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

Poll Started (War Level Choice)

Topics: General: Poll Started (War Level Choice)

Gaz

Thursday, September 3, 2020 - 06:24 pm Click here to edit this post
Check it out guys, pls do vote.

Zentrino

Friday, September 4, 2020 - 07:58 pm Click here to edit this post
I voted yes. We should be able to fight a C3 war at level 3. We would not get any award. They could strip the country of everything as far as I would be concerned. Sometimes you want the C3 for workers, like Gaz said, or to move to a new part of the world or to stage wars.

E O

Friday, September 4, 2020 - 09:33 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree that the war level system has room for improvement. The fact that you're forced up IMMEDIATELY after each level leaves little room for practice, for mistakes (mistakes causing you not to take the enemy country make it extremely difficult to finance another try when you're new and don't have many resources), or for what Zen outlined. It also puts a soft cap on the amount of war activity players will attempt.

Additionally, the starting weapons aren't enough IMO for new players to be able to take a c3. Quantity is fine, but the quality of the gear is pretty poor. I consider myself fairly experienced as a war player, and when I came back and tried to take a c3, I immediately failed. I had to sell off my starting weapons and get weapons with decent quality in order to succeed. There was zero change in my tactics - just change in the weapon quality.

This game is a war game. There are tons of elements of eco, commodity trading, diplomacy, etc which are great, and entertaining. However, about 1/2 the products in the game are military products or support military products. As such, I think the game could benefit from more use of those products (IE more fighting, even against c3s), as this is what it appears to have been designed for.

Finally, the fact that levels can't be decreased over time or in any way is a little off in my opinion as well. Just because you're good at war shouldn't mean you need to fight a level 20 c3 each time you fight. I get that there was an attempt made to capture player skill level with war levels, but I think there are a few side effects.

Perhaps instead, you could have more of a "cooldown" period. You can take 1 c3 every 2 weeks at level 3, and then any subsequent ones you attack before your cooldown period ends have to be fought at your war level.

This is all my opinion - and subjective, but overall, I agree with Gaz and Zen that there is room to continue to improve the war level system.

rob72966

Saturday, September 5, 2020 - 05:30 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree at least increase the number of wars waged perhaps (20) before being required to move up to level 4. At level 4 perhaps (15). But allow players to move up after (3) at each level if they choose.

Rob

Gaz

Friday, September 11, 2020 - 02:01 am Click here to edit this post
The vote passed, 5/0. I'd hoped for a few more votes but at least nobody disagreed which hopefully the GM's consider

UNION STATES KING

Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 12:01 am Click here to edit this post
I also agree with and I have voted.

John Galt

Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 07:20 pm Click here to edit this post
I think war levels should just be completely removed. They are the number 1 reason this game is dead in my opinion.

Zakalwe

Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 12:57 pm Click here to edit this post
I'm a new player and if war levels are removed I'll miss out on the chance to earn hundreds of gold coins (and points?). War levels are an incentive for new players not a burden.

E O

Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 07:47 pm Click here to edit this post
You're the first person I've heard who enjoys them, Zakalwe. Almost no one goes up in war level.

There are currently a TOTAL of 7 players on WG, for example, who have made it to war level 3 (where it's even possible to fight other players), and TWO who have ever taken a country from another player.

Zakalwe

Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:41 pm Click here to edit this post
Why don't players want to move up the war levels and get their coins? Is it not worth it?

Gaz

Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 09:48 pm Click here to edit this post
War levels are built into the game now, getting rid of them completely is a big leap. I agree with you though John. I'd like to see them gone but realistically that's not gonna happen. My proposal I think is a good compromise.

Matthew I

Monday, September 14, 2020 - 12:05 am Click here to edit this post
E_O highlights a good point. Even for the countries that want to move to WL3 and actually fight, there are scarce options for combat. And it takes time and money to get there. For WG specifically, I think your slaves should be fair game after the first month, regardless of war level.

On WG it would make sense to offer the option of secured mode to the Empire Leader, but have the slaves vulnerable after month one. (Real time month) It would allow Empires to wage war, while still having the high asset security that an optional world offers. It would incentivize war more often because, hey, you canât get wiped. It also adds a level of risk to having a large Empire and may promote people into diplomacy/contact with their neighbors.

