War

I'm just happy my c3 suggestion is being looked at more heavily.

I do like Laguna's original post, very straight forward and I have to completely agree that it does indeed represent the general state of affairs now. As I've said before, if the idea is for no war, then fine, the game isn't for me but I understand. Econ players certainly far outnumber war players.

That being said, I *hope* that is not what is going to happen and I don't quite understand the issue coming from someone who just doesn't want to participate in war at all...there is already an option for that...war protection isn't good enough? Or is it that it is too expensive/can expire? I personally don't think it's too expensive but don't like the fact that it can expire. I've proposed two separate classifications before to avoid that happening just as you spelled LG spelled out in one of his suggestions, don't see

Lets not get into an argument about comparisons, LG has a point, there is a large base of the community who wants no war at all, probably a plurality. I say modify an existing world to where that is the case and see what happens. Fix FB to be a real war world (no war protection except for earned) and we'll have both extremes...add time...see what happens.

Where is the challenge removed with No Victory? It's the exact same conditions, but instead of having the option to show the kindness of "Just end the war", it will become compulsory.

Or you fight for assets, or you fight for a challenge. If for the first, sure, I get it; if for the latter, your objection comes from?

i fight for both, having the assets rewards, and winning.

as far as war goes. winners aren't always kind. you can not blame the atrocities of genocide on the losers, but you can blame losing on them, if it was lack preparation. and you can not always say that any time a person loses, on lack of prep.

as far as assets. it takes quite a bit of effort, to both set up offense AND defense in my country. to have a battle plan, gain allies. these things take effort, and i think if i WIN, i should enjoy the spoils of war. whats wrong with that?

"That is the SC equivalent of coming out of the blue and smack a player with a war dec and what follows. " -LG

the rules as they are, means that any one that expands past one country, should defend it. i'm not going to enter football game and not expect to be pushed around...

further, if you are referring to the recent war. in comparison to the pearl

The challenge removed with 'no victory'/'no takeover' is pretty significant, if a player can't lose the country, they aren't likely to fight back, no real reason to. Many players barely fight back now (and do so pretty ineffectively) when they are SOOOO worried about losing their country, you expect them to fight back as strong as they possibly could to keep their country from being 'damaged'?

Similarly, what if no matter how much econ work you did on a country, it *always* lost money, the game wouldn't be any fun and it would be far too expensive. Under the scenario of 'no takeover', war players are basically forced to piss away all of their assets while econ players get to make infinite amounts of assets while risking nothing, makes no sense. War doesn't have to be about asset raiding, but it does need to bring some economic benefit when done effectively.

I understand th

i would like every one to read and consider, please, and sorry for the length.

at this point i'm a 3 year player. it took about a year off... and returned at the beginning of April.

i signed up, thinking i'd give SC another chance, it might be fun... it took 5 days for me to decide to pay.

i waited the days it requires before you can get into the forum... eagerly. before i had quit, one of the most fun and entertaining parts of the game was the forums... countless rants, requests, arguments. it was a buz of activity. and finally i got back into the forums. i was stunned... it was practically dead. It was night and day, really!!!

The WG forum, which used to be a hub of activity, has fallen to the point, if their is 2 posts in a day... it is a busy day. Even LU, seems to be more in death throws than any real activity. Its just plain sad.

Participating in the forum, is of course optional, bu

mmmm u still need wp when ur away

It's about time you all resigned yourselves to the fact that the GMs are incapable of fixing the problems in this game.

It is becoming hard to find the issue we were discussing.

maybe we need to have another track on the issue of war or no war, or maybe we are done with our discussion here.

This discussion was about features that will improve the war game.

Our intention is to:

1. Not force everyone to build an army and fight but let anyone who wants to do so, play a peaceful game.

2. Allow anyone who wants to fight to do just that.

3. Create incentives for war players to fight much more and much harder than they do now, and have fierce fighting all the time.

The incentives will be added. We would like to get back to where more players dare to do so while other are not pulled into it against their will and can play the peaceful game.

In the current war game situation, it seems that we have a lot of collateral damage caused by a group of war players. we clearly need to move away from that.

There

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Not force everyone to build an army and fight but let anyone who wants to do so, play a peaceful game.<!-/Quote-!>

Then the obvious solution is to go back to the old system of picking peace mode or war mode, and do away with secured mode entirely. Limit war protection to prevent people living in it full-time.

I agree with the overall premise Tom, those three goals are the correct ones.

EDIT: I also agree with Orbiter, this game used to be a lot busier and I assume made more money when people felt the need to meet and converse with others for knowledge and security. I don't think forcing people to fight is the answer, so I think there needs to be a clear distinction and system to separate those who choose a completely peaceful game and those who choose the full game. As I said before, at least it will clear up the confusion and prevent any excuses from those who made the choice.

Here's going to be a possibly unpopular suggestion: stop the population trade. Increase population growth so that people will hit (at least) 60M in about 6 - 8 months in mains, maybe smaller growth the further from your main that you get. Institute rebellions in distant (from your main) or newly conquered countries (real rebellions, not destroyed state corps). Make it very difficult to maintain countries that are far from your borders.

Make it so that you can only transfer pop from your main, like sending colonies.

Change the reason people go to war. Remove the asset raiding. As we well know, wars end up costing money. Maybe leave FB as it is (and without WP) so people can go to settle grudges or fight for fighting's sake.

