| Thursday, July 30, 2015 - 11:08 pm |
Here is a list of what gamers want that we all wish we can have
Be able to fund terror groups and do black operation in countries using special forces- navy seals. Special forces are always used to paint countries when they should be able to cause problems in other countries with out starting wars kind of like sneak attacks are unless they get caught.
People want individual income tax, so we can higher taxes or lower it on citizens
We want a every day stock market ingame that is very active and is able to make it easier to buy and sell stock instead of waiting on certain days... Also make mutual funds that we can invest in targeting certain sectors like mining or vegetables.
We also want our navies to matter instead of being able to be destroyed by smaller units that in real life would not happen unless at a certain fighting level.
Gamers want more types of disasters instead of earth quakes, make it realistic......
We want cheaper military products so were not spending 3 Trillion dollars on a single war in a game month or 2 . THIS IS A HUGE ONE. The cost is to extreme and wonder why we dont have PVPS
Make defense cheaper and higher income.
We should also have the ability to have space wars so we can increase space activity. Have countries be able to make space station (not space markets) and then have countries able to fight in space using space craft)
Ammo usage - there should be small arms ammunition corps and products instead of getting unlimited.
small arm weapons should be added and there should be different types so that people can customize them for different units.
More types of navy such as ability to customize different naval units- strat units could have more aircraft carrier or destroyers - or more nuke subs.
Also make it easier to create budgets for different departments so that budgeting is easier for newer players and existing players.
Make new type of carriers like super carriers so that higher level players can make them instead of keeping it to one.
Also higher FEDERATION MEMBER LIMIT AND COMMON MARKET LIMITS.
The cost is the again another big one. Military is very expensive to wage war. The cost should be half of what it is now to INCREASE PVPS.I would wage war on someone if the cost were not this high and it would be easier to budget.
Slave states - those countries people should be able to attack besides black out periods. No more war level protection. it limits higher level people from attacking others. Besides people under war level 3. for maybe 8-9 months.
Make positions inside federations -general - home secretary - diplomat.
also make a federation tax inside federation so federations can create their own militaries.
Military contractor corporation - make enterprises create their own type of military security firms so that corporations can get into fights so that COUNTRIES can attack them.
c3 should be able to have and be unstable governments so that migrating goes up and than you can have border patrol or even coast guard. Also have them have less effective units so people expand more.
Let countries able to do airstrike with out declaring war like nations do all the time. Even on C3 countries
Also let countries fund one another - huge deal when u have a fed member who is out of cash... Make a player - player transaction
Every suggestion in this is pretty much what i have heard from others and even from what I wanted. We don't want environmental controls or anything until this is done. This is the platform that we want. Not demanding but this by far is the best list of suggestions PLEASE ADD AND COMMENT from what I have missed.
| Thursday, July 30, 2015 - 11:10 pm |
and stop with having to airlift airunits to other nations.... that is just some dumb stuff, have them able to fly there. Also air dropping shouldnt loose 75% of products if u choose that for your supply replinishing.... Unless the air transport fighting levels are below 150....
| Friday, July 31, 2015 - 06:26 am |
"Be able to fund terror groups and do black operation in countries using special forces- navy seals. Special forces are always used to paint countries when they should be able to cause problems in other countries with out starting wars kind of like sneak attacks are unless they get caught. "
"People want individual income tax, so we can higher taxes or lower it on citizens "
Need this developed more. Benefits to higher or lower taxation etc.
"We want a every day stock market ingame that is very active and is able to make it easier to buy and sell stock instead of waiting on certain days... Also make mutual funds that we can invest in targeting certain sectors like mining or vegetables."
This area of the game is already fairly developed and woefully underused by most.
"We also want our navies to matter instead of being able to be destroyed by smaller units that in real life would not happen unless at a certain fighting level. "
What does this mean? I will admit, submarines are very bad but the navy does add some very capable options to a military.
"Gamers want more types of disasters instead of earth quakes, make it realistic...... "
You first? There are a lot of things I would rather see in my stocking..
"We want cheaper military products so were not spending 3 Trillion dollars on a single war in a game month or 2 . THIS IS A HUGE ONE. The cost is to extreme and wonder why we dont have PVPS
The cost is the again another big one. Military is very expensive to wage war. The cost should be half of what it is now to INCREASE PVPS.I would wage war on someone if the cost were not this high and it would be easier to budget. "
If you are spending $3 Trillion against a c3 that is under roughly war level 10, you are doing it wrong. If you have $3 Trillion to spend to fight a player that has $10 Trillion to spend, you have less stuff whether those things are cheaper or not.
"Make defense cheaper and higher income. "
See last answer? The balance between offense and defense is quite good at the moment imo.
"We should also have the ability to have space wars so we can increase space activity. Have countries be able to make space station (not space markets) and then have countries able to fight in space using space craft)"
This would be a large addition but lacks detail. For example, what is at risk and what would there to be to gain from victories in space? Would powerful players simply shut out other from space? Further explanation of what is envisioned here is needed.
"Ammo usage - there should be small arms ammunition corps and products instead of getting unlimited.
small arm weapons should be added and there should be different types so that people can customize them for different units.
More types of navy such as ability to customize different naval units- strat units could have more aircraft carrier or destroyers - or more nuke subs.
Make new type of carriers like super carriers so that higher level players can make them instead of keeping it to one.
Most feedback tends to be that military either has the necessary options or that there is already a bit too much complexity. Convincing the community that an addition here would add to the game could be a challenge.
"Also make it easier to create budgets for different departments so that budgeting is easier for newer players and existing players. "
This sounds like a training tool. Essentially, any "budget" would simply be a limiting factor on what the player could spend on some area. Think of the existing spending caps. You would simply see existing caps that would hard stop player actions.