I think the war levels should stay, but have the level requirement lowered or eliminated. Secured mode can still exist without a war level and at war level 2 you should have a rough idea of the mechanics and not have to spend a few Trillion to move up to WL3.

Right now, there isnât much incentive to move up in war level and itâs a hassle. As someone who is in WL2, I would like to be able to wage war without fighting another C3. Especially considering the difficulty I had at WL2, the lack of a guide makes it a very expensive game of trial and error. But even if I reached WL3 and removed secured mode, youâre basically limited to fighting 7 people. And in my case, three of them are in my Federation. If secured mode was only limited to slaves, taking my country out of secured mode at least gives me the option of attacking another Empireâs slave countries. It also gives new players an ability to experience, and initiate, pvp without risking everything in a single war.

For the war world obviously this just isnât required as everyone is fair game barring a purchase of secured mode. But the optional world should actually be âoptionalâ and not ânearly nonexistentâ.

Not sure what is the best way to change it up, but I agree it needs to be changed.

Gaz

Tuesday, September 15, 2020 - 01:56 am Click here to edit this post
Also I think there's less war due to the fact it costs so much to maintain a standing army. My measly defence is burning through huge amounts of assets/cash. It's discouraging me from even playing the war game.

Then there's the offence capability. What I have at the moment is pitiful but its costing me a fortune to maintain. I'd need 10x what I have to even think about attacking someone. Even If I had max pop countries i'd struggle to maintain a country that has any offensive staying power. Is there anyone maintaining a large standing offensive army?

There's no incentive to have a standing army if it's burning up my cash, so what's the appeal to war when I need to set the whole country up to fight first.

Matthew I

Tuesday, September 15, 2020 - 07:05 am Click here to edit this post
@Gaz

Where have you set down roots? I assumed you were on FB.

I think that's where weapon deactivation would come in. You'd purchase a lot of equipment, deactivate them and then over the course of a few days reactivate whenever the drums of war start beating. A few of my Federation members have large standing Armies and deactivation is a major component to keeping them under budget. I also believe you can place units in space centers to lower their maintenance(?), but take that with a grain of salt because I've never tried it firsthand.

Wars against players take lots of money and preparation in general. I'd ask Amaile (Most benevolent ruler of Beijing on WG) for some tips. He has a MASSIVE standing army and he just recently fought a war against a player with said army. Union States King may also have some advice in that area, as they also maintain a large military and fought a war beyond their borders.

I certainly haven't mastered the econ game yet (or really even come close) but I know it's possible to maintain very large offensive forces.

E O

Tuesday, September 15, 2020 - 08:22 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree Gaz. I do not keep almost any offensive weapons active. I keep enough to take one or two c3-caliber countries, but transfer them in when needed. It's simply not worth it otherwise.

I think the increased military costs compared to when we played last create two new challenges:

1. As you noted, it's harder to keep much of a standing army. As such, it's MUCH EASIER for someone to temporarily inflate their army, win a war, and then reduce their army again. Players no longer have nearly the defense they once could afford, and are thus more vulnerable. Despite offensive weapons being less efficient, the fact that a competent defense is not really affordable just lowers the "I can be conquered" bar if you're fighting against anyone who knows what they're doing.

2. Learning war is too costly for all but the richest players. New players may fight a war or two, but it's extremely rare for anyone to fight more than that. How can you learn if you never actually play the war game? The "War > Attack > List Other Wars" tab used to normally have a scroll bar on all worlds. Players would regularly fight (if only c3s). Now on some worlds, there are zero active wars at times. :(

@Matthew - I actually think it's better to store weapons in your CEO. Space centers deactivate the weapons, and deactivated weapons still have costs. When it's war time, sell them from your CEO to your empire.

Zentrino

Wednesday, September 16, 2020 - 08:49 am Click here to edit this post
Maintaining an actual defense in the country and in garrisons is not feasible at any scale really. A minimum defense would guard all 150 forts, the capital, all the cities, and the bases with at least tiny garrisons. This is not a strong defense at all and would not hold for long. I haven't tested the cost, but I would guess this would be 500B a game month pretty easily. A true defense of a country with 50M population would easily quadruple that. The last time I mounted a full defense of a country (4 or 5 years ago), I ran a deficit of almost 2T a game month. The defense was not strong but was above average. This is why there are no large player v player wars. Neither side can afford it. This does not even get into the cost and time it takes to move weapons into place in a country and get them reactivated for war...

