort to take.

And if someone does come along and grab one of your annexed areas, well then you've found someone to play with.


Monday, July 24, 2017 - 02:57 am Click here to edit this post


If you allow players who go for Wl1 to be attacked by anyone, one player so to speak, e.g. Josias, SS, Blue etc would wipe them out alone, maybe an entire federation alone.

for the record, i have done this, and it is why we have WLs now. but I am sitting with a tiny little 30m country, on WG, at WL0, with no intention to change that

Let Sie

Monday, July 24, 2017 - 04:45 am Click here to edit this post
This is a game. Games are ment to be fun. What fun is, is different to everybody. But most players don't find it a lot of fun if mega power x comes along and you are completly helpless against him/her and lose. Now this is something that is going to happen a lot in this game because of the way this game works. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit those situations a bit.

Yankee is right when he says that it's easy to design a country in such a way that it is simply not worth the effort of taking, he is right that when you have 4 countries on 4 worlds you can do a lot of weapon transfering and build up decent reserves. Here is my 1 question though...

How long does it take for somebody who is not a hard core player to learn all those things?

For most people this game has a very long learning curve of many months. And when somebody has botherd to learn all of those things, and that somebody does build up this little 200million pop empire. Along comes a Letsie to take it all away in a heartbeat. Why? Because he can and because he doesn't care about you.

This has happend several times to me in the past when I was still learning things.

I'm not sure that removing all the restrictions from the war game is good for the 'fun factor' I'm definitly more in the restriction/penalty camp.

That way everybody gets something they like. New players won't be farmed as much but older players still get a change to fight everybody they want.


Monday, July 24, 2017 - 11:53 am Click here to edit this post
Great. Thank you all.

Indeed, you can play a peaceful game, on one or more worlds and you will not be attacked.
No reason to change that.

There is even a possibility to purchase a country and remain outside the war game.

As Yankee said, when you build an empire, be prepared to fight for it.

Some players want to "harvest" C3s for economic reasons. Then they become war players.

I think that this harvesting is not a good idea. If you win a war against a C3 country, maybe we need to move you to a higher war level. Next war will be more serious.

Fighting high levels C3 wars will teach you something about the war game. If it does not, we need to improve the way C3s fight.

Making money is possible, and maybe should be easier, by working on your economy rather than this trivial strange war game against C3s.

There are armies that are too big. having an over sized offensive army can be made more difficult.

I also think that if you have an empire, with all the flexibility of moving assets around, you should accept losing a country in war.

We used to have that, only at the time, it went too far, too quickly and players lost everything.

Population is a measure of time played, experience, and time to prepare a great defense.


Monday, July 24, 2017 - 10:54 pm Click here to edit this post
How about expanding your empire to max, say 3 countries, and if you decide to go to war, or get attacked, only the two slaves will be at risk, as opposed to the whole empire.

At least that way, the player who's going to war, or defending, knows that worst comes to worst, they haven't lost everything and anything?

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind the whole war game, but this game has died because lower level players hate being farmed or taken advantage of.


Monday, July 24, 2017 - 11:01 pm Click here to edit this post
I have long put forth suggestions with the basic idea of adding incentives to play the war game and tie it in with a player choice to voluntarily leave war level protection (permanently).

1. The War College

2. Battlegrounds (revised)

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.

Oh, and in fairness, I have long said gold coin purchased protections should not work for players that are the aggressors in a player war. You should not have less at risk as a result of that feature than the victim of your declaration of war.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 06:15 am Click here to edit this post
@ Putin
You are correct the main reason the war game doesn't atract new players is because they stand absolutly no change at all. The knowledge and resource disadvantage for a new player vs a more experienced player is just absurd in this game.

@ Andy
If you take away or make c3 raiding a lot harder. How do you expect newer players to close the gap between them and the more experienced players? Raiding is the most cost effective at the lower lvls. It's a huge boost for new players and they learn a lot about fighting. If you are going to tweak raiding please keep that in mind.

You also state that population is an indicator for time spent on the game and for 'skill lvl'. That is probably true but once again please keep in mind that it's really not a lot of fun for newer players if they know that once they hit populaiton X they have to join some sort of walking buffet where they are the food...

Sheepman RGB

Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 03:05 pm Click here to edit this post
I got a suggestion. Why dont when someone is caught cheating instead of not doing a thing about probably because they got the "bribe" but actually stop players who cheat. You overlook something as simple as spelling a players name, i wouldent be surprised what else has been overlooked in this game like its simply just another player. I guess though that could have been a bad joke, like this game.

To the universe that domains SC: keep running in circles, lol! Aries best player here by far(to pat an ass). Really though Aries been putting work on ideas for this game and this game for long time now, hes pretty much the cream of the crop for the update to the war game. And yet, all those ideas all that time, overlooked. Not a thing i can do about it, LOL!

Best players (good)ideas just tossed under the bus, names overlooked, rules overlooked, Land based cruise cant even be updated. No work to the current war game, just like the dredge on gold rush, keeps breaking down.

Ill be here, hatin, upset enjoying it, since a fuckin multi scum sits like mold, and plenty of ideas to fix the war game, and even so, really? wait till theres barly 10 players to comment on this to say "erm; war game changes anyone?" I mean you win some, lose some, what else can i type? Im simply just saying spell someones fuckin name right, maybe the game will get better. Seriously, dont ban anyone one else for a rule that you have to decide based on your judgement on there punishment, should be a generic rule. You multi, you done. But nope, play a little game, and only if you cheat to 2 billion empire you risk a ban.

Seriously, are we gonna suggest things about war levels until the game is shutdown? its about there now. Not saying "i hate this game shut it down" I enjoy like iv typed many times before i love this game, but the war game was dead before war levels. Not to mention in so many years as i typed, this is the only real thing about war levels change? Doesent matter, W3C as the posts to not allowing multing, is to this fourm about changing war levels, physically useless in the end.

"Stop being mean, hes trying" Yeah im sure he is, and im sure there trying to change war levels as much as there trying to stop multi account use.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 03:53 pm Click here to edit this post
Two days into it and it is sidetracked, not very constructive.

I thought we were talking about:

Free warring against anybody versus protection of the weaker players.

Only this, and one suggestion at a time. Short contributions as we are unable to read lots of text that is generally, not about what we are discussing.

We will make some changes. It is clear that we have to keep protecting beginners. The question is how.

I hope that some very good suggestions will help us
here or mail to
Please keep it short and to the point.

we will take them into account.

There were several good contributions at the start of this discussion.
I will use them.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 06:41 pm Click here to edit this post

Andy and the GM are receptive to changing the war levels and they are asking us to please give them constructive ideas. I understand that everyone wants to be heard and to put in their two cents but as Andy said we are getting FAR off topic.

As a veteran player I have been here many years and seen some fabulous and (not) so fabulous changes. I have been one of the most outspoken and critical players over the years, and I'm here today telling you I stand with the GM and welcome the open dialog.

Some players have great ideas but these are not what we need. We do not need NEW IDEAS OR ADDITIONS to the game, we need to fix the existing features before you add new one.

The Question here is how can we open the war levels to allow players of all war levels be active in the game without having to worry about veteran players sniping or harassing new players thus destroying the player base.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 07:09 pm Click here to edit this post

To keep the conversation going I would like to make this comment in the hope it keeps us on track.

You said "Free warring against anybody versus protection of the weaker players. "

I truly believe that war levels 1 and 2 should be allowed into the war game. I vote that we keep the current system you have in place on all worlds expect FB, where you can only attack 2 levels above or below yours. That way new players cannot be targeted by higher level players. In addition maybe we should look at implementing a a war level increase if you win against a player of similar or higher war level. That way people with experience are automatically moved up the war levels and it prevents strong players from continuously "hiding" in the lower levels.

Sheepman RGB

Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 09:33 pm Click here to edit this post

Keep chasing your tails! super, anyone else, and-E if he is even serious,

Litterally, you think that ignoring every other problem in this game, like the fact i can 100% prove there is a multi player where in the fourms JONNI, stated that: multing has never been allowed. So why the fuck isent a thing done about multing? So they will drive away every player whos against multi-cheating to keep a few little boogers happy. They cant handle other tasks in this game and take shit seriously, im sorry but super(however the fuck i spell your name though its right in my face but ill spell it like this) your opinions are void and invalid, sure they are useful to a reasonable maybe running game, but give it up, everyone goes blind when theres a multi exposed and no one can even look back a few weeks to see a "newbies" goodbye:

Thats the noobs own opinion, what? he cant play the game what else can he be told? people are getting stupider and stupider. Nothing to do with war why he quit. Like now we can just multi blatantly and everyone will just let it go. Theres alot more problems to this game then just the "War game" and free warring. The fact is really no one unless there a multi will even play this game let alone have the abilite to fight a free war and beat an exeprienced player. You guys fill scapegoats like a thanksgiving turkey!!! But no thanks! i dont want to have any of that!

