Little Upsilon - Calling On All Good Presidents

Johanas Bilderberg,

In real life, deterrence through strength is an effective policy.

Everyone has everything to lose in a war, their homes, their communities, their loved ones, their lives. Even the victors suffer horrible loses.

In a simulated world however. People can only lose in-game assets. Which, to some players will always have little meaning.

In real life, a nuclear counter strike, is an effect deterrent to a nuclear attack. However, in a game, there will always be someone that wants to do it, just for fun, even if they suffer large loses.

People don't start wars for fun in real life, because the personal risk and cost, is far to high. In a simulation/game, people often take risks and do destructive things, they wouldn't be willing to do in real life situations.

That's why a game world, needs more safeguards than the real world. Deterrence doesn't stop people doing things for th

That is why you need war protection. You aren't everyone. Build an adequate defense, join a federation, don't be an asshat. That is enough protection for a game.

Dropping war levels would bring some life back to this game, Federations used to be the way new players learned how to function. They created player retention and long term friendship. World politics was an active part of the game. Actions had consequences, little fish had a school to hide in, and the game was not only more fun but also alive.

War is the answer.

Maybe the answer is then mutually assured destruction? Super powered nukes that are incredibly hard to stop? Two nuclear armed foes that know if one or the other engaged in warfare, both may not lose their states, but would lose everything in them, as they're both obliterated?

Maybe this calls for an automated launch system? If another player launches weapons at you, your nation launches immediately and automatically as well.

Thus it becomes a true deterrent.

With the player able to set priority of targets (population centers, corps, forts, etc).

And the automated system rapidly fires nukes on each target as the nuclear stockpile allows.

This would immediately force people to think before dropping nukes.

The only problem is the ability of anyone to take a c3 and fire nukes from there.

One way around the C3 exploit, for mutually assured destruction,bus to allow the automated system to fire on a number of states owned by the attacker, without the need to officially declare war.

So let's say Country A declares war on Country B, using a recently conquered C3, to shield Country A from losses/risk.

Country A has 6 (5 states plus the new c3) states.
Country B has 5 states.

Let's say Country A decides to use the C3 to nuke a state in Country B. Only Country A's c3 is officially at war with Country B's states.

If Country A launches a nuke from the C3, Country B's automated system kicks in and targets any target in any state owned by Country A, without the need to declare war, based on priority of targets (population centers, corporations, bases, forts, etc).

Now, to launch a nuke is a very delicate situation.

I agree fully with Johanas. The game now feels like a shell of its former self. Dropping war levels would bring that life blood of interaction back into the game. Interaction between players has always been the culprit behind higher rates of player retention for me personally and the many friends I have made in the game.

The point still remains that we have a player in the game who is being disrespectful to another player as it relates to hostile bidding. If we allow this to happen, what will protect you in the future from such vile behavior? In my opinion, if this GarryDavidson1 wasn't a jerk, when asked to stop, he would have. But no, this player thumbed his nose and doubled his efforts. So, what do we do as a community?

If war is off the table, there needs to be some means of a countermeasure. I understand the argument about the previous war game which ultimately could wipe players out, but there needs to be some form of response that would grab the attention of the offender.

I have always advocated for the need of federations in the game. Playing with a group of players is way more fun. It's a teaching tool for new players. You stand for and defend each other. Federations promote true competition in the game, and as Johanas stated earl

I should add...........providing that an eco war doesn't make it quit.

Common Markets, CEOs, and economic cooperation are a good way to foster constructive player interaction.

There are 21 different enterprises, all with Corporations based in my country. It's in each of our interests to ensure that the other thrives. My success in managing the country, helps them succeed in making a successful enterprise. Their success in managing their enterprise, helps me develop my country.

Because of this we share knowledge openly. Helping each other succeed, and giving advice, as there is nothing to gain from sabotaging each other. And everything to gain from working together.

I've made friends in this game, and spent many hours talking to other players. All without having to destroy anyone.

By comparison, if players were actively fighting and hunting for targets. We wouldn't want to make each other successful, because that would just made our potential future rivals stronger.

Inste

Nothing about warfare precludes cooperation and open discussion. In fact it encourages it.

Large Federations served as universities teaching new players the techniques to move from little fish to medium sized fish to finally big fish. Recruitment was a major part of the forums, Education, active politics and mutual defense was the main benefit of joining.

The easy solution is to allow players to choose a path that limits them to a single world, single country and peaceful mode. They could sit in the corner and play with their trains. CEO's could avoid that world and I see it as win win.

The real players meanwhile would have all options open to them, and the game might get some life back into it.

^agreed.

Johanas Bilderberg,

CEOs are a critical part of economic gameplay. Additionally, they is no reason to limit paying players to a single country, or a single world, just because they don't want to bomb people.

On one thing we agree. A separate world is probably part of a solution. Since Crison One was a colossal failure, (not enough people were actually interested in signing up for a true PvP world, so it couldn't even get off the ground), Fearless Blue is the natural choice for the war players.

War restrictions could be eased on Fearless Blue, with little impact on the majority of Simcountry's player base, that don't wish to participate in war. (As evidenced by the vast majority of players, remaining at war level 0, even as though there are large and unrealistic incentives to engage in unnecessary fights).

That way, we could have the best of both systems. Simcountry for the regular players.

Hello, I want to join but I have never engaged any wars could someone help how to get started please i am gladly to listen and help. thank you.

So your idea is four dead worlds and one semi alive? That seems selfish.

One country is always secured as long as you never expand you have nothing to worry about. Yet here we are. You will never expand so why do you worry so?

That is the real question.

Johanas Bilderberg,

There are four peaceful worlds, and only one war one, because there aren't enough war players to populate two. Remember Crimson One? The full PvP world, the fully 'alive' world, by your standards. Which incidentally, had fewer players than any other world in the game.

Also the game isn't 'dead', hardly a day goes by that I don't have some form of interaction with other players, worker exchanges, coordinating with CEOs, discussions about the game, learning about different mechanics. War doesn't equal life, and peace doesn't equal death.

As to your second point. I care about other players, and it's fundamentally unfair to prohibit expansion for peaceful players, even though they pay just as much for the game. No one paying for the game, should be banned from expanding, just because they aren't fighting wars. Also, I already answered this multiple times in previous posts

You misunderstand war levels. If any player expands their empire they move past WL 3 they are fair game for a war. The only "peaceful" option is to remain a single country.

There is no peaceful world.

Also my concern is to bring back raiding. Taking inactive countries before they derreg is a great way to gain assets. I have taken many countries, reworked them, sold them on the market or at the very least stripped out the population and assets for my own use.

I don't have any intention of fighting new players. They don't have anything worth taking.

@ Daniel and rest of Community:

Hey there, Daniel!

When people come in to look at Simcountry, they judge the game by what they see - the amount of activity in the forums and the chat and what they read in the war decs section, the newspapers on your country pages. If players don't talk to each other in the open, there are no game politics being discussed,no wars, no federation competition, no game banter, they view Simcountry as "dead".

I've invited several past players to come back to the game. They pop in (and I know many other do) to see what's going on! Their response, "Game is dead".

This breaks my heart, because I remember how things once were. The forums had talk/politics on all world threads, not just General.

I have stressed so many times how it is important that we, the current players of the game, talk to each other and work together to learn, to expand...to r

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no pressure on anyone! ha ha ha ha


*Sticks tongue out at Dubletar! ha ha ha ha

;)

<3