| Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 04:27 pm |
There are max numbers of Fortifications and military bases and Airports you can build on all the worlds.
These numbers are:
Fortifications 150 Unchanged
Defensive Bases 80 It was 100
Offensive Bases 80 It was 100
Strategic Bases 80 Also down from 100.
We think that the numbers should be reduced more, especially strategic bases.
However, there is a way to get around these limitations.
You can build corporations that produce these bases and contract them to your country.
At this time, this workaround is not turned off yet.
The workaround requires these corporations to be built in your country and the cost of such corporation not selling on the market is quite high. Also the maintenance cost for such objects can be prohibitive.
| Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 06:00 pm |
The workaround allows countries to have unlimited forts and bases. This is horribly unrealistic and causes tremendous clutter on the map. This workaround is one of the worst flaws of the war game.
A player in a war might have to kill hundreds of forts and hundreds of bases. That's on top of killing potentially hundreds of other targets. How is that mindless clicking marathon supposed to be fun?
Credit card warlords and big multi-world empires don't necessarily care about the cost of their hundreds of forts and bases.
| Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 06:48 pm |
I agree with Madoff on this. I know some players who were trying to get into the war game and didn't have the fastest connection. They would have to deal with many targets and, when it takes 9-10+ seconds to complete each attack, it was a complete turn-off to participate in the war game. One of these players I have not seen again.
While we are at it, you should consider a change to the special forces unit. Currently, it is possible to spam a map with, literally, hundreds of such units to prevent painting a map. These units should not excel in this type of defensive role. They should be changed so they do not block. Make it so they can paint and be blocked but they cannot block other units on a map.
| Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 07:52 pm |
yeah, the work around is bullshit, i dont agree with it i believe its just another problem, cap the limits. or just have no limit at all; dont make it an unfair "game" because other players know things others will not.
Rest isent bad really but the forts! really that is lame, should be capped 100%?
I agree with madoff and Aries both makes a good point as offensive weapons/unit can actually be some of the nastiest ways to defend again an opponent. Look at the attack stats for off vs def and off vs off, not so good if using the right units. Not mention you get past this and now you have the next problem too many forts.
| Saturday, September 2, 2017 - 10:24 pm |
I agree on the fortifications. (and bases).
this problem was there all the time and we need a solution.
we could refuse a contract with the country if the number is too high and put the product on the market instead.
I need to find a technically simple way to implement.
I was not aware of a problem with special units.
Nice to hear.
I will have an engineer look into it.
Any other pain points. we seem to be on a good track here.
| Sunday, September 3, 2017 - 05:20 pm |
1. While I would rather put the manpower necessary to build a fort into a different type of unit, once again limiting someones choices are just another way of limiting a players defense.
2. I was not aware of the SF thing but quite frankly it makes sense. SF have always been a force multiplier in the real world. I see that as a valid use of assets. Destroy them and go on oh wait, that means you'd have to make sure no air defense was left. Silly me, of course we want to make it easier to take someones countries.
Just how realistic is it for someone to be able to run in units unopposed with the ability to destroy DH's so they can clean up any interceptors without loss? Yes even still there will be other ways to do it but people will have to figure it out.
Andy you really need to think about some of this. You cannot level the field between experienced and non experienced players no matter what you do. So why make it easier for someone to win.
You have NEVER been able to completely defend your empire against a determined and experienced attacker. What you CAN do is slow them down giving you time to be online to respond (if you've spend the money and manpower on offensive rather than defensive weapons) or make it not worth the effort to take your countries in the first place. If you piss someone off, the point is mute, if they are after you for assets it makes a huge difference.
Okay so you want to limit the amount of objects on a map by limiting forts or stop using SF as a force multiplier. That just makes it easier to roll over someone, okay so limit them to 100-150 period and make FORTS block the painting process and make it necessary to destroy every single one of them before you can take a country.