Really, i dont know when you guys are going to get it, fixing something thats been fixed one too many times, like what the fuck iv said it and keep saying, keep fixing the game, making little rules, the players will just keep shrinking. You could revamp, but cant since they dont havet the power to, and they just continueally allow cheaters to play the game, what a warm welcome for any player in this game! why i have seen noobs in the past, they had multi accounts to. Litterally, this is hopeless like me getting a response for a legit cheater.

I can see it now, the players flocking in over the adjusted feature of free players vs weak empires. As if that wasent how it had to be from the beginning. What about mobiles to? Why the fuck, in fucks fuck; did they waste there time making mobiles, if they had something to fix? mobiles were out before the war levels, how did that go? make a bunch of useless units that no one even wants because there a crap waste of gold coins

I mean to be real, this is a problem that has been in this game like a cancer since iv started this game years before war levels, keeping players playing. I wonder why.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 11:48 pm Click here to edit this post
I guess all I am trying to say was that my previous suggestions were examples but the basic premise is that leave it up to players to choose if they are ready for the war game. The feature already exists in the game to drop war level protection (temporarily). Instead of picking some arbitrary level of population, or how many times they followed a guide to defeat an AI opponent, give players a reason to want to play the war game and a choice to permanently leave the war level system.

I think the fear that powerful players will prey on newer players are overblown and outdated in the current environment. Just look at the players that have experience and resources and ask what they have to gain. In my case, absolutely nothing really. What is that player going to have that I want? Honestly, once the decision is made about war levels the game will confront the real problem. What can actually be gained for a player to participate in a PvP war?

A revitalized war game can help beginners learn and perhaps allow some up and coming players to benefit. However, if war levels were completely removed, there is nothing I would do to play the game differently unless new war players brought some activity and fun to the game. Frankly, do you think I need more gold coins? game cash? countries? weapons? ammo? No, not really. My breaks from active play become more frequent and longer because I have found other games with a more active and fun warring environment.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - 11:53 pm Click here to edit this post
Yankee is right when he says that it's easy to design a country in such a way that it is simply not worth the effort of taking, he is right that when you have 4 countries on 4 worlds you can do a lot of weapon transfering and build up decent reserves. Here is my 1 question though...

How long does it take for somebody who is not a hard core player to learn all those things?

For anyone that might actually consider it ... not very long.


Wednesday, July 26, 2017 - 05:30 am Click here to edit this post
War levels match players based on experience fighting C3s. That match isn't useful. Levels measure player versus C3 skill, not player versus player skill. Levels don't measure the tactics or strategies of player versus player wars. Therefore, levels shouldn't matter for declaring war against players.

For example, the difference between level 1 and level 6 is mostly extra clicking. Levels are merely a good introduction to units and weapons quality. This is why war levels should remain as a tutorial only.

But learning the auto-response of C3s is not warcraft. It requires player versus player wars to gain experience with different tactics and situations, not this or that level. Removing levels as preconditions to player versus player wars would provide needed war experience.

Otherwise, war levels will keep most players in the C3 ghetto.

Johanas Bilderberg

Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:35 am Click here to edit this post
I'll n00k all of u.



Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:37 am Click here to edit this post
here's an idea, when a war is won or lost, how about no ownership transfer, instead a score transfer, a % of the countries original score.

this way, a player wont loose years of work, and might be more willing to take the risk, and winning a war would improve ones chance of a monthly award.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 02:11 am Click here to edit this post
That is what a secured country is for ... eliminating risk.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 04:33 am Click here to edit this post
I agree with Yankee. Seems enough things are out there to mitigate risk. What is needed is more reward to encourage the needed effort and associated risk. If similar rewards are available for less/no risk and similar/less effort, there is a problem that we have now. I carrot needs to be dangled outside the confines of unnatural game protections.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 11:03 am Click here to edit this post
I agree that incentives for PvP wars is a big issue.
Currently, there is probably too little there to take the risk.

Increasing war levels after PvP war is won, is open for fraud. How can we prevent it?
I would directly go for war level increase after winning a PvP war if we could know that it was a real war.

For a certain war level we could require certain size of the army, with levels of ammo, at some quality level.
also a distribution of forces that will guarantee a real war.

There must be multiple attacks from both sides, not a war while one is asleep.

For such a system, we could think of major incentives.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 11:04 am Click here to edit this post
This discussion is about the war game.

Once it is done, I will gladly engage in a discussion about another "burning" issue.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:34 pm Click here to edit this post
I think linking war levels to the ability to fight other players must be re-examined altogether. Flaws have come to light over time with a system where players experiment with or simply follow guides in combating a listless computer opponent and associating that with a restriction on the ability to war other actual players. Some examples are:

-War levels vary between worlds. There is a thread on the forums, and I can find it if I must, where it was simply overlooked that the same player can be war level 4 on one world and war level 12 on another. This player is no less skilled on the first world.

-Computer opponents do not actually prepare one for combating players. Some experimentation with basics can be handy but fighting a computer opponent does not prepare anyone for a skilled player who has experience in actual PvP,

-The gold coin incentives for raising war level are not sufficient to encourage a player with the ability to raise their war level, to actually do so. If this player wishes to engage other players, they typically keep a lower war level. This war level 4ish player with a few lessons from a veteran or actual PvP experience is no less skilled than a war level 11 player.

-In the previous example, this aggressive war level 4 player can engage a wholly unprepared similarly war level player and the victim's ally/federation member with similar ability as the attacker is war level 10, and can do little to help his ally. This is a major blow to federations, which just don't work properly today in these situations.

I would be for making war levels a system to test theories on a computer opponent, and offer the incentives available today for doing so, but disassociate it with PvP war game play. For PvP game play, let players opt in. Maybe there is some incentive to do it temporarily, like there is now, and a bigger incentive to opt in permanently. My incentives ideas were the systems of "Battleground" play and Natural Resources, but, if the GM is receptive, perhaps other ideas will come from the player base.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:57 pm Click here to edit this post
I would also compare whatever we are suggesting to what we currently accept now. I believe many players believe the existing fraud occurs on Fearless Blue. A read in the game documentation describes a no-holds barred scary place, where a player's desire for a real challenge can be fulfilled.

The reality is that Fearless Blue is just as peaceful as anywhere else. Most players there never reach the war level requirements for PvP participation. Fearless Blue offers enhanced rankings awards, based on the assumption that only the strong survive. No other world offers rankings awards like Fearless Blue does:

1 391 Gold Coins
7 151 Gold Coins
17 38 Gold Coins

Ten countries currently grace that world's hall of fame. Each was declared that world's "best president" and was showered with gold coins. How many of these ten can actually be threatened with a player war? One can.

You ask me? This is a fraud. This is why we lose war players. There was a market for players that wanted a PvP experience. Fearless Blue no longer caters to that base.

I would much rather give those coins to a player who "opts" into leaving unnatural protections and joins a community where players have the power to make their own rules, their own federations that mean something, and make their own diplomacy rather than war levels making those decisions for them.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 02:35 pm Click here to edit this post
The war game was pretty much dead before war levels, and nothing since has helped.

maybe all these ideas are just going in the wrong direction.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, July 28, 2017 - 02:44 pm Click here to edit this post
Correct!!! war game was dead before war levels

And they dont do a fuckin thing about multis; im saying the ones who dont cover there tracks and declare war on there main country. Note: Anyone who thinks that someone who makes a new account, to take there other countrys, and for the sake of war, if you cannot see that is a problem in the war game, then what the fuck is wrong with the brain your eyes or the matter of existence that surrounds you?

War game -> cheaters -> not shit being done(ABOUT BLATANT CHEATING)

Like seriously, im thinking about quitting this game since its obvious they are choosing a cheater over me, really? and andy is to busy being concerned with what doesent matter. Fuckin bullshit man, fuckin bullshit.

