War levels suggestion (Little Upsilon)

This game should improve the war level situation for those new presidents who want to attack other new presidents in the game. Like for example

Presidents at war level 0 should be able to attack other presidents who are also at war level 0.

The same goes for those who are at war level 2 should also be able to attack other presidents at war level 2.

Also if a president is at war level 0 for example and wants to attack a president of a higher war level, say at war level 3, that should be allowed by the game as war level 0 president should know of the risks and consequences of declaring war on a player of a higher war level.

I was just wondering if you would please consider this gamemaster and leave a comment below as it would be appreciated. Thanks

That was more or less the original suggestion.

I think its open to abuse though because an account could stay war level 0 for ages and build a mighty war machine with impunity, then all of a sudden declare war on a WL7 player.

Then the war level 7 player should have been prepared for it if he thinks hes going to be attacked by a war level 0 player.

Maybe better still it could be a good idea if the war levels were based on the size and strength of your overall military your country or empire is. Say for example

Overall defence index is at 10.0 or over you would be at war level 1

Or overall defence index at 20.0 or over you would be at war level 2

Or overall defence index at 30.0 or over you would be at war level 3

could that be a good idea if it worked that way crafty? or would that expose how strong a player is and the chances of him being attacked?

Or maybe

People who have 1 to 3 countries would be at war level 1 and be able to attack each other at that level or those of a higher war level.

Same with those who have 4 to 6 countries would be at war level 2 and would also be able to attack each other at that level or those of a higher war level.

Same with those who have 7 to 10 countries would be at war level 3 and would also be able to attack each at that level or those of a higher war level.

I could go on with these war levels, would it be the best way forward to measure the war levels on this game?

Could this well satisfy both the war players and also the peaceful economic players here?

Or would this lead to yet another crisis over this heated debate?

Or maybe

The war levels can depend on how long the players have been playing for? like

If they've played for over 30 days (1month) they'll be up to war level 1.

If they've played for over 60 days (2months) they'll be up to war level 2.

If they've played for over 90 days (3months) they'll be up to war level 3.

Then from there its up to the other players to up to the other war levels that are available on this game. At least this way they have had time to build up their forces and be forced to play the war game just like this game is meant to be played.

"Introducing war levels that offer full protection to new players and ones who are only interested in a peaceful game has worked well and protects new players and peaceful players from unwanted wars." Andy

The gamemaster has spoken.

Does'nt mean we have to agree with him, and besides i've got other plans now as I think he should trial out 'No war levels' on fearless blue for a couple of weeks and see how it goes as i'm thinking about moving there soon.

If people want war levels in place on other worlds which obviously benefits people like you, thats fine, but if andy removed the war levels altogether on Fearless blue, which is meant to be a war world anyway, me and many other players who do not want war levels at all would be satisfied with that as we would all probularly be moving there instead. Then from there we will never probularly be having to talk about the war levels again on this game.

I think that no player should be forced to move to WL 1. If they want to be an econ player, stay at WL0.

If you do not attack a C3 country you remain in the lowest war level.
nobody forces you to fight a war.

if you are peaceful, don't start a war.

We did not have war levels on any of the worlds before and it resulted in new players being chased away but experienced players.

FB now, has no war limitations at all except for protection of new comers in war levels <3.
war levels also pay you war level awards.

removing these will change only one thing on FB:

you will be able again to attack beginners.

so is this what is missing on FB?
killing beginners?

(Andys quote)
if you are peaceful, don't start a war

Yeah but if you're on Fearless blue you can't afford to be peaceful on that world, you should be ready for it and then start to find a good federation who will protect you.

So if its supposed to be a war world, whats the point of it? I might as well stay where I am and not bother with it.

I thought of another suggestion though, maybe every player should be limited on the amount of weapons they should have on this game, or maybe we should have....

A maximum limit on the defence index or offensive index. Especially the strategic index as all these 'experienced' players ever use is nuclear weapons, if these limits were implemented, it would also reduce the 'experienced' players defences in their countries a hell of a lot as some of them (for example) have got like 100,000 interceptors protecting just 1 country which I think i

War level!!!!??? In real life there no such

thing as war levels or war ranks. Only skills sure u have nukes but do u feel

Lucky punk

Make it more detail Andy old boy

On FB, you could remain secure by buying war protection. I find it kind of one sided that anyone at WL3 or above needs to spend a large (and increasing) budget on sustaining a military whereas an econ player has no financial burden at all.

I dont condone the chasing off of new players at all, lord knows the more the better, but FB is a different case to the other worlds. SCs own game description describes it as such (the war world, insecure, etc) and there needs to be somewhere where new players have to learn to be 'diplomatic', not sitting pretty in security while throwing taunts at members playing the full game.
This is my issue with all this, econ players and newbs being secure to aggrevate others with no option for recourse available to the aggrevated. Therefore there is less respect, less reason to make friends, less reason to keep up with world politics etc. etc.

And, in my opinion and limited experi

In fact, forget that, I dont know why I continue to be involved in this merry-go-round of a discussion.

You're right Crafty, new players should start to learn to be much more diplomatic on here and should start to consider finding and joining federations just to survive, after all thats what half of this game is about. Well i've already tried to explain this to the gamemasters such as Andy. Need I say no more?

so is this what is missing on FB?
killing beginners?

No one WANTS to chase them off. Point is and you see it alot. Econ players who hide and can ever be attacked throwing insults or being rude knowing you cant touch them. Even boycotts are worthless unless they are over a certian "level" or they're econ is mostly CEO.(BTW CEO should be effected in a boycott).

The point people are TRYING to make is that news WANT TO LEARN and they want to fight even if it means 2 noobs crashing LRD's into each other. No damage will be done other then them calling the war off and building up to take each other out. Remember theres a thing called the Security counsial if you made it so they could boycott (Weapons/Ammo) to nations/empires/feds you might see them used MORE!!!

And Most vets on SC stand up for the new guy. Its unspoken, Vets will teach anyone who asks. I myself and people with more experiance then m

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Well i've already tried to explain this to the gamemasters such as Andy. Need I say no more? <!-/Quote-!>

Wow James. How could you, a lowly n00b explain anything to the gamemaster?

I don't get it, you act like you're new, but on the other hand you are so witty that you try explaining things to a GM. Most new players are %100 for game levels and the protections they bring a new player. Even if they think it would help the war game to lax them a bit, no other n00b is jumping up and down about removing them like you are. Are you sure this is your first ride merry-go-round?

It's so easy to get to war level 3. Many veterans have stated it already. Why the dialogue on lowering player war levels on any world?

Wolf Wolf,

Maestro

to hell with war levels and secured mode i aint scared of you punks

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

Dude you dug up 5old threads some pre-2010.
At the rate your progressing you going to burn though your welcome quick

Oh Yeah wouldn't want to be shunned by a spaz like you that would be disheartening

Just one more other suggestion on war levels. Maybe the war levels should be measured by the overall population and military strength of the player, maybe this would make the game more fairer.