War

Jo - You're missing the point, simply having defense is not defending your countries. If you had half the defense and double the offense the war would have looked a lot different and if as Orbiter suggested, your smaller players had been taught how to defend themselves with offense it also would have been a very different war.

As far as how long it took to take one of your countries, that is due to the excessive clicking that everyone is talking about and the fact that you and Iain and others were all clustered together which is great for air defense but much more difficult on the attacking side, we brought down several hundred thousand ints and helis before we could even start shooting at a country. The GM's, knowing the programming of the game, know full well how long it takes to bring down a fully garrisoned country with huge amounts of air support, so I'm pretty sure they are buying the 'rubbish' as it is fact.

Fuddlepuck!

Fuddelpuck, I say!

...... to nobody in particular.

"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." -jo

thats my point actually JO, you just made it for me. A well defended country, takes allot of effort to take down, AS IT IS. Nothing more needs to be done, other than players taking the proper preparations.

you in fact made my point very, very, well. thank you. I am not insulting any ones intellegence, actually, but rather asking people to think this thru, as you said, it took 4 countries to take your ONE. how much more protection does that ONE country need? what really needs to happen here, is LESS protection, so that people are forced to prepare... rather than cry foul when some one who does, comes along.

and as far as levels, and de-activations. the health lvl require

Wow

gone for 3 days...

This will take a while to read with my wife discussing her latest shopping trip in my R ear.

Need time, need time.

"thats my point actually JO, you just made it for me. A well defended country, takes allot of effort to take down"

4 hours to take it down? A lot of effort?

How much effort to build that country?

Its all about risk and reward. If you are willing to take the risk, then there should be reward.

Much of the talk has been about changing the war engine to one degree or another. But if you look back a year or so ago this was not much of an issue because there were many players that did learn the war game and participated in it. If players would only play the full version of the game this would not be much of a discussion.

The federations that are present now need to take better care of their members by teaching them how to play not only eco, but war as well. I remember when I first started and well before I joined a fed I always had a fear of becoming a target, so I didnt grow to big to fast. I tried to make it so that it would cost more to destroy me than I was worth. Then I joined a fed and learned alot more.

New players do need to be aware that they are bigger better players out there. This game cant become one where a new pl

"If people only want to play a wargame, go buy a copy of Call of Duty. Less clicking." -jo

hey, better idea, if you want friendly interaction, while building, to gain resources, to build more... Go play farmville, on face book. It free, and you don't have to pay GC for WP!!!

i'm not advertising another game, but making a point. if what you are interested in, is social networking, and building, then their are tons of games out their that offer that for free. what does simcountry offer that those don't?

war!!!

whats the point to SC politics? if no one ever fought? it'd really just be dogs in cages barking at each other. whats the risk?

no matter what you do, aggressive players are going to find an advantage. thats just how it works. and if you do manage to take away any advantage preparation provides... then what kind of game will you have?

my above points, the war engi

now that thats off my chest, i'm for giving defenders a little extra time to get ready. but every hour you give them, is an hour the attacker also gets... and i would be blowing through long range radar planes to see what your doing.

plus i think some one briefly mentioned that this proposal, as it is written can offer free WP. It implies that any one involved in the war make their intent known during the first 24-48 period, after that no one else can join.

So, player A could start the process on his friend, player B. after the initial period, no one else can join. so then theirs the extra 24? hours prep time, if that is included, then war decs, and with out a minimum time, one player each day can fire a single missile at the other, maintaining the war... and no one else can be involved, becoming a type of war protection...

even with a max time for the war of 48 hours, when the decs expire, well, you just set up with a

really, here's the best solution to the broken war game

lower the sell-able/trade-able pop to 15M.

as it is, 25 being the limit. 35 being more attractive, means for a C3, buying 25M pop, is 100-125 GC. Then the military assets, of 20-80T is another 40-160GC

so as it is right now, for a player to "ante up," to the war game, they are looking at 140-285 GC.

for a new player, thats quite the investment. and by the time some one puts that into a slave, it would hurt to loose. especially, if their main source of GC is from leveling... a one time award.