Only people who play war game are those multis taking there own countrys, that they used war levels to build up! lol gross cant fix that this game just going to keep going in the wrong direction

Sheepman RGB

Friday, July 28, 2017 - 02:48 pm Click here to edit this post
Not saying multi hasent been a problem but really, this game is dead if they cant step up and stop a fuckin mulit. Okay maybe im the only one that thinks this mutli should be banned and not taking action is offensive. But overally this whole thread is really disrespectful the there remaining player base. Players are here giving ideas on a thread you made, and yet believe this is a monotone argument, the dictator sets the topic and we all propagate! Reality is find out or atleast pay someone to read these posts and get a concept from it, instead of playing little games by continually pointing "off-topic" flaws and mispelling names. Really though, just to ignore all this stuff andy you got more hope of fixing the war games with a stick up your ass blindfolded. Its really a sad thing but i cant help but to type it. Little personal, yeah ofcourse im mad at the war game for letting a multi build up, and now they need to "fix" things they "fixed" and broke even more. Now im scared that the next "fix" might just fix this game straight to bit hell.


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 05:26 pm Click here to edit this post
Regarding incentives for PvP, digging deeper into the hole of war levels is not the solution. PvP needs organic incentives.

Andy, W3C has promised for at least 10 years to introduce regional natural resources. That would provide organic incentives for PvP. This has been promised over and over. This feature is best described in item #8 of your work list of January 29, 2009.

On July 10, 2012 you posted some more details.

On February 21, 2017, in a thread about incentives for war, you posted "We also decided to push forward the resources game."


Friday, July 28, 2017 - 09:16 pm Click here to edit this post
These are my thoughts on 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 has removed all war protections. 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 all war protections.

Sheepman RGB

Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 04:45 am Click here to edit this post
Agreed minimal war level should be included and no protections should be on, though i would say natural resources should be something as to say more natural occurrence, such as a randomized country no president country the world. Have defenses waves and anyone who declares war on it is in war with each other for the country, and there own included declared on the resource country.

Permeters should be that the resource cannot be taken if there is more then 1 president active on the resource IE; lose country or surrender/peace and withdrawl occupation from the resource. Then the resource must be subdued like any other C3.

Resource after takeover should have a set period of time that the has protection and modifed resource gains provided for a period of time, after period has expired, a new resource spawns shortly after, and your left with a c3.

Note that the resource should be a limited number of supplies, mainly to stop large projections of useless types of items that my not be needed, such as electric power and gasoline, but more inclined so if natural(Oil,stone,uranium) wouldent be as valuable but could be beneficial for supplies of corporations.

I believe that natural resources for a long time has been a solution to stimulate players on simcountry for growth; however its a factor of the amount of work to put in and i believe this might be too much to read, and implement to the game; cant keep "tweaking" the game, i mean you can but really this is turning a bolt left and right. This games problem is that it is obsolete in factors of time, because theres no real supporting updates that could provide more intense C3 experience. I mean litterally look at it like this, Andy my boi, and to say anyone else who can read this; people stopped working called it good at say, building a bridge,building a boat,building a building! if they just "tweaked it" all day long, say lets tweak my house with 2x4s and build a sky scrapers!

Lol id be blown down, point being they had to find new obsticals to come across to satisfy the needs of what was to be built. to fix this game up; make it something not to say massive but atleast sustainable for players, were multi giant house spiders arent coming after me and eating there spouses aka there own countrys they made. I mean really, its sad man, iv seen this before i tell you my boi, this aint no joke here, simcountry dont need to follow any doom path, can keep going good its up to you and the bois, jonni if hes still around need to crack a cold one and figure it out, got to be a way. in the end all, its up to what is believed.


Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 05:09 am Click here to edit this post
The reason for my suggestion of the introduction of natural resources is to integrate that system with existing ones. For example, there is purposeful malice to owning large numbers of countries. Particularly, more than 10. It is important not to essentially exclude this feature from existing players in a given world who have already settled on an empire size, unless these other systems are like-wise relaxed. Make sense?


Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 05:52 pm Click here to edit this post
Madoff, You are right. The resources game was promised long time ago and was not added.
We have very specific plans on this, and part of it is already done. It could be part of the incentive for war.
we are stretched on resources and must make money to keep the game (and ourselves) running.

Aries, I don't understand the Bonus part. Please explain.

What about war protection for the main country?
What about those who do not want the war game (get war protection, never attack anybody and if they do, war protection is gone?).

What about the idea to make war levels depend on:

1. Winning war against countries with a certain war level. (PvP)
2. Must have weapons and ammo at a certain level for each war level. All weapons, including sufficient numbers of ammo.
In this way, PvP war will mean that the attacked country WILL fight back forcefully. It should include automatic attacks and defense to prevent one sided wars.
There will be no phony wars to get to the next war level.

Large bonuses for high war levels.

We can discuss the resources game when this issue is done.

Done, means a short list of changes to be implemented in order to improved the war game.


Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 06:25 pm Click here to edit this post
"Aries, I don't understand the Bonus part. Please explain."

-No confirmation that the GM was behind the other structure ideas was available. The "bonus" part would be the easiest part to discuss, and the community can add ideas. If the other structure ideas I listed are accepted, I will join the discussion on it.

"What about war protection for the main country?"

-As far as natural resources? I would say that secured mode disables the "bonus" offered by natural resources. Again, the player can purchase it, with gold coins, but it doesn't work unless the country has no kind of artificial protections. The game does not need more econ game incentives (that is all that happens now). Natural resources should be a war inducement.

"What about those who do not want the war game (get war protection, never attack anybody and if they do, war protection is gone?). "

-I would change nothing about current protections right now, which work more than adequately to offer player choice on this matter. The feature to drop war-level protection for a single country already exists (remember, it was my idea). So within the game coding, a player could selectively use Natural Resources in a single country (free from secured mode/war level protection/GC purchased protection) and opt out of the war game with the rest with any combination of those features.

"What about the idea to make war levels depend on:"

1. Winning war against countries with a certain war level. (PvP)

-Relating the war level system to PvP has the problems I posted about earlier. I recommend not adding any link with PvP and perhaps severing it altogether.

2. Must have weapons and ammo at a certain level for each war level. All weapons, including sufficient numbers of ammo.
In this way, PvP war will mean that the attacked country WILL fight back forcefully. It should include automatic attacks and defense to prevent one sided wars.
There will be no phony wars to get to the next war level.

-This is certainly to confusing and counter-intuitive. The goal is certainly to get more and new players into the war game. Simplicity should be the goal and this isn't it.

I think you are putting too much value in raising war levels and associated rewards. From a player perspective, players are just not that interested in raising war levels for the sake of those rewards.

You want an easy way to fix war levels for the benefit of the war game? Do this:

-Add an option for the player to press a button on any world to choose to leave the war level system for purposes of PvP. They automatically raise to the highest war level and receive all associated coins. They can be attacked and can attack any player who has made the same choice without interference from war levels (a permanent change, but perhaps reversible for a gold coin cost that would reflect a premium over the initial gold coin benefit), though secured mode and GC purchased protections still apply. DONE!

Seriously, No kidding. That will fix it.

Want players to earn it a bit more? Then look more into my War College and Battlegrounds idea. They are not as complicated as they sound, but if coding resources are limited for even these simplified ideas, do above ^^^

Honestly, I think we are making it more complicated than it needs to be and if the resulting system is not simple to understand, it will be a loser for the game. I promise you.


Friday, August 4, 2017 - 06:47 pm Click here to edit this post
Many want the war protection.
You may say they are hiding behind it. May be but they want to keep their assets and their will not just drop it. You may but you want a huge number of gold coins to do so.

I want to increase the risk but dropping it? who will do that and will they fight each other? I doubt it.

Natural resources can add an incentive for war.
We need more incentives.

If losing a war costs money (10T?) fake wars may not be a problem. The warring parties are full members, don't want to lose their money. we can try to enforce some war experience before they get involved in PvP wars.

We must do it in small steps.
We should tune some of the parameters to make it easier to fight PvP and harder to hide.
We can add auto response units that really fight back hard and give players more confidence in their ability to defend.
I mentioned nuclear auto defense if attacked by nukes.

More alerts that send you messages if war is declared, starts, attacks are launched etc.

the possibility to suspend attacks for an hour or two, using your phone
and of course,
the possibility to launch large attacks from weapons at your bases, using your phone.

