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 Game First Draft of Proposed Changes FB

Topics: General: W3C - War Game First Draft of Proposed Changes FB


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:49 pm Click here to edit this post
1. Winning PvP wars will be recorded each month. The winners will win cash. Example 3 winners: $ 50, $ 25 and $ 10.
2. Winners of wars will receive winner points and the players with most points will win the prizes.
3. The number of points depends on the level and difference between the parties. It can be negative if a large army attacks a noob.
4. To be able to win such points, both warring parties must have a minimum war level/ability to prevent fake wars.
5. Max one country in your empire on FB can be war protected. We will start with ten and reduce gradually to allow everyone to adapt.
6. If you are part of a federation winning the war, you get the associated winners points.
7. If two large federations fight, that is OK.
8. If a small federation attacks a large one, their problem. Fine with us.
9. If a fed with 10 countries starts a war against a fed with 3 countries, only three of the ten will declare. Instead, they can discuss and decide on the 3 countries that will declare.
If the small federation has war treaties with another 4 countries, it makes it 7 so seven countries of the fed will be able to declare. This can of course be done differently. In general, the number of countries on both sides will remain in balance.
10. Weapons entering the country on board of cargo shuttles, or from enterprises will be placed in the reserve.
11. Upgrade weapons and ammo at bases.
12. War protection more expensive - especially FB
13. Reduce the price of the defense
14. Auto attack units during war, in C3 countries and in all other countries, with fierce power to penetrate and destroy.
15. More sneak attacks? Expanded capabilities, more at time of war, regardless of war protection?
16. Reducing the number of cities and towns
17. Nuke auto response if attacked by nukes.
18. Intelligence report. - booster. (type of units, auto response, ammo?), also imports from outside and reactivation, information about the countries. This features should be available in the Simcountry APP.
19. Possibility to suspend attacks for an hour or two, using your phone
20. Possibility to launch large attacks from bases, using your phone.
21. Limit the number of fortifications and bases.
22. As long as war level exist, they should be meaningful (expanded capabilities for C3s at war)
23. War levels increase after C3 wars and PvP wars. Also requirements to prove ability to fight.
24. Incentives for players to join federations.
25. Many types of new notifications and intelligence boosters to create warnings of a possible war.
26. Changes to some weapons, usability from bases.

The list is in a random order. Implementation will not be in this order.
The list can change and features can end up different. The discussion is not over yet.

When new features are installed and become part of Simcountry, we will examine the results and re-evaluate the next steps.

Sheepman RGB

Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 07:03 pm Click here to edit this post
LOL! reads like never gonna happen
The rest was unconstructive crap.
I don't like your language.
We love criticism, we want to explain and we are willing to change the plan.

The gamemaster


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:40 pm Click here to edit this post

Thank you for all the work you and the GM are doing.

I personally love these updates and you guys have my full support! If theres anything I can do to help the GM in the future please let me know!



Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:47 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, thank you for your hard work and efforts. You are the best game master and son! *Muah!

I'm so proud of what you do. :-D

@ Barry - Be kind to my son! :-) He works very, very hard. Also, MY son does not partake of illegal substances!!! SCOWL!!!!

WARNING: If you offendeth my child, you offendeth the Wicked Lady!!!


Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 09:12 pm Click here to edit this post
Thank you guys.

I assume you have your likes and dislikes.
this is a draft.

Maybe we will ask for some testing when features get implemented.

We will keep working on this and read all comments.

Many of the features are easy to implement.
some will require more work.

The advantage is that we are not changing the war engine but rather the conditions for war and the processing of the results. It is simpler.

Some of the features are within the parameters scope and capabilities of the game and require little work.

Some will require a lot of code.

I expect to start late August.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 01:12 am Click here to edit this post

You more anyone knows that I can be very spoken and critical of changes.
I'm not opposed to any of them. I think all of those ideas will be amazing additions to the game. Granted they are just ideas and I'm sure when they gradually get added we might want to voice suggestions or alterations.

But as it stands, the basic ideas of what you want to do sound great!!! I look forward to hearing more.


Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 02:56 am Click here to edit this post
:) :(

dayum! wiped clean by the bois.

Welp. I guess im gonna slowly dislike this game again;atleast some of these things go through. I mean i dident say andy but i said if you think which obviously not just his ideas but he may be contact high!!! Sorry lady :( i know hes your son, but you gotta understand how i am!! i dont litterally mean they are smoking chemicals all in all, just some things dont make sense to the reality of the state of the game.

