W3C - Planned Updates to the War Game

The following is a result of recent discussions on the forum about possible changes to the war game.
We intend to implement these changes in the coming period.
The order of implementation depends on the availability of the relevant developers.

1. War protection on FB is 60 days. It can be prolonged with temporary war protection. We will however increase the cost of temporary war protection. The no war period is intended to allow the president to prepare for war.

2. Increase the initial defensive power of new players on FB.

3. Possible major change on FB: Prevent wars from going all the way to destruction. If the war index of a (new) player goes too low, we could end the war and the defeated country could give the winner a compensation. The defeated country will then be protected for 30 days to allow it to rebuild.

4. More sneak attacks and more targets.

5. Strategic weapons:
a. The cost

Hi Andy,

great to see this plan, only few comments


5. Strategic weapons are not so much strategic, probably with the increase of a cost damage should be increased as well.

6. Biggest drivers of war cost is not only usage of ammunition but also all military supplies, fuel etc. Big numbers are needed for military units to operate and has to be also reduced. I also suggest removing ammo cost from inactive weapons at all and only take it from active units.

Simplest way of reducing cost would be increasing unit size by few times and leaving the same amount of supplies needed.

7. very good

10. Very important - please add ranges into documentation at which land units support each other under attack. Also please test with offensive land units like tanks to see if they are able to penetrate defense at all.

11. yes, please also increase size of units and reduce number of types doing the same like sm

We advise players to start converting jeep producing corporations, both defensive and offensive Jeeps, to produce different weapons or close these corporations and build others to replace them like raw materials producing corporations.

as part of the plan at the top of this discussion, we will gradually eliminate Jeeps.

Army units will be updated and will not include jeeps. This means that new army units will not have any jeeps.

We will convert jeeps, owned by players, into a different weapon at a ratio that will be disclosed later.

It will take some time before Jeeps, both defensive and offensive will be removed from Simcountry but we will start this process with the next game update this week.

Hi Andy,

Can you enlight us how the transition (period) will look like?


What will happen to deployed jeeps in supply units and garrisons?
What will happen with the stored jeeps in enterprises or countries?

Will the GM provide liquidity in order to accommodate the massive selling orders this might trigger with virtually no human buyers?
>> Also in regard to the intended measure to limit storing weapons in enterprises.

To be clear, I endorse changes like this to make the game better, I just have no clue yet how to act on the changes currently and how others will act. And Im taking jeeps as an example now of course. My questions are more in general.

Jeeps that are used in units and garrisons will remain there and will remain functional.
we will start with preventing many more Jeeps to be produced, purchased etc.

then at some point, we will convert them all, at once, and everywhere where they were used, there will be another weapon instead.

By then, new ones will not be used.
some could pop up in countries, and we might need to do another conversion of remaining Jeeps in countries.

Removing maybe 5 weapons from the game, including some ammunition types, may take many steps to realize.

we will not buy the jeeps.
we will replace them everywhere with other weapons.

there is no reason to sell them. we may even remove them from the market and there will be no trading.

We did not decide yet but want to prevent damage and will make a conversion that allows you to keep the replacement weapons or sell them later.

Some people use just jeeps for supply units, this keeps costs down because jeeps don't use ammo. If jeeps are to be converted into a weapon that uses ammo, we'll need to know well in advance what weapon it will be so we have a chance to ensure we have enough stockpiles of the correct ammo.

For what it's worth, I'm against reducing the cost of war materials. Cheaper war materials means players can afford larger defences and a larger defence is a strong deterrent to war. These changes will result in less pvp war.

The cheap cost of interceptors and helicopters and their missiles means players can have tens of thousands of them, the amount of clicks required to defeat such a defence makes the war game tedious.

@Ethelred
I doubt that this will reduce pvp wars. The stronger players already have tons of reserves which can be deployed fast, while the weaker players struggle to keep a defensive army afloat, or just dont know how to set up decently. If you mean less pvp wars in that sense that stronger players will be less able to eat up the underdefended ones, I believe that this is the intention of the change being made.