Maybe add highly upgraded weapons and ammo in sufficient quantity to penetrate strong defense and destroy targets in counter attacks. This will reduce the confidence gap between small and large countries.

Such features will make it easier to defend.


Friday, August 4, 2017 - 07:39 pm Click here to edit this post
I see the same post of yours in two places I will re-post my answer to the other one below. In the context of this thread, I will also attempt to answer sopmething I didn't address already.

"You may say they are hiding behind it. May be but they want to keep their assets and their will not just drop it. You may but you want a huge number of gold coins to do so."

-If you are talking about me, I have already raised my war level to very high levels on most worlds, raising it the normal way. If you are implying I am making any suggestions for my benefit, look over my account for the truth. I have no shortage of coins, which I use for nothing more than extending entities recently. If you were to check my countries, you would see them in a state of disrepair because I have barely played for about 4+ months now.

I have all the stuff I need and no material incentive from coins to countries to game cash or anything else remains to entice me to play anymore. I could currently embarrass any combination of attackers to my unprotected countries (of which most of mine are) and the most proficient new players in the last 3 years have all learned from me. The only things I have done in that time is offer solutions to things that destroyed the war game (and most interaction between players), write up guides in the beginner forum (all searchable with my game nickname), try to teach players in chat about the game (without making their brain explode), and defeat and chase out some game cheaters (in which I still have no acknowledgement or thanks).

If there exists a better solution to encourage players to participate in the PvP war game, I am willing to hear it and would urge the gamemaster to monitor its success after implementation. Perhaps, based on the number of player countries present in the game that lack any type of game protections, including war levels, gold coin protections, and secured mode. I will offer my view, I can't help myself, but am willing to be impressed, if some months later, the situation, based on that criteria, improves.


Why would anyone raise their war level, to PvP levels, if there is nothing to deter an attacker for initiating a war on them for little risk?

It is important to look at this from both sides. I don't understand why we are only looking at it from the aggressor side, when we have not solved the problem for the majority of the player base who never raise their war level and effectively opt out of the war game. Allowing attacking nations a free hand to do damage for no risk is a fundamental problem in the war game. Choose not to solve this, and the war game remains broken.

The better alternative is create an environment where federation provide the protection and provide the necessary deterrent to player action. If an attacker can choose what to risk and the defender cannot, it is terrible and un-intuitive to the game experience, creating a real problem for anyone to enter the world of federations and PvP (especially new players).

"The warring parties are full members, don't want to lose their money. we can try to enforce some war experience before they get involved in PvP wars. "

-This was the entire reason for my War College idea, that has been posted on the appropriate forum and pushed by me for years. I can only assume that you had the opportunity to look it over in that time and have found a better solution to prepare players for PvP, though nothing exists currently nor has been announced as forthcoming. War College was an excellent introduction to my Battlegrounds (revised) suggestion as well.

"More alerts that send you messages if war is declared, starts, attacks are launched etc."

-I reported that alerts for expiring entities and for declarations of war used to work, and are now broken. I have reported this multiple times. In the current state of the game, someone can overlook logging in for a few days and lose their empire, without ever having received an email (to either expiration or PvP war).

'Natural resources can add an incentive for war. "

-I am willing to add more to this discussion. I have more ideas, but I am awaiting your comments on the framework I proposed. As you know, there is intentional malice for having a larger empire. One of my suggestions, for example, described how natural resources would enter the game. This would occur through player purchase with gold coins. It is important not to expect existing players to expand their current empires, with the larger empire malice intact, to take advantage of this feature.

My full description of my outline of natural resources now exists on multiple threads, and, like War College, has been there for years. I await comment to see if it is worthwhile for me to contribute further to this idea.

"This will reduce the confidence gap between small and large countries."

-I am somewhat concerned about this language and similar that typically is recited by new players. It seems to come from the thinking that the experience is almost solo-player. That it is always one player against another player. This seems inherently flawed, because my impression is the goal of the game experience is a Massively Multi-Player one. Many solutions seem to overlook that fact.

I wonder what our goal is. Is it to sell this game as an experience where you are alone in the woods playing the game all by yourself or one in which you are part of a community of other nations and players. My ideas always push the later idea, but it seems so many solutions push a single-player experience. That seems fatal to the mission of this game.

This game should push the Massive Multi-Player experience it is meant to be. Remember that countries don't fight countries. Players fight players who should seek assistance from other players and be part of federations. If this is not happening, something is wrong until it is happening. Right now, it isn't happening.



Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 02:12 am Click here to edit this post
if the underlying question is saving the (war)game, then do this.

1. go back to the short term free accounts.
2. drop war levels, but keep secured mode,
3. open all and only new registrations on LO. make LO a non-space travel/trade world.

take the game back to a time it worked, but keep the updated and improved war engine.

as the old worlds empty, you can bring them into this new galaxy, and eventually re-add space

you can even (eventually,) re-add WG to this new galaxy, with modern war levels, as a higher level of protection, new players can choose. While removing secured mode from FB, as higher level of risk.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 02:39 am Click here to edit this post
I understood #2, it is the same suggestion Yankee has.

#1. I am not sure what we are "going back" to. How did these work? It is difficult to for others to discuss something that isn't made clear here. Also, what does this fix in regards to the war game.

#3. I suggested this at one time, at a different time in the game. The worlds are just too sparse now to consider another world with another rule-set. In addition, I am concerned about the mindset that leads to this idea.

Is this to attempt some type of balance between players? I believe this thinking is wrong in what Simcountry should be good at. It should be a community of players who don't have to be balanced 1v1 but seek safety in diplomacy, in federations. Also, if you believe I am being self-serving, check the "Fix the War Game/Take my Account" thread I started. If players or the GM believe my motivations are my own, I will end my account.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 03:27 am Click here to edit this post
aries, i was not addressing you, nor do i have to qualify my ideas to you.

Chances are, the GM will dismiss my idea off hand.

We've been having this exact same discussion, for years. nothing has changed. Maybe we should go back to a configuration that competition thrived in. It wouldn't be right just delete hard won assets.

But what we got, is dead. Allowing old timers to masturbate over their Q of game cash, and piles of gold coins, while the only thing we have to talk about is these useless rants on how to save the game.

Close these five worlds. Open Little Omicron to new accounts. With Secured mode, and no war levels. Let the current game we have, dwindle to nothing. And convert dead worlds to this new galaxy, as they finally die. Then bring back the space trade/travel game.

Doing it this way, your not forcing any one to delete assets. But just excepting that what we have now is hopeless, and starting over.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 03:42 am Click here to edit this post
How are we supposed to weigh the merit of your ideas if we won't know the reasons for them? If you consider your ideas over our heads, then shoot the gamemaster an email and keep it private.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 03:44 am Click here to edit this post
I edited my comment to tone it down a bit, I guess we missed each in the moment.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 03:59 am Click here to edit this post
I disagree that the problem with the war game is the disparity in assets. I don't see it. I certainly faced the same disparity when I started this account in 12-2012. This game has been going for what, 14-15 years? The powerful have come and went. I don't believe there is a reason for this pattern not to continue. If I started over in the dawn of new war game rules, I promise you in a short time I would be similarly dangerous in any PvP war as I am now.

The core issues are the ones I said. That the war game does not make sense for new players, has an over-reliance on fake game protections, and little to no asset incentive to leave those protections for the associated risk.

The world you suggest opening with secured mode and no war levels should be very similar to what Fearless Blue should be and should rightly be changed to. FB should not offer war level protections, in addition to its lack of secured mode. It should have the 21 days war protection, that the world still offers, and that is it.

Edit addition: On the test for the value of asset disparity. What current player in the game would you place your bet on to defeat me in a PvP war in,say, 3 months if I simply deleted and remade my account today.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 04:46 am Click here to edit this post
Historically this game IMHO was at it's "peak" when there were absolutely no war levels, secured mode or any other feature offering a player any protection other than:

1. Their ability to aggressively attack others.
2. Their ability to passively defend themselves (i.e. make it cost ineffective to go to war against them)
3. Their ability to interact with other players and form alliances.

It is also MHO that #3 is the largest problem this game faces today. For the most part, most days, I feel I'm playing this game with of 3-5 individuals who all live in different time zones.

I am surrounded by inactive player countries that for any number of reasons I might wish to remove however I can't touch them and, if for some reason they suddenly woke up and took offense at anything I'm doing they can't attack me.