Andy

Wednesday, September 16, 2020 - 03:35 pm Click here to edit this post
There are two more elements on the defense you do not mention:

Air defense wings will counter attacks anywhere in the country.
Many such wings will enhance your defense.

Auto response settings will cause immediate attacks following each attack on your country and will inflict high damage.

Being able to cause very high damage is an effective way to prevent an attack.

Addition risk when attacked:

navies are currently too powerful and can create immense damage.

as to war levels, they are largely irrelevant on Fearless Blue and this is where the wars are.
we have also made war levels 4,5 and 6 only slightly more difficult than war level 3.

I would like to have the view of players on:

1. What sense does it make to fight many wars at war level 3. why would you want to do so?
Workers? no, the population is very small. There was a previous discussion and players said that the argument is not financial benefit. so what is it?

2.what is currently the problem with war levels on FB.

E O

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - 12:57 am Click here to edit this post
Apologies for the long response here - but you asked for feedback, so here's some of mine:

For those wanting a summary: in short, my biggest problems with war levels are that they make it virtually impossible to move around/maneuver to different parts of any world more than once or twice ever and they remove much of the incentive of having a military at all, promoting instead isolated, single-player play on worlds besides FB.

You can only really take c3s once in a cost-effective way (up to as you said, to maybe war level 6), and then you're kinda done FOREVER with your account from being able to move around easily. Example: The core of my empire is over 10,000km from Gaz. Optimal fighting range is under 3500km (which is fighter range) if not closer. Heck, even land based cruise range is 5,000km. Being that Gaz is now War Level 11, he has to fight a war level 12 c3 first to even really get range on me. Shooting from that distance with conventional missiles doesn't make sense against any sort of federated air defense, and I'll touch on why navies aren't a good option in a second. Conversely, I'm war level 3. I can hop across taking a couple of c3s to move next to him MUCH more easily and cheaply than he can on me.

As such, moving up in war levels makes you less able to fight effectively against players (I will never do so unless necessary). In large, past wars, I'd take 10+ c3s (outside of fighting my actual enemy) just to be able to move into position to fight, to support allies, etc. Ally on the other side of the world under attack? Good luck to them now, because you're not coming to help. There are so few people to fight anyways, and now you're limited greatly by location. This is why I think having time-limited ability to fight at war level 3 could be helpful. IE, even if you're above WL3, you can fight one war level 3 c3 per week or something similar to Gaz's proposal about opting to stay WL3. ANY improvements to being able to maneuver would be helpful. Otherwise, you're stuck with whatever limited range your countries have forever unless you want to spend 30 gold coins (a month's registration worth of gcs) to buy a new c3. That's too steep of a cost to be worth it.

Yes wings do help - and probably are the best defense, but they're expensive (like all weapons groups). Most players don't have wings up - largely because they can't or don't want to afford them + ammo upkeep costs, and also because there is no incentive (why not just stay in war level protection for free?). If you're new and have a 25-30 million pop country, you likely can't afford to keep more than 5 or 10 wings up. That'd take up all of your profits in maintenance, and acquiring that much ammo and weapons is challenging as it is when you make so little profit (relatively speaking compared to those costs). It COULD be worthwhile if you could cost-effectively expand into and keep a number of war level 1-3 countries to increase your total income but instead, you're forced to fight increasingly more difficult AI defenses and to lose FREE, PERMANENT protection.

I honestly don't think you're given enough high quality weapons to have success against a c3 when you start anyways - especially if you're a new player. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. The weapons quality you have is too low and you get mauled by c3 air defenses. Matthew of Batavia recently made a forum post about this, which I completely agree with. He's not a new or an uncommitted player, and he had difficulty. As such, it's fair to say pretty much every newer war player will have difficulty fighting starting level c3s at all. The number of brand new players I see on FB who create a country, declare war, fail, and then quit the game is very high. If they'd have won their first fight, things might be very different for them. Better weapons and basic instructions for how to fight would be helpful here.