"Slave states - those countries people should be able to attack besides black out periods. No more war level protection. it limits higher level people from attacking others. Besides people under war level 3. for maybe 8-9 months."
You got my vote. I have made suggestions that would loosen war levels here and there but there is ,essentially, no way to tell how dangerous a player is simply by war level. One major reason, which is not going away, is that war levels are world specific. A player can be war level 11 on one world and war level 2 on another and is no less competent at war on the second world.
"Make positions inside federations -general - home secretary - diplomat.
also make a federation tax inside federation so federations can create their own militaries."
Federations can already play dress-up and house without having to code it into the game. No to fed tax/militaries.
"Military contractor corporation - make enterprises create their own type of military security firms so that corporations can get into fights so that COUNTRIES can attack them. "
"c3 should be able to have and be unstable governments so that migrating goes up and than you can have border patrol or even coast guard. Also have them have less effective units so people expand more. "
People expand plenty. I don't see fun added by playing with coast guard/border patrol guys.
"Let countries able to do airstrike with out declaring war like nations do all the time. Even on C3 countries "
"Also let countries fund one another - huge deal when u have a fed member who is out of cash... Make a player - player transaction"
"and stop with having to airlift airunits to other nations.... that is just some dumb stuff, have them able to fly there. Also air dropping shouldnt loose 75% of products if u choose that for your supply replinishing.... Unless the air transport fighting levels are below 150.... "
Not sure what you saying is wrong and what you would replace it with.
I think universal acceptance of these ideas is a big assumption. This is a large list. How about we narrow discussion to some of the ideas you think are the most important?
| Saturday, August 1, 2015 - 05:43 am |
no their is no discussion on the narrowing of it. This is the list that people want. This is a basic list. Not a blue print of every thing. I have been playing for a little over a year. And hearing what people want needs to be heard. No one wants to hear about environmental controls. And when I talk about budgets. Im talking about having the players be more in control of it. Let them customize it. The cost so they can understand and prepare for the next month. NEW players not like veterans dont know how to play the right way, also the cost is rather high. Even when buying products. Personally the cost needs to go down to a real life standard. Ammo shouldnt cost 1 million per round. (In some extreme cases not all) I want people to wage war. Lowering cost is a huge one. Airlifting air units. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY AIRLIFTING OF UNITS.... It should only be air units flying to the location. Airlifts should only involve ground units. Fed militaries make sense to many and should have a choice if they want to build one or not. Let the players and feds choose. Military contractors, again let the players choose for enterprise. THERE ARE 50 ENTERPRISES ON KEBIR BLUE and dropping. Lets try and get more instead of less. The old way is over, now its time to revolutionize the game. Airstrikes (not declaring war makes sense) Real life it happens all the time. LETS DO THAT, players want it. Special forces can stil paint but i want them to do more than paint. I want to cause chaos to other nations for when they mess up with out going into a huge all out war. I want to play a war vs ghost and shadows sometimes and create rebellions of some sort.
| Saturday, August 1, 2015 - 06:16 am |
Lets start with military costs. Can you explain why costs are the reasons people don't war? Personally, I think it has to do with incentives. You can earn gold coins for doing about anything else in the game except for warring another player.
When looking at costs as the factor, I can't get over that, at the end of the day, you will have a certain amount of resources available and so will your opponent. If you have $5 trillion to spend to prepare your forces and the other guy has $10 trillion, how will changing the unit costs of weapons or ammo change the balance of this situation?
| Saturday, August 1, 2015 - 11:12 pm |
Lowering military costs may not change the outcome, but it may entice more people to dabble in it.
| Saturday, August 1, 2015 - 11:41 pm |
I don't think it will. Who is it that is waiting for weapon/ammo prices to drop 10% to enter the war game? or is it 20%? I want this player to post. I want to know what they are doing to prepare for the war game. I want to know how what little changes in prices will make any difference.
On the other end, lower prices has the effect of increasing the numbers of weapons and amount of ammo into the game. This adds very real complexity to the war game. Some players are experienced with what it takes to manage and use large numbers of forces effectively and it wont be the players you think you are helping. Those are the players with hundreds of shuttles. We will be fine.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 12:42 am |
ToeCutter, low military prices contributes little if any value to the overall issues, that are preventing most players from being interested in war.
Just have to face it, not many "mentally ill" war players left in SimCountry.
Perhaps the GM likes the current crop of players better than the old girls/guys who departed.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 03:02 am |
Lowering military cost makes it easier for players to make mistakes and not get hurt financially by it. Also we need some type of budgeting tool that will make it easier for players to balance and able to accurately predict there income for the month and also for the year. I believe lower military cost would make more nations rogue because they would believe their military can take on larger players. An also would make more battles and more units to fight. We need to revive war in this game on all worlds. This is a step and I think many people are willing to take that chance on lowering the cost. It cant hurt to take a leap of faith on this. Guys lets try and agree that these suggestions. They are not bad ones. Most players agree with at least half of the things listed here. I dont agree with a couple but im willing to try it out.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 03:39 am |
Players need to be able to enjoy the war game with other players with limited risk and have the opportunity to earn rewards. This will also give them important experience to have the confidence to participate in conflicts involving large players. Have you taken a look at my battlegrounds suggestion found here:
War levels have also become restrictive to prevent larger conflicts that should be possible. Where battlegrounds will be a nice place to learn, Total War can be the battlefield that sees prepared feds war their foes. Take a look at by Total War suggestion here:
When sizing up their opponents and seeing how they stand in the game, Player Power Rankings can be a useful tool. Take a look at that suggestion here:
I share your goal to increase participation in the war game and making feds and allies relevant. I just don't think lowering costs will do it and providing incentives and a fun environment will.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 03:42 am |
As far as budgeting, there are more tools available than most players realize. I have considered writing a few beginner's guides that will assist players in being familiar with them, particularly on the finance page.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 05:10 am |
There are many incentive already with gold coins, we need to take a different course of action. or even apply both. Guys the olds way are done of trying to effect wars. Lets change it and try a new way. Your not going to stop a speeding train by shooting a bb gun at the front, your going to change the strategy and use c4 to blow the train for when it goes over it.