I'm playing this game the way I want to, I have no intention of chasing war levels or game levels for that matter.

If they happen, they happen.

That doesn't mean I'm trying to hide from anyone or anything. Country wise, I've got one of the largest holdings on LU at this present time and quite frankly, I intend to acquire much more.

Even so I have stated all along ONE secured country is all anyone needs in this game. If someone wants to come along and spend the effort for little to no return hey, just gives me another goal along with an enemy to spark my interest.

Believe me when I say I'd love to see this game convert to one secured country on LU, WG, KB, WG and GR and have someone jump right down my throat.

It would be a lot more interesting than what we've got now.

I'm I worried about the bigger players? Why should I be?

Anyone with half a brain is not going to expend the effort to take what I've got unless I really piss someone off (see #3 above). But if there is anyone out there wanting to spend the money and effort to prove me wrong I see absolutely no reason this game shouldn't let them, I'm certainly up for it.

Otherwise, I'm just going to keep grabbing slaves and fixing them up just enough that I can suck money and whatever assets they produce every time I log on. I've never owned an entire region before, it's sad but that's about the only goal currently in my reach.

I need something or someone new to keep my attention relatively soon anyway or I doubt I'll be around much longer myself.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 09:59 am Click here to edit this post
Aries, why don't you let the GM decide.

Opening a new world to to new registrations only, would not require very much effort on the GMs part. And would put all the fresh players looking to make a name of themselves together, on equal footing. Rather than spread out.

War protection would not be neccessary, as the dominate players would not be able to bring in masses of assets via space, or direct trading. They could still reset their accounts, and do well, based on their game knowledge. But most I'd suspect would hold onto their old accounts for quite some time.

With a return to trial accounts, and no war levels, i think that inactives would be cleaned up, leaving only active paying players. In a fresh environment, this would probably work.

Let the game that is dying, die. And start over. It would require little effort on the GMs part. But might take some hold outs a couple years to get the hint.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 10:33 am Click here to edit this post
I didn't know I had the power to prevent the GM from making the decision. Do I? All I believe I have the power to do is give my opinion and ask you to clarify yours. Then, rather than you stomping your foot and demanding an end to discussion, we can hash out our ideas and let the GM decide. Fair?

I do not believe it is necessary to open a new world to fix a problem that, in my view, doesn't exist. Creating a new world would not result in those players being on equal footing at all. Players who are familiar with the war game would still crush players that aren't just as easily as it could occur now. What it would do is split the player base, which the game could currently not afford to do. It also chases an incredibly flawed outlook that balance has to be achieved in a one vs. one basis. Such an outlook sees no role for diplomacy and no role for federations, which is exactly the problem we have now.

2 more things

1. What are these hold-outs and what hint do they require?

2. You didn't answer my question. What player could use their mega-account, maybe this is what you mean by hold-out (you are making us all guess), and defeat me on the field of battle even if I started a brand new account. They get all their stuff and I get 3 months to build what I need against what you view as an insurmountable advantage. What player meets that description that you would bet on their victory. If you could even imagine one such player, could you think of 2? 3?

You might see something I don't, but I don't see wars won solely based on assets and I like my chances right now because most players sitting on any assets haven't dusted them off and used them against any opponent that breathes in years because of the lack of incentives in the war game. If the problem was simply mega-accounts, wouldn't these folks be rampaging through the game right now or at least coming to the forum and complain that they can't. Who left does that?

I am concerned Josias still won't answer so this is now an open question. List the players that can defeat me with their mega-accounts if I have just 3 months to build. Convince me and then maybe we have something here.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 12:02 pm Click here to edit this post
blah, blah, blah


I do not believe it is necessary to open a new world to fix a problem that, in my view, doesn't exist. -Aries

but it does already exist, on both accounts, you even admitted it.


The worlds are just too sparse now to consider another world with another rule-set. In addition, I am concerned about the mindset that leads to this idea. -Aries

So All new registrations, go to a new planet, free of 10+ years of asset accumulation, and extreme protection from such.


Creating a new world would not result in those players being on equal footing at all. Players who are familiar with the war game would still crush players that aren't just as easily as it could occur now. -Aries

would you rush to LO, and start crushing?


What player could use their mega-account, maybe this is what you mean by hold-out (you are making us all guess), and defeat me on the field of battle even if I started a brand new account. -Aries

can stop fapping in the sim-mirror long enough for oxygen to reach your brain?

how many old timers do you think will just delete their old account and start over. how many of them will just start crushing newbs? would you? most will probably continue to run their empires, as they are.

while some will take advantage of this, others will place themselves in a protectorate position. but most would be loath to delete years of assets, until its obvious the old is dead, and the new is thriving.

and theirs a key underlining thing here. a kinda between the lines on what both You and Yankee said, their isn't enough active players to justify 5 worlds. (not trying to speak for you Yankee, just an interpretation on what you said,)

--->put all the new accounts on a world segregated from the rest. and see what happens.

it'd take zero effort.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 12:13 pm Click here to edit this post
What is the problem with asset accumulation?

Other than revolving awards on monthly rankings, what is there to do?

Why are you putting down the players who have stuck with the game with terms like "old timers"?

..and there is no reason to think a new world solves a darn thing, other than splitting the player base and sticking it to the players who have stuck with the game and accumulated assets through their skill or contributions. You said it best earlier. Chances are this idea will be dismissed by the GM out of hand, and it should be. Please stop attacking other players that play the game under the illusion of attempting to fix the war game. Why don't we appreciate that they are still around? This crosses a line.


Saturday, August 5, 2017 - 02:41 pm Click here to edit this post
The problem is not asset accumulation.

The problem is and to some extent the reasons for the current state of affairs, players coming into a game and expecting a balance between themselves and someone who has played for years.

Aries or anyone else for that matter, has done absolutely nothing I can't do, and I can build what assets I currently have a LOT faster with the proper motivation.

Personally, I wouldn't care if all restrictions were removed completely. I was better at, highly motivated and much happier when there was the possibility someone might come and take what I had.

I enjoy the building more than maintenance anyway.

The only reason I've ever suggested one secured country is I understand not everyone wants everything they've built to be at risk.

The funny thing about that is, nobody can ever really wipe you out in this game anyway.


Sunday, August 6, 2017 - 08:06 pm Click here to edit this post
The idea of having natural resources within different regions on each world has been floated for a while now. (5 planets are plenty imo) It may be difficult to design, but it would add more realism to the worlds. The GC investment for natural resources could basically translate as a nation's effort to cultivate materials that would be otherwise produced in corps. We have Oil corporations available for example; it would probably be more accurate to refer to them as refineries since oil is cultivated, not manufactured in the real world. Other resources, such as natural gas, sand, gold, etc. I think federations would start forming pretty damn quick. "Think OPEC". Realistic price wars, injecting more economics into the international conflict, as opposed to just the usual product dumps we sometimes see. Maybe the natural resources should be identified by chance, research or expedition efforts by a nation's economy. A little nation is all of a sudden garnishing more importance and attention, like Saudi Arabia. Might be a cross hairs on a newbie, something to consider.
Geography is destiny. A lot to cover there; just some ideas.

I can only offer insight in this regard, the ideas Aries described come from a lot of his experiences. If anything, a lot of long time players wish to see more player retention, less of the revolving door. I think the only self-interest here is to see more players stay, make connections and bring more energy into the SC community. Nothing wrong with that.


Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - 11:39 pm Click here to edit this post
Aries, I was not looking into your account nor did I think you are trying to help yourself.

I read this as an effort by everybody to improve the war game.
We already have some very good ideas here.

We would like to drop war levels but you cannot just do it and see what happens. There must be a change process, with feedback and then more changes.

Natural resources will help but it is a separate idea.
as we see it, all mining corporations will function for a limited period and new corporations will be formed where resources have been found by a discovery process.

we can talk about it later and yes, it will add incentives for war.

I will do more reading here and come back with comments. I would like to end up with a short list for some first changes.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 02:11 pm Click here to edit this post
I appreciate that Andy. My motive for the last 3 years has been to help new players, particularly war players, understand and enjoy the game. Towards that end, I have assisted players in chat, written guides (that are now published here for everyone instead of some other site), wrote up accounts of actual battles (like the "Battle of Camp Foxtrot" found on the FB forum), and made suggestions with the experience of seeing the challenges new players face.

