Weapon and Ammo quality needs an update

Hi,

So, it is cheap for +40m pop countries to afford and set up 20k ints + 20k helis.
If defense has enough ammo, three countries like this in a federation and you will need a minimum of 150k oaamb/mrmb to brake through that defense.

Documentation says weapon/ammo quality it is supposed to change 1 point per game month.

Defense has 40k in total weapons to upgrade, while offense has minimum of 150k.
Both, the defender and the attacker need enough ammo. However the attacker needs more ammo in comparison because it has to set up a large weapon army.


Summary:
1. Defense army is really cheap
2. Defense army size can be very small, therefore less ammo too
3. The cost of upgrading defense army to 450 is way cheaper than the attacker
4. Defender can patiently upgrade weapons to 450 while still having a profitable country


4. Attack army is not that costly if you use offensive lan

Everything has a price, even warfare.

Also I blew through more than 150K OOAMB during my last push to war level 11.

The reward was well worth the cost.

PVP rewards not so much.

Navy is crap, used to be fun

Big armies are cheap to buy but impossible to maintain, used to be fun

War makes no sense, no real benefit in winning, as cash can be removed, weapons destroyed before taking over country used to be fun

Federations cannot include all countries of 2 players, useed to be fun

Limitations of how many wars country can activelly have stops federation wars and helping friends, used to be fun

Units are too small and cheap, requires micromanaging, used to be fun

Supply system is crap and buggy, also super expensive, used to be fun

Innactive weapons cost you, so ppl move to ceos, with no big active armies left, used to be fun

And many more, but what is the point eeven meenntioning if game admin has different vision of the game.

War level 14.

My bad.

Defence comes at a lower cost. some say too low.
it should not be easy to destroy a country and take it.
some have worked hard to build it.
should be difficult.

in the last game update, defence wings became a bit smaller.
changing the balance a bit towards the offensive army and the navy.

we will do more to reduce the cost of ammunition but not the cost of weapons.

Overall, I think the GM is moving in the right direction.

Unit numbers and costs used to be a MASSIVE issue in the old war game. I just found my old records when it used to cost 1 trillion for basic inter/heli wings and they needed 700-900 weapons.

The lower numbers overtime I believe will benefit the game and have a positive impact, it just takes longer to see the larger differences.

In the real world or in most games range is the biggest factor. Currently, most units in the game have massive ranges. I think as the GM reduces unit sizes and maybe reduces weapon ranges the game will balance out.

The reason countries in the real world use airbases or naval fleets is for power projection outside their boarders. Currently, there is little need for this concept because of the range of some weapons.

Like I said, the GM just needs to keep reducing the size of military units, maybe add a limit to how many units can b

This is wrong, if units are smaller and still cheap, you will still deploy the same 100 or 200k or even 1M weapons to deffend. So number of units will be too big to even load your war window. If you make units 10 times larger it would make you create x times less. The same with supply units, why i need to have hundreds for big army.

Wars will always be about "how many weapons i need to deploy" and not about if more or less units is needed. So make them much bigger to reduce the pain or significantly increse the cost of weapons to reducee ability to deploy many. Best do both

Mndz,

Referencing my last comment,
"Like I said, the GM just needs to keep reducing the size of military units, maybe add a limit to how many units can be stationed at any base, and adjust the ranges of weapons. You would see a massive increase in Navys or even allied troops being within friendly nations."

I thank you for proving my point with your comment about many units being created.
As I said, smaller units are beneficial, but the GM also needs to address how many units can be stationed at a base and the range of weapons.

The issue of "many units" you are speaking of is not an issue with the number of weapons, but an issue of how they are created.
If each unit had to be stationed at a base and bases only where allowed lets say 20 units. Then we know a country could only have 1,000 defensive wings at most. Having these limits would also allow other strategies to take hold.

If the base is

But then what stops you from buying more bases? I think the only natural limmitation is solders and officers, why not to train them like teachers or doctors, this way army size would be something you can work on, not just guess how much your population can be recruited.

I fully agree on part regarding reduction of ranges.

I really like these ideas. Limiting numbers of units per base and reducing ranges would make the war game less about numbers and more about strategy.

Regarding gm direction, it has always been - "oh no, players complaining, they leave after losing, somebody is too strong killing new, let's limit something in war mechanics" instead "we love to see fights, let's help people to rebuild faster and fight back"

Those who are here for many years know what I am about. Everobody remembers fights and epic wars and unfortunately limitations that always followed them, so unless admin changes opinion no arguments are good enough.

Some strange fact but game was most active and full of people when fighting was daily, when many complained. ....when you think for a moment it is not strange at all;)

I agree seems like offensive weapons have little no value

I agree, I think offense should be given a buff. They have little to no value

I agree with Mndz.

The game was much more active when federations had a purpose.

We have discussed max numbers of units per base.
It was not done until now and I will make sure it happens.
It requires some more work.