Personally, I'd like to see a more regionalized game where certain players/federations are strong, maybe control, certain areas. As it is, people are spread out with

Willard,
The engine is broke. It isn't built for this game. You can persist how much you want it, but things will remain unchanged. The next time you gather the strength to "solve" it again, undoubtedly sparked by more complaints, read my "4 Options" post, take your pick and message me.
It isn't natural that you get the same complaints over and over again, for years and years, despite multiple changes. That is a sign of failure.

Whiteboy,
Of course I don't war anymore, I'm the moderator. The less I have to do with everyone the better.

Orbiter,
Before your war, there were 15 threads active per day. There are now 10. If I don't post, 8. Chatter in this game is mostly about this game. In other games, most chatter concerns things that happen out of it.

BorderC,
Keep on rockin'.

Is there a way to access a test server so I can kick Whiteboy's roody poo candy Arse!

My thoughts:


1.
a. ok
b. agree
c. Strongly agree

2.
a. agree
b. agree
c. strongly agree

3. agree

4. agree

5.
a. agree
b. suggest to wait on this and see if needed
c. suggest to wait on this and see if needed
d. agree
e. agree
f. mostly agree
g. strongly agree

6. agree

7. agree

8. agree

9.
a. agree, provided average is also considered
b. do not think 50% should consider secure main.

10.

a. support long range missiles only to be added.
b. public and a cause for war; country attacked could declare war immediatly without waiting.
c. agree
d. strongly agree. Unlimited defender sneak attack for all countries of that player and his fed allies, and even for all other players, without starting war, without attackers being known, and without loss of war protection.

11. <

a few more thoughts:

1. Time. It takes a LONG time to build up for an attack and an even longer time to build a defense. I've upgraded my defenses several times. Each time, it takes a couple weeks (2 real life weeks) to complete the upgrade. To upgrade an empire of 10 countries takes a long time. You first need to buy the amunition and weapons (which takes a very long time due to the spending limits). Then, set-up units and garrison blueprints, and deploy them. Then add some supply units. Add to that the need to adjust your workforce to have the right number of MLM and LLW. And ofcourse, make sure not to build any corporations, or close them down to free the workforce.

As it is, I have a long list of things by military-wise and econ-wise that I could do if I had more time. Econ-wise, alone, I could be making about 300-500 BILLION more a game month, with 1 enterprise if I had time to make the adjustments I

thank chryso, well said.

about the econ versus war slave... thanks

and chryso hit on the problem with trying to make things "fair," for trying to make the game fair for non-regressive players... everything you do to help them, will also hurt them...

for instance, increasing the defensive power of weapons, i've already figured out how to beat through the new numbers, and what it will take... has a non-aggressive player? i dare say not!!! so the change has already given me an advantage! as i know what to bring to the fight, and my victim still doesn't have a clue.

The extra expense and effort, certainly is there. but now scale is more tipped toward the experienced, larger, and determined player, than the newer, smaller player, casual player. congrats, all the big guys, just got bigger!!!

lg, as far as i can tell, with tom's "Thanks for all your help." would tell me their part i

Tom, we currently have a choice between 'peaceful mode' and 'include defence' mode in levels. The level requirements are different for each, as they should be.

But if one selects 'peaceful mode', it's just the level requirements that change. You can still be attacked. If you truly want to create a game where "more players dare to [make war] while others are not pulled into it against their will and can play the peaceful game", why not make it so that those choosing 'peaceful mode' cannot be attacked?

It would seem the obvious solution.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Orbiter do you have a 56K modem connection? Seriously I have a dsl Broadband and the page loads fine. Not sure why you are complaining that this thread takes too long to load.

Has anybody considered setting up a "Warlord University" where players can attend to learn the fine arts of war? Perhaps they can get SC "degrees" like in real life....associates, bachelor, masters, phd? Or maybe "certificates of completion" or stars or something for certain smaller skills. Wonder if the GM would be interested in setting up a university to train all interested players.

i might be wrong (prob am lol)but its a war game...most players get 2 a certain thing and get lazy dont wanna learn war side and dont want 2 lose countrys either......gm's shouldnt change things all the time, they buckle under pressure instead of forcing(2 strong of word?) players to learn....

you know the point of how difficult it is to level peaceful, probably is enough drawback to peaceful to justify no other changes other than the choice to level peacefully, as it is, and add immunity to attacks. thats sounds fair to me. you can still be involved in things, and hard work will get you to the top. that way doves can expand, and gain the size they need with out any threat... i wish jo had made that statement earlier... allowed me to put 2 and 2 together.

i've been playing peaceful mode for leveling, just to see how it works, and at lower levels, its actually easier, but at higher levels... i can see why people are complaining, although, i don't agree that it is as hard as people want to make it out... but harder yes. so the extra difficulty in leveling... doesn't make up for the extra difficulty in playing war. but by playing war, you get the chance to pillage... so i think the 2 would equal out.

Nukepana - That's a great idea and a large part of the thought behind my idea of 'Leveling c3's', players would learn (at first on their own) how to take these larger and more well defended c3's and earn GC's for doing so the first time, just like leveling. Ultimately, players will write guides on the best way to take these c3's which other players will then learn from (such as Scarlet's Church of Simcountry or the Simcountry Wiki page). Also, that was a large part of the fed structure at one time, people teaching others how to fight. It doesn't seem to happen so much anymore, probably because there isn't so much fighting. Anyway, I like your idea, but I would think it's more likely that the players take up that cause as it used to be than for the GM's to do so, at least actively, it *may* happen passively with leveling c3's.

Also, nice to see you on the forums, don

She's been busy... lol... busy l;ttle bee's nice to see you nukepana.