War

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

8. Reducing the number of countries that can declare on one country.<!-/Quote-!>

I think this is a good idea. What purpose is there in 3 or more countries declaring war on a single country (or a like proportion)? If the attacker needs that much support, he shouldn't be attacking in the first place.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.<!-/Quote-!>

This is a good idea. A player that sets up a solid, well-rounded defense should be able to have a basic feeling of security.

@ Crafty - I'm not sure what I think about that, but it's interesting...thanks for sharing it!

crafty, i like your idea, only flaw i see in that is that less experienced players wouldn't be provided protection from experienced fed mates, unless you wrote that in. and maybe c3 fighting shouldn't count as heavily as against players, like maybe decing a c3 would be half the value as decing a player. the only other flaw, is if some one gets beat down, and they don't have the strength to fight people of their war range...? otherwise, i really like it

green starfish. jo said it took 4 countries to take her 1 down. building up defenses to an unbeatable level disables the war game, completely, limiting number of wars against a country, fine, but 3 is a rather low number, against some of the more powerful countries. I mean i could build a country that takes 4+ countries to take out, now when i dec on you, you will not be able to bring to bear enough weapons to stop me... i mean it sounds good, doesn't it? to make an undefe

Orbiter - I understand what you are saying. But in that scenario, there would be damage sustained by both sides, but (assuming we both had a proper defense) no country would be taken. In my opinion, that is important. Personally, I would be much more willing to participate in war if there was some degree of loss, not just total loss. Or frankly, if I had any belief that it was POSSIBLE to have a strong defense that could actually hold up.

I know the argument of the best defense is a good offense, I do get it. But, waging a strong counter-offensive is just amazing time consuming. A long time ago, a remember being in a war that spanned many hours over real days. Even with winning, I find it hard to classify the amount of clicking and time as "fun". My favorite part was coordinating with my fedmates...

Lastly, I do not mean to suggest that a country cannot be conquered. But if its a well-defended country, I do think

1- good idea but right now we cant buy pop when in war. Will that change?
2-7- I agree with
8- disagree
9- disagree, the war will end with no winner, defeating the purpose of fighting, killing the war game again.
10-11- I agree
12- disagree, this will eliminate any fighting
13- disagree, if you dec you should fight till you win or lose
14- agree
15- disagree
16a)- disagree, if a player can dec with a c3
b) agree
17- remove sneak attacks altogether
18- not sure what to do yet

eliminate c3 style fighting by maybe introducing re-fuelers which would allow FP/bombers/transport planes to travel to far away countries?

I agree some changes need to be made, but how far are we actually gonna go with this....once someone kicks my butt or I kick theirs, maybe I should have to pay for their medical expenses...send their family members an apology letter....how about making it so that we need to send their parents a permission slip that must be returned before the dec can go through?? It costs a militarized country a whole bunch each month to sustain...much more than the cost of war protection.I should be able to put it to use. Defend it one way or the other...wp, or a REAL defense.

Also....if I can drop in special forces to paint with, shouldnt my navy seals be able to do the same? This would eliminate the need for "painting" c3's.

EC

As one of the closest things to an outsider looking in I would give my own thoughts on those 18 items.

1) From what I've gathered from others, there's a distinct problem with deactivation priorities. Changing this to prioritize strategic then offensive then defensive would eliminate a fair bit of this.

2) This would be a double-edged sword. But sometimes, every month counts, so go for it.

3) Seems reasonable and would eliminate some of the chaos of coordination. Particularly if combined with the delaying options of #2. Only caveat I can see is if either side wanted to bring someone in through negotiation and have them enter at the same time, without them having to change feds. Maybe some sort of option to allow that choice.

4) Doesn't seem like a problem. Would be a bit longer game month wise on LU, but that would make reactivations easier here.

5) A full 8 hours of sle

1. Maybe you should be able to set up Reserve units that only get activated during war time, if necessary. You would be able to set up a percentage of your pop before war starts and you would have to pay some upkeep as a trade-off. If you're buying pop, you're just sinking more GC into something your already coming close to losing.
2. I don't care for the defender having an "attack now" option. I prefer simplifying the war game so people will be more willing to fight than giving one side such an advantage and discouraging most from attacking. Some wars ARE for good reasons.
3. Wholeheartedly agree.
4. meh...
5. Should be 8 for those who have jobs. Hell, counting lunch break and commute time, could be 9 or 10, but certainly no more than that.
6. I think somebody did a good jb of pointing out how this can be abused. Again, it's pretty much just investing in something you are very likely to lose.
7. The war gam

1. Completely agree, no country will decide to deactivate it's current weapons during a war, makes no sense, that's what a draft is for. At the least, prioritize as has been suggested, strategic deacts first, offense second, defense third, makes the most sense. Also, eliminate the three month waiting period, that really makes no sense, once the workers are there you should be able to transfer/reactivate weapons/ammo.
2. Perfect
3. Perfect
4. Perfect
5. Have to be careful with blackout periods, Jojo and I had discussed this as it is ridiculous to only get 4 hours. However, if I have 8 hours and he has 8 hours that are completely different than mine, that leaves only 8 hours of total potential fighting time per day. I believe most people set there blackouts for when they are sleeping, so 8 hours there, then 8 hours at work, then the 8 hours that your opponent has blackout...adds up to no war. The best solution we came up wit

Okie doakie here goes.......

