W3C - Nuclear attacks and damage to neighbors

Almost all online games involve conflict and competition with others. There are very few cooperative games out there. I am not opposed to cooperative playing, but there simply is not enough content in this game for that style of play. Maybe if there were AI countries that caused problems in the game world and players could band together to fight them and occupy them. Or having rebellions that players could fight against with troops, like a counter insurgency thing. If there was stuff like that to do, then pvp might not be as necessary. Unfortunately this game is pretty barebones. Without the player to player interaction it is just a giant spread sheet simulator, which is not very fun.

There are already in place solutions to counter some of the toxic issues you brought up. The game has black out periods which you can set where no one can attack you. Every country gets 8 hours per day. There is war protection boosters to use if you are away for an

Life is conflict. Any geo political simulator must include conflict for some realism. Just like in the real world the old adage still holds true.

Stay strapped or get clapped.

Old player back to the game trying it out. A minor player of the old TSPX federation of the fabled war I've seen with doublestar talked about on FB long long ago.

The old old nuclear/strategic system was fine tbh. Realism does not always make better gameplay, They were just another tool.

I advocated for a tournament pvp world but had left before it was released.

I see war levels were used as a stop gap between established and new players. It is a lot more new player friendly, with free money and more automation
but instead of so many war levels
If maintenance cost on military equipment increased exponentially in some way rather than linear to create a soft cap it could do a lot.

TLDR and thoughts: nuke upkeep should increase exponentially. CEO's should be not allowed to have or produce strategic goods. If we use the newer system Attacking a country with Strategic weapons should cause automated MAD

Otto maybe you still have the contacts of old TSPX members, it would be good to see them back.

Welcome back Otto Bismark!

It's a different world! Cheers!

I am perfectly willing to pay for weapons maint, I am even willing to pay higher military costs to keep my strategic force in a war slave.

As long as the artificial constraints on actually using them are removed the cost would be well worth it.

John Galt's three step process for bringing this game off of life support.

1) Remove War Levels Completely
2) Merge Offensive/Defensive/Strategic Weapons into one category type with no duplicate weapons. Everything should have both offensive and defensive ability.
3) Watch game population and revenues grow.

You guys really need to start listening to the players who play this game at a high level and who know what the hell they are talking about. Geopolitical simulators attract a certain kind of player. One that enjoys imagining themselves as a president of a country in an active world with politics, diplomacy, and conflict. Economic only players should not be playing as a president. They should be playing as a CEO. The CEO game needs to be expanded to keep those players interested. What you are doing now is destroying the president side of the game, and all the players who would potentially be interested in that, fo

Also, I want to add. If you remove war levels from the game and remove space travel of all weapons & ammo, you will force players to maintain standing armies. This will do wonders for the weapons maintenance and ammunition markets. Furthermore, by having standing armies, you will create new markets for weapon and ammo upgrades as it will be worthwhile to maximize the strength of your army with upgrades rather than deploying more numbers since it will be cheaper on maintenance, ammo, and salary costs.

Many discussions here:

I will refer to several points:

1. I hear that small countries, less than 50M cannot build an army.
Is that so. I think they can build a small one and these countries can be very profitable.

2. The free storage of weapons in enterprises and space stations.
On space stations it is not completely free. You need the space to
store them.
The easiest solution for enterprises is to lower the quality of stored weapons.
3. We are now changing FB to be more of a war world.
Is there a problem with war levels.
War levels on FB allow you to win many gold coins.
What else does it do?
Do we need to remove war levels from FB? why?
4. attacking from a conquered C3 country?
We could require a minimum population number or it should be part of your empire for a minimum number of days before it can use nukes.