For my part, the only wars I have initiated in the last three years were against powerful players who exploited a game system to create unnatural wealth. Only through a combination of skill and vigilance was I able to eliminate them from the game, though I believed you might have cleaned up the assets of the last player, after my climatic battle with him.

Should certain war rules be changed, consider that I plan to use my resources and skill to help new players in the new environment. I tend not to get involved in wars between newer war players, but I have acted a number of times to help a new war player fend off a powerful attack from a veteran. My ability to get less experienced players up to speed and make them effective in their own defense is currently matched by no player in the game. Should federations become viable and necessary again in a new environment, I will be around more to help any federation that would appreciate my assistance.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 03:16 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks for your help Aries.
I really appreciate it.
Also the knowledge of Yankee and others helps a lot.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 03:36 pm Click here to edit this post
New world, lets close the subject
FB is closest to what we want and I see no reason to setup a new world right now.
We can and will evolve the war game and do it on FB.

Here are some suggestions, just a little start.
not connected to "the big picture"

War protection on FB:

I would like to limit war protection, step by step.
we cannot just force players into a very different situation from one day to another.

War protection on FB costs more, it should cost even more.
We can consider making WP free for the main country as on other worlds.
Reduce the number of protected countries, step by step from max of 10 to start with, back to 1.

Make transfers of weapons into the country from space or enterprises, go into the reserves, and slow the activation process in the first day or two.

The question is simple:
Are these suggestions in the right direction?

This is a very small first step.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 04:13 pm Click here to edit this post
The system for inactive weapons can be called broken. You must log in every month to activate a very small number of weapons, making it very unfriendly for the user. The war hospital system is the same. Unless that system is made much better, such as more weapons being active each month and some type of "target" system, rather than expecting players to be active each game month, that system should not be tied to space transfer, or any other change.

Andy: One thing to keep in mind. Making it harder to transfer things from space hurts your mission of making defense easier. Consider that you can be assured that an attacker is prepared for battle. They choose where and when the battle takes place, very powerful tools that should not be understated. If you expect players to protect an empire of multiple countries, you should not mess with systems that allows a defender to react to a declaration of war. Again, a change here assists the ATTACKER not the DEFENDER.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 05:21 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree that the transfers must continue, however, popping up a huge amount of active weapons is any country in any world, is putting players who do not have it is a position where they try to assess how strong the opposition is, just to find out is has changed within an hour to something very different.

Some delay makes sense. You can also keep some more active weapons in each country to counter the disadvantage.

as to activation, we do have an automatic procedure. I will check the details and see if we have to tweak it.

You can call some functions broken.
we can discard them or we can repair them.
warrs with C3s too if these need to make sense in the new setup.

What about the other points?


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 05:22 pm Click here to edit this post
Jacking up the cost of war protection and reducing the number of protected countries is a good step.

Weakening the transfer and activation of weapons from space and enterprises is a good step. That will make it slightly harder for the predators with extreme stockpiles of weapons to chase away new players.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 07:30 pm Click here to edit this post
Delaying transfers of weapons would become a confusing mess and difficult to track. Its just another punitive action to those who spent time building I would not support this either.

Also, reactivating weapons need to either happen quicker or not disable at all.

My two cents


Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 09:11 pm Click here to edit this post
MHO as far as FB goes.

1. I would agree that any war protection should come at a high cost. (It is after all called the "war world")

2. Activation of all inactive weapons should be immediate. (As long as you have the ammunition and population to support them in which case the game already deactivates them anyway and not just on FB)

3. I would be against making WP free for a main country on FB.

People go to FB for one of two reasons.

A. Weapons not available elsewhere (in which case build a ceo)
B. They are wanting to engage in the war aspect of the game. Providing free WP to a main would allow someone to "plop down" right next to an intended target with no recourse for the targeted country.)

Napoleon Bonaparte

Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:29 am Click here to edit this post
"War protection on FB costs more, it should cost even more.
We can consider making WP free for the main country as on other worlds.
Reduce the number of protected countries, step by step from max of 10 to start with, back to 1. "
WP is already plenty expensive, especially on FB. It use to cost 1 GC per 4 months and was doubled to 2 per 4 game months per country. As for creating a secured mode country, that would basically eliminate FB as a war world. As usual, another backward idea by the GM. I already eliminated my entire empire on FB because of the uselessness of it. I just restarted with 1 country just for some excitement and now you are thinking of making FB the same as the other worlds? If secured mode is created on FB I'm gone for good. The current cost of WP on FB is a reasonable alternative and there is no need to increase it. I have been playing this game for 9 years with only a few time gaps. The solutions ofor reinvigorating the game are simple and nor so complex as this and other threads have suggested.

1. get rid of the ability to store massive amounts of military weapons in space stations.(even better, get rid of the space game altogether)
2. get rid of war levels.
3. get rid of unlimited forts.
4. Disable the so called "fortress countries" that are so small they can't be painted and defeated.

Everybody with any long time playing experience knows that these items, especially 1 and 2 are the reason the game has died.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:29 am Click here to edit this post
Obviously, I agree with Yankee and Khome.

Madoff: You have it wrong. Making it more difficult to move things from space simply makes it much more difficult to defend. Multiple times players have come to me for help against an attacker, and, with the help of space transfer, it was possible to put weapons and ammo in place to manage a defense. Make this harder and a defender has no hope against an attacker that would already have their weapons in place. "Predators" would have a field day with this change. When was your last PvP war?

Napoleon: No one stores a massive number of weapons in space stations. Do you even know what you are talking about?


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 07:00 am Click here to edit this post
^ Aries does have the right idea here guys.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 09:10 am Click here to edit this post
FB will have no WP for the main country.
You are right, this is our war world, but we are just beginning, there will be much more we want to change there.

WP will disappear, step by step.

Unlimited fortifications is a problem. We will limit the number you can purchase but producing them yourself...

Activation of weapons
Deactivation is a way to reduce your cost and it has a disadvantage, it takes time to activate.
If you do not want the disadvantage, activate them all.

Transfer of weapons from outside
They should go to the reserve and you can activate them.
It takes more planing, and probably some more active weapons in your country at all time to reduce the risk.

You can easily calculate how long it will take to get more weapons of some type, depending on the number you have in enterprises or space and the reactivation pace once they are in the country.

This is a small limitation on the use of weapons stored outside.
It is a big advantage for smaller countries that do not have such reserves and they get a little more time.

It is a small step. It will not change their mind about the risk of war.
more incentives coming.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 09:20 am Click here to edit this post
Updated copy from another discussion

Here is a suggestion to prevent all against one federation wars.

If two large federations fight, that is OK.
If a small federation attacks a large one, that is their problem. fine with us.

If a federation with 10 countries starts a war against a federation with 3 countries, only three will declare.

Instead, they can decide which 3 and declare.

If the small federation has war treaties with another 4 countries, we could count it as 7 (or not) and decided how many will be able to declare.

In general, the number of countries on both sides will remain in balance.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 09:37 am Click here to edit this post
Andy: If you force space transfer to go to reserves, you will make Gold Coin purchased protections even more attractive than it is now. I predict all countries will utilize such protections if war level protection is not available. My countries will switch to such protections themselves in such an environment.

If you make such a change, monitor this situation. See how many countries remain out of game-provided protections. The space transfer change will cause the war level change to fail in its goal.

On Federation war limitations, I answered on the other thread:

Limiting the number of wars is counter-intuitive, so I don't like it. It doesn't make it easy for a new player to understand, which tends to give the advantage to an established player. Also, it is difficult to account for scenarios that present themselves when implementing such a limitation. Just like war levels, where predatory players simply kept their war level low.

Offhand, one issue that I see is that it follows a narrative that has never been true. Countries don't fight countries. Players fight players. Also, war treaties cause a mess in my experience. I never sign them, as responding to a certain player and situation requires more thought that automatic war declarations will allow me.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 10:33 am Click here to edit this post
Gold coin war protection will be reduced as I said before, on FB first so purchasing WP is no long term solution.
Keeping more weapons active is a simpler solution, also cheaper than gold coin purchased WP.

The federations issue is indeed not so simple, but we will have to have a solution that will eliminate the 20 vs. 3 wars.

We will also
- limit the number of fortifications and bases of all types.
- Check and if needed fix the upgrading of weapons and ammo at bases.
- Reduce the price of defense
- Improve the auto response capabilities in general and implement them in C3 wars but also in PvP wars.
- Nuke auto response if attacked with nukes.
- Reduce the number of cities etc. to simplify the defense a bit and reduce the numbers of targets.
- Possibly improve and increase the usability of sneak attacks.

