Aries War Suggestions

I am just going to consolidate some of my suggestions here with some new ones and start a discussion on these.


1. Allow players to drop (permanently) their own war level protection from other players.


2. At higher war levels, allow players to select the war level of the C3 from level 4 up to one higher than their current war level when they declare war.


3. Any player that declares war on another player forfeits gold coin-purchased temporary war protection for their empire on that world for the duration of that war.


4. Air defense should be changed so that , in the absence of available federation air assistance, additional wings in the attacked country should respond up to the total of three wings.

1) I cant see the GM's touching the war levels tbh. Would be nice but its unlikely.

2) I really like this idea. Sometimes you just need to take a c3 fast and simple. Once you get higher up the war levels they become a nightmare to take. This is another reason why high wl's aren't very attractive. They could implement it easily aswell.

3)Not so sure on this 1. There are pros and cons.

4)Not a fan of this idea Aries. Yes it's good for the defender but not so good for the attacker.

1. probably no problem but who is going to use it?
Everyone could attack you but you cannot attack anyone you could not attack before. where is the advantage?

2. Is it not how it works now?

3. Who is going to declare war if the entire empire can be attacked? If we want to encourage player vs player wars, we need to make sure they can do this without risking the entire empire.

4. This will eliminate the need to join a federation. As it is now, the membership of a federation brings some advantages.

We think that land units should participate more and contribute to the defense even if not directly attacked.

As it is now, you can invade a country and just move in despite being within the firing range of army units stationed these.

2)It's not andy. If I was war level 10 and wanted to take a c3 I'd have to fight at wl 10 or 11. There's no choice to fight lower than 10.

That's what I think Aries is suggesting. Like I said sometimes you just want to take a c3 without fighting through 20 stealth bombers 70 int wings every time.

Say I choose to fight at wl 3 you get the reward of a wl3 c3 but your actual higher wl stays the same. Would be a good feature I think.

1. I discussed this idea originally here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/23284.html?1403698984

They key part is "The only wars that can happen outside of the normal three (now four) war level limits are ones in which both empires have chosen to remove their war level protections."

Implement this and I will choose to drop my (war level) protection day one. We want more real wars. This will help.

2. It does not work like this now. As Jock mentioned, at higher war level, it is a terrible price over lower war levels to take countries for the sake of taking them.

3. If I attack someone, I already get my main protected from war unless I choose the war world, in which case, duh, I am on the war world. Why should I get to choose which of my countries are suddenly protected from a conflict that I started using go

Agreed.

Sometimes i want to take a nation but it sucks having to war at war level 11 OVER AND OVER!!!

Plus im the person who likes to test my weapons. Its not really effective if i attack once to test something and have a full blown retaliation.

Maybe the GM can allow us to war at any level we have completed but there's some kind of plenty involved.
If i could war at war level 1 over and over to test out weapons and tactics, but i dont gain any money, im ok with that.

It would REALLY be helpful because then i could test mult levels to provide better info to players. The tactics i use at the higher war levels are overkill compared to the lower levels, allowing me to war then walk-though a new player would be a HUGE advantage

I really support #1,2 and 3. Especially #2 is a must in my book. About #4 I have to say I'm opposed. It's true that there is currently a way around it, as Aries described, but the fact remains that most Feds are built around the air defence theme and that most players don't have the time, resources or knowledge to do what Aries proposes as a bypass of Fed support. Plus, not everyone can equip their country with 200+ wings to do the 3-wing response on their own. Most people set up 50-60 wings and then rely on the 50-60 wings of their Fedmates and neigbours...

Plus, it will indeed complicate C3 wars.

It seems that you want to fight fake wars.
On the other hand, you keep saying that the reward is too low.

Willing to fight C3s for the money cannot coexist with the statement that the money is insufficient.

If the fighting of C3s is not for the money, please explain.

Positioning is important in wars against players. Taking a neighboring country to an enemy has value. There should not be an imbalance between player combatants in doing so.