If, instead there's an option to be entirely safe forever and stay in war level protection, it's the OBVIOUS choice for most players. There's no benefit to being at war level 3 and being vulnerable to attack when you could just stay at war level 2 or lower. A few gold coins aren't worth it when instead you could have a billion population empire printing money forever with zero military costs. As of a couple days ago, there were a total of SEVEN players on White Giant (the most player-populated world) who'd made it to war level 3. Everything I'm saying could be totally wrong, but you can't say that players are progressing through war levels regularly. They either can't or are choosing not to. I have ideas here, but this is already too long of a post :)

Regarding your comment about how strong navies are: Only the very richest of players can afford substantial navies, and navies can be neutralized too easily. Honestly asking - how many players have substantial navies active right now? Is the number more than 2 or 3 per world? I doubt it. Additionally, I disagree that they are strong enough to be able to take on air defenses in a cost-effective manner - especially if there is a federation air defense. As you yourself said, air defenses can cause substantial damage - and doing so to an attacking navy is EXTREMELY costly for the attacker. If you have allied air wings responding from your federation (1500 interceptor response), it's virtually impossible to push through with a navy. This said, it just means your effective attacking range is limited. You can either buy an extremely costly navy and take terrible weapon trades against interceptors... or just stick to your little section of the world, and not interact with anyone outside of that.

Finally, I think one secured main per world is enough to keep plenty of assets safe, like it used to be. If not, why don't you try a "peace" world. We have a war world, why not have the inverse where players NEVER risk war and can play the single-player game. There are currently zero active wars on LU, so we're already almost there anyways. 8 TOTAL player countries have been taken on LU by current players since war levels started. 8. Ever. And I believe most were against inactive players by members of the same federation. This seemingly amounts to virtual extinction of the war game, - or explain to me how I'm wrong.

See how many players choose a peace only world, and if they do, great - there's a place they can play in peace. I think most players join the game thinking there is a chance of being involved in a war at some point, and then slowly learn that it's not worth it to go to war level 3. As it stands right now, I fear that most players aren't willing to risk complete elimination on the war world, and there's not enough incentive to come out of war level protection elsewhere. This generates far fewer player interactions, and has moved the game largely to single player mode (though it's advertised as a "Massive Multiplayer Online Game"). What's the actual benefit to you of joining a federation if you are war level 2? There isn't one.

Matthew I

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - 01:58 am Click here to edit this post
Great post!

I cannot express how much I agree with the above by E_O regarding War levels on "optional" worlds. I did join WG with the notion that i'd have a level of asset security, but still have the ability to engage in conflict.

I really think this could be solved by eliminating the WL3 requirement and allowing one country in your Empire to maintain a secured mode. Still makes wars possible without the chance of being wiped and it might just wake up some of the better established Empires that just seem to sit around now and amass wealth.

A peace world would also be ideal, since I have run into a few players that don't want any interaction whatsoever. Actually had someone leave our Federation because we were trying to wake people up and interact.It would be nice if we had peace worlds, war worlds and optional worlds for like minded players.

If the WL3 requirement was dropped right now on White Giant (and you could only have one state in protected mode) gears would definitely be turning.

Gaz

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - 02:30 pm Click here to edit this post
Well said EO.

Moving around the planets easily, is the number 1 reason for me to fight at wl 3. As EO described, the effort involved to get close to him to is a major pain in the neck. I'd need 3 countries close by for fed air response if we did fight. That means I'd have to fight wl 12,13,and 14 before the war even started.

Workers is a genuine reason for taking c3's easily. It's the best way for a quick fix to the employment index. I've probably taken 1000's of c3's over the years to steal workers.

That's only issue I have with WL's on FB atm. Pushing everyone to wl3 eventually is a good thing.

Gaz

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - 08:18 pm Click here to edit this post
I'd like to illustrate my point about the costs of a standing army with some numbers.

This is what I'm burning through every month according to my fiance index. To defend my cities and bases I'm using up

Anti Aircraft Missiles 6,822.80M SC
Defensive Missiles 7,768.92M SC
Missile Interceptors 5,160.24M SC
Nuclear Defense Missiles 5,250.52M SC$

$24B roughly, for garrison defence of my cities and bases

50 int and 50 heli wings are using up

Helicopter Missiles 22,233.57M S
Interceptor Missiles 29,686.22M SC$

$52B roughly for an ok air defence


Now offensively, this is where my eye water.

Land Based Cruise 22,611.21M SC$
Conventional Missiles 11,769.61M SC$

I have 2000 active Land Based Cruise batteries and it's costing me 22.6B every month. 2000 batts wouldnt last long in a fight. If i was firing them at the garrissons I have in place at the moment. I'd imagine i'd get 5 to 10 shots before all 2000 wiped out. 5 might even be to generous.

