Andy Please Read This

Andy, I love this game. I have been playing this for many years and I have lots of experience with PVP wars. I really feel like you are listening to the wrong people and are getting bad advice on what needs to be changed. Please take these ideas into consideration, and please listen to the players who play the game at the top level.

In order to solve the problem with the current state of the war game, we first need to identify the problems. In my opinion, the following are the major barriers to war:

1) War Levels - The majority of the players on peaceful worlds are below war level 3.

2) Too much micromanagement - In order to wage war, you need to have thousands of units deployed.

3) Too expensive - The cost to deploy and maintain armies is too expensive.

4) Too risky - Conquest is the only outcome of war. Most people do not want to play for keeps.

I would like to propose solutions that wo

I think these are great suggestions and I endorse every one of them. Number 2 and 3 are my biggest ones I think but you really need most of these together for things to work. I suppose we could keep more than one world but we definitely have too many. If I have time over the next several days, I will move a modest defense into one country and fully deploy garrisons across the country to report the cost. I will show the garrisons I use and the units I deploy so we can see how much an actual defense costs in the budget. Maybe then the GM will see what we mean we say it is not a reasonable figure. Or maybe we will decide the defense I am building is bigger than anything I would ever actually need.

i very much agree on problems and solutions.

This may be a controversial opinion, so I dont want to attach it to my main point but I will share it here anyways. I think there should be limits on the number of attacks that can be performed per day for each country. Maybe 100-200 attacks per day. Once the limit is reached from both sides, each country will be given 10 additional attacks. If both countries use these extra attacks they will get 10 more each. That way if both players are online the war can continue in a tit for tat fashion. The purpose of this change is to slow down warfare so that people with busy schedules (most of the player base IMO) can still participate fairly in war. Wars should last much longer but require much less daily commitment in my opinion. Thoughts?

A player with a moderately sized standing army with high fighting level due to upgrades and professionalism points should be able to hold their own against a much larger conscript army. Fighting level should be of equal importance to numbers in my opinion. Players should feel safe with a strong peacetime army.

Also please eliminate mobile units. Just allow professional soldiers to be part of regular units. Then offer a bonus to fighting level based on the percentage of professional troops in the unit. Fighting level will be determined by weapon/ammo quality, professional troop percentage, and unit professionalism score (increases for every month a unit is deployed). Units with 100% professional troops should immediately get max professionalism score also to give even more advantage to the premium troops.

Thank you very much for these suggestions.

Some of the changes we talked about recently and started making will be addressing these issues.

I suggest we keep it in mind and check the suggestions against the developing situation.

we do not intend to pull the rug under any players who have based their strategy on the current situation.

Simcountry will evolve. It will make it easier for these players.
adapting to new situations will be gradual and will not destroy anyone.

Until very recently, the main point in all suggestions was the problem of war levels.

Now, that we have made suggestions as how to improve on war levels, other issues pop up as the most important.

fine and we read everything.

So we will make gradual changes as was discussed and explained before and I think many of these issues will be resolved.

Andy, i suggest to take few hours online call with few most experienced players as forum is wrong place to solve such issues. we could present our ideas in proper way. if you agree I will organize and send you details in private message.

i think after playing this game for decades we deserved some time of yours and we will not waste it i promise.

mndz

I also generally agree with what John said, and would be interested in a call like Mndz suggested if you think I meet the criteria. This is a great game with massive potential. There is a reason why (as Mndz said) players have played for decades. We'd love to help the game grow. Who knows, maybe we'll be here playing for another couple decades.

We have many things on our hands at this moment that need to be done and we will move forward with these issues.

We will continue to look at open issues remaining and discuss further, open for all players on this forum.

A better and stronger defense for smaller players is one of the main issues.

We should discuss at a place where large and many small players can express their opinions.
The forum seems like a good place for it.

I will get back to other issues brought up here.

Andy, this is fair point still please have in mind that we would make an extra step if needed to better support you.

We would also appreciate if you could point biggest issues you see from your end as well. this is open dialogue.

war is most exciting element in this game that makes you wake up late at night like you did yourself in our war, and it needs to be more of this, much more.

i will try to find some time in my busy calendar to post few more ideas regarding the pointed problems as well.

I agree with most what John says and appreciate the effort it takes to write out such a long post. Most us guys who've been around all these years just wanna help. The proposed war level changes is a good start. After that I think the GM's should look at the cost of standing armies.

I'd get rid of the monthly ammo usage altogether, like it used to be. Tie ammo usage into weapons training, like experience for example and give that a number to replace Weapons quality. Nobody understands quality it seems, I've conquered several player nations lately and not 1 of them has high quality weapons.

Changing the war engine to 1 units fits all kinda thing would be a great update but it's a complete overhaul of the current system by sounds of things and it would take alot of work, probably.

You could add all sorts of modifiers in that case though, like weather, terrain, range that sort of thing. defence plus 30%

I to agree with some of all the points mentioned. I really do not like the monthly ammo usage especially with the larger offensive missiles. The amounts used are just insane. There not worth deploying. Moving units a long distances is a heavy burden on resources and time. Keeping them supplied is a skill all on its own. I would like to see the navies more involved in troop / units deployments. (Navy Transport Fleet) each transport ship 2000 weapons. 100000 ammo. Max 20 transport ships per fleet. You would need to defend them or loose them or a high percentage if attacked and lost during transport. I look forward to the game changes and improvements that will come in time.