Painting the map gets you 25 damage points which you can collect at any point of the invasion process. It just makes it more impressive to collect them on the first hit, otherwise it makes no difference whatsoever.
| Monday, September 4, 2017 - 01:27 am |
What makes sense to you about a player spamming a map with 100's of special forces, and forcing an attacking player to spend endless clicking to paint a map? This literally prevents those with slow connections from winning a PvP war. I have seen it. This has nothing to do with being a "force multiplier". There are small units available for blocking, like the land defense units, that should be used for this purpose. I don't believe that the special forces unit was ever intended to be a defensive star.
| Monday, September 4, 2017 - 04:00 am |
I don't really care one way or another Aries.
Three men in a Jeep. Was a very useful tool in WWII, granted the idea was run like hell before they could bring forces to bear however, they were a very effective delaying tactic.
My concern is making it faster and easier to take a country. You came after I left so I have no idea what you've experienced in this game.
I can tell you from personal experience having to be on 24/7 for days or weeks on end is a royal pain in the ass when every Tom, Dick or Harry is after you.
People want to limit forts, fine by me I have been putting 160 in my FB countries this go but otherwise, I've never been one to go over 150. To me anyway to slow someone down is a valid defense. So if they want to limit them, make them worth having in the first place. Make THEM block units and have it become necessary to destroy every single one before the country falls.
As far as the SF go, in just what world other than Simcountry do you think an invader is going to be allowed to run rampant inside a country without having to deal with small units.
From what I'm seeing, the current changes are destroying anyone's chance to have an effective offensive capability to stop anyone. You touched on it yourself when you mentioned in an earlier post the attacker gets to pick where and if your weapons are in another country ur probably screwed whether you have them or not.
All I see right now are changes which will restrict a players ability to defend their empire. Many are being implemented without thought all to protect the "new player". WTF is worrying about the people that spent years in this game, it's just going to make it easier for packs of dogs to drag them down.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Have one country nobody can attack (that can't be used to attack another player if in secured mode) and anything else is fair game. Let people move their military like they want and fight like they want.
| Monday, September 4, 2017 - 05:30 pm |
Is it fun for a player to click thousands of times to conquer a country?
| Monday, September 4, 2017 - 06:05 pm |
No, it isn't.
| Monday, September 4, 2017 - 10:47 pm |
I agree with the clicks, as it also depends on the load speed in which more units also slows down. Though for my view cost can be an issue to continue.
Mine thought was that and not to have to waste excessive cash on something to take that isent really fit into a criteria of "defense" as you could just stop painting with any unit and really there wont be a win. Hence offensive weapons can also act better as blockades then defensive weapons ever would. Due to the nature of the offensive vs offensive weapons inwhich it takes more ammos to destroy the targets, especially some units like stealth bombers.
Though the point of a SF easy blockade for cheap, fast, effective stalling purpose keep the enemy stalled while one puts themselves together, even wasting ammo if minimal, to mention only an array of weapons are effective against them aswell. The tactic is pretty dastardly as if bases are just placed right you can just set up bundles in the country and that would act as a very large hassle as the clusters of troops would take large amount of time to pick through and destroy. Not to mention possibility of easy regeneration with the force being so cheap and small. All it takes is 1 to stop further progression and you can easily get 1000+ of them if invested.
The forts is simply put; sure cruise missiles got effective numbers but still not cheap for navy cruise and land based are limited range; so if bombers had to be used say its not so cheap and if they have alot of forts its going to be an astronomical number of bombs. Even if they use cruise it will still be a large portion of ammo used. Plus if all those are garrisoned of even small numbers, that is just horrible.
All the time and money in a war plus speed based on units you have (for me always was; i have 1 unit to few my browser is fast, i have 100+ units i lag really bad, while ago had like 600 up and i couldent even do anything in a minute)
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 12:06 am |
We will resolve the problem of fortifications and bases and the contracting to the country.
The numbers will be limited and remain under the max.
We think that the number of items on the map is too large, especially in countries with a very large population.
we need smaller numbers of powerful defense items, units, forts, bases etc. that will be able to form a forceful defense.
The high numbers on the maps make it very slow. This will be improved.
The price of many weapons and ammo is declining.
We do not want to make it easier to take a country.