All this does not include (yet) the issue of war levels, how to increase your war level or prevent it and associated incentives.
The relevance of war levels associated with the possibility to start a war and incentives for players who fight real PvP wars.

Also the learning process of fighting wars is not discussed yet. (Aries)


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 11:34 am Click here to edit this post
Andy: To highlight the current imbalance between defending with weapons and Gold Coin defense, check the following countries on LU, which may be the only examples of their kind to keep a somewhat sufficient defense active:

CC2 , CC3, Rubie, CC5, CC6, CC9, Camp Victory, AA8, Garrotte

If you check simply on the Profit and Loss ledger, these countries run defense costs of $70B per game month and up. This totals $420B per day and does not even account for ammunition use for such active weapons. Even ignoring such, substantial, ammunition costs imagine a player who is given two choices.

Choice A: Spend $840 Billion for defense over the course of two days. Risk attack at any time and the loss of your country. Expend a great deal of ammunition.

Choice B: Spend 2 Gold Coins. No risk of country loss whatsoever.

The player market has long set the value of gold coins to be around $200 Billion per coin. 2 Gold Coins is much cheaper than $840 Billion and there is no risk of losing your country.

The only reason I don't choose this option now, is in the spirit of reviving the war game. I don't consider what the countries have sufficient to defend from all threats, as an attacker can choose any one of my countries to be an isolated target. Should my risk increase from a weakening of space transfers, I will choose to switch to Gold Coin protection, which will be the obvious choice. A substantial decrease in the cost of protection will be needed to compete with the Gold Coin choice.

I think in regards to the 20 vs. 3 issue, the risk is overblown. I am much more concerned about a weakening of space transfers and a defender left with sparse options after the declaration of war. The delay that occurs to allow the defender to prepare will be substantially weakened and swing the advantage, even moreso, to the attacker. The state of the game used to be that the defender had little chance at defense. A change in transfers will be a step back to that era.

I like some of the other ideas:

-Forts should be limited to 150
-Upgrading weapons/ammo is fine but not a pressing issue
-See above for defense cost issues
-Auto response will hinge on details
-Reducing cities is important and overdue
-Sneak attacks is another issue that, if too powerful, will see more with GC protection.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 01:10 pm Click here to edit this post
thanks for the response.
I will repeat this:

War Protection, bought with gold coins, will be reduced gradually and will end up available for one country so this is no solution any more.

The 20 vs. 3 may not be a huge risk but it is a risk for small players.
I do not see the problem in making it a little less risky. It is not significant anyway.

A major reason for putting weapons on space stations and enterprises is to eliminate the cost of maintenance.
This is the same as putting them in the reserves but the cost is even lower.
We need to treat them as such. These are reserves.

Upgrading ammo is more important because we intend to allow more weapons to be used from base.
we would also like to add this to the mobile APP.

Reducing the cost of defense will help those who want to deter attacks or just defend themselves more forcefully..


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 02:10 pm Click here to edit this post
Okay, I missed that part about Gold Coin protection being simply unavailable in the future. When you say for one country, will there be no more secured mode for main countries at no GC cost? Will these changes be for all worlds?

A clarification of reserve changes could alleviate some concern with preparing a defense on the eve of war. Currently, the reactivation process is too slow and cumbersome to be useful, as it requires the player to log in each game month to activate a small number of weapons. This process most be simpler and useful to have access to a reasonable number of weapons if war is declared. Perhaps even an option that triggers on a war declaration, similar to a war treaty, that automatically activates some manner of weapons. In this way, they could be accessed sooner for a defensive purpose.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 02:49 pm Click here to edit this post
For now, we are talking FB only.
We want to upgrade the war game on FB, then decide what to implement on the other worlds.

On FB, no free war protection.
Soon to be limited to 10 countries where you can purchase WP.
then, step by step, reduce, and in time, there will be only one country in your empire that can purchase war protection on FB.

As to reactivation
The automation option seems OK.
you will have to start it, then it will run automatically until everything is reactivated.

You must have enough workers and ML managers. There are situations where weapons are deactivated automatically if manpower is not available.
emigrated? died in war?

This kind of functions should be usable from your phone.

And then:
- Notifications expansion including a booster for intelligence report that will show, for countries you apply it for, who is importing weapons, transporting from space, and activating weapons.

also notifications for war declaration (repair), some intelligence about the attacker, intelligence about the country you intend to attack, Attacks launched, nukes used, and maybe more.

I would like also these notifications, to be available on your mobile device if you want it.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 03:17 pm Click here to edit this post
Back to the delay in activating transferred weapons, it's a good step. But is it the only step to address the extreme multi-world stockpiles of predators? This step by itself is too small.

No self-respecting predator will wait until after a war declaration to start transferring weapons. He will start the transfer 1-2 days before the war declaration. If necessary, he'll lower production of corps temporarily to provide workers for the army. He'll declare war after the activation is ready or well underway.

This step won't stop predators from using their extreme multi-world stockpiles against weak players. Sad.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 04:00 pm Click here to edit this post
Madoff, this is of course true and not the only thing to do.
The notifications will give advanced notice on these preparations but that too, is not sufficient.

We have incentives in mined for PvP wars.
The incentives can be positive or negative.

They will reduce the appetite of large countries with huge armies to attack small ones.

The incentive will depend on the difference in capabilities. the smaller the difference the better will the incentive be.

very large difference, and the incentive will turn negative.

Accumulating incentives, you can end up earning cash US$, every month.

we can also support small countries with auto response attack units that will attack units, bases and destroy corporations, damage cities and kill many.

I think that smaller countries should be able to hurt an attacker and potential attacker will have to weigh the advantage against the cost. Currently the cost is negligent.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 05:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Madoff: The predator/attacking country has as much time as they wish to setup the attack, because the defender does not know it is coming. I setup an attack for over 3 weeks on one of the most powerful players in the game. Until the war declaration occurs, there is little indication to know where or when a conflict might occur in your empire. The defender is the one who needs prompt transfers to respond. When was your last experience in PvP again?

Andy: The threat in the game has never been "large" countries picking on "small" ones. When describing a large country, of course, you are thinking of one with a large population, one that is wealthy. Players don't risk such countries in wars.

The vehicle of war for aggressive players has always been small countries. Ones that have little worth, and result in little for the attacking player to lose, even in a worse case scenario. Ideally, you catch a player you are attacking off guard, and they don't have time to mount a sufficient defense. If the attacker wishes to invest a little more effort, they will marshal a number of small, throwaway, countries in the conflict. This puts the burden on the defending player to attack and defeat a number of worthless countries to remove the threat to his country.

In such an environment, what is the worth of having a "large" country? To be prey for other countries and be penalized should you attempt to PvP? Is the whole reason to build a prosperous country to be devalued in the new order?

Andy, I am worried. Suggestions are being made by players with no recent PvP experience to speak of and, often, no countries of PvP war level. Changes are being considered to account for situations that no longer exist in this game. The "predators" being described are extinct. Comb through the forums and attempt to find one mention of terrible attacks by such players. You won't find mention of them. I can no longer name any. Their food used to be the endless supply of raiding cash that came from "fake wars". When this food supply left, and assets had to be accumulated in more conventional ways, like actually building a country, the "predators" died off.

Instead of trying to account for each situation, real or imagined, the goals for players need to be simple. The players need to know what they should be doing and why they should be doing it.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:15 pm Click here to edit this post
When I say Large countries in war, I mean a large army.

We had time when small players were destroyed for fun.
we have evidence of this in the forum in the past three days.

If this is no danger in your opinion, and nobody does it. why object to measures that will make it harder?

In this discussion, there are some very experienced war players and I listen.
but we all know you do have your interests which is OK.

But I also listen and bring arguments for those you keep asking about their experience. If you are right, they are not experienced.
This is the largest group, and we need to protect the inexperienced.
Now you may be one who does not attack them but there are those who do.

Such wars will continue, they may win, but they will receive a negative incentive and the attacked country will cause considerable damage.

so now they will need a good reason for a war.
Examples: winners incentives to get Cash in $ US, weapons, assets, population, and this cannot be achieved by destroying small players, it will reduce their chance to win cash.