The number per base times the number of bases is then the max number of units.
If you have more units, they will be dismantled and all materials will return to the country stock.

It will be done separately for defensive land units, defensive air wings, same for the offensive forces, the strategic forces and the navy.

Ranges were discussed before and we have made many reductions and more should happen.
we agree that shorter ranges can improve the war game.
I will move this forward ASAP.

same with more powerful land forces.
we have made them more effective already. we cannot make sudden major changes but more smaller ones will follow.

For now, offensive units will not become smaller.
defensive air units will become smaller by about 5% in the next upda

Andy,

Thank you for the update. That all sounds great!
As stated I think you guys are moving in the right direction, keep up the good work.

Hi Andy,


I understand if you want to make defensive easier to build up
I understand if you want to make defensive cheap and too affordable to handle user complains about losing a country on which they invested a lot of time, etc
I understand if you want to make offensive army, more costly
I understand if you want to make offensive army, to be 3/4/5/6 times bigger than defensive army
I understand if you want to have hundreds of offensive military units for micromanagement (actually I don't, but I accept it)


What I don't understand, is the current cost of war for an offensive army.
I don't want to list all the bullets again, please read the starting thread post with details.
But basically, it is not just having to spend more dozens of Trillions game cash to build an offensive army to outnumber enemy defenses. It is also means buying it ammo, for which we need more dozens of trillions. B

+1 to this, maintenance cost is too high

Real countries have 5% from GDP at max, like Poland which is considered as a very high spender, Germany 0,8%, but in sc even default countries have over 50%. That makes ppl to refuse having armies at all.

War index is main contributor to game levels, but the cost of achieving it is absolute no go.

Seems that if these request were honored there would be zero possibility for a player to develop any country that would be able to withstand an attack by a long time player who is a highly skilled in both war and economics Having the ability to pump tens of trillions into a war not blinking an eye Sometimes the only thing players can do is go defensive and hope they will decide its not worth the cost.
I would like to see changes in the game

1) Def weapons range is way to long.
2) Def should have a ground launched cruise missile capable of only intercepting nuclear, land / sea cruise or conventional missile. (not nuclear def only)
3) Offensive fighters / Precision Bombers should be able to travel longer distance. Perhaps develop offensive aerial refueling unit.
4) Offensive land unit and air units should be able to counter attack def air force / land units on initial attack.
5) Navies a lot of at

Simple solution.

In the past the only way to protect more than a single country was to be in a Federation or buy war protection past your first 90 days I believe.

Let the small guys attack each other on all worlds.

Main country is automatically protected, and they will figure out federations for mutual defense for the rest.

I wouldn't mind watching some PVP conflict and the big fish wouldn't have to be involved.

I agree with most of these comments.
There are several I will look into in more details in the coming day or two.

The next upgrade will include:

1. Shorter ranges for nearly all weapons. 10-20% for now.
2. Land forces will become more effective/powerful.
3. Defence wings will again become smaller by about 5 additional percentage points.
4. Ammunition cost, both defensive and offensive, will decline further. This change will also reduce the maintenance cost of the army.

The reductions in the cost of ammunition has the potential to reduce the profitability of the corporations that produce the ammunition. To avoid such decline in the profitability, these corporations undergo multiple small changes that compensate for the decline in revenue.
some produce more and some consume less. it requires more work and done in smaller steps.

We never make large changes. we prefer to make smaller changes, test to see

@MNDZ

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

+1 to this, maintenance cost is too high<!-/Quote-!>

@Andy

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

To avoid such decline in the profitability, these corporations undergo multiple small changes that compensate for the decline in revenue.
some produce more and some consume less. it requires more work and done in smaller steps.<!-/Quote-!>

It seems to me that the simplest solution would be to make quality matter for products that the country uses. The quality of CONSTRUCTION is already taken into account with country spending.
Why can't the formula for construction cost be copied to all other country use products. This would reduce all military cost by 2/3 +-.

I am not sure what you mean by the formula for construction.

Maintenance cost will decline with the decline of the cost of ammunition.

On the country spending page, with products that are used by the population, the quality of the product affects the monthly usage. If you purchase items at 3X quality you use 1/3 the amount. The monthly cost does not change.

With products that are used by the government if you purchase at 3X quality you use the same amount by pay 3X more each month. The only exception I found is with construction.

Yesterday two of my countries spent 360M$ each for military supplies at 145Q. I replaced one country's stock with 276Q. Today one country is spending 360M and the other 700M$.

I can only assume this would be the same for ammo. If players are buying 330Q ammo for war, then by taking quality into account monthly usage and cost would be about a third of what it is.

I assume it does not take the quality into account when using ammo for training.
the ammo quality is relevant when you use it at war.
it causes more damage.

it was never the intention to compensate for the higher cost of ammunition you purchase.

You pay more and you get value for your money.