I mean if it(my post) was that unproductive why did they not just leave it with the rest? took effort to remove it, that says something. Obviously there was some happy go luckys there hehe, but i apologize for some of that goodie. I disagree with what some of those things are, but id say the best bet is to make:

BASE ATTACK = UNIT ATTACKS. I mean if anything base should be more effective, weapons are stationed better then being moved around and re-mounted.

Also upgrade ammo/weapons in base- so unit maintenance isent such a hassle, something definitely prominent.

Those just my opinion are two things that would be helpful alot already. Best things to work on to atleast starting some seeds in the war game possibly.

*23. War levels increase after C3 wars and PvP wars. Also requirements to prove ability to fight. *

I just really think that making a war level for war and then re making C3 war levels more is just a hassle. Made me upset. Ranking just is another restriction, that doesent seem good to me.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 08:32 am Click here to edit this post
Thanks Supersoldier.
It will take time of course but we will start quickly and add features when they are ready.

We want to make it easier and more attractive to wage war. If you read the discussion of the last three days, there are many details why we want these changes, and why we think they might encourage more players to play PvP wars.

The war against C3s and war level/qualifications are needed to make sure wars are not fake.
we used to have situations where one side had only weapons and no ammo and allowed a country to be taken easily.
If you are to win points when winning a war, we must be sure you fought for it and that both sides are capable.
This is the most complex and uneasy thing about this whole issue.
War levels as they are now, are a bad measure for capabilities.
We want to upgrade weapons in bases, small issue, but needed if we want to allow more fighting using weapons stationed in military bases as we had in the past.
The reason for that is, that this can be done from a mobile device.
Moving military units around on a map, is not so easy on a mobile device.

We will develop one feature at a time, describe what we are doing and will read here comments and probably a lot of criticism.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 11:35 am Click here to edit this post
Well. Be altering alot of comments with alot of criticism.

And i have read all the ideas. I dont think they are going to make an immediate difference as those two things. You can believe it all day but im a player, so are you going to just drop my opinion because of my opinion??? Thats my suggestion, everyone else can keep suggestion things that will never happen or you/bois will just down play like ammo in the bases are useful to upgrade and fixing the weapons launched from a base needs to be, why would i use a fucking broken feature??? That wastes excess weapons i dont have money to waste. Like you can update the game all you want but really make shit useless updates you can get a pat on the bottom all you want but truth is its no real help to the game

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 11:37 am Click here to edit this post
Like to call my post unproductive crap, thats unproductive crap lol! I know thats from the bois to not just juan of dem

We want to make it easier and more attractive to wage war. If you read the discussion of the last three days, there are many details why we want these changes, and why we think they might encourage more players to play PvP wars.

Yeah making things like launching weapons from bases using more missiles is a feature i would rather never fight a war again. Or i am just discounted as a player? Litterally what new war enslavement systems? jokes? i mean literally, its just a sad time. Ranting about ideas that arent going to save shit. Say start small yet here we are massive checklist of shit thats not even been checked off the last one.

Get real men. You took my opinion away from me.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 12:08 pm Click here to edit this post
Really. Im saying this novelty is what is is; a novelty. Honestly think andy/bois of andy:

Why would i want to waste more then double the missiles, when i could just set up a unit from the same base i would launch my attacks from to save ammo?????????????????????

*pats andy bottom*

sorry. Im just a piece of shit.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 12:11 pm Click here to edit this post
Launching weapons from bases and upgrading ammo in bases are small features that will not be used by many, cost little to implement and you can just ignore them.

It helps if you also tell us what you think will work, and why it will work.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 01:02 pm Click here to edit this post
Ok. I think that time taken for any worthless implemented idea made simply to fail/be novelty is deceiving, manipulative and wasteful; ontop of it all being stressful. Why take any amount of time and function/manpower to make something thats just going to be a burden to the game??

Theres the next bear trap for a new player!!!!!!!!!!!!!! waste all the ammo they got to not take something

there gone.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 02:42 pm Click here to edit this post
I guess something else I am going to throw out there. Players can use this system to take power if they wish, as they have done within their power before. There may be resentment, in the way points are allocated. In an attempt to allow smaller countries and less powerful players, access to cash rewards, the more powerful players may decide to target these recipients who receive cash above them.

In short, what are you going to do about it if I become the bad guy? Say, I make a fed on FB, and I declare only my fed shall get cash rewards. We scour the FB war page, and annihilate other players who attempt to lay claim to awards. If you leave the powerful unhappy, this is not a remote possibility. Players can find ways within any system to make their own fairness.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 03:10 pm Click here to edit this post
In my opinion putting weapons transferred from your enterprises into reserve is still only going to hurt the defensive player (which I had assumed is the exact opposite of one of our main goals here). Is there some form of logic I am missing when I say that someone planning to attack another will always have the advantage simply because they had the foresight to activate their weps in a timely fashion while the now defensive player must now scramble to bring his weapons into his country and reactivate them?


