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

We need reasons to declare war on other players

Topics: Suggestions: We need reasons to declare war on other players

James the fair

Friday, November 11, 2016 - 11:26 pm Click here to edit this post
The only way to declare war on other players in my opinion, is to provide a reason for you to declare war on them. As I think the current war level rules and restrictions in the game are not working properly as we all know. Others in the game have proposed to eliminate the war levels entirely and go back to the 'good old days' of which we have heard many times before. This is not the answer, as it will put a lot of the new players at risk from being conquered by large powerful empires again.

So I have come up with a few ideas below to prevent it from happening again of where players declare war on you for absolutely no reason at all, which is stupid and chasing away most of the players in the game. These are some of my ideas below which are.....

1. To declare war on another player, you must have a reason to declare war.

2. You can still play a peaceful game, even with a large empire, by not provoking anyone in the game, such as sneak attacks etc., as this is as good as secured mode.

3. I think border clashes should be introduced into the game. The function will very much be like sneak attacks, except it's got to be a country that borders one of yours. This I thought, could provoke more tension and give you a reason to declare war. In real life, countries such as those in Central and West Africa has happened in the past because of territorial disputes. Although I do think in the game if an aggressor border clashes with another country too much, the attacked country should appeal to the security council for help and impose restrictions on the aggressor for a set time period. However, if the aggressor refuses to abide by this, the aggressive country should be made a legitimate target for anybody to declare war on as it's a just cause and good reason to do so.

4. Players who have already been banned from possessing any nuclear weapons or facilities, or have even using them, should give any player a reason to declare war on them. As I think they should be made a legitimate target by anybody if they are possessing or using them illegally, just like in real life. Such as Iran and North Korea for example.

Overall, it's still possible we can eliminate the war level rules and restrictions entirely if we had these reasons in place to declare war which means other players cannot declare war on you if you have been playing peacefully and have not done anything wrong at all, unless you have provoked them of course. I think these ideas will bring the all of the worlds to life of where there will be a rise of new petty countries of more or less 3rd world status, fighting each other. As well as rogue countries armed with nuclear weapons being threatened with UN sanctions and if they don't back down, they will be made legitimate targets by anyone in the game who are powerful enough to take them on.


Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 06:35 am Click here to edit this post
Yes, war levels have hurt the war game. Almost all countries are unattackable because they stay below level 4. The solution to that problem is to allow countries below war level 4 to attack countries of a similar war level.

Regarding border clashes, it's unclear how a country would benefit from these territorial disputes. By comparison, sneak attacks can provide tactical advantages or economic punishment. An easier stimulus for minor clashes would be to make sneak attack weapons much cheaper.

Regarding being able to attack countries banned from having nuclear weapons, or that use nuclear weapons, that currently exists. But this is now restricted by war levels and war protection boosters. Even if those restrictions are bypassed, the Security Councils rarely ban nuclear weapons or vote on anything.

The next feature that can stimulate war is natural resources. That's been promised since at least 2007. If done well, that feature will provide genuine territorial disputes and compelling reasons for war. Since the game only introduces about one new feature per year, let's hope natural resources gets priority.


Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 06:57 am Click here to edit this post
I agree a proper motivation needs to exist to enter into conflict. In short, the game simply lacks stuff to fight over. A properly done natural resources, or other idea, should be done to remedy this deficiency.

A recommended something along these lines:

-Allow players to choose a bonus for an existing country they own.

-They must pay for it in gold coins.

-The bonus only applies if the player is war level 4+, has removed war level protection, is not in secured mode, and lacks temporary war protection.

-The bonus for that country, once paid for, applies permanently for that country for any owner as long as the current owner is war level 4+, has removed war level protection, is not in secured mode, and lacks temporary war protection.

This allows players incentive to enter the world's political arena with stuff at stake, since in order to benefit they must forgo any game-provided protection. This strengthens the purpose of relationships and alliances to replace unnatural protections. It also presents valuable real estate on the map for more aggressive players to pursue.


Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 07:29 pm Click here to edit this post
I would also add that the incentives be made more valuable on FB in order to attract more warfare on the "war world". In my view, I see war as something to avoid, mutually assured destruction and the end result of a failed diplomatic exchange. I think that would add to the political arena and exchange between nations and feds. War should make the world nervous with severe consequences, think the Cuban missile crisis, or how history would be different if WWI had never happened due to a perfect storm of circumstances.

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Now, for those who enjoy the thrill of waging a war, I agree that a war world should be far more conducive for it, and without causing much affect to the other worlds. (Except for the shipping of nukes from FB to the rest of the galaxy). I totally get the frustration war players feel. Add to that, there are a lot of gun shy players. There are great player generated tutorials (see Aries'). Add to that, there should be a "consequence free" practice zone if you would. Just to see how weapons are used, how it pans out because nothing replaces experience when it comes to learning.

Just my two cents.


Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 04:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Well said Khome. Let the war world be the 'war' world. Fix the problems there.


Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 08:22 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree the war world would be the best place to test 5he outcomes of any changes before implementation of changes on other worlds. The parameters for declaring war are very tight, agreed. But that is a symptom and not the problem. The problem is that people don't want to war in general. Especially with a high probability of loss.

This probability is built in naturally. If a player decides to start the game and ends up fighting a war, he will always be pitted against a player with more experience. The experience of even a single pvp war can create a gap so wide when compared to a player who has only dealt with c3s.

I am probably responsible for introducing scores of players to the war game. Some countries I trashed some I may have conquered. I don't recall a single instance where I removed a players empire. This was either because of cooperation between federation allies or because I didn't really want to liquidate a player. Sometimes, the act of declaring war on an otherwise peaceful player is all the spark that is needed.

For example, war is declared, out of fear of conflict the victim(as I will describe it here sarcastically) begins speaking to other players about defense. In nearly every case, players who were otherwise non aligned begin to assist that player with preventative defensive measures and perhaps invitations to federations or defensive declarations from powerful players who were adverse to me.

Long winded I know, but sometimes the act of declaring war is enough. If the threat of war is never real, players can ignore this part of the game entirely. The ability to do this it is very difficult to balance the game naturally, so GM intervention here is the only recourse. I can comb through the forums and name off many players who were peaceful merchants that got to enjoy the other part of the game and create a bunch of connections along the way they otherwise would have no need for. These players not only went on to learn the war game to defend themselves adequately but became important figures in the worlds' largest federations. They essentially went on to lead in many cases.

In my current state I cannot resume the role of instigator. My account is simply too small at this time. That is not to say I won't in the future. I don't plan on being destructive the game needs a creative spark. For example, I would attack the weakest link among my enemies to provoke an entire stagnant federation back into activity.


Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 10:49 pm Click here to edit this post


The problem is that people don't want to war in general. -- Psycho_Honey

Yes. But why don't players want PvP? PvP was once very popular. What happened that made PvP unpopular?

PvP became rare because the game introduced too many obstacles: military units, supply units, unlimited forts, logistics that sometimes don't work, war levels that make most countries unattackable, the requirement that some weapons be obtained from space stations. These are too many hassles for 99% of players.

Those hassles need to be corrected.


Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 11:34 pm Click here to edit this post
I'm one of those who never witnessed those days.

James the fair

Friday, November 25, 2016 - 10:14 pm Click here to edit this post
Wow, thanks for all your feedback on this page, I appreciate it.

Madoff, it is true that there does indeed needs a reason to justify these "border clashes" as there needs to be proper reason for it. Such as like you say, a "special resource" of some kind to trigger the dispute in a genuine way, and along with cheaper sneak attack weapons will encourage this even further.

Also regarding banned countries with nuclear weapons, I can only think there needs to be some kind of reward for the members of the security council to successfully ban a player from having nuclear weapons, something to drive them into doing it, probably in the form of gold coins or SC$ money in order to encourage this.

Aries, you speak in moderate way and you make your points clear as I could not have done it any better myself. I am glad you agree with me that there needs to be a proper motivation to enter a conflict, but I am not sure about some of your suggestions though that requires a certain war level, or removing protection of any kind. My idea is to eliminate the unnatural protections altogether, as well as the war levels if need be if it interferes with any war declarations, of which we all know it does. The war levels should only serve as purely on your war skills now. The only way to be attacked is if you have deliberately provoked another player in any way. If not, you can't be attacked at all, which will serve as your natural secured mode anyway.

However, to pay for a natural resource bonus in gold coins is good, and would sense for the game too, as well as for the GMs.

Khome, I can remember the days when there was no war levels at all years ago. Until the war levels were introduced a few months after I first started playing. It was a much better war game then, but the biggest problem was, is that your countries were soon taken over overnight for absolutely no reason at all, and this is the major reason why the war levels were introduced, in order to stop this abuse. However, the GMs has pushed the war game almost out of existence now. And this is why I thought of this idea of mine now, in the hope to revive it again.

Michael, I agree Fearless blue should be a war world, and that is a reason why i'm on that world now, as well as numerous countries to settle in. I am still on LU, but I only have 1 country there. So sooner or later I'm thinking about selling it for gold coins since it has a population of well over 100M people.

Psycho Honey, I also agree the war world should be a place to test any outcomes as well. Particularly my idea of course, if the GMs allowed it that is. I shouldn't worry about the number of players you have eliminated in the past, the GMs allowed such things to happen, especially to the weak peaceful players who have not provoked anyone at all, and this is why I think an idea like mine should be introduced, because it would balance out the game for those who want war and cause trouble between each other, and for others who just want to play the peaceful game, and won't be attacked because they hav'nt provoked anyone at all.


Saturday, November 26, 2016 - 07:58 pm Click here to edit this post
I have not eliminated anyone. That is a common misconception. Old propaganda wars were the culprit. Now you see why this is so effective in the real world theater.


Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 05:47 am Click here to edit this post
Personally I do not believe that the war game is non-existent, there are wars now and then on all the worlds, however I don't necessarily like the idea of war levels as you are right if war levels were removed the amount of wars would most diffently skyrocket. Therefore removing war levels without adding some way for new players to defend themselves would be disastrous, that is why I propose that there could be unlimited forts or at least more forts because this would make new players seem (not worth it) to be attacked by larger empires. Furthermore maybe new players could be protected for up to 2 months, but the new players could still disable this protection at anytime. Additionally federations could be able to share all units not just mobile units which are hard to create. By doing this it would allow new players to join a federation for protection.

Overall I really hope that you can see that this is a reasonable idea to improve the realistic aspects of the game by removing war levels completely while still allowing protection for active new players who do not want war by allowing them to build lots of forts, join a federation and have initial war protection.

This should allow for big empires to attack small and large countries of inactive players who do not spend lots of time in the game but would still provide protection for those players who do not want wars and spend lots of time working hard to develop their empires.

Finally I fell it important to note that I am a fairly new player to this game and I have never seen the game without war levels but it would seem to be more interesting and would make the game more fun to play while providing protection for active players who do not want war.


Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 03:28 pm Click here to edit this post
Believe me Inventor1012, the war game here is non existent as compared to 10-15 years ago when this was a dynamic and growing community.

Many changes were made quite simply because it was necessary for the developers of this game to make money. I have nothing against that, if they don't make money there is no game to play.

Originally however, there was absolutely nothing to protect you from losing everything you'd wasted months if not years to build. Some of us actually have a life and cannot sit and wait for a war to be declared 24/7. You could take off for a weekend and return to find nothing left. That's where federations and good allies proved their worth by protecting your back when you were on vacation, in the hospital, or simply to busy to spend time in front of a computer.

Right now, you have one country nobody can attack. Unless you are stupid enough to place it in a federation and sign a war treaty where it auto declares.

If you don't want to fight other players simply put all your efforts into that one country. Expand your empire at your own risk.

Right now there are to many ways for one player to aggravate another and nobody has any recourse.

Historically it was never the large players randomly knocking off the smaller players in this game without a reason. Most generally that reason was a pack of smaller players going after a large one to break them up and whining when they got their collective asses kicked.


Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - 08:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Interesting points, if I could put some input into this discussion. I say that there be no war protection, and in the situation in which one should lose their war (against an over whelming aggressor, or by their own hubris) that they hand over all their slave states but are left with the ruins of their main country.

Instead of dwindling down the main country to WS 0.0, the attacking country could lower the index to about 40 or 30, that way the main country would still be left with some infrastructure to come back from.

The winning country (or empire) will then be able to tax the loser for about two weeks or so. This is so that there will be an incentive to declare war on other players.

Lastly, in order to stop abuse, the loser country will be in temporary war protection (the war protection would last longer than the empire tax)

Just my two cents.

P.s excuse any grammar, I'm typing this before class starts.


Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 06:33 pm Click here to edit this post
Wished people would give more feedback and ideas on this thread.


Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 12:19 am Click here to edit this post
Feedback about what? Reasons for declaring war on another player?

Sorta reminds me of what I was taught about fighting with a knife.

1. You are going to get cut, if you can't deal with that don't.
2. Don't fight with anyone bigger they have reach.
3. Don't fight with anyone smaller as they are probably faster.
4. Anyone willing to fight you with a knife probably knows what they are doing and will cut you to shreds.

War is nothing but the violent application of force to achieve national objectives.

All you need to ask yourself is "what are my objectives". Everything else is going to sort it's self out.

Either you have a reason to risk everything you've built or you don't.

I have one country nobody can touch unless I'm stupid enough to take it out of secured mode.

That country is set up to provide 100% of it's defense to the Federation. So while it can be bled just like anything else, the cost is going to be higher since it can't be attacked directly (including the defense it's providing).

Everything else, yes you'll get it if you want but, it's not going to be worth the cost of taking it (esp. if I'm online and judge I can't win).

Simply put, that is all the war protection I need or desire.

Chances are unless someone is planning on leaving the game in a "blaze of glory", nobody big enough to take them is going to bother me. Anyone noobish enough to go after the measly assets of my slave countries is probably someone I can take if I have to.

No matter what I do with my empire one thing is going to be constant, my slaves won't ever be a money making prospect for an aggressor. Population, maybe, but I can also rape a country so quick that the debt you have to absorb to get it out probably isn't going to be worth it either.

Flip a coin, it's your call what are you trying to achieve?.

You want to subdue me? Make me fear you? Make me worry about some basically worthless assets in a game? Not likely :)


Wednesday, February 1, 2017 - 12:02 pm Click here to edit this post
I read some, not all yet and I tend to agree.
we need to create more motivation for player vs. player wars.

As before, we also need to protect players against huge countries destroying them and pushing them out of the game.

Maybe you have some ideas on that issue?


