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




Friday, June 6, 2014 - 03:37 pm Click here to edit this post
I think we should add a second ATU type unit:
a small overhaul in this area is suggested. ATUs are slow and that is ok, but I think a more expensive and faster transport group should be added. maybe a professional ATU or just a HIGH SPEED ATU. even just an increase in amount a ATU can move at once would be an improvement. A military transport jet vs just airplanes?
up the limit to 75-100 military planes per unit?
of course i count shuttles as a atu type, but its limitations excludes this in thread.
If a corp was made for an upgraded military airplane, i think it should use military planes as part of the build supply requirements. That way it will not effect the previous corp's production of military planes. of course with the basics in lesser amounts of what the military plane corps use to build a plane.

Just while stating this many other products in the military could be used to build an upgraded version and up the air/land army make ups. an example would be fighter planes to fighter jets, NFP to NFJets, Midrange to extended range, or even off aa batts to advanced off aa batts.
all would use the base product and basically give it a 25-50% increase in range or hit % / kill %. Then upgrades can apply just with the use of the new numbers.
Now I think this should not be limited to off weapons of course, since defense weapons would also need this type of situation to counter as well.

In addition the advanced weapons group could also add some additional attack the previous unit could not or add a dual capability to the unit. Like a fighter jet could attack an extra target not listed for FP, or maybe now it can hold bombs and missiles for example. allowing it to bomb and/or use missiles in attack.

For defense this would make sense to allow a DEF AA to also add a limited missile defense against and aircraft missiles and DEF MISS to also add a limited amount of missile defense against land weapons. so it would act like a MIB in a limit way as well, MIB could add the ability to destroy weapons in a limited way if you have advances MI/AA/DM batts.

An example for tanks, could be a limited missile usage, like 1 or 2 MR or SR (short range missles) could be used.

Either way I see it as a way to allow the game to have a step up in the use of weapons from production/market stand point and from a war aspect it could add some extra dynamics to the war game and advanced war levels in the future of the game.

This would need a more relaxed war level gap since it does not encourage people to go up the WL since they cannot offensively defend the federation even with the new 4 level limitation change from 3. It would actually make it easier i think, once you hit a advanced WL, with the above added, then you have a limit, but WL 4 - 10 should have no limits, if advanced WLs starts at WL11, then now a 4 WL limit is placed once you hit WL11 or those advanced WLs.

OF COURSE the advanced WLs would use advanced weapons with different upgrades for them, so the GM can then add more WLs to the game while preserving the methodology of how the increases in difficulty are.

I will add this to the game vote feature as well.


Friday, June 6, 2014 - 11:55 pm Click here to edit this post
I don't agree with a few ideas here's why

Increasing air trans would increase resupply and in PvP its hard enough to clear a good defense, increasing there revival and resupply would make it EXTREMELY hard to take a nation if they have fed air and adding mobile it would near impossible. This would also make C3 harder.

Giving war levels weapons edge is a REALLY bad idea.
If i at 10 can attack a Lvl 6 and i have weapons he doesn't that gives me a HUGE edge and group of players could easily suppress a group of players.

As a Vet i can say your hearts in the right place but the concepts need some work


Saturday, June 7, 2014 - 07:07 am Click here to edit this post
I understand RCP, but AT I am speaking of is about moving units only. if I have a depot setup i can ship all the mobiles I want with shuttles, so its a way fast process. The intent it too add speed to the ATU to allow for it to get to target better and fast with SF and units both OFF and DEF. would that not help you AD units in a PVP faster and hopefully beat the resupply if you needed more units? but like I said depot and shuttle does the deed for the def and its harder for the aggressor but only allows mobile movements anyways.
I would be happy with the GM allowing ATUs to transport fast in c3s and leave it as is for pvp honestly, but still shuttles for the DEF or OFF if you get one setup up allows your mobiles to move in a snap, so it is kinda mute point on both our parts. But as I do see your possibly speaking on terms of resupplying by air, this is not what I speak of, only a faster drop function. resupplies were not being considered in that suggestion and I would agree that a new faster unit would only be used for moving the unit by AT and AD moves.

As far as the WL weapons goes, I am sorry if you thought the intent was to make an edge, but anyone can have them, so a WL6 against a WL10 could go bad for a WL10 player with a wl6 that has better weapons.
Which is true today with the upgrade function.
Let me explain, its about making the C3 wars harder for the higher levels that the GM is planning to establish. So its not meaning only this war level person can have the weapons, anyone can. its simply saying create a new group of weapons for everyone. that is a basic weapon used and upgraded by a corp. Of course as new rule states at 10 can attack a 6 soon with the 4 level increase. of course I could have more weapons now or you could if we were in a battle. I mean i could have 10 fleets and 100 AF mobiles sitting ready vs another who only has 3 fleets and 20 off attack units of their choice. I think if a group of players wanted to go suppress another group of players, it is possible just the way it is. It can happen now even without anything new above.

And I admit, I want new c3 WLs that are harder than what I see now. The reward should fit of course we both should be able to agree on that one. lol but I am really not speaking of changing the current WLs listed, but only new higher levels established possibly in the future of the game for c3s.

Its a rough Idea anyways, but Above with the WLs I only speak C3s War Levels, so when you get to the top level its a little harder than the previous. its more an expansion idea in future WL. The C3 after being taken should not give the player an edge. honestly it would separate the advanced players from the players who are still learning. if you can't attack too low in the war levels by placing a limit on wars that they can do. so the edge is not their. I agree its a little flawed with the possibility of separating people by mean of the adv war levels, but some just like to c3 war and why not make it go past the current and give it some harder to beat options. and of course more than 4 levels difference and WL0-2 are exempt anyways.

Mainly its a joint purpose for the adv weapons idea, it makes more corps, supply demands and give all player an ability to own something more expensive and slightly better than what is now available. the Adv Weapons idea it really covered under the upgrades you can buy and apply to weapons and ammo. making the 450 FL and 600 FL units, but the extra production and unit types is not covered. Its kinda like tier 1 and 2 level weapons, plus you can upgrade both. Kinda refresh the game some you know what I mean?

Also, I sent this in for comments and I hope others say their opinions cause its appreciated to have a good discussion and build a final product if enough agree and want to add or make change of something.
I hope to hear from you again RCP. I do agree with what you said about the huge edge and would not want to see that happen either, but its not the intent I had in mind though.

Add a Message