Then there's all the maintenance

Airforce Maintenance 20,945.74M SC$
Def Weapons Maintenance 17,211.25M SC$

37B roughly, There's more but these 2 are the biggest costs

When I add all that monthly cost up I think whats the point. It's like forever fighting a loosing battle. Massive countries could cover the cost of this defence but that excludes everyone else.

Gaz

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - 09:39 pm Click here to edit this post
I'd love to build and maintain a standing army but it's so wasteful. I think we should go back to the days when weapons didn't use any ammo per month. On FB anyway, would be a good start.

The rules to me are counter productive. Sending weapons inactive coming in from space and costing a fortune to maintain a standing army. Having them inactive isn't the answer either.

Andy

Saturday, October 3, 2020 - 04:11 pm Click here to edit this post
I think that our suggestions for making wars against C3s on FB depend on the size of the empire will make it easier to build an empire and as we said, you could let countries go and replace them by others without escalation.
those who are interested can go for higher WL's and win gold coins in the process.

We are also looking for a way to let players on the other 4 worlds play a peaceful game while others can fight wars more easily.

we will get to that.

all worlds can become war worlds as long as there is a possibility for those who want it, to play a peaceful game with no wars ever.

This is possible of course but there are some complications.

E O

Saturday, October 3, 2020 - 08:04 pm Click here to edit this post
Out of curiosity, why would you limit it? What is the downside to letting players fight against the c3 with no financial or population benefit? The war game against c3s is already a bit tedious without being forced up high game levels.

Players who wish to go for higher war levels certainly can.

Andy

Monday, October 5, 2020 - 12:56 pm Click here to edit this post
So why are so many wars against C3s needed?

The ideas of war levels and the awards coming with them was a way to train players and a way to prove capabilities in winning increasingly difficult wars. players earned many many hundreds of gold coins in the process.

Then there is the "need" for a flexible empire, so you can conquer a country far away, release it later and do it again.
This enables you to fight a real war at a large distance with a C3 country you conquered as a base.
This is fine too.

All this does not require many trivial wars between experienced players and C3s in WL3.
Is there a challenge? if you win nothing, no gold coins, no cash, no population, no assets, what is the point?

I think that if the cost of defense will decline, as it does now, it will increase the chance more players will look into the war game.

It will take more.
Military units participating in the defense will help too.

There was a problem with the navy.
It was possible to build a navy with 1100 navy fighter and zero other weapons.

we have reduced the max percentage of a single weapon in the navy and improved the defensive power of the navy.

This can be used or not.
Navies with 1100 navy fighters obviously did not have any defense.

E O

Monday, October 5, 2020 - 11:55 pm Click here to edit this post
I appreciate the ongoing dialogue here, and think some changes you're making will indeed help the war game improve, which is my primary goal with the positions I take in this discussion.

Respectfully though, you didn't answer my question. Why would you limit players being able to stay at lower war levels? Players need practice, want to be able to test tactics and weapons out, and want flexibility. Everyone in this thread who has talked about this concept agrees that they'd prefer the OPTION to stay at lower levels, and these are some of the players who've actually gone through war levels and won wars.

I understand you believe players are incentivized to go to higher war levels, but if they were, more would. Despite these incentives, you have just three players on your busiest planet (WG) who've ever progressed beyond war level 3. Three.

On Fearless Blue, your war world, you start at war level 3 (at least you used to - I'm seeing new players starting at war level 0 which is strange). Only 4 players have moved up more than 2 levels there.

Your system isn't working as you intend. Fighting against computer countries that simply have more weapons at higher levels isn't good training and it isn't particularly fun for many players. It can be quite tedious. Fighting higher level c3s requires understanding and using THE EXACT SAME concepts to win. You just have to click a whole bunch more and have to acquire more weapons and ammunition to win. Let players decide if this is what they want, or if they want to fight for other reasons.

Additionally, players do not always fight wars against the computer "for a challenge." As I've outlined several times, sometimes players just want to move around. Sometimes players want to help fix worker issues. Let players play the game - don't limit them arbitrarily. If you have a reason for limiting this aspect of the game besides the fact you think players want a "challenge" when fighting the computer, I'm all ears. It seems like you're trying to replace pvp wars with wars against the computer? I'm not sure that's what your player base is after - at least in its current form.

