Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game

What do you think? (War) (Little Upsilon)

Topics: Suggestions: What do you think? (War) (Little Upsilon)

Scarlet (Little Upsilon)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - 10:42 am Click here to edit this post
1) No WP boosters.
2) Conquest transfers 1/X (where X is number of countries and enterprises on account) of gold coins and game cash in direct trade from conquered player to conquering player.


War levels continue to exist. Discuss what you imagine the net effect of these changes would be.

SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - 08:47 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree with you scarlet.

On FB i personally believe it should remain a war world.
War level 1-7 is PvP and FB should not be allowed to have WP fast the normal vacation protection.

So that we don't beat up on noob's as the game master says there should be requirements

To join FB you must have atleast 1 war level 3 nation on another world.

Inanna (White Giant)

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 04:39 am Click here to edit this post
I don't agree with anything.

This type of suggestion as well as many others are always self serving, disenfranchise players who have already set themselves up on a world.

I personally have watched as players got carried away with suggestions thinking they have the utopian idea and are suddenly talented game developers. But all I have seen come as a result is grief. The GM and the game is still suffering from these "would be", "Great Ideas" that "Most Players and VETS", "agree on". That would "stop raiding" and "Protect n00bs" blah, bleh, ugh,

/vomit on all of yous....

The suggestion is too open to manipulation and extortion. Sound great on paper as it suits your narrow self-centered desires and views. Taking into account only what you want and disregarding the choices that people have of playing under war level 0 or buying war protection. Those choices are up to those players in the same manner that you "so-called", "war players" choose not to engage in wars with each other and entertain yourselves. Entertainment at the expense of others sovereignty and rights to chose how to play this game is a blasphemous mockery of this game.

Every planet is a war planet. There are people who claim to love playing the war game. There are players who in essence could war infinitely amongst each other and potentially draw the interest of incoming players. Nice way to reward yourself for pillaging.

Haven't pathetic suggestion like this and others from these all-seeing wanna be-developers to the GMs chased enough people away from all aspects of this game.

On one light you all are bitching up and down the entire general forums about too many changes and this and that, but here you are again proposing and cheering on ushering yet more cancerous changes that will inevitably not make even you happy.

After this is implemented, what else should we change. And after that?

You see w3c you gave them the inch, they wanted the foot. You gave them the foot, and now they want the yard. After this, they'll demand the quarter mile.

I hope the GM /vomits all over you all.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 08:34 pm Click here to edit this post
Haha, the purpose of my suggestions are not to protect noobs or to stop raiding.

The purpose of the second suggestion specifically is to (1) promote raiding, (2) provide incentive for reinvestment into enterprises and empires rather than collect stores of untouchable assets.

Of course, my thinking is centered around the fact that this is essentially an asset-building game and the only way to provide incentives for activity and interaction is to have your assets on the line and other players assets on the line at all times.

Anyway, my suggestion specifically stated "War levels continue to exist," meaning that my suggestion is predicated on keeping war levels in place so that the newer players aren't attacked by the resident warlord until they've had some time to learn, built some assets, and found some allies. This is the only reason I would argue to keep war levels.

In either case, you misunderstand the intent of my suggestion. My aim is not to stop raiding, it is to promote raiding (which in turn would force game activity, game knowledge, and federation membership to just survive). My aim is not to protect noobs, it is to force them to learn the game. Effectively, the larger purpose is to force both cooperation and conflict in order to be successful.

Please explain where the manipulation and extortion would come about... that isn't already possible under the current situation. The option to only play the casual game remains as War Levels continue to function normally.

The current state of the wargame makes it so in the best strategy nothing of value can be touched due to war protection and direct trade accounts. As I mentioned in another thread, if both players know the wargame, neither player can win. This is what I meant by that. The only way to win is to deny the assets of hostile players so they cannot deny your assets... and to increase your assets and help allied players increase theirs so you can more easily accomplish asset denying hostile players. That is just the way the essential wargame is ignoring any arbitrary rules attached. That is why war protection is so effective. That is why asset raiding will always occur. That is why veteran players don't fight veteran players... there is no possibility of winning.

