War

"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. " -tom

ok, so here is extreme idea that go in the opposite direction... toward no-war.

23 Limit the max number of wars per player per world per month on a real player. (1 war is suggested).

thats rather extreme, i not only say no, but hell no!! at least with a 1 number. i mean allowing 1 war, per player, basically is a paltry number to allow you to say their is still a war game, i mean if you said 0, then you couldn't say you had a war game... and i'm sure that the person(s) that suggested it, would actually prefer 0... that is just ridiculous. and the dumbest idea on the block. am i being clear? if

I agree with wb on both accounts. As I said, adding more fed defenses would definitely help the smart defender, but that's not an endorsement. That would almost ruin the war game. If anything, make bombers less effective as FP shields.

And the WP option is by far the most fair. WP was meant for vacation mode. If you're on vacation you should put your entire empire in WP. If you want to expand that to protect econ players, it should be the same. All or none. This would require getting rid of Secured Mains, because of the potential abuse. Still, even if you leave SM, it would be a better option than others. At least the C3 warrior would have to sacrifice having an empire. Then again, that's not a big sacrifice for some of us. Removing SM would free up some of those inactive assets out there that could give people more targets to practice on, or raid for their assets. Just saying...

W3C could help by making WP more affordable, es

I agree with Whiteboy that war protection should be by empire, not country. A person with 10 countries should have to decide to put all in war protection or none (except for secure main).

I also want to again share that I think we should have different limitation for different worlds.

Some worlds should be very much designed to help defender and econ players, other worlds should have fewer protections.

Also tom, try adding my idea to the list...

a person can opt out of war entirely, but they give up eligibility to join the SC, and get no, or reduced monthly awards.

it would give people an incentive to play war, and allow those that have no interest in it, to avoid it completely... by taking them off the SC, would be fair, if a person doesn't want to risk anything, then they should not be able to influence other peoples countries with sc resolutions. the risk factor is the reasoning behind the WP changes, so if a person doesn't want to risk something, they should have less to gain.

Most of that is sounding really good Tom Thankyou!

A couple of minor points:

1. Another player made the point that some people won't want to pay to add population to a country they might lose. Could there be a setting or automatic feature that favours moving workers into the army from corporations in times of war if weapons are in danger of being deactivated?

16a. Do you mean defence index rather than 'war index' (given that all peaceful countries have a high war index)? If so, could this be offensive index, rather than defence index? Thus limiting offensive players rather than those who have high defensive indexes for the sake of achieving higher levels.

17c. The same - a high defensive / defence index does not mean you have the capability to sneak attack. It's offense that counts here, although the index

As far as the air wing issue, yea, you already lose allot of bombers going against air wings.

i suspect with the new 160 fighting levels, the enhancements to defensive weapons being over all stronger, are already on the board. before any one start calling for defensive weapons to be strengthened, lets see what the 160 effect will do.

so as far as multipul fed wings responding, and improved stats for defensive weapons, so numbers 12 and 14? we should wait call that one after we've seen the effect of recent changes...

8. Reducing the number of countries that can declare on one country.

Mostly positive but based on players, not countries.

ok, i can support it limiting it on number of players attacking. but the question this would leave, would it be fair to limit say 2 players can attack another player, but 7 fed mates can counter dec? and if you think thats fair, can those 2 players fed mates counter the

Yes very good ideas here and some not so. It will be great when the dust settles and things get done. But I am sure we will end up back at the reason we are here now. Everyone cannot be pleased. Anything you change can still be exploited. Be careful what you wish for.

Orbiter ... as opposed to players forcing other players into war, losing their empires and leaving the game? That's what I call a hostile environment.

No one is FORCED to attack. Maybe if there is a bit more risk to the attacker, people will think twice ...

Unfair? I seem to recall the mob don't accept that as an 'excuse'.

You aren't forced into war Jo, you chose to play the full game which you were fully aware involved risks, you underestimated those risks because you felt your federation was big enough to guarantee security but it was not because ALL of you felt that way and you chose to recruit no players who really knew or were willing to participate in the war game. In addition, no one lost their empires that didn't choose to do so, we handed back $1000's of dollars worth of countries.

Every person in this thread is saying that people who do not wish to participate in the war game should not have to (except for on FB, it is the WAR world). The result of all of this should be pretty straightforward for those who do not wish to play the war game, put your empires into WP. Everyone is acting like those who choose to play the full game should have to pay some sort of consequence for doing so, it is the opposite, the overall design of th

aww Jo. thank you.

influence is more than just shooting isn't it?

shooting is a form of influence. but not the only one. if you want to have power, you should be prepared to defend it, regardless of how you are challenged.

you can't seriously want to force people to oppose you only were you are strong? its more subtle, and veiled, but you do the very thing that you are speaking out against, you just don't use sim guns to do it.

and frankly i applaud you skill, and ability. and i understand your need to limit your weakness. however, if you could avoid war altogether, would you give up any eligibility to be on the WG SC?

darn wb all that hot air... and you have the nerve to call me Windy.... WELL *Fartz*

Spin Whiteboy, spin. I'm not going to get drawn into separating out the lies, half-truths and truths in what you say.

