Player have to much protection

It's a numbers game Andy.

Lower numbers are easier to calculate and run in a simulation.

Let's take an example.

The United States has around 1800 fighters/attack aircraft split between Air Force/ Navy.

I have over one million interceptors alone I can use for air defense. It's practically a mathematical improbability any single opponent could defeat that air defense without counting the million plus my fedmates have to support me.

The United States Army has around 900 attack helicopters.

Once again I have over a million helicopters I can put up for ground/ missile defense. Again almost a mathematical improbability that any single opponent could defeat that level of air defense not counting the million plus my fedmates have to support me.

The obvious solution is to keep the map invasion portion of the war game. I love it. Makes war interesting.

Lower the numbers invol

I do agree with most of what everyone is saying:

The security council should have more power in putting sanctions on countries and what not.

-Full trade restrictions on specific goods to an empire from the open market would give the council some actual bite and would make their ability govern over the world mean something.

-Have a security council military somewhat like the UN, so that it can back sanctions with military might.

-I also think that dropping the cost of the military drastically, would certainly help keep newer players involved as it would allow more room for mistakes when learning how to wage war. And for veteran and seasoned players, it might make wars on the war world more entertaining and frequent.

Just some of my thoughts

I agree these comments and have a honest suggestion for the GM. This is just a thought, but hear me out on this.

The GM should rework the number of units per base, the weapons numbers per unit, and make bases the "pivotal" asset in war by making it station units that can be lost or disbanded upon destruction. The game like in the real world, should have units "stationed" at it. The moment the base is destroyed the units are disbanded. This would make the destruction of bases an immediate priority and would even give a reason for nukes to be used on them. The primary focus would go to destroying military bases rather than just aerial attrition battles.
If the GM reduced the number of units that a base could have stationed to maybe 5 or 10 per base, that would still give a player several 100's of air force/land defensive units alone. In addition, because there are reduced numbers of units, the GM can easily cut the size of un

Great input Kyle and Supersoldier, It would be nice to see wars require more strategy and less pure military power. However, I would prefer to see the cost of training and maintaining your army greatly decreased over the reduction of the initial purchase of weapons. It seems to me, most players get into financial problems associated with the actual cost of maintaining the army. The amount of ammunition used each month border lines on insanity. Although I understand the purpose of automatic ordering this to needs to be addressed. The duplication of the orders month after month leads to unnecessary spending. (on all products).
Rob

Great input indeed.

I will look into all this text in more details in the coming days.

Some comments:

Any choice we make will have the non destructible option.
A country with 1.000.000 interceptors and similar numbers of other defense weapons cannot be destroyed.

the US with 1800 fighters (I thought it was much more) and the nukes they have, is also not your target of choice. nobody will try.

if we enforce smaller numbers, the rich player will always create a non destructible defense no matter which way we go.

however, the limitation of the numbers of units per base, can add a lot to the war game.

I do not think that destroying a base should cause all the units in that base to disband but if there is a max number of units par base, the destruction of one will cause a reallocation of units and at some point, if more bases are destroyed, all bases might be at their max and then units

Thanks for the consideration Andy!

Understanding the task at hand, everything you do is appreciated. Its a wonderful game. Thanks
Rob

Here is the promised response.

I tried to get the most important issues and mainly, to write a short reaction.
I do not think people read many pages these days.

Any changes will have to be gradual and any plan we make, will have to updated as we proceed.

Opinions always change when functions are implemented and we cannot see now how the situation will change when we implement some of these ideas.

Thank you for your contributions. we are very happy to work with you on this. It is very constructive and I can see your true desire for improvements.

Here goes:

1. Some players are just not interested in the war game. Forcing them into it? Why not just move to FB and fight everyone. The number of players, as you said is not large enough for 5 worlds. Maybe the number of war players is large enough for FB.
There are currently very few war limitations on FB. You move to WL3 after 60 days and you partici

1.) Fully agree, I think the only reason this became an issue was due to one taunting player who hid below WL3, annoying but no good fix that doesn't risk the majority of peaceful players.
2.) I would say this is already semi dealt with by having two scoring systems.
3.) This too I think is already fairly solid as is.
4.) I saw several overhaul suggestions, not much just ranting for change. Systems added so physical locations matter more, Navies require a coast (maybe rivers count), shorter range Defense Helicopter / Interceptors to encourage feds to work more on being closer, making military bases destructible or at least disable-able adding strategy to the placement and defense of them, etc...
5.) Thank you
6.) I had control of over 20 corps in one country, I went to move them all same day to C3, 10 moved as expected, other 10 said approved but didn't, after several days the request to move j

My points:

1.
There are few ways to play peacefully - CEO or Peaceful empires, but not a mix where empire lead country cannot be attacked.
2.
CEO gameplay is abandoned by W3C dev team, while this is very different gameplay. tons of suggestions made and more could come if there is a commitment to do anything here
3.
Best SC is aggressive pass pvp, where federation game is most engaging. Currently there is no way where to burn cash, everybody has trillions quadrillions of cash with no way to spend it. Active wars is the only way to burn massive cash reserves. Selling cash at 1$ per 1T would be profitable for W3C at any times.
4.
War engine is perfect just remove massive micromanaging, - thousands of small units used for 1 attack.
resources management is so complex that new players kill themselves before starting.
Reduce dependency on air defense, remove long range batts, make land units stronger that what is n

Thanks for your responses.