by lowering the pop limit to 15M, you are making the cost of having something to defend, between 35-50 GC, (25 for pop, 10-25 for cash,) with the 15M limit, having a 25M country with the same stripping value of a 35M country... your talking what, a 60-100 GC value? still hurts to loose, but a player can now buy into the war game, at a lo

The whole problem is that anyone who loses something it takes so much time to develop would have negative feelings about losing. Especially when you have no real chance of conquering those who are established and in coalition with another group of established players. The result is that no one is going to waste a whole month real time losing something to 4 players in 4 hours. That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. So in essence Orbiter, your suggestion, like that of many other suggestions will further diminish the will of people to participate in the war game. Federation membership will decline although it looks like it has already bottomed out, due to the reasons you guys had for attacking WGC. They were the largest non militant federation and for lack of a better target.

Congratulations, you guys are on your way to saving simcountry. BS.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

If people only want to play a wargame, go buy a copy of Call of Duty. Less clicking.<!-/Quote-!>

Although I do play CoD from time to time, I much prefer Battlefield 1943.

Go in, shoot, go out. Nothing is lost or gained.

With Simcountry it is more like a sculpture. A unique object of admiration by itself everytime.

Take the hint.

I really admire the infinite Wisdom displayed on this thread. From top to bottom, nothing productive has come of the discussion. But of course, yeah so many "good suggestions" have been made, and many more will follow. But to what end?

What part of anything ANY of you have suggested makes the war game more attractive to the player entering simcountry? NOTHING

What is the point of this thread? A subtly masked attempt at solidifying the result of what has already occurred. The consolidation of too much power.

The imbalance of power is so gr8, that no one cares to waste a real month participating in a no win proposition.

Too many of you "Self described" warlords, or war gamers, positioning yourself in a way that there will not be an organized competition of any sort for the foreseeable future.

You claim to attack those who have invested time and energy in this game in hopes of a "good fight

"The whole problem is that anyone who loses something it takes so much time to develop would have negative feelings about losing." -wendy

thats true, so maybe we should just turn off the war game altogether? i mean, if no one wants to loose their stuff? why not just turn it off? that would be fair, wouldn't it? no one has the chance of loosing anything, every one can be econ players. no need for the forums any more except for occasional corp requests, or worker exchanges...

any war game, is going to have negative feelings by the losers. thats just the way it is. if you don't want that, like i said, go play farmville, its free, and you don't have to pay for WP.

again, not advertising another game, making a point. losing war is going to hurt, and winning feels good, thats how it goes. if you don't want to play the war game, buy protection, that is if you don't want to war. not buy protection

As far as the lop sided power base. it is true. it is lop sided. but really, you can't "blame,' any one. I know you will, just because.

like minded players are going to seek each other out, and group up. and even with out that, players are going to make friends. some how its ok for econ players to be friends and fed up, but its not ok for war players to become friends and fed up. that is flawed thinking.

the counter to whats happening now, is to make friends, and form alliances that can stand up to aggressors. endless C3 wars behind WP, are only a nuisance, and offer no real substance to victory. yes, EVERY one has fought C3 *only* wars. That true, what *NO ONE ELSE," has done, is to do it for 2 YEARS.

And wendy, you've had 2 years to make friends, and form alliances, to create a counter power to the current power... but you've choosen to a nuisance, rather than have any real s

Yes, encourage everybody to stay with a single SM or WP. Then you and yours will whine that there is nobody to fight, and if they do fight and are smart enough to keep assets in WP, you'll whine that they aren't fighting the way you want them to fight.

The only way to fix this is to make war something that everybody can do, not just those who have the time. We all know that you can prep for war for months, you can buy all of the offensive and defensive weapons you need, and you can have plenty of friends, but if you don't have the time to fight back, you lose.

WP solves nothing. It just makes the defender pay more and gives the offender nothing to offend.

It's not a war game, it's a nation-building game, of which war is an integral part. Successfully defending your empire, especially when under direct attack, can be fun.

Any mature player of this game should realize that success is not guaranteed; if it were, the game would not be as fun.

On the other hand the infrequency of wars if one is not seeking them out can give one illusions about the effectiveness of one's efforts, and discouragement when shown your weaknesses. It's happened to me, to whiteboy, to WGC, to many. This may be "fair," but it's not always so much fun.