Try something new and lets get Andys response on this. An again you can say this wont work but players want it, for which that should be changing people minds. Aries i respect your ideas but they are not what most simgamers want. I want new people to come in this game and wage war. I want new people to stay longer. I want a game with more people and i know simcountry wants to make more money.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 05:31 am |
Drastic change is lowering prices? When did I enter the gates to Bizarro World? If I am in Bizarro World, will someone please point me back to the gate..
Lower prices has been done again and again. This is not a new and innovative strategy. As to gold coins, yes there are incentives that involve gold coins. To earn them players sell in space, compete for ranking, trade in direct trade, go up game levels, and so on. These things happen. There are no coins for warring another player.
I believe you are the one holding a bb gun. For sake of argument, rather than tell me that lower prices is the magic bullet, why don't you tell me exactly what you would lower prices on, how much you would lower them, how you personally would change your gameplay in such an environment, and how you believe this would improve the state of the war game in general?
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 12:37 pm |
If I had to guess, gamers want more gamers to play with. How you go about it is the hard bit.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 05:07 pm |
February 4, 2015
7. Reduced Cost of War [ top ]
The cost of several nuclear weapons is reduced again. The corporations production is increased and they become more stable. More such updates will be installed in the future.
January 26, 2015
16. Reduced cost of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Missiles [ top ]
There was a further reduction in the cost of nukes. The change is part of the general trend aiming at a further reduction of the cost of war.
January 19, 2015
19. Price Reductions [ top ]
Some large weapons, ammunition and some other large items in Simcountry have been update and reduced in price. The changes include nuclear weapons, the space shuttle and some parts of the shuttle.
This is another step in the long term general reduction of pricing and specifically the reduction of the cost of war.
More reductions, and at a higher frequency, will continue in the coming weeks.
December 2, 2014
23. More Weapons Price Reductions [ top ]
Some weapons and ammunition have updated to reduce their base price a bit. The changes are small in most cases except for very high priced items and nuclear weapons that have been reduced more than other weapons.
This is another step in the long term general reduction of pricing and specifically the reduction of the cost of war.
November 18, 2014
40. Lower cost for Some weapons and many types of ammunition [ top ]
A further decline in the base price of weapons and ammunition, including also many defensive weapons will make wars cheaper and allow for a low cost for the defense.
November 11, 2014
48. Reduced Pricing of Weapons and Ammunition [ top ]
More weapons and ammunition have been reduced in price. The process is continuing at a low pace to further reduce amounts in Simcountry and also reduce the cost of war.
November 5, 2014
55. War damage [ top ]
War damage numbers have decreased. The function works as before but the damage is smaller. This will further decrease the cost of wars.
56. Base price declines and Corporate profitability [ top ]
Some products, and some high cost weapons and nuclear missiles are now cheaper. This is a continuing trend. The profitability of corporations is keeping a steady increase.
October 22, 2014
58. Cost of Weapons and Ammunition [ top ]
The base price of many types of weapons and ammunition is reduced again. The reduction is around 5% but in some cases up to 10%. Some types have not changed at all. The change is a continuation of the reduction in the cost of war.
October 9, 2014
69. Lower Price for Products [ top ]
Some products have become cheaper again. We keep reducing the price of some types of ammunition and of some weapons. The cost of nuclear weapons is continuing to slide, but also the price of some space products, cargo shuttles, military bases etc. The production numbers of these products are slightly higher and the corporations producing them are much more profitable.
We intend to continue this process for some time to come.
September 9, 2014
79. Reduced Price for many types of Ammunition [ top ]
Some types of ammunition became a bit cheaper today. Especially, all types of defensive ammo and some types of offensive ammo are involved.
The move is part of a long term trend of reduction in pricing in Simcountry, following a downtrend in numbers in general and a reduction in the cost of war.
September 3, 2014
84. Corporation Changes [ top ]
Some corporations, mainly the ones producing large, high cost items, are now a little larger and they produce more. These corporations include many strategic weapon corporations but also air ports, production plants, space products and others.
In the process, the corporations became more stable and their potential profit capacity is increased. These changes will continue, and in the process will further reduce the price of some large items, including nuclear weapons, military bases, stealth fighters and more.
July 15, 2014
89. Reduced cost of Weapons and Ammunition [ top ]
The price of many types of weapons and ammunitions have been reduced by 5 to 10%. This is a continuing trend to reduce the cost of war and in line with the general reduced numbers in Simcountry.
This time, it is mainly the cost of defensive weapons and ammunition but also some offensive weapons.
February 11, 2014
154. Cost Reductions [ top ]
The cost of all products, and mainly the cost of weapons and ammunitions was reduced further today. Production numbers increased and profitability remains at a high level.
These cost reductions are a further step in the long term process that is aimed at reducing the number inflation in Simcountry and bringing it to more realistic numbers.
The increased production of some corporations may help to stabilize the market that suffers large shortages. The changes are too small to make a big difference. Short term, even small changes can affect the market that will then take several days to stabilize at a slightly different balance.
December 4, 2013
177. Reduced base price [ top ]
The base price of many products is slightly reduced. The change is in the range of 1% to 2% and many are not changed at all.
The base price of many types of ammunition is reduced by a larger percentage, sometimes up to 5%. At the same time, the production level of these types of ammunition is increased. These changes are a continuation of a general reduction is cost.
The larger change in the cost of ammunition is intended to reduce the very large shortages and at the same time, reduce the general cost of war. These changes have been announced and discussed many times in the past months.