I will wait a little longer for more reactions.
then another round.

Didn't have time to day, but I will leave a comment tomorrow morning

Just a few thoughts. Jiggle Billy and Lord Mndz have covered quite a bit.

1) On Fearless Blue give new players the option to come out in 60 days, make it mandatory in 120 days.

2) I like having two def air wings respond from federation, however they should loose a percentage of support based on distance from attacking unit.
Example
1) Attacking unit 2000 miles from target
2) Fed support 2000 - 2500 miles from target 100% capability

3) Attacking unit 2000 miles from target
4) Fed support 2500 - 3000 miles from target 80% capability
and so on.

By having radar stations covering zones this would allow the targeting of stations to create a path into a country and would disable a percentage of defensive interceptors or helicopters from responding. Land units if in the zone would still be able to defend at 100%

3) Bases have no problem with number of bases / airports,

@andi please check your emails its urgent

I like how open the community and admins are to modifying the game.

My thoughts, in no particular order.

In general the military is overly complex with all the single specific use items.
This also applies to a lot of other products that have only one customer and use specialized supplies.

Empire management is almost non existent. Trading within your countries and with your CEO is like dealing with foreign nations. This also applies to worker exchanges.

The quality of all products should matter. Traveling on a highway is better than a gravel road.

All products should deteriorate over time.

Earthquakes should destroy roads and buildings.

There is no way to stop or retaliate against a rouge CEO peaceful pres.

Contracting between your corps and countries is time consuming and offers little reward and is possibly harmful.

If only coastal countries can have navies than navies should only be allowed to attack other navies and coastal countries. Inland cou

@johnV: Is it still the case where ships can actually enter landmasses?

I remember years ago attacking a landlocked player and my ships were able to sort of float above the land hahaha

@Andy:

8. The inability to get back at a very annoying player is a problem. Any suggestions on that? Anybody ever used sneak attacks?

State sponsored 'terrorist cells' would be a good addition allowing a president to create these which could operate in a similar way in which special forces do however, they are invisible on the map of the target country unless said country builds an intelligence agency and staffs to a correct level. This could open up several different play styles and add another layer to the game.

@johnV, I agree navel weapons should have limited range and not be able to do harm far inland, navy fighter planes should have a range of a couple / few hundred miles. Current fighters have 500 miles without refueling. This would allow some non water connected countries to be attacked, but the limits would be similar to the real world.

I think a big thing to encourage fighting / interaction is making locations matter, more strategic locations being more valuable. Modifying the navel system to make water frontage more desirable is a (seems to be) simple step for this goal.

Stu, don't know about ships going inland, was just thinking about balance.

Stu @Andy, Posted this a while ago, didn't get any comments.
_____
New Game Feature: Espionage

Intelligence Agencies are expensive to build and maintain.

To build they require a Hospital, a University, an Airport and a Production plant.
It would take several months to build if Airfields and Factories are available.
They require a high game level.
Only one can be built at a time.
They cannot be owned by a CEO or C3. If a players country is taken over by war they are destroyed.

The staff will be approximately the sum of one half the workers needed for a Hospital, a University, and Air Transport. The supplies are similar to Air Transport plus all the weapon maintenances.

Each month they will generate an amount of Espionage Defense that is applied to the country.
They also create Espionage Units that can

@johnV & @Andy: I like the sound of the intelligence agency - perhaps only one required to cover your entire empire though due to the resources required to build and run one.....

I still like the idea or state sponsored terrorist cells though...!

@johnV, I don't think balance is necessary, I think coastal being more valuable is fine. I do believe an end goal would involve resources and wars caring about geography would be good.

Make it so troops move slow if at all through heavy mountain regions, could have random countries in areas like Switzerland where mountains cause military choke points and are easily defended.

I'd also think resources and farming could become based on geography, areas that are fertile (green) supporting lumber and farming industries. Areas being mountain / rocky having most mining. Desert areas supporting most oil and gas, etc...

These last two ideas though would be a major project to implement, making navies care about coast lines is an easier start based on existing programing. See if limiting the locations of stuff impacts how people play in a positive way.

Two weeks later.
I will now process the responses, discuss within our group and publish a next version within several days.

Here is a next iteration.
We are getting closer to some specific actions that can be started.
Some work will start while we can continue the discussion.

1. Some players are just not interested in the war game. FB is the war world. No protection after 60 days. (Or 120 days?). You can move there and there will be no war protection unless you pay in (more) Gold coins.
Possible change: more gold coins for war protection on FB.

2. The enterprises game should indeed be upgraded. There are many ideas and little time.
Possible action: many, there are many upgrading options.

3. If you play on one of the worlds where war is an option, you can build your army while
your war level is lower than 3. Once you are ready, you can move to wl3 and participate. This path is available now. One country remains in secured mode.
No action.

4. Navy limitation to countries with a coast is questionable. The

Andy,

before replying on all, please consider this simplification:

1 unit requires 1 base/airport and 1 maintenance unit. when base is destroyed unit is not maintained, when resources are gone unit is disbanded.

unit size should be increased by number of times you want to reduce number of units needed. i suggest 10 at least.

challenge is that there is no penalty for dismantling and creating from scratch. penalty could be loss of weapon, quality or could take time( e.g. 1 game month)

also you need to change concept of innactive weapons. active are weapons used in units the rest are innactive with no maintenance.