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 03:23 pm Click here to edit this post
You are exactly right Porter.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 04:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Aries, wow, now it sounds like you think the war world and PvP war will create havoc.
So are you now against it all?
Or are you saying that what we do does not matter.
If you like it, it will work, if you don't you will destroy countries.

I am now more convinced than before, that even small players should be able to build up and attack one of your largest countries and destroy all your corps or 100 military units. why not?

It will not be that the large players will do what they want with beginners and not pay a very very high price for it.

As I said before. we will create notifications that will inform an interested player about weapons coming in and activated.
also, there will be enough time to reactivate and of course, much more will remain activated to be ready for anything that can happen.

If you worry about the attacked country we can do this:

we can slow down the activation of weapons on the side of the attacker even more and allow instant activation on the side of the attacked country.
This will probably resolve your worries about the attacked country not being prepared.

There are many possibilities to make sure that surprise landing of weapons and ammo, become available at a slower pace.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 05:16 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy: I am not providing a personal strategy, or taking a personal stance in each writing. I am saying that the best intentions when they are so complex, can have unintended consequences.

Again, your intention with War Levels were that that most skilled war players would climb those levels. They then would be out of reach of declaring war on new war players. This didn't work. You do see this, right? The aggressive players were not wowed by the GC rewards and kept their war level low, and preyed on new war players reaching the lowest of PvP war levels.

Andy, be careful with such complex intentions. Players don't like being dictated to through complex rules, and this risks being War Levels 2.0. My argument remains to keep things simple, or you risk players reacting in a way you did not expect.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 05:17 pm Click here to edit this post
This discussion in the past days is probably the best we ever had about the war game and it resulted now in a good draft for a plan.
It will have to be completed with many details but we have everything we need.

The most important point we have learned is the following:

In the past, large players killed small ones and it resulted in changes that tried to prevent such wars.
It ended up with many limitation and very little PvP wars.

This was the wrong solution.

The problem is in fact, that there is a huge difference in power between the large players and the new ones.

what we need to do, is make wars more balanced.

In terms of warring power, the difference must be much smaller and the small player must be able to deter and destroy so much, that even a large player will think twice.
The field must be leveled a bit. We know what needs to be done.
I hope that this will bring challenges to everyone, including the large military powers in the game who now do not have much of a challenge.

So now we need to move from talking to working on it.
It is not a small job and it will take time but bits of it will start appearing in the game at the end of this month.
We will announce every feature before it becomes part of the game, except for small issues that do not matter much. There will be no revolutions from one day to another.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 05:26 pm Click here to edit this post
Here is another good example of what you think will happen, and what will happen:

"I am now more convinced than before, that even small players should be able to build up and attack one of your largest countries and destroy all your corps or 100 military units. why not"

Yeah, that will stick it to those big guys. right? Um, no. It won't at all. Why? Because the big guys have their stuff. You make it harder for economies to work and for people to build anything and the players who already have the stuff, still, rule the Sim-world.

Andy, keep it simple. I don't no how else to say it.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 05:38 pm Click here to edit this post
In my opinion, it has always been easier to destroy and take, then it has to build. I would not reward based on battles but would reward players who build and maintain assets outside of game protections. Those players would seek protection for themselves and join federations. Real diplomacy would occur, rather than forced battles for the sake of rewards.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 05:53 pm Click here to edit this post
This is what you said above here:
In short, what are you going to do about it if I become the bad guy? Say, I make a fed on FB, and I declare only my fed shall get cash rewards. We scour the FB war page, and annihilate other players who attempt to lay claim to awards. If you leave the powerful unhappy, this is not a remote possibility.
This is not about building but about annihilation.

So let's leave it at this.
I heard you loud and clear and if we want a war world, maybe 5 worlds, where peace is a great option but war too, then there is a lot to do.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 06:02 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, most of your proposals are in the right direction. Thanks. It's worth noting that expanded sneak attacks and rewards to war players has been on your work list since 2010.

I believe you should reconsider the awards and point system you're proposing. As you describe it, only a few players will get cash awards. It's better not to give cash awards and, instead, to give something to everyone who wins a war. Possible awards: extra population, game cash, war protection boosters, shares of Gamemaster Corporations (yay!).

Points seem gimmicky.

My biggest concern is that negative points will not discourage the predators. They can break even by combining some negative points with some positive points. And why would they care if they have negative points? Credit card warlords aren't interested in earning dollars by playing.