September 24, 2013
206. The Cost of Ammunition [ top ]
The cost of many types of ammunition is declined and the monthly production is increased. This is discussed before and comes when many types of ammunition swing from a large oversupply that ran for a very long period, into severe shortage, mainly because large quantities of ammunition that were dumped on the market are all bought by many countries and because we currently have many more wars.
This was expected and it would be impossible to build so many ammo corporations to produce the larger numbers.
The production numbers were increased by 10% and the cost per piece of ammunition declined by about the same.
It is unlikely that shortages will now disappear and repeated action might be needed.
The increased production will not be such that the production of ammunition will become less profitable.
June 5, 2013
222. Game Features and Updates June 5
- The number of soldiers and officers needed for several types of weapons is decreased a bit to further reduce the cost of the defense.
May 22, 2013
223. Simcountry Upgrade May 22
The cost of weapons and ammunition but also the cost of many other products is reduced a bit. This will make building armies cheaper and reduce the cost of maintaining the army and waging war.
May 1, 2013
224. A new game update is now available
- More price declines, mainly for weapons and ammunition, make the war process cheaper.
January 22, 2013
280. Price Reductions [ top ]
The price of many products continues to decline very slowly. The decline in the price of weapons and ammunition is a bit faster.
The change is hard to notice if you look at the daily graphs and some may show large fluctuations and even a steep increases.
These short term changes depend on the markets and the oversupply or shortages in some products.
However, if you save some of the prices you see, and check them several weeks later, a small decline will be noticed.
The decline in pricing follows the increase in value of the game money, relative to gold coins. It will result in a significantly lower cost of war.
A further reduction in the cost of weapons and ammunition is expected next week. It might coincide with an increase in production of some types of ammunition that have turned into the red recently and show structural shortages.
November 14, 2012
301. Cost of the Army and the Cost of War [ top ]
The cost of maintaining the army and the cost of war have been reduced. The reduction is a result of a drop in the number of soldiers and officers needed for some of the weapons. This in turn, reduces the size of the army and the materials it uses.
Also the base price of weapons and ammunition has declined. Many defense related corporations reduced the number of workers they need, lowered other costs as well and produce the weapons at a lower price while maintaining their profitability.
This change is part of a long term process that is aimed at a reduction of cost of war as a percentage of the total cost. Similar changes have taken place before and more reductions are expected in the future.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 05:21 pm |
So, when I say that it has been done before, I didn't mean once or twice. Not even 5, 6, 7, or a dozen times. No less than 20 times in less than three years have prices been reduced and I am fairly sure I might have missed an entry or two as I literally searched "cost" and gathered this list in less than a minute and simply choose to stop at the Nov 14th, 2012 entry which clearly says that prices were reduced in updates before that date.
My very real concern is with each of these updates, the GMs are believing the problem is fixed. We should be living in a competitive war utopia if the measure of improving the war game is lowering prices. We are not. Wars, diplomacy, and rival feds were more common at the end of 2012 than they are now.
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 07:53 pm |
Your enthusiasm is admirable. However, it appears that you're not familiar with some aspects of the game.
There are already literally thousands of suggestions for the game's 2 or 3 very part-time programmers. There are more suggestions than players.
Regarding your suggestion for a fast stock market, that exists already. It's my favorite part of the game. IPOs are the only slow aspect. Mutual funds also exist, though they're called CEOs. If the stock market appears inactive, it's only because few players participate actively.
Regarding lower military costs, war is already cheap, once you learn the cheapest tactics.
Regarding your suggestion for airstrikes without declaring war, you're right. Sneak attacks used to include the option of airstrikes. That was nerfed for no good reason. The suits have been consistently against anything resembling guerrilla war and terrorism.
Regarding countries funding one another, that can be done already, once you learn the workaround. The suits have been consistently against direct funding.
Regarding bigger federations and common markets, that simply isn't going to make any difference. Individual players are more important than the size of federations. Common markets are redundant in the Simcountry economy of fixed prices.
Blackeyes said: not many "mentally ill" war players left in SimCountry. He's right. Few players are willing to engage in that mind-numbing, massive clicking marathon. Players want less clicking.
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 12:02 am |
Haha, yep, mentally ill about describes it
But I think if it were a lot easier to chuck a whole bunch of weapons at someone without losing too much, maybe a trill or 2 instead of several tens of, then more might try it to see if it's for them.
At the rate I am going I foresee it being best part of a year before I can have a good ruck with some of the better players.
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 01:42 am |
guys cost is not my main suggestion, there are multiple suggestions on that. We need something to get us moving forward in this. An those suggestion that we have, have many of them been implemented or only a few. We need the game to beefed up a little. An you do have a point on the cost, but i still think for new players coming we need it to be more of real life prices. Guys it still cost alot of money to wage war. Lets lower that. Lets make these changes. Start agreeing with me and stop trying to slow change. Its not helping the game. We need more players, and we need people to keep their interest. Ikariam is a game that was made. It started dying. Now they fixed it to were every month they add something to spice up the game. Mainly from suggestions. I think we need a large update on the game and than every month we need something added to make it better
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 06:34 pm |
We need your main suggestion in detail. What changes, how it works, numbers, data, the whole lot. We then need to know how you personally would change your game play with the change and how you believe the game would be improved in general.
Further, if you are still on the costs thing, you need to answer the same questions. I will add that in an environment where costs of things go down, smart players simply hoard cash. I have over $1400 Trillion saved due to this trend and any cost reduction will benefit me more than most. However, I don't need the help.
| Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - 02:01 am |
guys im not going into depth, i dont think i need to unless you cant read, write or even comprehend. You guys know from the first post what is being asked and your able to use your wonderful imagination. here is the indepth explanation for one of them.
air strikes = air units attack target from the on the ground with out declaring war.
if you have 1400 trillion congrats. alot of people dont which is why we need some type of budgeting tool that lock down money so that it doesnt leave the country nor get spent by some out outrageous cost.
