Andy, on the topic of military costs,
If you want to make wars and militaries cheaper, you need to reduce the number of locations that need to be defended, and by doing so, also decrease the number of locations that need to be attacked.
The cost of garrisoning a country is high because there are hundreds of possible targets that need to be defended. This means anyone who engages with the war game needs an unrealistically large army.
I'd suggest removing Corporations, Towns, and Counties, as potential targets that can be garrisoned, attacked, and damaged in war. As well as reducing the cap on the number of fortifications to 100, from the current cap of 150, and reducing the cap on the number of military bases of each type to 25, from the current cap of 50.
That would significantly reduce the cost of militaries, both on the defence and offense, while also reducing the amount of micromanagement that players need to do.
Daniel,
I agree that we have too many targets.
One reason is the increase in the population and the number of cities.
another is the number of corporations.
We are in the process of increasing the size of corporations, make them produce more and use more workers.
It will reduce numbers, also to increase the size of towns and cities.
We will wait for this before moving to other possibilities but the number of targets is an issue.
Making Simcountry easier to play:
we have added the country report and are preparing more information that will be used in extending this report.
Some data was not available in the country database and could not be used.
we want to improve the country report with more links on the the items that need to be improved. The links will lead to the functions that can help to repair the problem.
written info should be limited because people do not read.
You should just remove garrisons entirely, they are there from the time before we had military units as way to defend targets.
The military units are now capable of replacing garrisons, so garrisons are not needed and make no sense.
You can protect all your targets with an order of magnitude fewer units than with garrisons.
I disagree, garrisons are a good part of defense providing one more response to an attack however, with land units they no longer need to be as large as land units are flexible. You don't HAVE to use them but hymy you yourself have seen people get by your land units with nukes when they have no back-up.
It's easy to remove corporations as a possible target, take them public/state controlled or CEO owned.
Andy you really need to think before randomly deciding something and totally re-writing the war engine.
Granted I'm a returning player however, I'm starting to see just why I left in the first place.
Yeah but that's because I'm a cheap ahole willing to risk some losses to save a dime.
I could triple up my ground units easily, and that wouldn't happen. And it would still be cheaper than garrisoning everything.
Though I agree that smaller garrisons would be good because it be nice to set up say 10 NDB garrisons. So that I don't have to make 2 different defense units.
But really garrisons are what preceded units, and should have been removed once units were working well. This would also help alot with supply unit problems, because garrisons are one big source of Supply problems because you need alot supply operations to keeps hundreds of garrisons going.
I have 10 supply units in all my countries and they seem to work fine unless they all wander off to some remote base somewhere. All my countries have garrisons.
If they did ditch garrisons I already know what I'd do to make up for it. The point is you can use them if you want, not use them if you don't. I happen to like them.
Yankee,
where did you read or see that we are rewriting the war engine?
nothing like it happens.
what we see is that in time, some parameters need to be updates.
in the past years, the population in many countries increased.
there are more cities and more corporations.
Things than become gradually more complex.
so we do think that the number of items on the maps become too large and larger wars become more complex.
These large numbers are not improvong Simcountry.
Andy, I don't think you are rewriting the war engine. I was making an off-hand reference to removal of garrisons.
There are people that see no use for garrisons now that we have land units that are able to protect them.
I like them as they are one more level of protection against nukes.
Every change in weapons or deployment method is going to affect multiple things.
In our opinion, the garrisons are important as a base defense to many cities and facilities.
Army units can be added to the defense but using army units and manually place them to defend everything is too complex and will not add much.
We would like however, to reduce sizes a bit, on all fronts.
Building an army unit and all the ammo you need is a major investment and you need it because the attacker is also very large.
We have made some small changes already, not very significant and we do not want to disturbe the current balance.
so we will test more and then reduce a bit more.
We will also look in more details into the capability of weapons and the weapon mix in army units to make them a bit more specialized.
The number of items on the maps will decline because many corporations become larger and we will let cities too become larger so that numbers can decline a bit.
All I will add. Corporations should be able to be attacked if state owned. Of course, you can make them public or have private corporations that can not be targeted. The entire point of a war is to cause economic damage and population loss, if not a takeover. Sometimes causing serious damage and leaving the country in shambles to its owner can be a headache to fix back up.
Exphon,
This is the current state. State corporations can be attacked and destroyed.
T
TheWalkingGlitch
All worlds
Andy, on the topic of improving the interface, I've recently started working on Tamper Monkey Script to improve QoL. I published my Github in the DS, and I will make a post here on the forums soon with some of them.
I for one really like the way the website looks and works for the most part, it's just the little things. In today's modern world of short attention spans, I understand why it doesn't attract a lot of people. Just keep in mind when you're changing it that some people really like how the current system works. This website is a masterpiece of an early dotcom era website perfectly preserved 25 year later.
The things I like the most are the clutter-free layout of the pages, and the lack of tons of javascript and rendering effects that are unnecessary.
For the love of god, do not rebuild it as an interactive web app. Those have nothing but responsiveness issues, random hangs, memory leaks, and dropped p