1. Deactivation is ok so long as their is a priority that can be set. Make sure that the nuke def batts dont deactivate when at the same time you are able to staff a strat bomber. Plus, when you get the soldiers/officers, be able to use them immediately.

2. Simply having 48hrs is a good choice.

3. Awesome

4. Awesome

5. 4-6 hrs is enough time.

6. No need to expand the spending limit because as has been suggested this could be abused greatly. But possibly expand the reactivation limit a lil bit.

7. Its difficult to make a determination as to who can and when attack another player. Just make sure that if you dec a country that you have something to lose. Of course 1 secured main with 7-8 10M pop C3's would not fit this criteria.

8. Number of players rather than the number of countries. Many players have their military split between countrie

Frankly, it would be cool for the GMs to randomly change the rules each month. Part of the charm of the game is trying to figure out how to adapt to rule changes. For example, the c3-only fighting has to go, but it was a brilliant idea, for a while, by those who thought of it.

Barring that, I like 2,3,4,5,7,8 (but presidents, not countries), 9, 16b, & 17b (sneaks are FUN and strategic, especially if expanded).

Hey Jojo

Lots of reactions.
Thanks.

I was not able to look into it and discuss here today.
I will start looking at it in the morning and hope to have a next version, including reactions and opinions later tomorrow.

Thank you so much Tom, for consulting with the players on this. There are a lot of good ideas in there. Further to my email (which was sent before I read your proposal), this is my response to your consultation:

1. I totally agree. Perhaps in times of war workers can be conscripted from corporations - the game automatically places them in the army as needed and if the corporations suffer temporarily, so be it. After all, that's what happens in the real world. Maybe, for added realism, housewives could be drafted to work in corps in place of the workers joining the army?

A standard demographic for bought population would also help, but would be best working in tandem with the first part.

2. Another day won't make a huge difference, but will help.

3. Absolutely! This is a great idea - one of the best on the table.

4.

Thanks to W3C for listening to players.

1. No. Deactivation of weapons due to worker shortages works fine and is realistic.

2. Six months to start any war against a player-owned country.

3. Yes.

4. Ahem. Six months to start any war against a player-owned country.

5. Yes.

6. No. This will lead to phony war declarations just to expand defensive spending limits.

7. Yes, but it would be more relevant and transparent if the formula is based on the money value of the military assets of the two prospective enemies. For one party to be able to declare war against another party, the difference between the money value of the military assets of the two empires should not be more than 50%.

8. Yes, not more than three countries should declare war on the same country.

9. There is already a 6-month time limit if there is no shooting. Wasn't there a 60-month total time limit?

10

1. Deactivation is realistic. Even in a war, it takes time to train conscripts. Housewives cannot realistically just become soldiers or officers. Even a soldier takes substancial time to train. Perhaps, allow for training of soldiers (taking 3 months), at the COST of some of your active soldiers during that time while those soldiers are taken away from regular duty to train, and at a substancial loss of quality for the military units they are in. Perhaps 10% fighting quality after 3 months of training, 30% after 6 months, 50% after 9, and 75% after a year. It is simply not realistic to get 100% quality soldiers after a few months, nor to have any soldiers of any value right away. The deactivated weapons are the reserves, that is realistic. There is simply no way for a country to train quality soldiers from scratch in a month. Perhaps, allow an option to require military service for the whole population for 2 years, the deal is if you check

6. You can't defend your way to victory. It should apply to offensive weapoms also.

I wanted to add that I agree with Jo that the war engine is HEAVILY in favor of the attacking player. The attacking player can build up for the attack, can set the time of the war to when the attacker is free and the defender is not, and can destory or limit the ability of the defender to continue to fight. All the defender can do is counter attack or sit and wait while he is destroyed.

The defender needs to have a substancial advantage in order to even the odds. In reality, the defender usually has a huge advantage knowing the terain, digging in, etc. In addition, much less supply problems, and can react more quickly. IN addition, the defender can place stationary defenses such as SAMS, bunkers, etc.

Sim Country should seek to make it more realistic by providing defensive bonuses, allowing more units to assist in defense, strengthening defensive weapons, more quickly re-build, etc.