I also think we need to be able to give direct loans to one another as well on any interest we choose to give and be able to to lose that money if a country cannot pay it back
| Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - 03:28 am |
or, you can just learn to play. I now deem this thread with the official learn to play tag. yay!
| Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - 05:43 am |
I think your one of the reason why this game isnt as popular as it should be.
| Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - 11:21 pm |
i think that LG and Madoff's comments should be given some weight.
in particular, madoff, i once fought a war, things where very back and forth, i had an advantage, and would take out the bad guys fire power, work down the war index, and look like i was winning, step outside to smoke a cigarette, and when i got back in, i was loosing again. 2-3 hours later, of endless clicking, i felt safe enough to smoke again, and again, come back to loosing. this went on for bout 8-9 hours. honestly, going to that level of effort over a game, seems to me "mentally ill."
creating a war game that allows the average country enough time survive, that the president would be able to take action, with out requiring either side to work sim-country like a job, and feel secure they wont just loose years of work, to the handful of players that do. while still keeping victory with in a reasonable level of effort...
my thought, (which i've never made clear, but always thought,) would be to remove the "attack," button. instead, units would make "x" numbers of automatic attacks per sim day, based on their movement and targeting preferences.
for instance, you could create a group of LRD, with heavy tanks, artillery, and mid range missles. and order it to move toward a fort, and attack it. it will move, and fire and automatically engage in target along its path, maybe twice a day, so it might take a week (2 hours,) to reach its destination, if it ever does.
this would also mean that that the same set of fighters would not be dismantled, recreated, launched, dismantled, recreated, launched... but instead might make 5 attacks per sim day, (maybe, provided with player set min weapons level.) this would mean that the average air defense would last longer, or the average air offense would need to be more robust, and costly.
this way, winning loosing would still be based on over all strength, and tactics, but go at a slow enough pace that would allow reactions, that could potentially change the outcome.
you know i'm not into the war game, and i'm not really interested in offering an endless list of suggestions, hoping something sticks. i just wanted to throw this out their, its always seemed to me to be a way to make the war game challenging, while slowing it down enough to be played casually.
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 12:33 am |
I have fought a fair number of wars against seven different opponents. I have also watched a number of wars. In my experience, back and forth wars are very rare. I have not been involved in one and I cannot recall one that I have watched. The right strategy can bring down a country with very formidable defenses. At least three times, against three different players, I have defeated an opponent who was online and had substantial reserves, the most recent being Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours.
On the other hand, it is possible to be very smart about your defense. I have been confident enough in my defense to not be available to fight a war before, when the declaration went active, though this can be minimized with proper blackout periods. I think the balance between the opportunity to use skill to defeat your opponent in a reasonable time and ,on the other hand, to properly defend yourself is pretty good right now. A player at the top of their game can take any country they wish and successfully defend any country they wish.
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 01:36 am |
Appreciate ToeCutter & Orbiters understanding how "mental" one must be to do any of that esp these days.
The game is stuck in 2005? it has not kept pace or made any attempt to stand out, and because of this Simcountry lost time and destroyed their dreamof building a loyal interested playerbase. We're all that's left... a war between any of us would collapse the game for good.
I feel sorry for the team, but... it is what it is.
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 03:48 pm |
Your idea for limiting the number of attacks is great. Stretching out a war would help players with time constraints and add sanity.
I also agree that military logistics need automation. As you said: "the same set of fighters would not be dismantled, recreated, launched, dismantled, recreated, launched... "
To increase automation, I've suggested a reactivation of the old feature of shooting from bases. That feature mostly automated military logistics, and it would give players an alternative to using the fly-by-night units.
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 08:26 pm |
i like most the ideas up lintel you said war well i'm okay with it if i knew my opponent was but i don't want t lose my country if i lose an war they need to change that
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 01:32 am |
what do you think would happen, if their was more active and aggressive war players, just like you?
when i was wanting to get into the war game, originally, i did a little fighting in grand battle, but i joined late, and it was over before i really did anything. at the time, being ready to actually pop my war cherry, i set up on an unsuspecting player. i declared war, and ended up with "every one" on LU declaring war on me. (This is one of the things that in the past destroyed the war game.) That player, i found out later, handed over their account info to one of the best war players at the time, and what i thought was going to be a low level learning experience, nearly became a huge embarrassment.
initially, i began my assault, then noticed, that the other guy wasn't shooting back at me the same way. but instead shooting at my offensive air. nearly wiped my offensive capacity. but i caught on fast enough, and adjusted, the other player asked for period of "non-agression" while they couldn't be at the computer. i agreed, but felt that it was just a ruse to re-arm, and broke the treaty.
that was the event that caused black outs to be added to the game.
Aries, the war game, that you are trying to resurrect, is nothing like the experience you've described.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 01:53 am |
and as your pointing out, a #1 war ranked country falling in 3 hours... think about what a newb has to look forward to.
spending months, and years, working on something, just to fall in a matter of hours... if you step back and think about it, just how appealing is that? for you, yes, but you can take the evidence that they are very, very, very, few players like you, that it really isn't that appealing.
the other options, is days of endless clicking. creating "practice," scenarios, might be nice, the war game itself, needs to be more appealing to more players, rather than a handful of very intense players.
another way to put it, and i can say it, because it did apply to me, you need to the war game to appeal to more than those that are "mentally ill,"
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 02:43 am |
madoff, myself, not playing the war game, i'd offer, that i would rather not see the war game less sophisticated. and attacking from bases, seems a simplified version of what we have now
my thought of removing the attack button, and automating attacks, would allow some "maneuverability," i'd add that their should be stacking limits, and facing concerns. with that, it create the need to create strong battle lines, and tactics of overwhelming the other guy in one location, while taking the risk of losing ground some where else. make it more like a automated, time based, chess game. you create general orders of targeting preferences, and give moving directions, and the individual unit commanders follow out their orders as best they can.
