War

If people spent as much time enjoying war as they did bitching about it then this game would be fun regardless.

Yes I did steal one from you Wendy, and I did get quite a laugh out of it.

However, you were attacking Wild Eyes, my inactive fedmate and friend. This may as well have been an attack on me.

If the game becomes all about stealing countries at the last second, those who steal likely will be continual targets - as you have experienced from us, and us from you. Discretion on this front will need to be exercised - I agree with you.

Back to the topic though. I'm not sure I agree with faster reactivations. If you're careless enough to deactivate all your stuff, you probably should deserve what you get.

I do however like the idea of increased spending space, and maybe a bit of an increase in time between when you get declared on and when wars go active. However, I think one thing that could improve this further is to have the wars go active a DAY later. Something on a real time schedule instead of 4 game mon

Thanks for the input rita!

Make FB a war world, remove all wp except for a main.(wp only,not secured).

Make one world,econ, the other 2 balance, one towards econ with war, the other towards war with econ. That to me, would please all.
Each would know where they stood.

The only addition i would add, is defensive weapons arent as affective as they should be.
Everything is geared towards the attacking player.Why not make Ints defend harder than they do? Heli do as it is.

Barney and others have stated some great ideas, i just doubt most could be coded into the game, this, even in its infancy, has a chance.


I think this would give e1 a shot at what they want from sc.

Maybe alterations needed, but a good starting point.


Rob


As an addition,

A totally econ world could have weapon products removed and maybe others put in their place?


Im thinkin along the lines of whats codab

Good post Blue. I agree that int's and heli's are too easy to take out but I would add that if they defend better, then they should be priced accordingly.

New products aren't really needed for an econ world. Just increase consumption of goods by countries/population.

I really like the idea of the worlds that are at both ends of the war/econ spectrum. Many of the suggestions that have been put forth are very good ones, and they would/could work. But they may be to complicated to implement.

The issue I see with players is the fact that many may have defense set up with garrisons and wings, but they lack the offensive weapons to fight back. As many of you know, a great defense is only a speed bump, just buys you some time. No doubt the reason is because offensive weapons cost alot more in money and staff to keep active. So what if during the initial four months of the war dec spending limits and reactivation limits are doubled? That way more time could be focused on offensive firepower. Of course this would not 'fix' everything, but it sure would be a big step in the right direction. Also it should be a simple thing to implement.

Just my $.02

I 100% agree with your thinking on the offensive weapons Serp. Defense buys time...offense wins a war...even if they cost more to maintain.

I'm just glad to see all the discussion on war. If nothing else...people are talking about it....which may lead to more participating in it. Maybe there is hope after all.

EC

I remember it like yesterday. I was trying to take Barney's country, which wasn't even his, and he and Sam tried to steal it out from under me, and while they were ripping apart my lousy defense I stole it out from under them. "Outplayed" was probably a poor choice of words for someone whose scale of play at the time involved relying on a single LRD to take out half that country. I remember asking Barney to toast my victory with a simbeer, and he said he was going to pour it on my head, a foreshadow of what lay ahead. Ah, good times

i had an idea of spending 5GC and it would instantly reactivate all weapons

Barney's proposal reminds me a bit of the game called Diplomacy. A war game is more fun when it has that kind of interaction and collaborative strategy.

My problem with Simcountry war is that it's stuck in internet 1.0. Back then people discovered that a mouse could be fun, and online games became about clicking.

But internet 2.0 is more about creativity and interaction. Now there are games with elections, auctions, player blogs, blog rankings, player jobs, and other applications for interaction. And they don't require clicking marathons.

True indeed Vicious.

I vote for Vicious' answer.

It makes me happier with fewer words.

Vicious is always more eloquent then myself.

@vicious,

agreed, the war engine is stuck a couple of time zones in the past.

There should be more automation to it, so that a player could plan actions to occur without actually having to sit there and continually click the mouse. It should be possible to be able to tell a unit (or units) to move to a location and attack without having to sit around and wait for the unit to get there.

Also, when attacking a c3 with a navy, it should be possible to automate the actions to occur, i.e. take out air force first, then the capital, etc.

I saw the chat record. I missed the event unfortunately. Ill try to shorten this idea significantly so jozi can quickly look it over and make a decision about its merit.

Please no one post here until I concisely describe the idea.

Give me 48hours from this time.

Barney

This idea is intended to reduce the lopsidedness that has evolved in this game which currently gives highly aggressive well coordinated players a tremendous advantage over other players.

Basically its goal is to allow more time between when the war dec happens to when shooting starts.