Wednesday, February 1, 2017 - 12:05 pm Click here to edit this post
We will also get back here with some more response


Thursday, February 2, 2017 - 03:06 am Click here to edit this post

I don't ever remember a "huge" player going off the deep end and slaughtering smaller players to no end.

What I remember is:

Larger players going after the assets of inactive players. Generally speaking, those that hadn't logged in for 60 days if not more.

Some of those may have come back and whined that everything they had was gone but you know, either they didn't read their emails or those emails went to a bogus or inactive account. Most of those wars could have been stopped if someone had bothered to say anything before the final couple of hits.

I do remember a lot of little players banding together and attempting to take down larger empires, and kept pushing the envelope. Well you know, at what point do you think someone fully capable of squashing someone like a bug is going to put up with that before nuking them into the stone age?.

And yes I saw many of those players cry and whine after they lost.

We have one country that can be left in secured mode. That is all that is necessary to protect. They can put all their effort there.

Expand at your own risk.

You might even think about removing protection from single countries (esp. non-premium the whole idea I thought behind being a free member was being active) where they don't log in for 4 months. You'd see some cleaning done on LU, I would imagine it's similar on all worlds.

People are always going to whine about someone being bigger even though they haven't put the months or years into an effort to build something themselves.


Tuesday, February 7, 2017 - 10:12 am Click here to edit this post
Thanks for your thoughts Yankee.
We had good and very good periods when war rules were easier.
But we had also do very bad times with players trying to cause damage to the entire idea of the game.


Tuesday, February 7, 2017 - 10:26 am Click here to edit this post
I have accepted the in-game protections as they are but I believe there should be a way to opt into the war game where added risk comes with rewards. The system would reward shedding game-provided protections and replacing them with real sim-diplomacy, bringing meaning back to game relationships and federations. Towards that end, I suggested the natural resourced idea, found above and I have also suggested mechanisms to teach PvP skills and graduate to the war game, like the War College (a system similar to game levels) and Battlegrounds (a system to offer rewards for real PvP, rather than "fake wars" against a computer opponent that doesn't shoot back). The goal would be to attract and retain players motivated by diplomacy and acquiring rewards through a real war game. In my opinion, this is what has been lost due to a combination of game rewards being mostly concentrated in the econ game and current PvP wars combining very high risk with zero-sum rewards. Current real PvP is only motivated by ego.

War College



Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 03:28 am Click here to edit this post
Perhaps a motivation could be certain countries have specific resources. This was brought up in another thread -can't remember where though.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 06:07 am Click here to edit this post
Michael, check my first post on this thread, the third overall post. I like the idea about resources as a war game incentive, but they must not be protected by fake protections, like war levels and secured mode. One must also consider that there are game mechanisms in place to discourage owning too many countries, especially beyond 10. Many players stopped at a certain threshold and may hold not interest starting over (building a new country) for some possibly fairly minor bonus. This is why I recommend the ability to purchase the resource with gold coins and that the bonus only functions if you have to protect it the old-fashioned way, with real diplomacy, federations, and your weapons and ammo that have otherwise been collecting dust in this game.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 07:52 pm Click here to edit this post
There also is a point where a "game" requires so much thought, that for the rewards received, it becomes a mental drain and is no longer entertaining.

You can always push the envelope higher and find someone willing to play however, if I had no experience what so ever in simcountry, and considering the player interaction, I'd probably lose interest and quit in a week.

Not really a way to expand your player base.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 08:42 pm Click here to edit this post
Perhaps as a suggestion why not do a way with secured mode on all the worlds. If a country wanted to remain peaceful they would still have that option but would have to sign peace treaties and maintain friendly relations (like in the real world -look at example Switzerland or Iceland - peaceful and most other nations know that) (makes a another point in real world there is no secured mode or actual security) so maybe game should do away with that.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 08:42 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree that it is possible to be overwhelmed with so many items to attend to. This is one of the reasons why I no longer attempt to tell players what to do when giving advice. It is more realistic that most players will specialize in areas they enjoy, such as different aspects of managing your country or playing the war game. The current problem, as I see it, is that there are not sufficient rewards in the war game for someone to enjoy and maintain that style of play. I feel we have lost most of our war game players and currently have little to offer them to retain or attract that style of player.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 08:45 pm Click here to edit this post
Secured mode is embedded into the game and removing it would disrupt what is seen by many as a game promise. It would also threaten the players more interested in the econ aspect of the game. I feel it is important to keep a balance where a player can choose their style of play and find a home in Simcountry.


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 08:45 pm Click here to edit this post
@Aries -read your third post and I agree with it. If a player wants a natural resource they can pay for it in gold coins.
There would only be temporary protection for new players.

Further to my thread above -having no secured mode would increase player interaction as players would have to join federations and form alliances (example in real like NATO).


Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 08:48 pm Click here to edit this post
The econ players can band together in a federation. Or perhaps buy an aggressor off.
I do agree on keeping balance. But the balance has (in recent years) shifted too much one way.


