W3C - The Simcountry War Game (White Giant)

Fearless Blue remains a war world and war will remain part of the game on all the other worlds.

Formally, one could say that following the rules as stated in the game, you should be able to fight anyone, anytime without limitations and without reason.

However, we would like the game to be more inviting and less hostile to players, mainly new players and ones who are not able to invest the time needed to build great defense but are mainly interested in the economic part of the game.

We hope that players will try to be fair and not destructive.

If you want to fight a war, find an enemy who can seriously fight back instead of preying upon people who have no clue how destructive a war could be and who wake up to discover that everything is gone.

These people may have invested a lot of time to build and destruction can be swift.

None of this is in our rules but we always found many who thought likewise and

IMHO there should be no limts on the number of countries that can be attacked. Some of the most fun in war is coordinating such attacks with fedmates/allies on your enemies, if limits are introduced it will be a one by one process which will slow down the whole process.

If this was happening on other worlds I could see it being a huge issue but this is the war world as stated many other places. If you are trying to give people a chance to build up on the war world before becoming possible targets why don't you just introduce secured mode for a set period of time for new presidents?

I play on WG because I prefer the mix of the econ and war, I know from reading about the different worlds what each stands for and the type of player you need to be to be on those worlds. A brand new player who signs up on the war world should not be surprised to see armies crossing their borders, that is what it is all about there. Sign up for one of the

War is fun as part of a fed. Interacting with your allies is the most fun part. Limiting the number of wars would interfer with this.

i like it all, but there shouldn't be limts on the number of countries that can be attacked.

Three suggestions (either/or, or all)

1)Limited secure mode for first two (leader and first slave) on FB.

2)Require an amount of play on another world before a player is allowed to have a country on FB.If they don't learn how to play on a tamer world then thats their own fault.

3)Once the player decides that they are ready to go to FB make the cost of the first country 50GC.

Also make it abundantly clear BOLD TYPE, IN YOUR FACE! that FB is a WAR WORLD

"FB is a WAR WORLD. As such, war maybe declared on you for little or no reason. Your countries may be conquered and any time or effort maybe wiped away if you are not prepared to play to the level required for this world. Are you sure you want to play on Fearless Blue?"

"Continue" "Cancel"

Tom,

I will try to cover my opinions on each point.

1. The "End the war" booster as described in the last game news. The booster can be used by the attacked country only. There are arguments for and against.

I think I've covered this enough but would still like to say I still think it's a bad idea and opens the door to many other problems.

2. Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously.
(W3C's points edited see Tom's original post)

I believe limiting the number of countries that can be attacked to be a rather large problem. I for one try to keep some of my countries out of the war so they can perform missions that can only be stopped if they are declared upon.

Many times I will declare on a country I have absolutley no intention of even fighting simply to stop sneak attacks. Unless those co

I'm going to agree with most all of what Yankee has to say. I don't know a lot about the other worlds, but FB being an 'all risk' world is what caused me to join.

I'm all for keeping FB as it is. With possibly an increase in Black Out hours (max 8).

Although if a 'Stop War' Booster is what you guys are really shooting for it would be great if the booster could only be used prior to the actual start of the war.

Having FB be a less restricted world when it comes to war would attract only players who seriously want to have a 'no holds bar' war.

I agree with Gandolf on making the risks involved on FB very clear and allowing new players an extended WP time. (Longer for those new to the game as opposed to new to the world).

Also adding a disclaimer that says something along the lines of how very possible it is to lose all assets on Fearless Blue.

It'

Not that I matter,

But . . .

Restrictions take the realism of the game away.

Changes, good or bad, dont go over well.

From a very unbiased standpoint, 3 secured countries make sense more than alot of the proposals here. For reason I will say

1. Players will have a stable platform to build from. Most would agree that an empire over three countries can be time consuming for maintenance.

2. Assets can be safely guarded in a three nation secured empire.

3. Three secured countries would give a ton of players more opportunity to increase potential GC earnings. Which would of course go to making it easier to pay the 30 gc per month. And reduce complaints, or new trial players from not extending membership. The monthly gc fee, would be more affordable. More players will happen upon SC and while W3 still gets there kickback. Player assets will increase. The cash market will liven up, opening up more a

I agree. Yankee's proposal is the most logical, least corruptible, and overall best solution I have seen yet.

There will always be players with big empires, who abuse the power and assets they have.

There will always be n00bs who think this is just a war game, or that military power is the only one that counts, and spoil the game for the rest of us.

The two are very similar, the only difference being that the former have managed to survive.

There will also always be players who don't want to war at all, and those who will only war to make the game a nicer place as they define it. Essentially all those different groups of people are self-balancing within the virtual world that the GMs have created ... a microcosm of society.

The GMs have created a great game, and what makes it so fascinating is that there are as many different ways to play, as many different goals to aim for, as there are players. This is a community. Those who survive are part of it, and those who don't, don't have the skill to play such a

i am a relatively new player. when i picked the world i wanted to play in i read all descriptions of all worlds carefully. i chose fb for the war. i have been attacked and have attacked and , like the real world i was forced to make allies and enemys. what a bueatifull world it would be if powerful countrys couldnt invade weaker ones. its not like that though, i servived and feel quite secure. i understand the war protection and agree but no one can hide forever. if these rules are put into place it will slow down the pace and reduce the reality of the experience. i suggest starting a medium war world where countrys are free to yell at each other after 6 game months then they can start throughing rocks at one another.

Again with respect Jo . . .

while Hondo's suggestion is valid and creative, this "concept" already exists in form at present regarding which worlds cater to certain player types.

This kind of approach, is too broad, to be precise, this one

"* One or two mixed worlds, one more peaceful and one more aggressive - for those who wish to explore the full range of the game"

"Mixed" is the problem leading to questions such as , "What is TOO agressive?" and "What exactly IS acceptable?"

This is why this pickle we are in is a major problem now.

3 nation secured gives EVERY player the CHOICE you speak of and I hope you are aiming for.

This leaves the game, great as it is, intact and with a wide range of CHOICE on every world. Not just certain ones.

Three secured nations . . . and after that "NO HOLDS BARRED"

Stinkin beautiful