Additionally, their needs to be a 5th type

This whole argument about the offensive player having the advantage is really silly. Defensive weapons are a big deal and given that typically one must attack from a c3 or built up c3 (unless you just *happen* to have a war slave right next to your enemy) the defense has even more of an advantage. Winning a war against a built opponent is *EXTREMELY* difficult, how many players in this game can say they've brought down a country with more than a 800 def index? Compare that with how many players have a country with a def index that high...having taken down many countries with high def indexes I can tell you that it takes far more time, effort, planning, weapons and ammo than you think. It isn't cheap and it is VERY time consuming, especially against an active defense. Also, I've lost a country or two with that high of a def index and can tell you from that perspective that it requires ALOT of work. If you increase th

jeese

i've watched the suggestions, every one has say right?


"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. " Tom

thankfully W3C has the right goal. They don't want to disable the war game, THANK GOD

jeese, being able to set up undefeatbled defenses, creating unlimited air support, with unlimited fed support, with a limit of attacking countries, against an unlimited of fed'd counter decs, and a limited time frame for wars, with a maxed out black period... is not going to happen, atleast right away.

w3c is going to add thing, (the way i understand it) until defenders can defend themselves

ok, read wb post above, then read it again

the problem is not the way the

"Jo already made all the point that was necessary, it took 4 people 4 hours to bring down *ONE* of her heavily defended slaves. If you want to make wars even worse make the defense even stronger than it already is, it will push the war game to be even more minimal and will mean that people who wage wars will have zero sympathy at all," -wb

does any one get this?

"You're all arguing to improve and expand a war engine that 90% of the people playing the game do not enjoy or do not have time for." - BC (off the cuff)

Does anybody get this?

Nothing above is going to fix this. I'm assuming W3C's motivation is to keep people from quitting by securing their assets. Aggressive players aren't going to have much of an argument. For everything you say, "add WP", "reduce attackers", etc... why not just "stop attacking people in the first place"? It doesn't matter what they do here, the war game doesn't change. The reason people lose wars is because of inexperience and time. The reason people are inexperienced is because the wargame has very little attraction to casual gamers. As the aggressor, you will ALWAYS have the advantage when you are fighting non-aggressive people.

So who cares if it took 4 hours? What if it had taken 10 hours? o

That is fundamentally untrue BC, as someone who has fought multiple wars you are aware how easy it is to defend your own country in contrast with trying to bring down someone else's. I mean seriously, Jojo once had me chasing his c3 with barely any defense at all for like 3 hours. People need to learn *how* to defend their country and it isn't just by throwing in big garrisons and air defense. I will grant you that it does take some time, but nowhere near the amount of time it takes to bring down a country. Looking at people's countries, empires and CEO's, especially someone like Jo who sits at level 13 or 14, you can't tell me they aren't already spending quite a bit of time on the game. So perhaps the issue is that the attacker gets to choose *when* they spend the time as opposed to *if* they spend the time. Why don't we work on that and also work on getting the war engine simplified somewhat as w

i agree that not every one has the time or will to fight battles... but swinging the war game so much in the opposite direction, that it is impossible to gain victory, isn't fair either...

i'm cool with the idea of allowing some one to opt out of war entirely, at a price. They lose monthly awards, and can no longer be on the security council!!!

why not? a player doesn't want to be at risk? fine! they should not influence any ones else's game!!! why should a player offer no accountability, but be able to have power over other players, and reap all the rewards???

their has to be a trade off. its not fair to allow a player to create an "undefeatable empire," but still allow them the ability to make policy and resolutions that effect other players.

as it is, no one is untouchable. being able to build a strong fed, and group of friends to defend you again aggressors, is part of the game. an

This is an updated list of suggestions with some added items.
I also included the reactions so far.

Just to repeat the main issues here:

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.

If a small player could inflict serious pain on a large attacker, the system might shift to a more balanced status.


This list is incomplete and more will be added. On the other hand, we will not implement every idea here.


1. Deactivation of weapons because of shortages of soldiers and officers can disrupt logical steps during the war and should be delayed, reduced or eliminated by a possibility to get the people you need immediately and by expanding the use of other groups of the population.
It could be solved by an a

Some of this stuff is good Tom but some that are highlighted at almost 100% are not at all by my count. My read shows about 50/50 at allowing more def wings to respond, it's already a 900 drone/100 fp loss against 800 ints and 165 bomber loss against 800 ints, with upgraded def wings those numbers become even more staggering, with upgraded AND 3 or 4 wings responding...It'll wipe out an entire attack wing bombers or drones and all fp. Most people don't understand this and as it is already people can STACK air def by clustering up, if you want to make clusters completely impenetrable then go that direction, but that is just further death to the war game in my opinion.

I again would like to add my vote to BC's option for WP, it makes the MOST sense. No more secured, either entire empire is in WP or it's out, you pay for each country in WP. War protection was designed to protect people's assets when they were away or unabl