this, i think would play well with the "country resources," and "partial victories," features that have been on the GM wish list for a long time. The defense would of course make their stand around the richest resources, and the offense would of course concentrate on assaulting and flanking those resources.
set up right, and average war might take 2-5 sim years, 4-10 rl days, while allowing both sides the chance to do "something," but still giving the larger, or more experienced player an appropriate advantage. giving the winner something valuable, with out completely destroying the looser
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 03:59 am |
Number one ranked war country just means something to players who don't know better. It is no indication of the true reserves of the player or their skill, as you know. What does it say? Is says a player that has the support of zero allies will lose to a skilled player in a reasonable time, not this "mentally ill" period of time you describe. I see nothing wrong with this.
I do see something odd about talking about how only a few could stand 8-9 hours to resolve a war and then suggesting a system that would take 4-10 rl days. Would such a system exist for taking c3s as well? Such a system seems out of place in a game where your opponent can maneuver and take a country in 15 minutes and arm it to the teeth in a few hours. It would, also, be, woefully, inappropriate in an environment where an enemy could potentially own dozens of countries. Without the possibility of a swift offense, large numbers of countries would have an unfair, inherent defense that few players of sufficient "mental illness" would be around to reign in.
I know of no player with more recent war experience than myself. Your war examples are dated. Ones before substantial updates, such as war levels and blackout periods, as you stated. It seems to be that I am in the best position to describe the current state of the war game. My experience is the war game as it currently works. Yours is not.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 05:36 am |
the point your missing, that you made yourself, is that the war game isn't played at the level it once was. few players want to spend 8+ hours afraid to take a 5 minute break, in fear that they'd loose 2 years of work. playing a game to that intensity, is "mentally ill," and this is the goal that you are working for.
the 4-10 days, would require maybe, a couple hours of attention a day, as opposed to an 8 hour marathon clicking session.
thats the point, their are already few of those types of players
yes, war rank can be faked, 80K MIB can jump your rank, while remaining ineffective. skill, attention, allies, weapons composition, ammo levels, upgrades, the list of reason why rank may not be best indicator of strength, goes on and on. yet, the level of effort, to be destroyed so easily, is discouraging.
yet its so discouraging, that the GM have gone to great lengths to prevent it. to kick a dead horse, WLs where created for this very reason. to prevent players of your excellent caliber, from fighting players of my low motivation. how ever, if i could log on every 12ish hours, make a few adjustments, i might be willing to test my abilities against yours.
in destroying a heavily armed country in 3 hours, keep in mind, my first break, is 3 hours into my 12 hour factory shift. absorb that. i have no way of defending myself against you. most players, have no way of stopping your assault.
do not take that as an veiled challenge, but an example. above when i mentioned black outs, the player i attacked, was a surgeon, who blamed me for putting his patient at risk. i still feel no guilt, on that front, but it is a consideration. how many people can really afford 8 hours on the computer, when ever you decide to declare war on them? if you raise the basic level of commitment to that degree, while requiring years of learning and build up, you'll realize, only a handful of people will be willing to do that.
did that once, i'm both proud, and ashamed. and i wont do it again. few people will. ringing your hands that the war game is dead...
well, that level of commitment, is unrealistic, to the point it is "mentally ill,"
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 06:17 am |
I think the point you are missing is that, often, once the bullets are flying, it is too late. What is really missing is diplomacy among players, which is now replaced entirely by game protection. It is telling in another thread where you said you would run a single country (in secured mode) in an environment without war levels. You didn't muse whether you would form defense agreements or build a great federation. You immediately fled to game-granted protection. Very, very, telling.
Your idea still needs to answer how it would handle c3 wars and whether the intention of your idea is to offer an incredible boon to players who simply run a bunch of throw-away war countries. It still seems, very, out of place in those environments.
As far is when the bullets fly, skill should still be an advantage in this/any game. Plenty of players would have bashed their keyboard to bits before defeating a well-defended country. Few, perhaps none, could have done so with the speed I did.
On the defensive end, you talk of a 5 minute break being a mistake that could cost a war. This, again, does not seem to match war reality. I have slept soundly knowing my defense was fine for hours. I would feel comfortable giving any attacker a few hour head start on a country I choose to defend. They will lose..
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 06:59 am |
first, yes, i have no interest in being committed to war, at some one else's convenience, that has, and always should be the advantage of the attacker. the defense gets to dig in, the attacker gets to choose the time and location, this seems fair to me.
further, i have no interest in fighting any wars, like i said, i work 12 hour shifts in factory, i pour metal, lift heavy, red hot molds, on a 4 foot fork, i grind and weld parts, i'm covered in sweat when i get home, some times i'm not not safe to drive home, and spend most my off time just recovering enough to do it again, add to that, my wife is disabled, and my kids are disabled, i don't have the time, or will to fight, at some one else's convenience, i was making an example, as i said.
diplomacy, of course, plays a role, its a no brainer, my idea does not specifically include that, but it kinda goes with out saying, dotcha think? silly hobbit
as far as C3s, why not make those work the same, you learn the basics of how things work against C3s, why not have battles work the same. in the concept of the idea, you could balance them out to be equal to what they are now, slower? ok, but your own argument that basic country econ, should be the building block of military might, rather than C3 raiding, falls in line. once a a war against a C3 has started, no out side interference in possible. so the attacker still gets to set up, but why should they be able to take over 5 C5s in minutes, when the new concept is to give the defender a day to react? i'm not sure why this is even an argument, other than you are playing the devils advocate to something you see as good.
skill would still be an advantage. especially if you add stacking limits, and facing. also, unmentioned until now, an auto-retreat, if a unit is loosing, why not disengage? before its totally destroyed? i think these feature could add a large amount of tactics, provided some strength re-adjustments. perhaps even merging offensive and defensive weapons in single type? so the same defensive LRD could defend attack against it, or move forward aggressively destroying targets?