Thursday, February 9, 2017 - 02:48 am Click here to edit this post
Michael being able to secure one country I don't think you'll find anyone playing this game awhile against.

You've not seen entire worlds at war in PVP situations.

You have to sit at your computer 24 hours a day to beat off attacks. Some people have to go to work and have outside interests.

If you were a large empire you had to take down your opponent quickly and completely. While in every case I remember it was their own fault by declaring war or joining the wrong federation, there were many that lost years of work.

With one secured country nobody can be completely knocked out of the game. They can build an economic power base, a military power base or both if they build across multiple worlds.

I do however believe that any war protection past this one secured country per world is detrimental to the war game.

If you wish to sit in your secured country and play the economic side more power to you. If you want to expand your control as in the real world, do so at your own risk. Eventually you'll find someone that wants something you have and will attempt to take it.

This game is slanted toward the premium player sitting on multiple worlds. Able to build and move massive armies from one world to another. If you want to invest the time and in some cases the money anyone can eventually become a force to be considered. If you think about it, why shouldn't it be? This game costs money to run and develop it has to come from somewhere. If the 4 dollars a month is too expensive, either it's not entertaining enough or you may need to rethink your expenditures in general.

Taking the ability to attack another player due to additional war restrictions has for all practical purposes killed the war game for all but a very few. And most of those players either have no inclination to fight each anyway.

An armed society for the most part is a polite society. You can for the most part talk trash or aggravate any player you want these days, what recourse do they have?

As far as "reasons" for one player to go after another? They will eventually provide their own. Breathing my oxygen is as good as any other.

That is my humble opinion on the subject.


Thursday, February 9, 2017 - 05:10 am Click here to edit this post
Maybe they need to make an evil C3 country with ability to attack player countries and be super armed (call it the CSIS of simcountry). Would make the game interesting. :)


Thursday, February 9, 2017 - 05:48 am Click here to edit this post
Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of that form of aggravation for little or no gain. Doesn't sound any different than in times past when a swarm of players would grab a country close to their target and launch sneak attacks and declare. Generally disrupting plans and frustrating a player more than anything. Usually there was very little gain involved.

The simple fact is eventually they will be forced to do something. It's the premium members along with free members buying GC's keeping the game open and I think most of them play simply out of habit rather than any real entertainment factor.

But, I've been saying that for years now.


Friday, February 10, 2017 - 02:38 pm Click here to edit this post


As far as "reasons" for one player to go after another? They will eventually provide their own. Breathing my oxygen is as good as any other.

That is my humble opinion on the subject.

Agreed, there should be no reason at all. War is a part of this game.

I do suggest this Andy, perhaps 2 secured mains can be replaced by the current single main. Currently, with new restrictions, a player can technically play in secured mode with any number of countries(I.E. Xon who has some 20 countries under war level on FB of all places). This adds some reasonable base of protection. This also drives players to "play nice" with others if they plan on expanding beyond those 2 entities. It restores the fundamental reason for player interaction and federation building. This is all missing due to half a game that has reduced beyond expectation.

As a note on chat being slow. It is a really important aspect of player retention. Its' priority is seriously overlooked. I know for certain, I needed only declare war on someone and that room would fill instantly. People need something to talk about.

No risk = no federations and no diplomacy. When I began almost a decade ago 2 things enticed me into and kept me in this game. The idea of turning some 1's and 0's into cash into real cash(did that) and the thriving community driven by risk/reward, raiding, federations, and war. It all had a great backstory, players loved and hated each other and it was like another world. Today, there are many people from the past, many great veterans and name-worthy players who have come forward and for reasons I understand, who continue to play(if only quietly) because they hold on to the previous state of the game.

I'm not saying adding some protections to the old way was a bad idea at all. I also in the past suggested that every player should be afforded 3 main secured countries. The problem was exaggerated which in turn led to the current solution.

In conclusion I will give some bullet point solutions and end it so as not to drown myself out with so many words.

Problems 1
Suggestions 2
Expected Outcome 3

* 1- Lack of war game
2- Relax the War Rules To a 2 main max, no war levels. War Protections cost GC(TEST on
FB) Roll out on all worlds potentially
3- People might actually fight there one day.

* 1- There will be risk involved
2- Explain this better! At every opportunity. Explain how poor interactions in the game and forums can cause players to be attacked. Explain that expansion can lead to being attacked for no reason at all. The need to interact and associate with other players and federations to make expanding a safer proposition.
3- Players will understand the risk and even if they are wiped back out to 2 mains, they can never be knocked out of the game by anyone whatsoever, never ever. Win/Win

* 1- Players who lose wars will cry.
2- Let the chips land where they may. Let the community deal with 'bad guys'. Try a 'less is more approach' and intervene in extreme situations or when cheating of some sort is involved.
3- Players will begin to evaluate what they can do differently to get a different outcome and stop thinking there is something they can get you guys to react to at every turn. Potentially, players will outgrow being 'just' econ players and become complete and capable participants in the Total Game. There is no division, Econ and War go hand in hand. The best war players are typically the best econ players.

