War Leveling (Little Upsilon)

The fact that if you level up to a certain level and being stuck at that level forever is just not realistic. If you can choose to level up why can you not choose to level down. It is unfair to be stuck at a certain level. The perfect solution would be to eliminate the war levels all together, but if you feel the need for this at least make it fair by giving us an option to level down. Perhaps buying our way down.

Agreed

Well, "Game Level" does go up and down. Indexes go up and down. Military/soldiers can go up and down. And, "War Levels" can be different on different worlds for the same leader or "account".

War levels are supposed to reflect your experience at the war part of the game.

How could your experience possibly go down?

Well, then why are "accounts" allowed to be "War Level 7" or even "War Level 3+" on some worlds and "War Level 0" on others?

Personally I dont agree they should be CP. But I can see why the GM thinks they should be. If you start up on another world then it takes a long time to be war ready at higher levels, so to walk in at level 3 or above would be suicidal or way expensive to cover WP with a new country. The other abuse I could see is a war experienced player from one world buying a ready to fight country from someone on another world and diving straight in on others. So yes, under the current system different empires on different worlds do need to be seperate.

Of course, all of this is easily bypassed by the current trend of multi-playing and logging into/using others accounts.

moaning mode off

So the War Level should reflect the country or empire's war capability or the war experience of player?

Maybe it should be split. One index to reflect experience and one to reflect the country or empire war capabilities.

Why are you asking us Goth. Don't you have an opinion you are willing to share?

I dont like to play the experience card here, but for my time players have always had to adapt to things not suiting them. Thats the nature of the game, it still is, there are lots of issues along with war levels. Econ players probably see more problems than any war player, how about govt. salaries being set to 0 on FB by the game? contracts not making sense, hundreds of new corps appearing in one month, etc etc.

Try adapting, there's always a work around or a way of turning what appears to be bad into a good thing.

Well, first part was a question concerning your 2 posts to CP just before mine. You said the war index is supposed to reflect a player's experience at war, but then in response to CP's comment about accounts with different war levels, you talk of the war index as a reflection of the individual country's war readiness. (Assuming you meant the country's capacity to engage in war.) Two very different measures, I'm sure you'd agree. I was curious as to which? But thinking about it. It looks like itS a measure of a player's war experience PER world.

The second part was an uninformed suggestion that the war index should be split. One to designate the experience of the player, and the other to show the war capacity of the individual country, empire, or fed.

To clarify: I believe war levels are to reflect a players experience. I gave reasons as to why I believe they can/are different from world to world. In an ideal world (barring removing the levels altogether) the war levels would be assigned to a player regardless of world, IMO, but I cant see a way of implementing that without fixing many ways of multi-playing.

Regarding your suggestion, I cant see how that would help. You can judge (roughly) a country/empires 'war readiness' with a little clicking, radar planes and checking military assets. The level to designate experience is what we have already.

On a side note, most of the people bitching about war levels would literally s*^t themselves if they got in a real PvP war.

Well, it would help with all the "clicking".

But truth be told, few of these indexes tell you anything meaningful. You'd have to do the digging for info either way.

But as a quick general indicator of my neighbors' basic capacity to commit war against me or repel my attacks would be nice.

"Walking into a new world", already includes "War Protection: Secured Mode" which supposedly was added back in 2008 according to Laguna. That gives absolute, and indefinte, protection from any and all wars or realted military actions. One country can take as long as it wants to grow, prepare, profit, etc., up to 100M population (and even growing beyond) before it would ever need to consider adding any additional countries which -may- be able to be attacked (they would also include a limited time War Protections [Temporary], which could be extended directly with Gold Coins). Also, if some leader were already say "War Level capable" of fighting, then they would also have the ability to send unlimited amounts of cargo using space trade from the other world where they have a military Empire of some kind.

As far as 'multis' or 'account sharing', etc., that's really irrelevant, since i

My bad, my bad. Secure Mode was introduced in 2007. I've been around for so long I get all the dates mixed up.

"Number of countries in each world:

KB: 3,061
FB: 6,159
WG: 6,376
GR: 4,804
LU: 3,467

There is enough gravy in this turkey for everyone.

Want to be a war player? Get to war level 3

Want to be an econ player? Stay under the radar at war level 0,1 or 2.

Perhaps there should be more war levels under level 3. Give new players the time and training to graduate to war level 3.

All worlds should be a war world at level 3 or 4."

FYI

With a few exceptions,(C3 conquest of 4 countries)I have purchased all my countries.


Why target me? I'm all for every world being a war world for people at war level 3 or 4. Go find other players with your same interest. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.

A while back the gamemaster offered players the option to play war mode or peaceful mode.

My choice is peaceful. The war levels is just an extension of this.

CP, a lot of times I think the GM has to consider possible abuses of new 'rules' they put into effect, which is probably why they dont seem to work out well. Your first paragraph doesnt really make sense to me. Sure, there's secured mode for a new player. Also, as is, you go to a new world, you have to build up war levels before you can fight people, so transferring in military to surprise people is not an option. By that logic, surely you arguing for different levels on different worlds.

And I just about remember the raging discussions after secured mode was introduced. Pretty much the same as the raging discussion now going on about war levels.

What? Not "surely arguing" for anything of the sort.

What is so complicated about "in the current system", you can build a 100M+ population country, with as much military as you like, plus, you can 'ship in' as much military from another world as you like, all while staying BOTH at "War Level 0" and "War Protection: Secured Mode". And, no this has absolutely no restriction or conditionality to only apply to "new leaders". Some of the supposedly biggest "warmongers" have both "War Level 0" and "War Level 7" on different worlds.

The main point was simple. "War Level 0" is not needed, because there already exisits "War Protection: Secured Mode", which 100% no one can do anything militarily against indefinitely...and, yes, it's both "free" and available equally to both "new leaders" and "senior leaders" (and even "cr