Again, if your level system was something players thought worked well, you'd have more than THREE players on your busiest planet progressing despite these lucrative rewards you're offering for doing so. Players will almost always try to do what's best for them, their account, and their fun. The way c3 wars are fought doesn't seem to align with many players having fun or growing in the current system.

I again recommend having the ability to fight one war per week at a lower war level (Gaz's proposal wanted more ability to choose to fight at war level 3). See what happens. See what players choose to do.

E O

Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - 01:57 am Click here to edit this post
Also:


Quote:

Then there is the "need" for a flexible empire, so you can conquer a country far away, release it later and do it again.
This enables you to fight a real war at a large distance with a C3 country you conquered as a base.
This is fine too.




This is not a flexible system. If you achieve high war levels, you no longer can easily achieve this. It becomes extremely expensive and time consuming. This exact reason is why players are asking about having the option to fight lower level c3s. You're highlighting what we're asking for here, though it seems you're misunderstanding how flexible your system is.

Andy

Sunday, October 11, 2020 - 03:36 pm Click here to edit this post
What I said is that you will be able to increase the size of your empire to 5 countries, fighting on at level 3.

Once you have five, you can reduce the empire to 4 and fight again at wl3.

this is giving you the option of fighting at war level 3 for ever and the flexibility of where you want to have your country.

If you want to have 10 countries in the empire, it has a higher complexity level, you can do the same, have country 6-10 while fighting at wl 4.
then continue at war level 4, while reducing the empire size to 9 and having the flexibility to conquer countries for strategic reasons.

I said in a previous post that I do not see the need for trivial wars for experienced players.

why would you E.O, fight trivial wars at WL3. you are more than experienced enough to fight them at WL4, or 5 or higher.

Building a very large empire by fighting many wars at WL3 does not sound logical to us here.

A large empire makes sense because of, for example: natural resources.
These resources can be found in very large numbers in many countries and their increasing profitability makes them attractive.

They are not for free.
It is either a war, which is probably quite trivial in the lower levels or 30 Gold coins. (no disaster).

and then, the war level C3 wars to grow to 10 countries is 5.
might be too low but this is where we will start.

And then,
I do not think an inexperienced player can win a C3 war at war level 10.
an experienced player can but it will not be trivial.
War experience certainly helps, and the player will win 130 gold coins on FB.

You can use them to get 4 more countries at 30 gold coins each.

one war at WL 10 and you get yourself 5 countries.

We will implement the possibility to run C3 wars at WL3 while the empire has less than 5 countries.

We agreed is it not for resources.
These will be wiped out, weapons, units etc.
The reason is the strategic flexibility for players to get countries far away, fight a war there, remove the country and fight another war at the same level in another far away place.

Please respond. I hope also less experienced players respond and I hope for new ideas and points of view.

Chris

Friday, October 16, 2020 - 02:47 am Click here to edit this post
I didn't read the above. My attention span is small. But what purpose is war levels when there are no wars? Seems like they were implemented way back when people were complaining about all of the wars that were going on back in the day. They wanted to play a "peaceful game" and these war levels were the implementation to satisfy them (though, I maintain that war protection was perfectly fine for that). But there doesn't seem to be conflicts anymore. Why maintain something stupid like war levels? Just because they've been around? Get rid of a feature that is dumb. New players should be enabled and encouraged to go C3 raiding for the experience and some small $. And if people don't want to war (what war?), WP is available.

BC - because I can't change my name for a week...

Edit: I read a little more of the above... a little. I guess I'm unqualified to have an opinion at this point until I play the game. I remember war levels when they were implemented and hated it. But that was 10 years ago. Maybe things have changed. I remember the GC rewards were not worth the costs at the time, but maybe things are better now....

E O

Friday, October 23, 2020 - 10:00 pm Click here to edit this post
I've hesitated to respond here because it doesn't seem like you understand my point about how going up in war levels makes it more difficult for you to fight other players. I guess no one fights much anyways these days, but there are a number of reasons for that. I'll try again to comment on some war level challenges (from my point of view). War levels are less of an issue on FB, but most of your players aren't there, so I'll leave that topic alone for now. This will be a long response - so I thank you for the audience in advance.


Quote:

What I said is that you will be able to increase the size of your empire to 5 countries, fighting on at level 3.

