The Carrot, the Stick, and the War Game

imo lack of community, unprofitibility, and refinement have declined the player base. The war game as it is now is far more refined and "better" than it ever was. However for the average person looking to get into a game and create a working economy, create a military and use it, I think its far too complicated. Many people built assets because it was far easier than it is now and there was far more help from the community. War was easier to prepare for and while some say war is cheaper now, I disagree,now I have a hard time building a country that can support a large military. In fact I have found it difficult to have any military and remain self sufficient. Perhaps this is because I spend little time learning but look around, most people aren't profiting much. Why try to build a military when doing so kills your finance index and then your weapons get automatically deactivated. Not many people have a lot of time to devote to a game like this

The ability to repeatedly raid novice level computer countries for unlimited cash was changed but the ability to build wealth through economic means remains the same. Examples exist of empires that earn considerable wealth. Duplicating much of this success is possible without considerable game knowledge. Players that attempt to learn from successful players have even more potential.

The potential is still here to build wealth and there are examples that prove this, the potential for an active war game still exists, wars prove this but the ability for either isn't what it used to be. This game is largely played either for economic or military reasons, sometimes both. You have much ability, you've taken the time to gain that economic and military ability but that patience with a game is a rare thing. Game changes have been a large complaint from many people, why do you think that is? It takes time to learn how to make things work well here, not many people want to learn something and then find out some of what they learned is now useless or not optimal. I've played plenty long enough to expect it and am happy not to try to make the best of my country because life is just too busy and when I've spent time and effort to make it the best I can, inevitably something comes along and forces me to spend more time to keep the st

It doesn't help that half the game docs are misinformation

And you don't really need experience to win a war you just need to know what your doing which can b accomplished through talking to vets and asking questions reading the forums.... Fighting c3s and moving up war levels doesn't mean you are a skilled warfighter... Warlevels don't mean anything just another arbitrary way to keep people from playing the war game whch is why i choose to stay at lev 3 though seems some game changes have made that more difficult

And you don't really need experience to win a war you just need to know what your doing which can b accomplished through talking to vets and asking questions reading the forums.... Fighting c3s and moving up war levels doesn't mean you are a skilled warfighter... Warlevels don't mean anything just another arbitrary way to keep people from playing the war game whch is why i choose to stay at lev 3 though seems some game changes have made that more difficult

i've always seen war levels, like, well, i used to MUD, those that don't know, it stands for Multipul User Demention, its a precursor to Ever Quest, and World of Warcraft, same thing, but text based, like Zork.

I used to enjoy PvP on these things, much more challenging than fighting computer generated monsters. But in MUDs where their was no level protection, their would of course be a couple of players that would level up really high, then destroy every one in the MUD, as often as they could. those MUDs died off quickly in popularity.

How ever, their where a couple that offered some degree of protection, based on success, That is, until a player would only be able to fight those that "should" be able to defend themselves. In a contrast of 2 MUDs, the one with a large player based, had a stronger, healthier competition level. But the one with few players, few PvP options, resulted in the strongest few, again, dest

i suggested some where else, as a way to simplify the war game, while still maintaining its sophifistication,

Remove the "attack" buttom

make all attacks automated, based on movement and targeting preference, and give all units "x" number of attacks per sim day.

winning and loosing will still be based on size, and skill, but some what reduce the severity of the learning curve, while reducing the time commitment. creating an environment that is more supportive of casual players.

I like that idea


Of course there should be exceptions for sneak attacks and nukes

The point I'm making is that war levels aren't an accurate indicator of warfighting skill so they don't accomplish anything except segregate players who would otherwise interact and give people some sort of pointless milestone to achieve

i'd agree, at least partially

The "remove the attack" button has many problems that you have not solved or acknowledged. If this is truly a suggestion, take it to an appropriate thread where it can be appropriately thought out and discussed.

I don't think you hit a real issue with war levels until your 3rd point. The addition of war levels were fine as long as there is adequate incentive to achieve them. As we experienced, many players with the ability to achieve high war level simply didn't because of the restrictions that would result in PVP play.

Since war levels are the popular topic, here is how I would change them.

1. War levels offer no protection on FB. New empires are offered 21 days war protection. War levels still exist to offer the gold coin awards.

2. War level 3 is reverted to be like 1 and 2 and is unable to declare or be declared on by other players.

3. All players war level 4+ are free to declare or be de

aries, this entire thread is a "suggestion" get over yourself, jeese

and those concerns where addressed, just not to your liking, you don't like the suggestion, because it softens the blow of your hyper-activity, which it is actually designed for, not you particular, but to give casual players a better fighting chance.

It isn't to my liking because it doesn't work. About "hyper-activity", you don't know me like that.

it allows for a less intense experience, which is a common complaint about the war game.

between the endless clicking, hours spent keeping on top of the latest changes, bugs, and exploits. months of building, weeks and weeks of planning, and preparation.

playing like that, makes SC a second job, which many people are just looking for a casual hobby.

but your argument against it, is that it does not reward such behavior. and there for does not work,

no, no, no, it does not work for you

I think im going to pop some popcorn and get soda...this is getting good...