Those of us pushing for these rules changes have had some success on the offensive side, and see the built-in weaknesses in the defensive side of the game quite clearly. Currently, aside from the ability of the individual player, it's just difficult to adequately defend. Currently, the best defense is an aggressive offense.

"Any mature player of this game should realize that success is not guaranteed; if it were, the game would not be as fun." -jojo

i like that, well said.

"Currently, the best defense is an aggressive offense." -jojo

yes, true. so think this through. you want to make passive defense able to hold against any aggressor? really? you could argue that they could be strengthened. ok. but as Jo pointed out, it took 4 countries 4 hours to take her country... how much effort should it take? 8 countries? 12?

higher up in this thread, it was stated that gangbanging and multipul wars against a country should be something to avoid? but you want to strengthen defense so thats the only way to over come a country?

no one is arguing against giving players more time to prepare, no one has said that. how ever, every rule that you create to make things fair, will have the opposite effect.

the probl

"Everyone else is at fault because YOUR warmongering has made people avoid the war game altogether. Now we want to FORCE people OUT of WP."-- Windy

NOBODY wants to FORCE anybody outta WP. How many times does it need to be said that if you wanna play peaceful...... then get WP. How many times and different ways can that be said? However, if you do decide to play peaceful, then dont go dec on others, otherwise you clearly are not peaceful.

Learn to play the game, implement your learning and alot of this will fix itself!

exactly serpent, the WP issue, is not with peaceful players that want to be left alone, its better for a peaceful player to buy WP

The WP problem, is with aggressive players that want to use it a means of an "undefeatable," tactic. And it is the classic example of what i meant with the more protection you provide players, the aggressive players will use to their advantage.

exactly sleerpy

Implement your learning and you wouldn't have to worry about people fighting you with c3s.

Can we quit whining and start playing now?

As much as you tell everyone else, if you don't want to fight c3 wars stay in WP like everyone else who doesn't want to deal with your BS. Seems fair to me.

Many times when some epic event takes place, you realize you are at some crossing point. This recent war made everyone aware of the way the war game is played or largely not played.

The problem however, is lingering for a long time and most people think there should be some changes. This recent event is not the cause for change but obviously accelerated the discussion.

Big and fast changes are dangerous as the probability of success, when you change such a complex system is low.

If we want to allow players to make other choices than the two extremes of war or no war, we need to give them some more chance to survive a war.
If they have a hope of surviving a war, they may start to think of the possibility to start one.

The following is a long list with many ideas that can help to improve the war game.
The list is incomplete, I am sure, and it is at the same time over complete. We will not implement every idea here.

thank you tom,

were as i don't agree with everything, i do agree with the basic concept your going for.

"If we want to allow players to make other choices than the two extremes of war or no war, we need to give them some more chance to survive a war.
If they have a hope of surviving a war, they may start to think of the possibility to start one. "

that said, knowing i'm not always 100% correct,

i'm sorry, but i do have to point out a couple of flaws

6. Removing or expanding the spending limits for defensive weapons for the defender once war is declared.

expanding or removing spending limits for the defender... to a degree i can support expanding spending limits. but removing them?

i've got over 200T in my direct account? whats to stop me from buying 200T worth of weapons and ammo. Or before i want to war some one, talk a friend into dec'ing on me, so i can max out my spending limit? then when that war expires, i'm already a leg up. Or just trading back and forth decs with friends so that we all get expanded or removed spending limits... this idea is really open to abuse. The idea is kind hearted tho...

14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.

th

I'm going to throw in a suggestion here, just an idea is all, feel free to shoot it down in flames.

Take the number of wars that an account has been involved in. If it is twice (say) or more the number that a potential target has been involved in then that war cant go ahead. This could be on a per world basis or for the whole account.
Taking C3s would count as wars involved in, but deccing on C3s would not be limited by the rule. (So if you take a C3 for pop transfer or strategy in warring or whatever reason, you have gained experience and gotten the benefit but made youself that little bit more vunerable).

This would offer new players protection from big capable players, also it should offer the economy players some protection, though it might be noted that as they grow large multi country empires their 'attackability' would become greater, and so it should.

Now new players can fight and enjoy t