As the game is today, you have all the economic players interested in playing an economic game here already. There is another potential player who may enter the game and become disappointed if they are actually looking to play the war side or a combination of both. This has to be addressed.

I hope this helps.


Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - 01:05 pm Click here to edit this post
We need some time to get back on this.
We agree that there should be more war motivation and are looking at what should be done, functions needed etc.
(without a major rewrite...)


Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - 11:16 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy a good step in the right direction would IMHO be:

Remove secured mode for players with countries that haven't signed in for 4-6 months. I thought the reason behind the free play was your account was secure as long as you were active.

This step alone would give everyone something to do for a while. There are a lot of little inactive empires that would be worth a lot more than a C3 if we could get to them. And since you can't attack a player country from your secured main, that would mean THEY would have to have something hanging out there to snap those countries up.

Remove all level requirements and give everyone ONE secured country on all worlds (FB included). That way you can't be knocked off any world and expansion of an empire has always carried risks.

Yes there are massive players that it would take years to challenge but you know it took them years and a lot of work to get that way.

It's possible to build a empire spanning all worlds and eventually grow to a size were you can actually defend anything you wish to grab outside your one secured country.

Outside of "you're breathing my oxygen" capturing the assets of another player has always been motivation for war in this game. If you don't want to risk anything don't expand outside your secured country. If you want your free country to be secured login and play the game (seems simple to me)


Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 04:59 pm Click here to edit this post
We will relax limitations and controls. we have already started doing so. Check the war game and the ability to use medium range missiles from bases.

We also decided to push forward the resources game.
we will publish some of the main features on the forum in the coming days.

James the fair

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 09:21 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks Andy, this will ease things a bit. Well I'm pleased you've read my thread as this means a lot. I'm surprised there's been a lot of feedback on this page alone, I want to thank everyone for all their comments so far.


Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - 12:12 pm Click here to edit this post
we are not done.
We want to proceed with more small steps without rocking the boat.

James the fair

Friday, February 24, 2017 - 08:12 pm Click here to edit this post
Alright, fair enough. As doing too many changes at once could ruin the game play for a lot people, including myself.

So Andy, what do you think of my suggestions at the top this page? Please tell me which ones you like or do not like, and explain why. Thanks.


Monday, February 27, 2017 - 04:43 pm Click here to edit this post
Next update will relax the rules on the trading of nuclear weapons on FB.
Currently, some products cannot be traded.

With the introduction of a maintenance product for these weapons, we think that it is another reason for making the trading on the market of these products easier.

For every new regulation we should remove two. right?
all these regulations, SAD!

James the fair

Friday, March 3, 2017 - 09:12 pm Click here to edit this post
Its true that there too many regulations in general and I know that introducing a maintenance product on weapons makes sense. As it costs the countries for keeping them which is fair enough.

What isn't fair though is that the enterprises do not have to pay a single penny for the upkeep for all those weapons they have stored in those enterprises. Why?

If theres a way of making those making enterprises pay for the maintenance of those weapons like how the way countries do. It would spell an end for players who have a huge amount of military weapons in them, which would force them to sell a lot of them, if not most of them. Which would balance the war game much more. As they store them there to avoid paying for any maintenance in their own countries.

If you view the value the amount of the military assets some enterprises have in the game, you will see what I mean. Knowing the maintenance of all that is for free.


Friday, March 3, 2017 - 10:33 pm Click here to edit this post
Why would we want to "spell an end" for any player? Would it not be better to improve the war game and create incentive to participate in the war game? In this way, players would have reason to use these weapons. The real problem is there has been no active war game causing players to put their toys away. Adding maintenance to enterprise weapons will not create reason to war nor would it "balance the war game".


Friday, March 3, 2017 - 11:52 pm Click here to edit this post
But aries, why would any reasonable player without any CEOs ever declare war against a bigger target who does have CEOs?

This game should be about striking a balance between economic and warring.

As a simple player, there is NO incentive for me to attack you, even with a large army of my own that costs a 100 billion a month.

Why? Because even with a large army that I have spent trillions on, upgrading and maintaining, I know that Titans like you, SuperSoldier, Khome, and etc. have been hoarding weapons and ammunition for years.

I dare not attack any countries of yours, even if they have no defenses because you would shuttle in so many mobile units, transfer military products from CEO to country and have a military that's 50x bigger than mine.

Let's be truly honest, getting rid of the war levels just makes it so that Titans don't have to face each other, but can level lower players with impunity with weapons they have hoarded for nearly 10 years. The only incentive for war here would be for the bigger and older players.

Adding maintenance to enterprise would force them to use those weapons instead of hoarding them.

With that being said, I cannot ever see myself ever catching up with you, simply because you hoard more weapons and ammunition than Hoarders who hoard cats.


