Idea for Wars

I think we can all agree that the war game is pretty much dead here. I think there are two primary reasons for this. The first is the insane amount of micromanagement that war requires. People simply do not have the time to manage it. The second is that people don't want to risk the assets that they worked so hard over years to build up.

I have two suggestions that could alleviate some of these concerns and hopefully encourage some more war.

The first one is regarding micromanagement. One area that this could easily be reduced would be to unify offensive and defensive weapon systems. There is no reason to have duplicates of everything. Light tanks and heavy tanks should just become tanks for example. They would function in both an offensive and defensive capacity. This would reduce the amount of different weapon systems people need to stock and make the logistics of supplying ammo for all the different units significantly easier.

Not bad.
Couple of thoughts. I don't think micromanagment is the problem. War levels are We could let any president (not in secured mode) fight any other. Also I have found out just not trying to take a C3 war is freaking expensive. Reduce the cost a little and there would be more.

I agree with combining offense and defense the GM as stated there is a reason for keeping seperate though I forget what that is off the top of my head. But he does have a reason if the GM would be so kind as to reinterate it for I would be greatful.

The second idea. With player v player combate. One small tweek to that have a surrender option and the first player becomes a slave to the second until there a a revolt. But then give the player the option to quit that and star freah if (s)he likes.

Just my two cents

John Galt, evader23, Andy, GM's, Everyone,

Having defensive and offensive weapons as separate systems. Allows the GM to make defence cheaper than offence. Without this, it would be nearly impossible for a lower wealth player to protect themselves against a higher wealth player.

Micromanagement is a massive headache, and it really needs improvement. It's main causes are, the supply system, and the garrison system, the unit system.

The Supply System, the Problem:
Currently, every single unit has to get it's supplies delivered by supply units. These units can not be manually controlled. They can bug out, preventing supplies from being delivered, crippling your army, with no way to fix it. Also, it's nearly impossible to know in advance, how many supply units you need. Whats more, their constant activity can put a huge load on the server.

Supply System, the Proposed Solution:
Largely remove the current

"Players wouldn't have to worry about a broken supply system crippling their military and destroying them, with no way to fix it."

Looks at Napoleon and Hitler's invasion of Russia. Supply is how an army moves.


I like the idea of instead of conquest the defeated country pays war reparations to the victor. That is a brilliant idea Mr Galt.

Also combining the military is a great idea for simplification. A modern SAM site isn't defensive or offensive in nature. It just shoots down enemy planes inside a zone of control.

Each garrison could have a ring that shrinks or grows depending on how many weapons/ammo/soldiers are assigned to it. That is your defense.

I can see room for strategy in that.

Daniel I agree with pretty much everything you said there except your rationale against combining offensive and defensive units. It is still possible to make defense cheaper than offence in a combined system by just making the units more effective when defending than when attacking. It could just be a blanket percentage advantage that is applied to defenders. This way we could say maybe it takes 1.5 tanks to destroy 1 tank on defense for example. This would have the dual effect of simplifying logistics whilst still retaining the defender advantage.

I love your idea for creating a garrison unit that can auto-respond to any land target that is attacked. I would imagine this working in a way that is similar to how air defence units work currently.

I agree with Johanas about supply. Perhaps a good compromise would be to only require supply when your units are stationed outside of your country, otherwise they would just draw from some nationa

Hi all,

I like what Daniel said about the problems and the solutions, however there are few more things:

War levels. I think they should allow players to use better weapons in wars or/and allow bigger number of units, maybe units themselves could become bigger with each new war level. If you limit number of units per war level and increase numbers of weapons per unit that makes sense. War level should be like a reward that allows you to do more than before until you are not limited at all.

War purpose. What is the purpose of war? If you can protect assets by simply moving them to cash management account then you don't need an army to defend it. Limit movement of cash from countries to the account.

Restore after the defeat people learn much more from the defeat than from just observing the game. The problem is not the defeat but the time players needs to be in a good shape again. If you give pla

A lot of great points are being made here.

However, as a long term player I do want to offer a secondary insight for everyone to consider. As someone who has been here before the war levels, a high war level player myself, and someone who educates new players I would like to offer these points for discussion.
I think for this conversation to remain productive I believe there are three points we need to address. These being the cost of a defensive military, the limitations of the war levels, and the lack of communication.