And for all that is holy, please don't get distracted and forget regional natural resources. Those are the real prizes.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 11, 2017 - 07:03 pm Click here to edit this post
i just dont get were making this game suck more is going to help it.

Like literally. I tried to let my opinion be know as ususal, im shut down. i going to be honest here. Read this please if you have eyes and a brain with working sense cognitive:

What... in good gods fucking fuck are you talking about? Andy your telling me; that discussing federations to things that have already been proposed is whats going to save this game? i dont know what the scheme is here why you people did what you did but let me type you something else now.

Scared of typed words?people act like it. Because i shared my opinion and its been destroyed neglected and looked over just as the first day i joined this game. Lol you think making everything harder is the fucking answer, and then build noveltys that act as ploy traps for whoever falls for it. I dont know this is making my stomach turn, I mean in the midst of all this vomit i can say theres nothing coming from this except more shit the game and players to come will never enjoy, not to mention things that will likely be post pone again. I dont get were boring someone with activating weapons will help the game LOL anyone saying that one doesent even battle C3s. What do you know, you hypocrits. No one would even want to fight a battle in this game now unless its war level 1 and 2(oh wait; unless they already have a massive weapon stockpile). Not to mention andy you tell me be apart of the "topic" but yet its off; your talking about federations when the war game isent even in condition to keep going. Its like working on the structure with a shaky foundation. Thats all. I mean its like war levels was too fix the war game and it turned into the biggest mess in this game.

I mean more laxed war, more players, growth simiulation but make it a complicated mess so the first couple times they play the game they have a chance to see if they like it.... LOL we all know this one, looks go look at all the worlds and see all the new players.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 07:27 pm Click here to edit this post

Nice set of changes, however, it STILL does not address the fundamental issue.

How will it deter someone vastly superior attacking a feeble player? By a few points? They could destroy the whole country, and be happy to lose out of the pvp win as it'd mean the country they attacked is in ruin.

Weeks / months / years worth of work could be ruined, with no consequence.

Some good changes, but the main issue as to why people don't pvp against larger players has NOT be addressed. If i was to have 5000T of military assets (overall on the world), and attacked someone with 20T, i'd expect a HEAVY penalty of 1000T (a fifth? a quarter would be better? of cash to be wiped off or, assets deleted).

Imagine that, you'd automatically have cost the attacking player more damage, than they've done to you / possible could do to you. Fair? Yes. Pick on someone your own size. It'd keep a lot of egos in check. Much like some players in the past. However, if the lower asset player attacked the said player, then that's their problem.

Obviously there'd be a margin within 100 - 200T? This would limit high end wars to the elites of SC.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 08:24 pm Click here to edit this post
This is what I said here Andy. I believe you missed it:

I am not providing a personal strategy, or taking a personal stance in each writing. I am saying that the best intentions when they are so complex, can have unintended consequences.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 09:19 pm Click here to edit this post
Putin, these changes are for FB, the war world. What did you think you are getting into on that world? Perhaps, it is possible that you should work towards your own defense, or find allies, rather than finding some way for the game to protect you.


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 09:27 pm Click here to edit this post
Madoff, yes, it is gimmicky, on that we can agree. On the other point, if deterring predators was the goal, do we have a war game? Not every war is going to fit into a neat box. As far as credit card warriors, who fears those guys?


Friday, August 11, 2017 - 10:33 pm Click here to edit this post
As I said, we need to reduce the difference in power and there are ways to do it.

Beginners will not be attacked until they decide they are ready for it.

As to the awards.
we may do it differently but we will have strong incentives.
Winning a war against a small player/beginner, will guarantee that you do not get such an award.

Also, the power of the beginner is what we decide it should be. We can place there as many high powered military units/assets as we see fit, at any quality we see fit. We need to fix the problem.
It must for sure, be unlike what it is today.
And they will not win the war, but what will the damage look like.

Also, we have to make it, not just talk about it.


Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 01:58 am Click here to edit this post
What is a beginner? Someone within their 21-day protection period? Do war levels determine who a beginner is? Is there incentive to remain whatever a "beginner" is, to benefit from game handouts, or incentive to graduate to a more advanced player? War levels saw powerful players remain among the ranks of "beginners". Will we see this again?

My suggestion remains to leave it to player choice. They want to join the war game, provide for their own defense, and participate in federations, or they do not. Incentives to join the world of diplomacy and risk should exist. Teaching basic skills of PvP and then being able to participate in PvP with reduced risk were the ideas behind my War College and Battlegrounds ideas. These suggestions, still on the suggestions forum, warrant a renewed look.


Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 10:38 am Click here to edit this post

Lets take a step back and let the GM make a few additions before we get heavy into criticizing or trying to make suggestions on their ideas.

Andy said the GM looks to make changes to FB first. This means as they make additions to the war game, those of us on FB can make suggestions. Lets give the GM an honest chance to make some additions before we start spamming them with "advice".

This is the first time in awhile the GM has proposed major changes and been so open about them. I for one think these will be great additions. I'm sure they will need tweaking at some point, but we can cross that bridge when we need to.

Look at it this way, Lets get the foundation of the house built before we go on and worry about the style of roof.


Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 02:31 pm Click here to edit this post
That could be good advice, but we got war levels last time. Then, remember the navy update that made cruise missile cruisers and guided missile frigates virtually unstoppable? I lost an 800 million population FB empire over those, cause I couldn't be at the computer (hospital). I feel I have spent years thinking of how to actually fix this, and that some of these ideas are just thrown out there and on the verge of being implemented.


Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 07:32 pm Click here to edit this post
Forgive my late response but Im starting to feel a bit unsettled by certain aspects. Earlier I talked about how "putting weapons transferred from your enterprises into reserve is still only going to hurt the defensive player" and your solution was "we can slow down the activation of weapons on the side of the attacker even more and allow instant activation on the side of the attacked country". If instant activation exists what will stop two players who are acquaintances from making a deal involving one president declaring war on the other so that his buddy can insta-activate his entire arsenal. Secondly you said that "we can slow down the activation of weapons on the side of the attacker even more" but that only applies if the attacker has already declared war, which means he is more than likely already prepared for that war anyways so that is also an ineffective solution and mirrors my original concerns. Finally I would like to say one thing. We started out on this journey of revision because a restriction known as war levels is suppressing the war game, I highly doubt adding more restrictions in order to negate previous restrictions will bring us anywhere helpful.

Sheepman RGB

Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 08:10 pm Click here to edit this post

Lol i mean my point being is that if we leave it all to be, then what? i mean <--- not for no reason. There litterally going to kill the game, i mean guys adding shit like "attack from base" but the feature is just a bust waste; then what happens when that feature proves exploit, now they are making a fix for a fix that could be ready for another fix.

I mean fuck ill type it again and again!!! Fix weapon upgrades and begin implentation on features such as the ability to get off war levels. I say these because while it might not appear to be important; being able to raise weapon quality easier will prove that more weapons can be upgraded without such high costs; something only a high tier player can maintain. Opt out of war level idea. Recap

1. Upgrade ammo and weapons at bases

2. READ ARIES IDEAS! Sure they might not be all easy to all solutions but thing like 'ability to leave war levels' is something that is 100% gold. I mean you might think its just for small level players, but as a player who had previously reached war level 13; only to be stopped by my ability to declare war/combat any other person because the war level restriction on fearless blue is 3 to 13 plus i was in a federation, so i was not able to continue the process without being affected. This also affects the quality of the game.

3. Fix weapons lauching from the bases. You told me, Andy:

"Launching weapons from bases and upgrading ammo in bases are small features that will not be used by many, cost little to implement and you can just ignore them."

Really? thanks for the inside tip. Once this information is archived the players who can simple "ignore the feature" by walking right into it and loses double the missiles if they make the mistake of going to war. I mean lol! are advantage, go to war someone uses that feature, RIP missiles. Doesent bother me none. Might bother someone else real bad though. I can ignore it, someone else might not know to.

Really you and the bois say im a critizing prick with a dirty poo fingers all you like, but really adding fillers into the game and things the last of us can exploit i mean lol! come on guys. You cant expect some of these things to be serious.


Sunday, August 13, 2017 - 03:04 pm Click here to edit this post
2 things

These are just food for thought. Not really really intended for discussion, but something to consider.

1. Continue with your game changes. But we already have the best version of SimCountry we have ever had. The problem, might not be solved with rule changes.

As it stands, you're looking at trying to fill 5 planets, up to a competitive level. While looking mostly at FB, the thought is still 5 planets. But the hey-day of SC started with a single planet, KB, and more planets where added as more room was needed. Trying to resurrect 5 planets, is going to be 5 times as hard. Just keep that in the back of your head.