Saturday, March 4, 2017 - 12:01 am Click here to edit this post
Realistically, James is also correct. In the real world, if you put some fighter planes, ships, and tanks away, don't expect it to still be able to compete with weapons 40-50 years later.

We can't put 1,000 F-22s or M1 Abrams in a garage, not have any upgrades or successors and then still consider it top of the line in 40-50 years.

They should undergo degradation.

Now, we've had MULTIPLE players ask about this, and there are some pushbacks, namely from players who have abused this feature and don't want to see their 1,000 trillion in army assets waste away in quality.


Saturday, March 4, 2017 - 01:18 am Click here to edit this post
As a simple player, or any player, there is little incentive to risk attacking any player at any time. Rewards are mostly found in the econ game or with raising game level or war level. Attacking any player, let alone an experienced war player, is a risky proposition. Most aggressive war players eventually met their match and lost big.

It is true, and rightly so, that you are not able to limit a defending player to the defenses in a single country. As an attacker, you also have no such limitation. You can attack the same country with numerous countries, marshaling forces for such an assault as you please. Why would it be so that the defender has any less choice to respond to a war that you declared at a time and location of your own choosing? Limiting the defender to the resources in the single country that you choose would be ludicrous.

I never said anything about removing war levels, except for making it so on the "war world" (which is currently a joke). Even so, your impression of war levels is off base. High war levels are not reserved for players of much resources or exceptional skill. A computer country that does not shoot back is easy prey for any player with the skill to read a simple guide. Traditionally, players who wish to engage in PvP remained at the low war levels. War level limitations mostly just prevented your federation allies, who play more conventionally and raised their war level, from being able to fully assist you against an aggressor at a lower war level. Also, war levels are world-based (this was discussed before and the decision was to leave it this way).

As much as at may seem daunting to collect resources and challenge the most powerful players, you may be surprised that empires have risen and fell throughout the history of Simcountry. With skill and effort, it is possible to "catch" anyone. The key is to stay motivated by your own goals, as the game set goals are modest. Adding maintenance to weapons in enterprises would complicate the operation of enterprises
who manufacture weapons and do nothing to "balance" warfare.

If we are going with realism, we would have to address the reason so many weapons are not used in the first place. That is that game protections offered with secured mode, temporary war protection, and war levels replacing the function of defense, leaving no role for weapons, attack or defense. Players storing weapons for an occasion where game protections actually let them be used is no more an abuse than players who never leave magical game protections. Are you prepared to say every player who is under war level 3 or that has secured mode active is committing some type of game abuse?

I am willing to say both categories of players are playing the game the way it currently exists. Rather than chasing realism, my solution is to make the game a fun experience for both war players and econ players. In that context, secured mode and war levels (except for on the "war world") make as much sense as storing weapons in an enterprise. In the current game experience, the econ game is well rewarded with little risk but the game has lost most of its warriors due to a lack of incentive and the overwhelming risk of the PvP game experience. I have offered a number of solutions to this, including Battlegrounds and the War College (search the suggestions forum for these). Lets make the game fun for both econ players and war players without accusing folks of game abuse. fair?


Saturday, March 4, 2017 - 02:34 pm Click here to edit this post
You know people this is a game and is suppose to have some entertainment value.

What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.

We all come into this game with nothing. Those who are successful, adapt and grow. Many times that involves YEARS of effort.

Then along comes a new group of players expecting everyone to give up years of effort in order to level the playing field for them.

That's bullshit people. If you want the same advantages afforded to anyone else you can own a CEO and a country on any or all worlds.

CEO's are clearing houses for product they cannot use them. They can of course direct their resources to back countries that player owns or really any country in the game.

The advantages CEO's provide a country they build in already outweigh any disadvantage you may "think" they have in storage capability.

CEO's have ALWAYS been used in conjunction with countries, if you want that power or as you claim advantage, get with the program and build your own.

James the fair

Sunday, March 5, 2017 - 02:46 pm Click here to edit this post
But Yankee, there's going to be no entertainment value left when it's all one sided and heavily favours those who have enterprises which allows those players who have countries, to store their weapons in there for free. I could do that myself since I have an enterprise as well. I see it as loophole and as an extremely effective way of saving maintenance costs. To be right, I should be storing all my weapons inside my enterprise and not my countries, in order to save on all those maintenance costs. But I choose not to. Besides, I want to have an active an active military on standby at all times when or even if, I go up to war level 3. But knowing that theres players at those war levels who also keep huge amounts of weapons in their enterpises for free, I can't see it ever happening, which is why I am still stuck at war level 2. If I went up to that level, I could well lose everything I have built in this game to these maintenance free weapon hoarders.

Aries, I understand that you want to create incentives and rewards to participate in the war game. I do as well, and i'm always trying to find ways of improving and balancing the war game as well. But knowing that theres a few players who can store weapons in enterprises maintenance free, while the vast majority of the players in the game cannot. It is not going to encourage or improve the war game at all since they know they will be finished if one of those players who have an unlimited amount of weapons maintenance free declares war on them.