You don't play the war game. The only players I have seen advocate "a less intense experience" are you and Madoff. I know of no game with a less intense war experience than Simcountry. Your thoughts on other threads on how the pvp game currently works were out of touch with the modern game. The idea that you have an answer for the war game borders on absurd.

The balance of the war system is better than it has ever been right now. It is possible to defend your country. On the other hand, it is possible to plan and execute very effective attacks. You have not explained how you would maintain this balance, at all. Offensive units are not effective understrength and would not work making multiple attacks on their own. Limits on the number of offensive attacks existed at Simcountry launch. It had issues, among them players would simply run an offensive from multiple countries (this made the war experience no less "intense").

Sorry to butt in...but.....
ToeCutter Bro?....You said 'Of course there were one or two rogues (Wendy *cough*, nix *cough*) who didn't respect the unwritten code but they were slapped down by the bigger players.'

As I am Nix I would like to know who smacked me down?
There has not been one enemy yet that has not begged for mercy or jumped into war protection at the first opportunity Bro.

You can't be serious Nix.

you know, it wasn't that my thoughts where out of touch, but more aware of what would happen in a more competitive environment.

I wonder if either Orbiter or Aries can name a game with a war element that does work to everyone's satisfaction ?

People are always going to try to gain advantage in any setting, apart from maybe some purist Zen monk or such. So if there is a way to make, or take someone else's, stuff, we are going to do it. That's the idea of a game isn't it, to win, to be the baddest, richest, most recognised, be it econ or war.

So put restrictions on war and we are going to go the econ route. Make the risk too high and we are going to go the econ route. Make the rewards to easy and we are going to take advantage at a lesser (read newer) players expense.

I've played quite a few real PvP games, and there has always been a bigger badder player than me and then another bigger and badder than them.

So, if it is decided that players should have protection to do their econ thing then that's the way it is.

and you know, their would need to be adjustments

damaged offensive units/wings, are indeed not very effective. i did mention that their should be a player set minimum weapons % prior to an auto-attack, to keep offensive units from pointlessly auto-destroying themselves

also, an auto-retreat option, facing considerations and stacking limits

how ever, if you remove the create/attack/dismantle/repeat process, it will take considerably longer for the offense to destroy the defensive air.

as i think about it, their are quiet a few things that could be done to counter huge defenses. but it would of course take time. one thought, is units with a better variety of weapons. similar to the Mobile Attack Units, or the Mobile Land Units. that can address a variety of on-the-field challenges, forcing defenses to create a variety of obstacles, rather than being over run while air defenses are still strong.

their are

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 06:35 pm Click here to edit this post
War has been declared on WGC.

There was a time when simcountry had lots of wars, and
many players built reputations as warlords, politicians,
and loyal allies. However, these times appear to be disappearing,
and for those of us who like a good war, this is discouraging.

The Mob has never been a "peaceful" federation, but has
used restraint in an attempt to let players grow on its
homeworlds of Fearless Blue and Little Upsilon.

No war of any substance has been fought this calendar
year. No players appear to care about their security
other than fending off wendy's periodic noob raids. This
is truly not the spirit of a healthy game, or a fun one.

EO<!-/Quote-!>

the war game problem, existed before war levels. war levels ar

You brought up war levels so I answered it. You brought up a war game overhaul, which has issues, so I pointed it out. Still waiting for an answer to the big question though.

Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?

Orbiter:

"given our presence, and the high demand for weapons/ammo, you'd think one of the 33 presidents would take a moment to look at our empires, and notice huge war slaves. strategically located countries, and C3s. Massive clusters, with huge air d wings. all a person in WGC had to do to see this coming was look. Doesn't WGC have ministers of defense or something? "

I think it is weird you point to a thread involving a world war on WG to make a point about the decline of the war game back then. One that you were involved in and appears to have involved dozens of players. Old threads are not easy to find but relevant ones to this conflict include these links:

https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/3712/126002.html

https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/1/126095.html

whats the point aries? yea, i fought in that, i'm proud of that fact. but you should realize allot of players quit over that. SC has not been the same since.

but the point of that was that death of the war game was happening before war levels. that war declaration, is what started a series of events that ended with war levels. it was the nail in the coffin.

Aaron Doolavay, above, was in WGC at that time. i was on the Mobs side, not as a member, but active ally. forcing players to play at a level above their comfort level, caused many players to quit.

that was the reason behind War Levels. and it is the thought behind my concept, "Remove the Attack Button," several players have agreed the idea sounds good, it allows for planning, preparation, experience, diplomacy, and size. with other obvious adjustments needing to be made, with out requiring players to work sim country like a job.

you can on