2. I'd suggest setting a time, like January 1st, where you archive and clear out the entire forum.


Sunday, August 13, 2017 - 07:55 pm Click here to edit this post
Why not remove War Protection and Secured Mode on all the planets (except for beginners). Countries in the real world don't have any protection. But they do make alliances and federations and I believe the removing of Secured Mode would foster more player interaction. Consider the ongoing situation of North Korea and the United States. The US has its allies to back her up. The same would occur in the game. Most prefer peace to war anyways (not that war is not exciting).
Continue with the changes. This is a good step in the right direction. I agree with SuperSoldier -get the bugs worked out first on the war world and tweak it.


Sunday, August 13, 2017 - 08:37 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks Michael. Though I don't suggest a removal of protections on par with what you said, I could not agree more with your basic point to encourage more player interaction. Having reason to exit game protections and then enter the world of diplomacy, allies, and federations is what is needed to transform the game back to the massively multi-player environment that we expect.

I have bumped both the War College and Battlegrounds ideas on the suggestions forum. These ideas were grounded in providing a path for beginners to learn the war game, earn rewards, and progress to basic PvP in an environment with somewhat less risk. I believe these ideas to be superior to forcing PvP on players disinterested in the war game and looking to balance that with more unnatural protections.


Monday, August 14, 2017 - 04:39 pm Click here to edit this post
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Josias! You can't wipe out the forum..........I have history there! :P

@ Barry, you are forgiven. HOWEVER! No one pats Andy's bottom! SCOWL Hands off my son!


Thursday, August 17, 2017 - 06:59 pm Click here to edit this post
we will not make major steps but rather smaller ones.

Weapon reactivation:

The country being attacked, will have automatic weapon activation start directly after war is declared.

It takes 10 months to fully reactivate.
It also takes about the same time before war starts.

so by the time it starts, they will have everything reactivated.

So maybe this problem of the reserves is resolved.


Thursday, August 17, 2017 - 07:04 pm Click here to edit this post
We will have an upgrade coming Tuesday or Wednesday.
No major developments yet, and as I said, small steps.

I think that issues like some reduction in the price of defense may be part of it.
Cities will start growing and their numbers will start to decline a bit.
Also first changes to improve the situation for new players.


Sunday, August 20, 2017 - 11:14 pm Click here to edit this post
Excellent. Thank you for getting this train rolling :)


Thursday, August 24, 2017 - 10:59 pm Click here to edit this post
A new upgrade will be available next week with some war related changes and some bug fixes.

Sheepman RGB

Friday, August 25, 2017 - 12:41 am Click here to edit this post
Good andy! i am happy for the updates, i just hope they are actually helpful and encourage anytype of battles, even with c3s.


Friday, August 25, 2017 - 09:24 am Click here to edit this post
I said before, it will come in small steps, no major changes.

Wars with C3s already changed a bit in the last upgrade, too small to mention, and there will be more changes in the next one.

Increasing the capabilities of new players will also start.


Friday, August 25, 2017 - 02:59 pm Click here to edit this post
I don't see how artificially increasing the players of new players helps the game. Without skill, they are no more protected from veterans anyway. How will you determine a new player as well? From account creation? From how new they are on a particular world? Are we using war level still? An inaccurate tool for measuring how "new" a player is.

Ideally, you will want veterans to help them. To take them into federations and teach them the war game. This artificial capability should not deter new players from seeking this help, nor put veterans off from offering it.

There is one suggestion I put in some time ago that would likely help new players more than anything you could add. That would be changing how 3-wing federation defense works. The need for it in a proper PvP defense cannot be understated, and new players often lack this level of protection, leaving them virtually defenseless. My suggestion was that whether or not federation wings are available, the most powerful 3 air wings either native to the country or available from the federation, should always respond. This would bring most new players up several levels of magnitude in defense, compared to more advanced defenses now. Without this level of protection, no amount of defenses you could add to a country would be worth a darn.


Saturday, August 26, 2017 - 04:21 am Click here to edit this post
I have to agree with Aries on this point.


Saturday, August 26, 2017 - 11:43 am Click here to edit this post
I'd disagree with Aries.

'Ideally, you will want veterans to help them. To take them into federations and teach them the war game.'

I agree with the first point, and this can be done via posts on forums (Aries c3 air guide, as an example) or via other means of communication, IRC.
Plonking players into federations will just create even more unbalance to the game. You'll end up with two federations on every planet, one with veterans picking and choosing who they accept, and another with semi experienced players taking everyone they can to 'match' the opposing federations numbers, yet lacking in armaments.
It's simply ludicrous to think that adding people in federations solves everything.

I'm waiting to see the changes first, before commenting further.


Saturday, August 26, 2017 - 01:04 pm Click here to edit this post
There is no even semi-decent PvP guide out there that can get a new player prepared for PvP. My defense readiness guide is a good start, but without a veteran's help, a new player will be woefully unprepared. The only players that have really learned a lot about PvP, in years, were the ones that happened to be in chat during my war with Blackeyes or with Whiteboy, where I shared a lot of what was going on and why.