Seizeforce, i'm glad theres someone who understands me where i'm coming from here. I think degradation for weapons is a good idea up to a point, especially if they've been stored there for a long time. Which could also mean that if they all downgrade from quality 600, then all the way down to 100 for all the time they've been stored there. Some players may choose to sell them all, especially for countries who currently pay for those maintenance costs for their weapons that are in storage as it wouldn't be worth it for them to keep them.

Overall, I think removing or at least relaxing the war levels can eventually be done, probably in the very distant future if a lot of other changes to the game were made that influences the war game directly or indirectly.


Sunday, March 5, 2017 - 05:43 pm Click here to edit this post
Did I miss something? Why can't any player do the same thing? Also, you have not explained how this "improves" or "balances" the war game?

Something that amazes me too is the constant thinking that it must be you versus the world if, oh my gosh, you leave magical game protection. Why don't you try to make friends? There are these things called federations that noone really uses because magical game protections have replaced them. The community is fully capable of policing themselves if you let them.

Look around. Who is left playing this game? Honestly, all the aggressive players have left. All that are left are econ players. You have a choice. You can join the community, make friends, join a fed, and play the game like a multi-player game, or you can continue to stay in war level 2. Why should the game bend over backwards for you so before you dip your toe into, gasp, war level 3 so some phantom "balance" can be achieved?

Balance exists in the community. Wars between players should not be considered to be a continuation of the single-player experience you currently enjoy. Join a fed, make a fed, make some friends, and seek protection in the community of nations that actually exists in this game and could be enhanced if this single-player mindset would just go away.


Sunday, March 5, 2017 - 06:01 pm Click here to edit this post
What I can't understand is the mindset for some type of entitlement to a level playing field against people who have invested YEARS into this game.

Everyone, has every tool available. You can't even claim lack of misunderstanding of the game documents (if you bothered to read them) every large player here will explain how to do it. Thing is you obviously know about it and simply choose not to do it.

You have access to a CEO, You have access to a secured country which nobody can take away from you unless you do something insane to drag it out of protection.

If you want to play the economy game, nobody can touch you.

(Unless of course you like giving up all your shares in state owned corps then try to rape other players by attracting them with zero tax then jacking them to the limit making money on both ends. That tends to hurt doesn't it James?)

I'm just as vulnerable as anyone and yet I'd like to see all war levels disappear.

I've seen this game when it was worth playing now, it's simply a habit.

Are you playing to create an empire or win a participation award?


Sunday, March 5, 2017 - 06:48 pm Click here to edit this post
James and SeizeForce: It's your choice whether to grab the tools available to you or to forgo their use. It sounds like you're choosing to not use and to instead complain. I suppose that's your right.

It is malicious to want to "spell the end" for players who don't play like you. Changing the rules to hurt players who have been playing by the rules for months or years, while presenting contrived (and overly simplistic) justifications? That's not balance or realism, that's called spite.

The balance already exists. You've already revealed your selfish motives - why should you receive a handout?


Sunday, March 12, 2017 - 09:58 am Click here to edit this post


What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.

This has been the most overlooked issue of all. Even subtle changes that cannot be anticipated, or expected, has too great an impact. On Everything.

One Word: ROLLBACK! Then leave it alone.

We need a paradigm shift and change our algorithm to a similar one weighted 80 -improving to 20 -changing

80 -the framework that existed(Graphics/Servers/Functionality/p2p interactions)

20 -any changes deemed absolutely necessary to facilitate a successful rollback.

As far as avoiding a major coding burden. I suggest a rollback on a single world. Just make the changes prove themselves before implementing it on a larger scale. This way it is not wasted effort and gives you a good timeframe of 6mo - 1yr to prepare a larger implementation if you find the results desirable.

Don't you miss when threads this long were just full of smack talk about wars and rumors of wars? I do. Anything less than a restore back to a previous restore point isn't going to move the war game back into the black. Rollback, and fine-tune the most extreme examples of deficiency in the previous successful version. This will avoid any major new coding burden.

One alternative I imagined while I typed. I think you'll like it. It addresses both sides of the argument unfolding here.

Start a new World/Server in a pre war level state.
Fresh Start for everyone.

No War Levels.
No Shuttling of anything. Or extremely limited quantities like 1T of any kind of asset per real day.

This will eliminate much of the concern of newer players not being able to compete with players who have been here for a while.

It gives everyone of this era, old or new, the ability to play on as level a playing field as it can get. Should be as simple as Copy and pasting Code of one world, Removing all the countries and letting everyone start fresh.

Seems easier than unwinding all the work that was done to create the new SC on all the worlds and more importantly it doesn't affect ANYONE adversely. No empires need to be migrated, nobody has to be shorted because of any changed or surprised by any snap implementations.

They can either participate or not. And depending on their gripe, you will know where to advise them to play to their satisfaction. I like this idea more than everything I wrote before it now that I have typed it.

I hope this helps. Sorry for the long message.

Add a Message