Much better would it be to just attack in batches with 1 click required. Like Attack 10 wings with 10 LRD units (1 click required). Or attack corporations A to Z, with units X1-X26. In combination with the change that federated air support will be reduced to 1+1 wing, instead of 1+2 wings, this change could really stimulate pvp wars.

I didn't see the announcement of this change.

We want to reduce the cost of maintaining the army.
cheaper ammo will help but there is no need to reduce it to much lower cost. we have already done must of the reductions.

weapon prices are not being reduced. any changes will be to moderately higher prices, including nukes too.

we want players to be able to setup a good defense and not be eaten in 5 minutes.

Jeeps will be replaced by other land forces. Maybe armored vehicles.
They use ammo. The ammo less jeeps were chosen to go first because of that. we had a plan to add ammo. now it is obsolete.

4 x 2 land weapons is too much.

new units will have no defensive jeeps. they will have more of the other types of land units. Same with supply units.

The plan at the top of this discussion explains what we intend to do.
You can keep commenting on it.

It is not written in stone.

We want to reduce the cost of maintaining the army.
cheaper ammo will help but there is no need to reduce it to much lower cost. we have already done must of the reductions.

weapon prices are not being reduced. any changes will be to moderately higher prices, including nukes too.

we want players to be able to setup a good defense and not be eaten in 5 minutes.

Jeeps will be replaced by other land forces. Maybe armored vehicles.
They use ammo. The ammo less jeeps were chosen to go first because of that. we had a plan to add ammo. now it is obsolete.

4 x 2 land weapons is too much.

new units will have no defensive jeeps. they will have more of the other types of land units. Same with supply units.

The plan at the top of this discussion explains what we intend to do.
You can keep commenting on it.

It is not written in stone.

In all comments on this plan.
Please tell us which point you comment on or say "New issue" if it is unrelated to the list above.

we will also show which issue we are referring too when announcing updates.

I dont think Fed air defense is over-powered, defense in general is over powered, 1 unit vs lord knows how many. Ground units are very very powerful although tanks should take less losses to defensive helios because theirs no way to really combat the enemy ground forces without using missiles or air units currently. Adding a function to add multiple units to form a single attack is more ideal and will solve most of the problems (how many defensive units join the defense is up to w3c). Bigger battles means more damage to each side so that 1 side doesn't get obliterated. This alone will shorten the amount of clicks, balancing attacking/defending damage to the enemy and wont require price deductions that will hurt the corps profits.

I do not think we should combine many units into a single attack.
Units will be stronger, defensive units too but combining them will make such an attack 100% devastating.

Hi Andy,

very good update, thanks.

would it be possible to get information which land units are stronger and how much is the change.

thanks

Most of them are now, after two rounds of changes, about 30% larger.

there will be another round within a week. another 15% or so.

ok, thanks

Planned and executed updates to the war game

This is a copy of the plan as was published at the top of this page, with some reporting of recent changes:

1a. War protection on FB is 60 days. This remains unchanged.
1b. Possible increase of the temporary war protection cost.
The cost of temporary war protection will increase in one of the next upgrades.

2. Increase the initial defensive power of new players on FB.
We have already increased the defensive force of new players. There are more garrisons and the available military units are larger.
More will be done.

3. Possible major change on FB: Prevent wars from going all the way to destruction. If the war index of a (new) player goes too low, we could end the war and the defeated country could give the winner a compensation. The defeated country will then be protected for 30 days to allow it to rebuild.

This feature is not done y

thanks for the update.

maybe you can allow more land units to be airdropped or cross c3 lands without restrictions? now if i want to attack a country which does not have a border with me i use batteries as placing land units requires base set up which is more complex to establish and consumes more time. maybe small land units could be airdropped and large ones could cross c3 lands without restrictions.