We prefer a smaller number of stronger bases, forts and units,
there is no intention of leveling the playing field but as it is now, it is unfair. the smaller country can be destroyed with hardly any damage.
We do not at all want to make it possible for a new aggressive player to destroy a large country that took two years to build.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 02:02 am |
The fastest fix would be to only allow so many bases per nation and each base has to host a set number of units. Doing this would immediately cap the large armies.
If you allowed a total of 50 of each airbase/land base type and each defensive base hosts 5 units and offensive hosts 5 units (Just an example), Then it places a cap on the weapons allowed. This would cap offensive and defensive forces, allow new player armies of just a few units to become more meaningful, would force players to support only what their economies can handle, and it would remove issues like the Special Forces problem.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 03:02 am |
Andy if you remove the possibility of contracting forts to yourself you better make sure they are a profitable corp. Right now they are a money pit.
I have no reason to have them in a ceo if I can't use them and it's very obvious C3 corps are nowhere near capable of dealing with the demand.
I wouldn't care if you limited the number to 25 forts if you made them worth having in the first place.
All you need to do is make them block a region requiring land forces to deal with them and their garrison before they can paint that part of the map. Basically the reason you build a fort in the first place, make the enemy stop and deal with them or run the risk of not capturing territory.
That would cure your concern about large numbers of items on the map and deal with my concerns you are attempting to make it faster and easier for someone to take a country.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 03:58 pm |
We agree that the number of units per base should be limited.
We will add features that count them in the country and will then set a limit per base.
This will not be a sudden large change and as of now, I do not know what a reasonable number should be.
Producing fortifications is profitable.
Upgraded corporations are very profitable. We have checked it recently.
Contracting them is much less profitable but the open market is OK.
150 fortifications, more robust than they are now, with a larger garrison, should be able to fulfill the function of blocking the borders. I think that their improvement will compensate for the numbers.
The first stage of improvements is in the next update.
We will look into the production of fortifications (and bases) and make sure it is attractive to produce them.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 05:07 pm |
It's more reasonable to limit the number of forts to 100, not 150.
Most simcountries don't even have 100 cities, counties, and towns combined. It's unrealistic for countries to have more forts than communities.
The maximum number of forts used to be 100, and the workaround was not allowed. The maximum was raised inexplicably in 2013. Considering that there can be 240 bases, there is no need for more than 100 forts.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 05:49 pm |
Yankee has some truth to this claim. I produce fortifications and they are indeed profitable, Bases on the other hand are a very mixed bag. Although they have high prices and do gain lots of cash though sales the biggest cost for them is their cost of materials. Check defensive bases/airports on LU. In almost all cases the cost of materials is excessively high. Income minus the cost of materials only leaves 1-10B. Then once you factor out the other costs the corporations make little, no, or even costs the player money.
Just food for thought.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 07:50 pm |
I have seen countries with more than 400 fortifications.
the decline for them will be stiff.
150 is OK for now.
Once we are done, and have experience with the war process, we might decide to reduce the number of items on the map even more.
We have a process that checks corporation profitability.
all the corporations are OK. The larger they are, the more important it is to upgrade. Cargo shuttles are a losing proposition if not upgraded. The corporations are very profitable if fully upgraded.
The same, depending on their sizes, with bases and other large item producers.
| Tuesday, September 5, 2017 - 10:49 pm |
Limit them to 25 and make it to where they must all be destroyed to paint the map. 25 is a reasonable number to strongly garrison and if they must all be destroyed to gain those 25 damage points from painting the map, they are well worth having.
ALL my corporations are fully upgraded. Defensive forts are a loser at least on LU.
I'd been here awhile when GR opened and was pay to play only. I don't remember a time when you couldn't contract and even direct sell over the limit. I did however spend many years on a freebie ceo when I got sick and tired of the war limitations installed so it's possible I missed it.
| Wednesday, September 6, 2017 - 06:57 pm |
Andy, how many hours of consecutive clicking do you think is reasonable for a player to win a PvP war? 10 hours? 15? 20?
Let's say each target takes one minute to destroy. Not everyone has a fast computer, and each target requires going through several screens.