3 hours to destroy punisher, isn't a very sound sleep. steve ryan has been around for a long time, had garrisons, stealth units, air defense.
i do not mean this to disparage steve ryan, but clearly, you out classed him. he could easily outclass most sim-players. you can not hold yourself as an average example.
Aries, with out reserve, or sarcasm, you are excellent, you are among the best. any given era of sim-country, as you are now, you'd would have been among the best.
using yourself as an basic measurement of what others can accomplish, is not fair. they certainly can, but how many do? if they did, you would not be the current 800 pound sim-gorilla
you should lower the bar of your expectations, of others, and enjoy your excellence, with dignity, and compassion.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 07:44 am |
I still think your war engine change is a solution looking for a problem. I can no longer follow what it is supposed to solve. Are wars back and forth affairs that take 8-9 hours without breaks? Are countries too easily taken in just a few hours? Which is it?
The change itself, again, would empower dozens of throwaway war countries in which the owner would have little attachment and threaten countries of other players who have real attachment to them. The throwaway countries would seem to be able to count on several days of a free hand in attacking without any concern to setting up defenses. This strategy would be repeatable to the defenders frustration.
As far is diplomacy, it is currently a "no-brainer" if you mean that in the sense that no one gives it a thought. That is true. Diplomacy is currently mostly dictated by unlimited free game-given protection. Even on the war world.
I gave my experience not as what is the norm but what is possible and to show that there is room for skill. Honestly, most wars are won before any shooting. I really see the execution of the war as a formality. As far as my expectations, I will call out an idea, such as lowering weapon/ammo prices as the war game savior, as being ridiculous as it calls for. I remember when new players tried to learn the game before assuming the reason they could not afford stuff was a game bug.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 08:22 am |
your the one making the example that a strong country can be taken effectively in a matter of hours, but can be defended to afford sound sleep. making the statement that if people played like you, then they would either be marathons, or boat races. the suggestion is a middle ground. making wars last long enough to react, with out requiring long sit down sessions. but it would obviously give an advantage to assets, skill, tactics.
"throw away countries," is that really a change? something new? common on
further, the attention needed to take out an poorly defended country, would be simplistic.
for developing diplomacy, creating a player base that is competing. is the best method to increase diplomacy, and politics. i think that this, will players a better risk to reward factor.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 08:45 am |
My point is that I think you are paying too much focus on the period of time after the war goes active. Who is in position to win and how long the keyboard sessions are going to be is largely decided before then.
I have said before, and it is true, that wars have three parts. Planning, preparation, and execution. I have given some advice to my war theory to those that still bother to come to chat. Those first two parts are as important as the third. I can both quickly and efficiently take a country of my choosing and defend a country of my choice, affording me a sound sleep. It is a matter of skill.
You appeared to be offering up a war engine change because one must rush to their keyboard and be prepared for an 8-hour shift of button-mashing to defend their country. What I am saying is that, if you must do this, you have done something wrong and the game does not need to change to correct your error.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 08:46 am |
and i'll pass, at this moment, about calling people out, when they call difficulties, bugs
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 03:17 pm |
catching up to your last post,
i disagree Aries, and in fact, you disagree
so your saying Punisher's "very formidable defenses" that you are using as an example that any country can be taken down easily, still doesn't match your concept of a defense that would allow you to sleep?
slow the whole thing down. why do you expect a player to click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click to select a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, dismantle partial units, recreate units, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack,
and so on...
as Madoff pointed out, endless clicking, theirs got to be a better way. As BlackEyes pointed out, one must be mentally ill to enjoy that at length.
creating a system that requires less attention, and slow things down enough to allow causal players the chance to react, could very well attract more competition, meaning more diplomacy
i'm not sure why this is a problem, other than you are more comfortable with your level of success, from your hyper-activity, to support an environment that levels that out.
now i get it, you're not comfortable with an enviroment that doesn't favor your hyper-active playing style. Amoung other things, it was the hyper-active players, such as myself, that chased off the casual players, and the game has yet to recover.
slowling the prosess down, so that an average war might take a week, compared to a couple of hours, seem to fall more inline with game that players can invest years into their countries.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 03:41 pm |
I don't think you answered my last post at all. Your focus is still on after the war goes active. Though the active war lasted 3 hours with Punisher, that was simply the last phase of a war in which it failed the first two (phases). The first two phases are where you will find strategy and preparation important (and a lot less clicking). They included not only the 48 hour PVP war delay but a considerable time before that. No PVP war is decided in 3 hours. That is just dishonest. 3 hours was to address where you said wars consist of 8-9 hours of considerable clicking. That just does not have to be the case.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 04:38 pm |
my suggestion is not meant to directly address planning, and diplomacy, but to make the actual fighting more causal and easier, inviting more of a need for diplomacy, and planning do to increased popularity.
it does soften the blow of lower experience, less preparation, less planning, true enough. but it does not dismiss those things either. it does not dismiss experience, and invites new tactics.
planning, preparation, diplomacy, and experience, will of course be factors, its silly to think they wont, it kinda goes with out saying.
you keep making up problems out of nothing
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 04:58 pm |
Yes. Yet, the right strategy. You know, all the stuff that happens before the shooty/clicky stuff. Punisher was not a victim of the war engine. Stop being silly.