Everything else even some of the points above are minor details. Let us not get hung up on the minor issues, but let us explore the deeper issues and fix these minor issues later(Minor fixes is what caused the war level issue in the first place).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

First, The cost of weapons is still VERY high. Running a defensive military cost

I do agree with Super, communication is a key. I remember tel- conferences with Jozi talking about improvements and problems of the game, and forum where hundreds of people were discussing different matters. I think that today game needs to improve chat to allow all players to communicate more and be more actively involved in the game. The current communication system is not working, it is very hard to chat or have group conversations inside the game. It should not be so hard to implement that technically in the 21th century

Andy,

can you share if we can expect any of the above things to be fixed/tuned in the next year or so. What are your insights on the above? thanks!

good luck getting any type of response from the GM on this

Andy,

can you shed some light on whats going to be done on the above?

My guess is; Andy is going to crash the party and tell us this is too much work; we must think smaller suggestions. Things that can happen now with small implementation that can have affect. These all seem like some major stretchs for Andy and the bois. I like some ideas personally.. but just seem some are far out for Andy.

could give people like 5 gold coins a week for logging into the chat few times a week

I have another solution, - we can do this the other way around. We list the best ideas needed to be implemented, W3C tell the price in GCs needed to get that done, we collect the money, GMs implement the idea.

how about that

Not bad, if we can find something that will work out well that Andy will agree to work on, it would be nice. It would be a nice start to fix the war game by at least cutting the restrictions on navy units, as it really puts a damper on the navy in this game. Making them more like land or air units in terms of free structure would be a very good fix to get this old war engine going again. Maybe even adding a little more to the navy part of the war engine. The restrictions and tense requirements for navy make it VERY difficult to handle.

I do think finding a way to convert types of weapons between defense and offense would be good, ammo as well. Though some things like Missile interceptor batteries would have to remain. It would be a step in the right direction.

Though ideas like these i believe are important. Though we have to see what Andy is thinking

Yeah, navy now is like a joke due to weapons limitations, still GMS should see the bigger picture of how everything should balance together vs how complex is to code it.

The first priority I think is reducing complexity in war game, that includes changes in support units system, weapons types and limits per uni/per type as well as map painting fixes, rework on strategic weapons attack/defense and war levels removal or making them useful..

Also I think that professional solders and officers should be created or trained somehow, not only bought.

Go fund me.

Make it happen Andy.

let's wait and see what Andy thinks about it.

I know that for some games like Dota2, there are special events, where you buy some items/features from the game and GMs creating some things if you reach set levels of the funds collected.

Andy?

+1

A lot of messages so I will answer some and see where we get.

Cost of war and separating weapons into defensive and offensive ones

The high cost was discussed many times. we have reduced but I am willing to reduce the cost more.

We will reduce the cost of defensive weapons in the coming period,
starting coming Monday January 14 or the next day.

As was said here, the separation of the forces allows us to selectively reduce cost.

In the past we had huge wars with weapons separated to defensive and offensive ones and players taking very high risks.

Military Units

We have recently added old features back to the game that allow you to wage war from your military bases not using military units.
Easy to use.

We have also reduced the need to paint your enemy's country in war.

We also agree to make units larger.
We have it on our wish list and will start to d

Andy,

what is your opinion regarding players paying W3C for implementing of some game upgrades?

Is it hard to improve live-chat function to make ppl auto-join it?

"We have created a war competition world with high cash rewards. There were no takers."

Um, me and Mndz were there and another player. Wars didn't happen because the GMs stopped the world ticking. I had conquest planned and preparations underway .. in fact my country there is still "in war" with a C3 right now, you can see it as the world isn't reset yet.

I'm not sure what the logic of "cash rewards" is for a war world, I don't see it being any particular sort of motivation.

IMO, a tournament war world needs to be more like fornite/PubG where the weapons and ammo come thick and fast from the c3 countries you take over, allowing you to use them on the other players. Corp management, profit making etc should still be part of the action, but a minor part not the stuff that stops you building military and waging war.

I will check the chat function.
It should be auto-join for every new player.

Units are now a bit larger, mainly the land divisions and air force units.

The cost of defensive weapons is reduced by 10% +

Total defense cost each moth is reduced a bit too because ammunition costs less.