Look, you can defend the multiple means of protecting assets... but you cannot make me agree with you especially not by posting invalid slippery slope and ad hominem arguments.

Wendy, you know as well as I do that the wargame is about assets (I mean you're a WP-using, C3-warring asset-raider... no judgment because that's currently the most effective strategy: risk nothing, conquer something). The only "problem" with the wargame is being able to conquer assets without risking assets. New players will become skilled as the game requires them to. The only "solution" to the wargame is to get rid of either the ability to conquer assets or the ability to protect assets w/o defending them.



Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 09:20 pm Click here to edit this post


That is why veteran players don't fight veteran players... there is no possibility of winning.

And this is the reason you should be allowed to extort assets from players of a lesser caliber.

SO absent the possibility of winning, it satisfies you enough that you can steal other people's hard work.

The inability to WIN is absurd. You are speaking from your own experiences and your inability to properly mount a WIN versus a legitimate war player, unless involved in some form or fashion of gang-style warfare.

The over extension of gang-style warfare and asset rich veterans bashing n00bs is what led to the perfection of c3 warfare. Why risk anything if you can't get a fair fight anyway? What are you really risking if I vs you in a 1 on 1 battle but receive declares from other players, or your other friends can declare war on your countries even to prevent a takeover.

You stroke your own ego to think that one risks nothing with c3 warfare for lack of skill or competence or lack of ammunition and weaponry to defeat you. It is more likely and logical that one is aware of the plots and ploys you people use to bait someone into a war that will never be fair by anyone's standard.

Only what you want, and what you want to do in your narrow view is justified and any responses to such treachery is immoral or unfair in your eyes. Narcissism is a disease. This is why you don't care, you openly state your foolish motivations and wear your incompetence as the main reason it should be possible for you to swindle your way into some easy assets instead of building your own.

You've never held an account for more than 6 months. You always start over. You build war slaves off of inactive raids and Level awards. So if you are going to start over, what have you really placed at risk? Nothing. Your argument is null and void.

When you are about to get your hind-parts served, you sell your assets to your friends, start over, rinse repeat. You are placing short term game awarded assets on the line vs. someones long time assets, built over time, through hard work and dedication. Not homegrown c3s into 50 million pop countries. You are playing on air while other people have time in. That is not risk, that is calculated. Nothing less than a well planned heist of a bank. Sometimes you get away with it. Then one time you pick the wrong bank and yopu get your brains blown out or you are hauled to jail if you are lucky.

Only in this game do you have the luxury of coming back an trying again. Except, the bank actually gives you the get away car, the arms, and the masks to try again.

Now that a defensive tactic that can be applied to even the best of groups of players as a deterrence to bullying and hyper-active playing and for sure against against such a mediocre duelist as yourself, you wish for there to be an alternative to the embarrassment you would receive should you attempt to achieve a victory over any player of competent standing.

Since you self admittedly have no chance of winning, you want to be able to band together against opponents or impose your own selfish desires on players to avoid having any economic competence. Instead of playing the game successfully, you want to be able to take someone else' success, right out of their direct account even. WOW.

If you provoke confrontation you you cannot then go and cry because your enemy has developed an effective defense to your petty provocations and what you call 'moral' tactics to extort someone out of their hard work.

Oh wait and to top it all off, the solution to Scarlet's inability to steal or otherwise produce an asset through economics, is to rid all other players of the possibility to conquer assets or force them into a situation where he and his band of incompetent n00bs can gang up on a player like AK-47 and have him cry about it until he gets banned.


Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 12:08 am Click here to edit this post
Troll moar.


Sunday, April 8, 2012 - 07:51 pm Click here to edit this post
You Trollin' Foo!!!


Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 08:22 am Click here to edit this post
Please ignore these suggestions, I believe other actions may have helped come close enough to accomplish the intended goals of these suggestions.

Add a Message