You are the one making up problems, you silly. You admit wars are more than the simple execution of the last few hours of clicking but think a war engine change is warranted to stretch it out. That is silly. The war process already involves days, if not weeks or longer. It is found in a culmination of the world diplomatic situation, sizing up potential threats, and the preparation of meeting threats long before any shooting/clicking happens.
The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly. Don't be silly you silly billy.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 05:28 pm |
well, the reality is its not gonna happen, this is true.
how ever to address your comments,
the intensity of sim-war, has always been a deterrent. entire feds amassed assets, and stayed safe, largely do to the immense effort to defeat them, than their own fighting skill. that is, they were great at planning, politics and building, but poor in execution, those feds eventually fell, and most those players quit, because it took hyper-active players, hours and hours of clicking to destroy years, and years of work. leaving many so dishearted, they did not see the point of continuing to play.
creating a shooting environment, that increases time to react, will not distract from pre-war maneuvering. if anything, it will improve it, if the shooting environment appeals to more players, it will create the need for greater pre-war maneuvering.
the current war engine might work well, but the war-game its self is a failure, something that you've offered a list of suggestions to fix.
my suggestion, says the pro-hyper-active enviroment we have now, is an obvious failure. and a less aggressive version of war, would gain popularity.
i can support that educating, and offering advice, has not increased popularity. i once thought that the only problem was that players didn't understand how to fight, and if we could make that info easy to obtain, more players would play.
i created a poll, and campaigned on the forums, for a war tutorial, to walk new players, step by step, through their first war. that was my idea, and the GM saw the value of it, and implemented it. how ever, creating easy access to that info, has done nothing to increase the popularity of war.
the problem is not a lack of skill, but a lack of motivation, why wouldn't a person be motivated to play the war game? their are of course players that don't want to, such as myself now, and those of us who just don't want to, shouldn't be forced to
yet, their are many that tinker with the idea, all the info is out their, it all gets circulated through the forums annually, their are people such as yourself in chat, the info is available. but the effort is rare.
why continue to expect a level of effort, that is uncommon, as a standard? if you do, you will be continually disappointed.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 05:40 pm |
I'm not persuaded that a 3-hour war is representative of typical PvP against a well-defended country. That story just doesn't add up.
"The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly."
First of all, you're trying to send them back to the drawing board to create your "battlegrounds" and "total war." Those would require major coding, not minor tweaks. Secondly, if the war engine is so wonderful, why do 99% of players avoid PvP?
By comparison, Jonni said in March:
"As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons and targets."
This means they're looking to tweak the war engine, change some numbers. New features usually take 1-3 years to develop. Their agenda already includes finishing the phone app, improving the game interface, then maybe introducing missions, space mining, and localized natural resources. That's enough to keep them busy well into the next decade.
Unfortunately, any of our suggestions only have a slim chance.
Aries, I don't think they're going to stop that work to spend years creating your complicated "battlegrounds" or a "total war" extravaganza. That might even require spending their beer money on a new server.
Suggestions that only require tweaking the war engine have a better chance. Orbiter's idea of limiting attacks is a good example. It would help players who don't have a lot of consecutive hours for clicking during the combat phase.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 05:52 pm |
I agree with the lack of motivation but believe game rewards are a significant part of it. There are significant rewards to be found many different facets of the game but not in PVP wars, which are a zero sum game. You can only take something from another player or lose something to another player.
It is this significant risk that should lend itself to the possibility of earning something extra, similar to the rewards of my Total War or Battlegrounds suggestions. Wars over resources, as others have suggested, would be interesting too. Perhaps unique benefits should be imparted on countries on each world that are not able to be shielded by any type of game protection.
If there is something to be gained, it will encourage more participation in this part of the game. Currently, many see more benefit to unlimited free protection and they are right. Costs of maintaining adequate defense and the effort to maintain an advantageous diplomatic situation currently outweigh any benefits.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 06:02 pm |
Madoff, I am not sure what you don't believe. Punisher was not just a typically defended country, as Orbiter mentioned it was the #1 war country. I gathered a lot of data for the attack, part of my superior preparation, and still have it. My attacking country was AA8 which declared on Punisher and Botulism. The troop numbers when the declaration went active were:
AA8 3.7 million
Punisher 6.5 million
Botulism 2.7 million
I posted an after-action report here:
Oh, pre-war operations btw. It is a tactic that I sometimes set a dec to start in my blackout period. Shooting couldn't happen until it did.
I defeated Punisher in 21 days of game time with Botulism falling 12 days later. I defeated an army of 9.2 million and shot through additional fed air defense in about 4 hours (again, Punisher was down in about 3). Again, I am pretty good and can tell you that my planning and preparation were better and both countries were doomed before the decs went active. On the flip side, I could have went to sleep and my defenses were in no danger of being bested.
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 06:42 pm |
Oh just shut up and get it on.
100GC to the winner (if there were a way to trade them :/ )
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 09:12 pm |
Just make the check out to A-R-I-E-S. thanks
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 09:53 pm |
Hmm, it appears as if ARIES thinks he's invincible
Nobody is untouchable...
P.S. Except for Andy
| Friday, August 7, 2015 - 04:49 am |
I thought we already covered most players are untouchable. It is called war levels. duh
Madoff certainly got quiet. He still questioning my story?
| Friday, August 7, 2015 - 08:28 pm |
And history does show us that megalomaniacs do always come to a nasty end, huh ?
| Saturday, August 8, 2015 - 05:20 am |
You know, thinking about how the warring goes on in this game. It sounds like it needs to be changed completely? anyone agree?
| Saturday, August 8, 2015 - 05:27 am |
what definetly needs to be changed is to let people able to attack slave state with out declaring war. An i think that would make more conflicts . I mean i have people in kebir blue that talk alot of smack. I dont want to go into a war but i wouldnt mind launching a guided missiles into his backyard. I think we need to lighten up on the rules and let war be more freely happen.