War

This should be an open discussion that hopefully will lead to a solution that can be implemented quickly.

My comment on the WP does not mean a delay.
What I mean is, that if we come to a solution that will try to prevent major imbalances between the attackers and the defenders (like 25 countries attacking one), this might have an influence on the solution for the WP issue.

Part a and b will never occur at the same time. It is a choice between a and b.

Part a is taken from the original text by TuCulo EsMio.

"Without political pressure you can declare and war but not attack any pop targets, nor paint, nor nuke. You can Only attack military or economic targets, conventionally."

I put it in different words but it is the same. We can discuss this and may find a better solution.

This means that if someone is not interested in a political phase but just wants to fight, they can, but it will

I think a 48 hour window would be best. In that period I think the ratio of activation should also be higher. This would give the defender a higher chance of protecting their assets. I like the 48 hour window because it allows the defender the chance to actually "show-up" for the fight.

So, the slower worlds should be 72 hours?

96 even?

LU is a faster world, it only makes sense. I thought faster war on LU was the point of it being a faster world.

The question is if we need to leave LU at 16 hours or increase to 32 hours.

we can change the time per world.
we can set them all to 32 hours.

any opinions on this?

Leave it at 16 hours. LU is faster, the time it takes to war should reflect the pace of LU. Most joined LU because it is faster paced. So if any times change, the speed of each world should still mirror actual server speed. Slower worlds slower war. Faster Worlds, faster war.

Maybe 24 hours more time and a happy medium.

I assume that we will have more reactions in the coming days and then try to find solutions.
the period between war declaration and the start of a war could be one of the details.

More ideas on balancing the wars:
1. After a war declaration, allow the defending party to purchase defensive weapons without any budget limitation.
they could go to the markets or to the space stations and purchase quickly to setup a stronger defense.

2. we could allow more fed members to participate in the defense as we did in the past.

3. We could setup a market for complete military units. to start with, attacked countries could purchase defensive wings at a high quality and make the attacker pay a very high price.

The limited war option as described under a.:
There is, as already mentioned here, the possibility for sneak attacks.

as an alternative for a limited war, we could make more and diversified sneak attacks

Many players use war protection because big wars require a huge amount of time clicking.

I estimate that one has to click 10-15 times per enemy target for a big war. That includes weapons purchases, defense deployment, creating supply units, creating and moving military units, conquering neighbors c3s, studying enemy defenses, and attacking targets. Well-defended countries can have 300-500 targets.

Clicking thousands of times turns that war into a part-time job for a week.

Few players want war to be a part-time, unpaid, clicking job. That's why I suggested alliances with a limited number of targets per ally.

Extending the amount of time before war does not reduce the tedious clicking, which is the real problem.

If we are talking about the recent attack by the mob on WGC I agree that something needs to be done because, when it is possible for a small group of war-oriented players to ambush other players who wish to play a more balanced game, the only option the defending players have is to make a choice between two extremes:

1. Keep very few useful weapons, in order to make your countries profitable enough to maintain War Protection, and never engage with war.

2. Keep huge quantities of weapons - enough to fend off any attack - meaning you will never be able to afford WP or attain higher levels.

This effectively prevents those playing for scores and levels from engaging with the wargame and at least four established veteran members of WGC have left the game completely because the recent war made it impossible for them to continue to enjoy playing it.

Another problem that WGC encountered was the sudden automatic deactiva

The amount of clicking is indeed a problem but a separate one.
Example for some solutions:
We might think of easier way of building an army, by setting up units and then all the details and orders of weapons and ammunition and other materials should be automated. This will save a lot of time and clicking.

we should also make units very powerful, and expensive, forcing armies into smaller numbers of units. This too will reduce the clicking.

Jo
thanks for the suggestions.
many good ideas.
I will react on it, in all details, ASAP. I just have to go now.

w00t! Reduced clicking makes me happy.

Also, if there were some way to defend/attack WITHOUT being present would be super awesome. Yes, I'm talking a completely different war system, but lets face it, the reason most people DON'T want to war is because they don't have the time or desire to sit at their computer 24 hours, ready to defend. People that don't have jobs have a HUGE advantage that people with jobs will never be able to match.

Should SimCountry be for the casual or hard-core gamer?

Tom:
The clicking problem is not separate from the reliance on war protection. Many, or most, players rely on war protection precisely to avoid massive clicking.

As whiteboy says, the more complicated this is, the more it favors the dominant warlords.

Better, in my opinion, to organize changes into a number of simple rules, each of which can largely stand on its own.

Suggestion:

1) Institute a political pressure/elevated hostilities condition, one president vs another, as a prerequisite for declaring war. Elevated hostilities must be in effect for at least 24 hours before either side can declare war. The period lasts for 3 days.

Any time during the 24 hours to 3 days time frame either president can declare war on the other, with any of their respective countries.

2) Increase the time between war declarations and when the war starts, to 48 hours.

Leave the reactivation at 10%.

3) Give the defender the option to accelerate the start of the war to 24 hours hence. A big red button, "make war start in 24 hours from NOW". Obvious

I think Jojo has it covered best and the points about clicking are very true.

I do think that there should be a standard time frame for wars to begin, 24 hours or 32 hours or 48 hours on all worlds...pick one, with the option for the defender to choose more time. It also should be based on *real* hours, not game months, give everyone a time that the war will start which will help clear up some of the anticipation/confusion.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

the only option the defending players have is to make a choice between two extremes:

1. Keep very few useful weapons, in order to make your countries profitable enough to maintain War Protection, and never engage with war.