Once you have five, you can reduce the empire to 4 and fight again at wl3.

this is giving you the option of fighting at war level 3 for ever and the flexibility of where you want to have your country.

If you want to have 10 countries in the empire, it has a higher complexity level, you can do the same, have country 6-10 while fighting at wl 4.
then continue at war level 4, while reducing the empire size to 9 and having the flexibility to conquer countries for strategic reasons.




I'll start by commenting on your idea. This proposal you made would be an improvement on the current system. 100%. Right now, the system is very unforgiving in terms of you wanting to move around at all, practice at all, test tactics, and so forth. Right now, if you win once, the next time you fight IS ALWAYS harder, is always more clicks, and is always more expensive. The tactics to win remain exactly the same. The next level is just... longer and costlier? Do you think that is the fun all players want? Just asking. This system doesn't exactly motivate players to build empires - and players who do build empires are ones who are more likely to stick around in my opinion, so making that easier would be a good thing. Ideally, you could even have War Level 5 up to 15 countries, War Level 6 up to 20 as well. Make it a little easier for players to PLAY the game in the way they see fit. One question - if a player achieves war level 10, would they have the OPTION to fight at war level 3 if they only have 3 countries? If so, then your proposal is a very good idea.

Next, I'll talk about how the current system limits mobility. I have a scenario for you. If war breaks out on planets besides FB, what happens if the guy who's attacking your federation is on the other side of the planet from where you are? The system currently used REQUIRES me to do one of three things. I could have a navy to go shoot with (navies are expensive and generally are not a great option for this), fight and win a war against the computer, permanently raising my war level (in order to fight a player), or that I need to pay you 3 dollars for another country to get range on them? This tilts the field for players toward having to buy another country - and one they'll just throw away in a couple weeks. However, if I'm at war level 3, I can much MUCH much MUCH more easily take a couple of c3s to get near this attacker or near my ally to help. What if I make it to war level 10 in this scenario? It's so much more costly in game cash and in real life time for me to move across the world to get nearby this theoretical player than it would be if I was war level 3. What this means is that I probably won't. I won't waste time and resources fighting a war level 11 c3, I won't spend time in the game dealing with this issue to help my ally. I've already paid for gold coins to just to have registration in the game - I am very unlikely to instead spend gold coins on a throw away country. This is why I will never go up in war level on FB unless I truly need to help a country survive urgently. Because I'll be war level 3, I'll be able to get there as quickly and cheaply as possible to defend my or my allies' assets that we've spent so much time building.

Additionally, the way the current system plays out is quite monetized. If you go up to higher war levels, it becomes more and more expensive to fight against c3s. Many/most players are not particularly good at making money, so it could take them weeks to make enough cash to take on the next level, even at low levels. This is especially true of the new players who the game needs to retain. Who waits around for weeks to be able to continue to play a game? Do you expect players to spend a lot of gold coins on game cash? Buying a premium membership only covers gold coins for REGISTRATION for one year. If you buy a game on steam, you can play that game forever. Players shouldn't HAVE to spend gold coins on cash, spend gold coins to expand, and so forth. It's a deterrent for players - and makes it an easier decision for some to leave or to not go premium. You say it's "no disaster" to spend 30 gold coins on a new country. That's the equivalent of one month of playing the game for an empire or an enterprise. That is absolutely a disaster. There's no comparison for some players. You'd rather have registration than a 14 mil pop country. The option to buy countries and cash is great, but making it THE way to expand is bad. What yearly budget do you think the majority of players have for simcountry?

I also do not find fighting against c3s to be that interesting or enjoyable once you've done it once or twice. They're static and just take a bunch of clicking and usage of ammo and weapons to defeat. They absolutely have their place in the game, and giving rewards to players for going up in war level is a good thing. The fact that this is the only system right now though is not good. It just makes it more difficult for players to expand, to keep playing the game, and seems like an arbitrary limitation. Your game needs more engagement, not more hurdles and more $ costs.

In the past, players took c3s for reasons other than expansion, and this helped them have fun. These other reasons (raiding for workers, raiding for small amounts of cash, jumping around to set up countries near allies without paying real life cash for a tiny, new country, etc.) were what many players did in the game. This is what they had fun doing, helped them improve, and why they continued to play. Players should get rewarded for playing your game. Hard work = game cash, assets, larger empires etc. You wonder why there are so few mentors left? Why are there so few players making guides? Which players do you think it was that used to populate your game chat? Well the game has much less for experienced players to do anymore besides sit on their countries and collect cash. What can you even spend the cash on? You're talking about removing weapons from CEOs, placing arbitrary limits on corporations in CEOs, so again, what to spend cash on? What is there to do in the game?