So far, you allow a maximum of 150 forts and 240 bases. Let's say a worthy country has 25-50 cities/counties/towns, and 25-50 state corps. How many military units and supply units are you going to allow? 200? 300? 400? Let's say 300. That's a total of at least 740 targets.
Not all targets need to be killed but you plan to strengthen defensive targets. That means some defensive targets might require more than one shot each to kill. Plus there is clicking for painting, clicking for resupply, etc.
Calculating conservatively, if a player averages one minute to kill each of 600 targets, that's 10 hours of consecutive clicking. But there are plenty of scenarios requiring hours of more clicking.
Should a player take the day off from school or work to spend it clicking? Maybe that kind of game was fashionable in 2001. But clicking marathons are outdated.
| Wednesday, September 6, 2017 - 11:22 pm |
We are in the process of reducing the number of targets on a map.
reducing the number of Fortifications and bases (the numbers we gave were not the end target), reducing the number of cities and as we said, we will look at other types of targets.
Wars can become shorter because the number of targets will be lower and because the time to process the attack will be shortened if the number of targets becomes smaller.
However, we have no plan to make wars trivial and allow a quick walk over of a very powerful country over a much smaller army. I said that many times now.
One of the urgent changes needed is a reduction in the number of countries that can attack one.
I will look into it in the coming days.
| Thursday, September 7, 2017 - 12:51 am |
I've just got, got this to ask ask.......... where is the original JOZI simcountry dream and vision in all this?
one step forward , two steps backward, question? is the GAME GOING SIDEWAYS WITH YOUR PRESENT VISION?
| Thursday, September 7, 2017 - 12:56 am |
really GUYS don't frak up jozi's dream
| Thursday, September 7, 2017 - 11:10 pm |
I'm not ... I've got other mindless little online games to play and I figure it will either get better or worse
Farmtown is as much fun as Simcountry right now and you can be gone for months and still have what you had last time you signed out.
| Thursday, September 7, 2017 - 11:42 pm |
Andy, as far as number of wars, I think you are concerned about the wrong thing. It is much more difficult to defend from a single or a few countries that declare war on multiple countries of a defending empire than it is to defend a single country from many war declarations.
For example, I would rather have a single country declared on from a dozen countries than have a few countries declare war on a dozen of mine. At least in the first example, I know where the battle will be. This is why there is so much concern about space transfers Andy. You assume time before a war starts is sufficient to prepare a defense. However, in the most difficult conflicts, this is not the case. Andy, put yourself in the position that you have an empire of ten countries and they all get placed in a pvp war. Where are you going to put your defense? Remember, the attacker can put your whole empire at risk and can choose only to attack one of your countries. Does this make sense?
Edit: Remember. I am speaking from experience in participating in multiple wars in both scenarios. I am not trying to imagine a hypothetical. Before one responds to this or gives weight to a response, keep this important fact in mind.
| Friday, September 8, 2017 - 12:31 am |
Thanks Aries, this was what I was trying to articulate. You summed it up completely.
| Wednesday, September 13, 2017 - 06:24 pm |
I bought extra defensive bases and offensive bases. I bought the defensive ones first, set their garrison, and let them be. They still haven't filled as of today, but the offensive bases bought after have been filling on cue. I think something may be wrong.
| Thursday, September 14, 2017 - 12:51 am |
What is Jozi's dream?
| Monday, September 18, 2017 - 03:34 pm |
Jozi is here.
Alive and kicking and is part of the team.
Even more. Sometimes he is delivering the message but we decided to have Andy and Jonni on the forum.
The dream is not gone but we have learned during these years that many things you want are impossible because it is easy to cheat around them.
Welcome to the internet. You cannot trust people to be fair, share in the cost, treat others with respect etc. the list is long and unhappy.
Most are, some are not.
This is a difficulty that forces all kinds of things we and you do not want.
Also, there is the need here to pay salaries.
We pay salaries every single month.
We are consultants and spend part of our time making money.
Resources are limited. We have many many plans and features in mind that unfortunately, must wait.