2. Keep huge quantities of weapons - enough to fend off any attack - meaning you will never be able to afford WP or attain higher levels.<!-/Quote-!>

This is exactly how I feel! Great post, thanks Jo!

I also completely agree with the clicking concerns. Fighting any non-C3 war is very time consuming.

GS

I think JoJo has covered it best too. Whatever Whiteboy wants is right.

To Quote my minority husband : "If it ain't White it ain't right!"

He's so cute.

I HONESTLY don't see how any of this changes much.

People are arguing because people don't want to play the war part of this game. How do these suggestions make people more willing to fight?

I agree with Mr. Hun and Mssr. Vicious, there is no reason to make this more complicated. I'm for making things simpler. The war engine is not friendly, or tempting for casual gamers. Most of us are casual gamers. If you don't have time to fight, you can't win. So, you're forced to stay in WP and then the fighters have nobody to fight and this starts all over.

I agree with Border C. This is a war game. No matter what is done, there will never be/and can't be a balance between econ/military.

If a player is econ only, he has no military(except for leveling). There is no way he/she will have enough time to prepare for war, unless their country is setup with a certain percentage of def. and off. weapons. 24hrs,36hrs,48hrs is not enough time to prepare when we prepare for a real month(give or take), to build up to attack another country.

As long as players have friends in game, there will always be alliances fed or no fed. Who's to say my friend wont dec on someone I decd on after the supposed time frame expires with no war? And, all my allies will dec when I dec, and I will dec when my allies dec,creating a bully effect against the defender. He will never stand a chance. The only chance they stand is to form an alliance and re-dec myself and my allies to try to conquer 1 o

care full consideration needs to be made not to disable the war game in the opposite direction!!!

To say that the war game is oriented toward aggressive attackers... their is some truth to that. However, not to the degree that is being played up here. Using the Mob v WGC war as an example. Frankly, if the WGC had spent as much time influencing their newbs to learn how to defend themselves, as they did encouraging their isolationist policies, they would have been able to defeat the smaller, better prepared group. By virtue of player numbers.

More people shooting is as much of an advantage as Military assets. Which is one of the things that being thrown out here as something to avoid.

With the recent increase in unit max fighting levels. Honestly, (with out having had the chance to experiment with it,) seems to be a huge advantage to defenders.

As it is. What is considered the "standard," defe

i agree with the people who are saying this is a war game. and as in real life, war is rarely fair. being a game their should be certain limitations to keep it from being absurdly lop sided, but at the same time, trying to write in protection for players that, frankly, refuse to defend themselves, is the wrong direction for the game. as it will make any effort a player puts in to be successful, over written for a semblance of fairness to the player that puts out little, or no effort to defend themselves!!!

Where does it say this is a war game?

I was under the impression it was a nation-building game.

Exactly Orbiter. This game clearly states its a war game. Any empire with more than 1 country(a secured main) should be prepared to defend it/them.
If we level the playing field before we fight, we are hurting the players who spent time building their countries to fight or defend with, while the player who spent little time preparing a country for defense and offense will spend less time and money for the same results.

In the wild, do you think a Lion will stop attacking a baby gazelle because the gazelle cried out its too young and hasn't had time to build its muscles up to defend itself? No it wont happen and shouldnt happen in simcountry either. I dont think there is a problem with noobs being attacked, normally because they dont have as much to lose as a player who has build up an empire, but like Orbiter stated, the problem is players dont prepare themselves for war properly or dont understand how to fight. Using WGC for an

honestly, a change i'd like to throw out...

why not lower the trade-able/sell-able pop to 15M. This will make smaller countries targets, sooner. but players may find themselves fending off attacks, before they invest allot of time or money into them. Also, making a 25M country a more attractive target. Means that smaller players wont have to build for months to be able to have the assets to take a 35M country, for the same stripping value.

this would make the whole game more aggressive, yes, by lowering the risk, and increasing the reward. But that would make the war game playable for smaller, newer players. And by the time some one is able to build up a 50M slave, they have either learned how to defend it, or make it pay for its own WP.

and btw, when i saw the increase of fighting levels to 160, my reaction was, "well, for those that wanted low cost WP, their you go..."

Thank you Tom. I look forward to hearing your ideas.

Orbiter, I'd like to know how having all targets fully garrisoned and plenty of defensive airwings qualifies as 'refusing to defend yourself'. It took four countries attacking one of mine over four hours to take it down. Please don't insult the intelligence of the Gamemasters or the other players in this game by pretending that there was some way WGC could have won that war.

Keto - I'd like to know how I achieved an average FI of over 125 and reached level 13, despite being fully garrisoned, if my countries were losing money. You guys really are talking a load of rubbish.

Green Starfish - you are absolutely right. "Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader." Not just commander in chief.

If people only want to play a wargame, go buy a copy of Call o

Jo, thats why some people play this game, to build an economy which makes money and can afford a potent military.

I also stated most of wgc had no monthly income in most countries. For example: Keith

With all the military WGC had, off. and def., you surely could have wiped out the smaller military of The Mob. This was just a clear example of when someone gets decd on, that player panics and concentrates on defense, rather than setting up a counter attack.

I have a few copies of Call Of Duty games. If you want a economy based game only, then you should play SimCity on Nintendo.