This post is not meant to say I dislike your game. I spent time writing this because I want to help. I'm just trying to point you in the direction I think can help your game by illustrating hurdles and asking questions of you.

Andy

Friday, October 30, 2020 - 04:07 pm Click here to edit this post
I think our proposal will offer a solution.

One point is a bit strange.

I was made to believe that conquering C3 countries is not for resources but for more flexibility.
I had my doubts but players said repeatedly that it is not for resources.

I think that our proposal will bring a lot of flexibility and allow you conquer countries, quite easily, far away and then switch to other locations etc.

Sometimes it sounds like:

Don't bother to agree with me, I already changed my mind.

I refer again to the war competition world where at the end, two players registered.

E O

Friday, October 30, 2020 - 05:10 pm Click here to edit this post
I understand your confusion - I made a long post talking about many things, and probably not very clearly.

Personally, it's the flexibility issues that I'd like see changed most about c3 wars right now. The original poll was started for this reason, and is why I started talking about this topic. I was trying to make a case for why the poll was a good idea. Your proposal seems like it will probably help with this. I like your idea, and beyond flexibility, I think it will improve the way war levels function in general. I'm excited to see this change implemented if and when you do.

My additional comments about other players in the past were meant to just illustrate other general frustrations and drawbacks that occur with war levels (not just war level 3, for example), as they reduce the number of things players could do in the game and reduce player engagement. I think war levels reduced the willingness of some players to practice and play the game as much. This is just general commentary. You have made comments about thinking more guides and more activity in game chat would be good, and this is what the rest of my post is about.

Once you've built up your countries, now what? Warfare isn't common at all between players. Federations don't really do much right now except in the rare moments of tension. The fact that you can't really benefit too much from fighting computer countries just makes the game a bit more stale, and gives people less options for activity when they log in. If there's not much to do, people won't play as much, won't post as much, and won't be as active. If your proposal is used to make updates, perhaps players will have more interest in fighting more regularly and play a little more. There might be some benefit (even if not cash) from regularly fighting against c3s. The key for increased engagement though is players need to be able to benefit (repeatedly) somehow without TOO much cost, otherwise they won't fight much. Why fight much and invest time if there is no benefit? I've talked to a player who has won multiple first place prizes on a now inactive account, and once they made war level 6, it was just too costly and long for them to continue advancing from their view, despite gold coin benefit. At that point, they were done forever with fighting.

Many of the players who actively raided c3s in the past acquired great skill and understanding of how to build countries, in how to maximize gains from warfare, to become more efficient at fighting, and so on, because they had a reason to practice repeatedly (profits). Many of these players were very active on the forums and in chat. They played the game a lot because they had something to do when they logged in, and because of this, they were active in the community. Finding a way to help engage players in ways where they can practice skills (and benefit somehow from doing so) will help grow your community.

I have thoughts about the war competition, but that'd just go off topic. :) Thanks for your audience.

Lord Mndz

Friday, October 30, 2020 - 06:59 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, - war competition world could be a success it just requires different configuration. If you are interested in this I could dedicate some time and write you an email with concept.

Andy

Friday, October 30, 2020 - 11:15 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks mndz.

we are not going in that direction any time soon.

Amalie

Saturday, October 31, 2020 - 12:32 am Click here to edit this post
@andy
We should also have the option to send loans directly to countries and enterprises
With a maximum or default interest rate

Amalie

Saturday, October 31, 2020 - 12:38 am Click here to edit this post
Are we even allowed to be presidents
It is like weâre restricted from a lot of things

Andy

Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 07:50 am Click here to edit this post
The loans were discussed in a different part of the forum.

If you hate limitations, please explain which ones and we will try to help.

the loans do not represent any limitation.
there are many ways to do loans.
we prefer the market.

Everyone can always get a loan with a reasonable interest rate.

we had time at the start period, where you could set the interest rate.
so the second account got loans from the first account for 100% interest per real day and after the second account bankrupted, it was discarded and a new account appeared and did the same.

we could spend two months of development time to do it again and this time do it right, and we will end up at the same place we are now.


Add a Message