Rob

The next upgrade, don't know exactly when, will include a further decline of cost, also in the maintenance cost of the offensive army.

and I will repeat what we always say:
It will not damage the profitability of any type of corporation.

On the four worlds (not FB) everyone can choose to be peaceful and never involved in war.
The fact that there are not many you can fight is not keeping them awake.

They just want to play the peaceful game, this is what they subscribed to, and they will always be able to do so. The war game is an option.

however, if the war game becomes more attractive, and if the situation will be such that they stand a chance in a PvP war, they might dare one day to participate in one.

That will be really nice.
but it is up to them and it is not relevant in the current situation.

I think it is a great idea to have a session with long time experienced players. What keeps us here? Why do we keep coming back (for players like me who have come back 3 or 4 or 5 times over the years?) It may also be helpful to talk with newer players too. What makes them stay? What would they like to see different? This has never been the game that everyone will be interested in and that is part of the appeal. It takes long term planning and strategy.

Hi @Andy, @All,

posting another round of ideas to improve war game. Many of them are easy fixes I think.

Merging weapons

This has been discussed for a long time. Current system confuses new players as you can see your army units in the list, but you cannot use them to defend your country, they only acting when attacked. Merging main weapons into both defensive/offensive has many many benefits. I suggest to start from the below and over time add the rest. You don't need to merge them all, variety of weapons is ok, but weapons should be all useful.

• Fighters, Interceptors, Navy fighters, Navy Interceptors and their ammo -> Fighters & fighter missiles
• Navy Helicopters, Helicopters, Attack Helicopters and their ammo -> Helicopters & helicopter missiles
• Off Anti Aircraft Missile Batt

The ideas around different options for winning a war are great. I would be much more likely to engage in pvp war if I knew that I did not have to take their country. It isn't even that I would not want the country but do I really want an enemy who will build for however long necessary to get revenge and take out my countries? The idea that I could wage a pvp war and demand payment as victor is appealing. Perhaps a monthly payment for 120 months or a lump sum payment or a transfer of weapons or population. Built in protection should mean I could not declare war against them again for a fixed amount time (at least until the payments are ended and perhaps even longer than that, maybe 240 months).

I looked around and not many players have huge numbers of military units.

The cost of such huge numbers will remain too high to sustain.

Most players have smaller numbers. If these units become more powerful and usable in war, I hope that smaller numbers will be sufficient.

possibly, larger units will convince players to reduce numbers.
cost too.

We will continue to read and react to suggestions.
It can take some time as there are so many things to do.

I have a list of suggestions that will take many hours to read.
I can make suggestions in 15 minutes that will take 6 months to make.

so this will be a process of gradual changes and gradual processing of ideas and of selecting the ones that we think should be added.

We will prevent errors like the "War world" and listen to players, small and large as each group has its interests and points of views that match these interests.

There are however many things that are clear and should be dome.

we have said many times in the past, and did it too, that the cost of war must decline. we all agree.
we said that the defense must become more powerful and such changes should continue.

we are not sitting on our hands.

I am one of the largest players in the game, in terms of military assets, and I honestly want the war game to improve. The suggestions I am giving are not for my benefit, and if it is in the interest of balance, I will happily give up my entire arsenal if I am fairly compensated with game cash.

I think the quickest changes that can be made without reworking the entire war game at this point would be to increase unit size, increase weapon cost, decrease ammunition and maintenance costs, and allow offensive weapons to defend themselves when they are attacked.

Merging weapons, giving alternative options to conquest, and removing war levels would likely take significantly longer to incorporate, but I think they are worthwhile long term goals.

As was discussed before, we have reduced the cost of maintaining the army.
there were several rounds of changes, the latest was today, but it takes time to show up in the countries.

more will follow.

we are reading and processing many proposals.
it takes longer to create an option than to type an idea.

we have a plan before us and will integrate new ideas.

cool, that makes me happy. maybe we are over-expecting things to come but i really enjoy this process. finally this is happening.

Same here.

we are determined to improve the war game.

I am happy that the forum these days is largely a very constructive place with serious opinions and great ideas.

Going back to the first post here about the complexity of waging war.

I have a different opinion on weapons and ammo combinations.
maybe in time some will happen. we will now use the (updated) hand held missiles, as ammo for jeeps of both types.

but the other arguments are surprising:

make units with 20.000 weapons?
make weapons 100 times more expensive?

a strike by a huge unit like this will destroy so many very expensive weapons and use so much ammo, war will be very expensive.
If weapons are not destroyed, you will need to click for ever.

There are good elements here but I invite more reactions on this item.

1. Size of the units
2. Cost of weapons
3. Losses, soldiers and weapons.
4. Ammo use? cost and the rate of destruction.

A comment about "units with 20,000 weapons." I think large units (but not changing how many fire at once) would be beneficial - in particular, in offensive units. John commented "Right now, unit sizes are so small that they can only do one attack before being completely ineffective due to lack of numbers," which I'd like to talk about.

If you're fighting against an air defense, you currently need to make maximum size air force wings with fighters and probably bombers or drones in order to effectively fight interceptor wings. What happens is you fire ONCE, lose plenty of weapons, and now your unit is at, say 60% strength. Shooting with a low strength unit is a TERRIBLE idea - your losses are worse than if you shoot at full strength and you do less damage. What you need to do is disband your unit and make a new one with the full amount of weapons to shoot with. I just did this repeatedly in the last week. I probably h