If we can achieve this, it will be an improvement.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:49 pm Click here to edit this post
No, there is danger. Great danger. The danger is following these complicated intentions into implentation. Let us look at incentives based on army size applied to a common scenario in the game.

Side 1: The aggressor

Country A 15 million pop. Handful of offensive weapons/ammo
Country B 15 million pop. Handful of offensive weapons/ammo
Country C 15 million pop. Handful of offensive weapons/ammo
Country D 15 million pop. Handful of offensive weapons/ammo
Country E 15 million pop. Handful of offensive weapons/ammo

The aggressor sets up 5 recently conquered countries. They are all small with about 15 million population. He doesn't bother to do much with them other than get them to maximum forts and put a handful of offensive weapons in them.

Side 2: The victim

Country F 180 million pop. moderate number of defensive and offensive weapons/ammo

The victim no longer purchases GC protection because it has changed to be too expensive or is not available. He has no idea he is about to be attacked by five countries this weekend. He has plans tonight but later might be able to evaluate the situation and throw something together.

Consider that you say the goal is to incentivize fighting larger opponents, I have some questions related to this scenario, a common one that occurs in the game. Obviously, country F has the largest army but considerable effort is needed to fight and defeat five other countries. Likewise, country F needs sufficient defense to repel attacks until this can be accomplished. The victim, larger army or not, has a considerable task brought upon him in order to save his country.


1. What does the aggressor risk?
2. What does the aggressor stand to gain?
3. What does the defender risk?
4. What does the defender stand to gain?
5. How does the math of incentive/negative incentive apply?


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:02 pm Click here to edit this post
It seems you do not want any war risk at all.

This large country, 180M can purchase WP.
(one will be able to do so).
If you have 6 countries on FB, with more than 200M, then purchase lots of weapons, ammo, and prepare to defend.

You assume here that a 180M+ country will sit there with no defense.

Also, if you do not want war, never start one, lay low, and you will never be attacked.
War free game will remain an option on all worlds.

and then, these 5 countries will not be able to attack one country.
5 to 1 seems unfair. read the federation idea I placed here before.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:31 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, what about war levels? It's not clear whether you want to keep them or not, in the long term. When you're ready, I want to suggest the Madoff War Level System™. It would solve the problem of predators and federations.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:32 pm Click here to edit this post
There is always risk to war, nobody disputes that. But it should have some reflection of what war truly is in the real world, not a trifle matter. There needs to remain an opportunity for balance. As Aries said, an attacker, (who in many cases would recklessly set up an attack, pawn country) set up silently then throw everything they had against an unsuspecting player; experienced or not. Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no way to respond to that if all of our weapons are locked down in deactivation. The offending player did not have to worry about reactivating; why should just the defender? That defies the premise of defenses. Storing weapons is not an outlandish idea. And if it becomes a matter of reactivating, it needs to be 100% faster, much more than the little fraction allowable each month. Logging on every few RL hours on our phones to activate weapons, while at work or whatever, is not a good solution to that. Sounds like an unreliable solution offered only to those with smart phones with enough data in their plans.

If this is the FB set up, I still don't think it's the best. It surly would not make sense for the other four worlds.

Remember, nobody really plays this game with the intent that everything else should revolve around just "what if war happens today?" And if some predatory country starts recklessly stomping around, it should be a hell lot harder than what is available now. We can't nerf the defender while giving more advantage to someone only vested in not playing with other concerns to attend to.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 09:33 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy: Me? Personally? Check my countries before you make such a statement that I don't want war risk. No player in the game risks war as I do.

I also stated in the example that the 180 million pop country has the largest army of the six countries. Now, if this scenario surprises you, it shouldn't, because it surprises no one who plays your game who has experiences PvP. What I want to know is how a common scenario we actually experience out here fits into these new rules. Are you saying these five countries, that are not in a federation, cannot simultaneously declare war? Also, how does the new incentive system apply to it?


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 10:38 pm Click here to edit this post
"Also, if you do not want war, never start one, lay low, and you will never be attacked."

Sorry Andy, this is absolutely an untrue statement.

Historically in this game, I have NEVER declared war on an active player that didn't come after me first. Yes it's been awhile but I've fought a LOT of wars against a LOT of players that at some point declared on me first. I've always left people pretty much alone until they showed a willingness to come after me at least once.

Most of those players took a page out of the playbook Aries was describing. Multiple junk countries going for the big prize.

If I buy the weapons, if I have the population to man those weapons, along with the ammunition to use those weapons, there should be no restrictions on when they are available to me.


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 11:49 pm Click here to edit this post
War levels are less relevant on FB. I would like to get rid of them but to start with, and on FB, this is not urgent.

we will need a way to evaluate the war fighting capability of a country. Obviously, war levels don't and the old defense indexes do not do this correctly.

On the reactivation of weapons:
I already said before that we will make it possible to automate it so you start it once. we have the procedure in the game already, we can apply it here.

We intend to add a notifications/intel report that will inform you if specific countries are reactivating or moving weapons in from a space station.

I also included a feature that will auto respond to attacks. This could be significant.
There is a time gap between war declared (and possibly advance messages when your enemy is preparing for war), and start of the war. the automatic reactivation will go a long way.
The alternative is of course to continue with WP on all countries in FB and we will have no wars.

you said moderate number of defensive and offensive weapons. with 180M it should have very very large numbers and auto attack units that will eat the hell out of the attacker. Why not?

If we do it right, the one country with 180M will be under WP. the other countries in the empire, will have much smaller population, a very strong army and would love to participate in war.

I don't think that 5 countries should be able to declare on one unless the one has a HUGE army.
all the winners will receive the incentive points.

If a country keeps itself outside the war game, it will not be attacked.
this will be part of this setup. you cannot be forced into it.

If you purchase weapons, you pay for the maintenance of these weapons and keep your army standing, that is fine.
Nothing will change. I never suggested any change to this. don't play tricks with it, just keep it there, and pay what it costs to keep it there.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 02:24 am Click here to edit this post


Andy: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 11:49 pm

we will need a way to evaluate the war fighting capability of a country. Obviously, war levels don't and the old defense indexes do not do this correctly.

Military assets are a direct measure of "war fighting capability." I propose war levels based on military assets. The war levels will measure the monetary value of the military assets of each country of each player.

Level 0: up to 2.99T
Level 1: 3T to 4.9T
Level 2: 5T to 9.9T
Level 3: 10T to 24.9T
Level 4: 25T to 49.9T
Level 5: 50T to 74.9T
Level 6: 75T to 99.9T
Level 7: 100T to 124.9T
Level 8: 125T to 149.9T
Level 9: 150T to 174.9T
Level 10: 175T to 199.9T
Level 11: 200T to 249.9T
Level 12: 250T to 274.9T
Level 13: 275T to 299.9T
Level 14: 300T to 324.9T
Level 15: 325T or more

Countries could declare war against countries of the same or higher level. That means weapon hoarders cannot prey on the weak. Players choose their levels by buying or selling military assets. But after a war declaration they cannot buy, or transfer, so many weapons that their level would increase.

Federations also would have war levels, using the same scale above. Their levels would measure the monetary value of the military assets of the countries in the federation. Federations could declare war against countries of the same or higher level as the federation.

That means strong federations cannot prey on the weak. The attackers could attack any defending country but could conquer only countries of the attacking federation's war level or higher. The defender(s), including fedmates, could attack and conquer any country of the attacking federation.

I suggest that the current war levels of players be retired. The current war levels, based on wars against c3s, doesn't help PvP. C3s should continue to have their current war levels and awards.

The Madoff War Level System™: balanced PvP


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 08:46 am Click here to edit this post
I have seen this before and I understand your idea.
Military assets alone are insufficient.
If you have a lot of weapons and no ammo, nothing works.
We have seen players, trying to increase their defense index, buying the one weapons that provided the most points for the smallest amount of money and no ammo as it did not contribute to the defense index.

If you have 200 bomber units, of high quality, with a lot of ammo to go with them, you can cause a lot of damage.

If you will have auto response units that can destroy cities and corporations as a counter measure, how much you paid for these, is not a measure for your capabilities.
Having 1000 radar planes does not help.

Your assumption is that the money will be spent smartly, and the more they spend, the more capable they are.
I would love to see it working in this way.
we can take the assets into account, but it cannot be the only measure.

There are proposals on the forum to teach and measure knowledge that are very good but complex. I am not sure noobs will go through the required actions they have to take.

Add a Message