PREWAR COMMITMENT TO A CONFLICT

Prior to declaring war on an active player, the aggressor must push some button(call it what you will)which puts the defender on notice he is about to be declared on.

Once this happens a count down begins(24 hours 48 what ever). During this count down the players can recruit help, negotiate etc….

During this time period other players may jump in. If a player doesn’t make himself available for the impending war by committing himself during this phase, whichever side the president may like, he/she can not declare when the time period ends, and the actual

Please, no one post until jozi can pick this apart.

We have read all of this and we think that this is a good idea.
It has evolved a little in time and the last description is simply formulated and probably easy to understand.

To make it happen, we should clarify some details and try to avoid major changes because a long development time will put this on a waiting line and nothing will happen for a long time.

If we find a solution, we may start implementation on one of the worlds and then move on.

I would like to try and get to a definition of exactly what we need to do and the time line in the war process.

We will have two different possibilities of declaring a conflict:
a. Declaring war as we did in the past
A player can declare war. It will be a limited war and will start after 32 hours.
Wars declared in this way will allow a limited use of offensive weapons.
- Military units will not be used.
- No nuclear weapons
- The only weapons to be us

First, I'd like to say: Please don't delay modification of the current war protection system, it's an entirely different issue and has created numerous issues in addition to, just as Jozi said, has killed the war game, case in point, look at FB (the War World) right now.

Second, I'm interested to hear what Barney has to say about this as it seems a bit more complex/cumbersome than his latest reiteration, part B sounds about right, not sure what the purpose is in part A. I think part of this should be some kind of system to avoid endless wars, if you combine part A and part B you are either preparing for or fighting a war of some type for a week straight minimum. Giving defenders more time is the ultimate goal in my opinion and that can be achieved without making the war game even more cumbersome than it is already.

Part a and b wouldn't occur consecutively. Either the attacker would choose one or the other or it would depend on the conditions during the first 24 hours.

This complicated system, and it's proposed changes actually speed up the undesired effect. I know that may sound strange, but change it, and track the results. It will be the exact opposite of what you think you are creating.

The proposed changes as are will still favor the attacker(s) and will force more people to stay in WP.

Changing WP boosters will be a failure again and seems like you are placing too much faith in players' discretionary thinking. This whole idea is biased as the organized groups of raiders/or aggressors have presented almost 90% of the general idea. It could have been taken differently if the ideas came directly from the game developers and not from participants. Give it 90 days after implementation and you'll see what I mean.


Either way, I hope whatever changes come quick so I can move back to planning. Can't calculate what you can't see.

Part A:
Sneak attacks mostly fulfill the function of Part A. As proposed by Tom, in Part A war is limited to attacking military targets and corps. But many countries have no state corps. It would be strange and boring if the only targets are military. Part A doesn't add value to the game.

Part B:
Option 1. If each alliance attacks only the aggressor or defender, that's very unbalanced. Then it would seem suicidal for anyone to declare war.
Option 2: It would be more balanced and realistic if every country in one alliance can attack every country in the other alliance. But that can become a huge, time-consuming war.

Option 2 can be enjoyable if the number of allies and targets are very limited. Six allies each for the aggressor and defender seems reasonable, chosen by the aggressor or defender among countries offering them help.

In Option 2, the aggressor and defender would assign

I personaly like the first proposed idea of having half the countries come out of WP if dec'ing. This is what the argument started with.. c3 wars. If the attacking party wants to start a fight and only use a c3, then they should at least have countries either that they worked hard at vulnerable to counter decs, or they have to work hard taking a bunch of usless c3's in order to declare war. As far as Econ Vs war player, well SC is both. If you want to be an econ player and not join a fed, at least learn to defend yourself, its no secret that there is a posibility of war, look at the cover page every time you log in with the big tank staring at you. You have an Econ that supports your military, as in real life. Also you have feds that protect the econ player (which should at least have some sort of interest to defend ones interest) that could stick up for them in case they are attacked. Which brings up somthing, heres a thought, we have the

This really seems like it is becoming VERY cumbersome requiring many changes to the system which will likely be quite time consuming and will just as likely not change too much. This idea was born in response to the Mob attack on WGC, another 24 or 48 hours or being able to recruit other players, etc wouldn't have changed the result, we didn't even use a quarter of what we had built.

That being said, I do understand the need in general for more time to prepare/negotiate on the defender side. This can be accomplished much more simply by giving the defender more time, straight up, option for an additional 4 game months just by logging in and clicking the 'Additional 4 game months' button. I'd prefer to see it coupled with an option for the defender to start the war immediately, giving the defender the option for 'surprise' but even without that, I think the above option would suffice.

Ultimately, the problem w