As for federations, this is a team game whether you like or not. If PvP becomes more popular, it is not a game of you versus some other. It is a game of diplomacy among a number of players, whether they are in federations or not. A number of times I have choose to assist a side of a war, where I did not belong to a federation of either side. If players do not develop relationships and engage in diplomacy, there is nothing the game can do to replace this artificially. Further, that you can guess, right now, how things are going to shake out with federations is arrogant on your part.


Saturday, August 26, 2017 - 05:01 pm Click here to edit this post
The two wars just mentioned, (I'm assuming one being the battle of Camp Foxtrot) were far more educational about the mechanisms of war because it showed how a war would actually unfold. This is in addition to the war guide that Aries developed; that effort alone gives good reason to consider his suggestions because anyone willing to take the time to make their own guide for a game this complex must be on to something.

My view of the federations should be more about developing in-game working relationships. Cross fed discussion was far more productive when negotiating ways of avoiding war, which is in itself a form of victory. Diplomacy is very underrated. This game is not like Risk or Stratego for goodness sake, war is just one component and just looking for ways to make it easier for anyone new to jump in and create havoc just for the hell of it is counter to what should be intended. War should be with purpose, a result of preceding conditions, struggle of resources, a breakdown of talks and seen as a tragic event that we must finally endure. That being said, conducting the war (the mechanisms), when it comes to that, must be clear enough for anyone to learn, to apply effort to become a skilled player. This happens with guides and with learning from others.
If somebody wants to join this game just for an instant fight, I recommend downloading clash of clans; instant war gratification with actual graphics. The reason our war maps are just red and blue blips shaped like triangles is not for the thrills of warring action. The most interesting part was the dialog that went along with it and the story that unfolded in the aftermath. That's true creativity. Reading over the war logs, the conversations, who was involved, the resulting damage, it all adds to a great "news article" someone could publish and add to the history books of the SC world. Like the battle of Foxtrot, it was a good read. I guess that adds a RPG aspect to it, I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but this is just from my standpoint.

Oh, and another point, if we want to see some worlds become a scorched earth of constant war, we had better see massive famines, economies collapse, disease, all of the horrible elements that come with war. Not just war, "bang boom done". Waging war means owning the consequences of starting one. The US learned that all over again when invading Iraq; look at where we are now 14 years later...

(an isolated environment to practice "war games" would be good, but it would need to be off worlds to not affect others. Just practice.. kind of like a war college..? Maybe this was suggested before) ;)


Monday, August 28, 2017 - 04:28 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree that we need to teach new players how to protect themselves and convince them to join a federation.

we will try to do so and give serious incentives to those who do join federations.

On the other hand, we do need to improve the default capabilities of new players.

This can be done by a substantial increase of the air defense capabilities, adding powerful auto attack units that will do the work for them and making it much harder to win a war against them.

This is not one or the other.
It is a combination of both.

If they start with more population, much more defensive and offensive power, they will be in a better situation.
If they join a fed, (pushed hard to do so), their situation will be even much better.

Diplomacy and team work function much better if you are in a stronger military position.


Monday, August 28, 2017 - 04:31 pm Click here to edit this post
Some initial changes will become operational after the next upgrade, probably coming Wednesday.


Monday, August 28, 2017 - 06:52 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, how are we defining a "new" player?


Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - 09:04 pm Click here to edit this post

we do not have this definition ready yet.
It will however include all new full members who are not experienced with war.

new players?
how long?

Some war levels will remain and may require more strategy to win against them so this could be a measure too.

Not decided yet.


Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 12:01 am Click here to edit this post
.. make changes prior to deciding the metrics of a "new player"..? *scratches head*


Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 04:36 pm Click here to edit this post
We all know what we want to achieve.
We will have to write code that will make the choice we intend.


Friday, September 1, 2017 - 04:30 am Click here to edit this post
I don't know what you want to achieve, that's why I'm asking.


Friday, September 1, 2017 - 03:38 pm Click here to edit this post
There is here a long discussion about improving the war game and PvP wars.


Friday, September 1, 2017 - 07:08 pm Click here to edit this post
I see that, I just don't see HOW that's improving a war game. What is it we are seeking in an "improved" war game? How is perpetual deactivation of weapons in enterprises or shuttle bays improving it? That's an example of what I find confusing..


Friday, September 1, 2017 - 11:30 pm Click here to edit this post
Instant transports of weapons from space stations and a sudden increase in the capabilities of the army is a problem for smaller/new/unexperienced players.