In time, we will continue steps that will make it more profitable to reach higher war levels and win player vs player wars.

On the other hand, fake wars should not be profitable.
The reason for these wars is to show your capabilities and move up the war levels.

We will add gold coins and privileges that are connected to higher game levels and war levels.

The amount won in fake wars will keep declining.
Profitability of countries will keep increasing.

This is a very good reason but does not require any financial benefit when winning such a war.

It is a strategic decision and not a fake war.

I will look into implementing it.

To your other points about minimizing rewards for fake wars and rewarding higher war levels, I have been advocating that for some time already. I took the lead on an unpopular position with regard to raiding/fake war income.

From March 1st, 2013

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/21792.html?1363212181

On curbing C3 cash awards:

"1. Remove cash awards for winning wars against C3s after the first six wars that are not wars to increase war level. "

"Defeating no challenge C3s is not the direction the game is going. "

On rewarding high war level:

"2. Add a bonus to welfare index or birth rate (their choice) for countries out of war protection with a bonus modified by war level. Maybe other ideas for bonuses can be considered."

I was throwing some ideas about these issu

We will look into these suggestions.
Thanks.

Which suggestions are you looking into andy? Can we discuss if possible?

Curbing c3 cash isn't 1 of them I hope? It's ok for players like aries who has all the cash he'll ever need. Not so good for players trying to grow. Especailly players who wanna play the war game. Maintaining a country setup for war is hugely expensive. C3 raiding cash is very necessary. Pls don't take that away.

Jock
Your missing what we are suggesting

What im suggesting to the GM is as follows.

I'm war level 12, For me to take a nation costs me TRILLIONS. If i need to show a new player how to war or take one for PvP war its crazy because i will spend MUCH MUCH more then i should have. At that point income becomes worthless.

What we want is be able to war at any war level
If im war level 11, i should be able to war at war level 1. New player wants to learn, its easier for me to war at his level and teach then him trying to watch me at 12.

Yes Super I get that. See above, I'm all for that idea.

But aries last post he's suggesting curbing c3 raiding cash altogether. Andy says he looking into it without saying which ideas he's looking at. I just wanted to offer a different opinion.

This game is going to get sooo boring if you continue to remove c3 raiding cash and only a few will be able to afford the build up of off forces to really oppose anyone. the pvp wars you desire will be only postponed even further, were talking years from now. If you want more pvp make game cash more available through c3 wars and more profitable countries. players then can build massive empires and become very juicy targets the more fat juicy targets the more war will occur in my opinion. also since the worlds seem to be 85% empty anyways let us have as many countries we would like to take without penalty then at some point as players dominate regions space will become an issue.

I agree with Jackseptic. If all of the money is taken out of C3 countries how could new players build up a C3 country once they take it if there is no money to build schools,hospitals,corporations,ect.

Sorry I meant etc <

If you want players to fight more they should be able to expand more to cause more pvp over territories. Players should be able to keep as many countries as they want to make the game interesting. As i've noticed not as many people war as much anymore so player war would be more common if there were territorial issues in some regions.

More countries is not the solution to pvp wars. The suggestions on this thread make war more possible (the war levels change), more fair (equal C3 positioning and pvp risk), and more predictable (the change in air defense).

Beyond this you are right to look for additional motives to pvp war in the first place but I don't see how running more countries accomplishes this. Significant penalties do not begin to kick in until 10 or more countries. Have you tried running 9 countries? Multiple worlds? Running a CEO? Despite any penalties, there are players that still choose to run 18 or more countries. In addition, few people would support the need to manage a massive number of countries to be competitive or a situation where there is no room to maneuver or expand on the map.

However, again, I will admit the game needs more motive to pvp. Perhaps a very small number of countries on the map that offer a benefit to the

Resources spread all over the world. Some more profitable than others. IE Oil or Gas. Where players can create monopolies on that resource making them very wealthy. Gaurenteed to create more PVP wars. People will always want a piece of that wealth and will fight to get it. It's been suggested for years though so im not holding my breath.