We could have limited the size of armies and solve the problem.
Just move all weapons above some number to the reserves and keep them there.

we decided to slow down the increase, make these countries activate (automatically but in 10 game months), make them keep a larger army with the associated cost and hopefully reduce their capability to surprise an unsuspecting victim.

This may work or not.
If not, we will need to think of other ways to do it.

Once there is some more balance, we could liberalize the rules limiting PvP wars.


Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 10:57 am Click here to edit this post
We have removed some messages due to the kind of language used.

We will remove a player from this forum if such language is used again.

Please continue to criticize what we do or what we announce we plan to do.
we will keep answering and discuss any issue.

Sheepman RGB

Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 11:00 am Click here to edit this post
just another example of the prioritys beings in check for this game. So worried about censure-ship to describe what happens if you eat things that dont digest, and actually can leave health consequence but really its just sad that you people are so scared of reality. I saw the threat, Lol this is my last fourm post ill NEVER post on here again you want to threaten me, thats fine this is my last post.

All i got to say :) you think that will save you?? Please atleast someone cares to give you something to remove, atleast not your game overbuilt features like layers of dead skin.


Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 11:32 am Click here to edit this post
We have published a list of features we intend to add/remove and change in the war game to increase the probability of PvP wars.
We intend to continue along this way.

C3 wars
We were criticized many times, and recently in these discussions, for making C3 wars that do not require any warring capabilities. These wars were used as a way to make money.

One possibility is to just fix it.
If you get to level 4, you might be ready for PvP wars.
Make money with a great economy. We are making it easier to make money.

It looks like some of the great empire, rich players, with large armies, do not want a change that might make the war game into a challenge or reduce their power to destroy.

No change will please everyone.
We will however make the game more fair and easier for beginners.

We assume that there will be those who will look to find ways to keep things as they were before. Some players where clear about it.
This is excellent, as it will challenge us and guide us through this process of improving the war game.


Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 11:36 am Click here to edit this post

There were many before you threatening us with everything that can be said.
Fine with us.

However, when you start using language we don't like, we will remove you from this forum. These are our rules and we have applied them before.

Sheepman RGB

Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 11:36 am Click here to edit this post
Really, to respond qucikly and quickly back on my typed word, but my anger has nothing to do with a war game thing or anything with that currently;

Its that i transferred stuff of cargo shuttles (land based cruise) and i needed to sell them to a corperation(s), but i cannot do so because they are all inactive, inwhich now i have to process all them before selling them to my corperation, creating a new process of hassles if i go off sync, it is just downhill for my progression.

It just pains me to the point i cannot bare to know that sometimes things might look prosperous but can lead to serve holes, i just cant say more really other then sorry for my language. I dont mean to be so vulger im just upset that this is likely not intended for my corperation/economic gameplay.


Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 11:49 am Click here to edit this post
This is a problem and it requires a slight change of strategy.
- You can transfer earlier and the automatic reactivation (next week). It will make them available within several hours.
- You probably need to keep more of them activated.
- we could make it possible to sell deactivated products to your corporations. The production process does not need "activated products".

I wish we had another way to prevent a huge surge in fighting power in countries that intend on surprising an enemy.

All this is no reason to explode.

It is only now you decided to explain what the problem is.

Sheepman RGB

Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 08:01 pm Click here to edit this post
well, my point being is that like said, requires slight change of straegy/more active etc but really my point being is that i wasent there for a day/two that i could move my supplies and such, so i really was just annoyed that instead of just getting a move and my supplies in, now i got more to deal with. Not really the biggest deal but point being, your trying to fix the game, make it atleast simpally understandable not making things that continually create problems.

Thanks though andy, i appriciate it, i just also get mad because i dont like to have to complain about something but if its annoying the death in hell out of me then i dont know what else to do really. Also i did explain, i just also explained alot of other things when i explained that :) like this explanation.

Really overall i just dont like the slowdown, even with the units its kind of really annoying, but i guess if there is an auto reactivate option/sell anykind of stock to corps then thats not to bad really. Also i do feel that wish there was a way to stop a sudden powersurge. I mean as said limiting/slowing the game is just going to piss us of and age us more(atleast how i see it lol) so atleast figuring out how to stop things to an extent would be nice, im just not sure 100% myself as its a bit of a mix with the war game.


Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 10:17 pm Click here to edit this post
I understand the feeling.
Not very nice to be confronted with it.

We will implement the possibility to use any products, activated on not, in corporations.

any other idea, or an alternative, to the slow down by use of reactivation may help too.

Add a Message