Almost all the players, except the mob, favour most of Tom's proposals. Just because your federation posts more, and your posts are longer, doesn't mean you are in the majority.

Please, let's restrict ourselves to objectively discussing the subject in hand. That is what this thread is 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. " -tom

"Please, let's restrict ourselves to objectively discussing the subject in hand. That is what this thread is for." -jo

"7. Agreed. The war game would DISAPPEAR if the types of players who could fight each other were limited. " -jo

"9. Broadly, I'm not in favour of a time limit. This might KILL the wargame altogether, especially if the other changes mean it takes longer to get through someone's defence, which I strongly advocate. " -jo

you are openly endorsing dismantling the war game, which is not the purpose of this thread...

personally, i don't think the solution to the broken war game is not in W3C hands, but

Give me a break Jo, there isn't a single thing that can be considered a lie, I stated my OPINIONS. Quit with your victim stuff in the thread and I'll quit responding to it. Tell me to spin and call me a liar THEN say we should restrict ourselves to objectivity, you're a joke.

Jokes on You WB, did you want to buy your fedmates country back?

Not one single thing, Whiteboy?

"you chose to recruit no players who really knew or were willing to participate in the war game"

Beo, Jaffle, Aaron Doolavey, Iain, Man of Peace, IndustMech.

Back to the debate ...

Yeah, now you start idiot, did you want to give a completely non-combative player who has nothing to do with our fed his country back that you stole?

Yes Jo, I meant what I said, if those players were capable at war they either didn't show it or chose not to participate. Beo did, he was dispatched in a 1 v 1 vs. EO in short order, Jaffle chose not to for the most part, the tactics he did use didn't have much effect, Aaron, didn't see much from him, Iain fired some shots and rolled over, MOP is inactive and Industmech didn't do anything.

Either way, once again, my OPINION, not a lie.

If you're going to continue to respond then I will as well, if not we can get back to the debate.

Whiteboy, one of the things the GMs are proposing to address is that some of us have lives. Work, families ... you know the sort of stuff. Or maybe you don't.

Not all of us can spend 24/7 clicking. All the WGC members I named "know and are willing to participate in the war game". They just aren't necessarily able to fit in with the mob's agenda.

"You chose ..." is a statement of fact. But let's not get into semantics.

Now PLEASE can we get back to the debate.

"For the record, you attacked an Econ player. I sent messages to the countries that attacked that I was an econ player" -IM

but now he's a military recruit? Which is it?

"lies, half-truths and truths in what you say. " -jo

hey jo, what happened to the WGC non-forum-flaming policy? or does that apply to every one BUT you?

tell every one to stay on the subject, i'm cool with that. you should to. and the subject is how to make the war game more playable, for every one. given the premise that offense is stronger than defence... not how to make war unpractical. thats not what we are trying to do here.

and for the ability to not fight at all, would you give up your seat on the SC? if so, then we can push that... so players that don't want to war at all, don't have to, and can't effect other players games via SC resolutions...

if you don't want to allow others to effect your game via war, why should you effect others via SC?

so we could create an opt out feature, and not have to create extreme handicaps. that make the war game unplayable for those that want to.

No we can't get back to the debate, not if you're going to continue with your BS pot shots. We ALL have lives, I work, go to school and have a family thank you very much.

No one can spend 24/7 clicking nor does the game require you to, it requires you to strategize. You had 32 hrs to prepare for that war, you chose the strategy of first thinking it was a joke, second thinking you were going to guilt me and then third panicking. You then made the mistake of spending way too much time trying to disable our offensive capabilities instead of going on OFFENSE, you guys were actively defending for all of the hours that the war was lost, don't BS about not having time. That war was decided in the first 4 hours of the war, you were shooting, Iain was shooting, Jaffle was shooting, Keithvann was shooting, Aaron was then or slightly later. You had plenty of time to shoot, you just did it ineffectively. If we had drug the war out for a we

"since you've chosen to lobby instead of learn, you'll still be at risk. " -wb

so true, so sadly true. not meant as a threat, but the soft targets that haven't learned HOW to fight, and rely on game changes for better defense, will remain soft targets... unless you put in such extreme handi-caps, the war game becomes unpractical. and according to toms statement, thats not what they are going for

LOL, Orbiter is in the MOB but not a member of the MOB, now ricky harris isn't a member of the mob, while having a country in a mob fed.... LMAO you can't believe anything this kid says.

A few thoughts:

1. I think that while many of the ideas are good, it needs to be considered what the effect would be of implementing them ALL at the same time. For example, individually, I support adding additional fed air defense, and individually tweaking defense to make it stronger. However, I'm not sure it is a great idea to do BOTH at the same time.

2. I think it would be totally stupid to take away the advantages of strong players and strong feds against weak ones. What is the point of being strong? In fact, the problem is the opposit. The problem is that it is way to easy for someone to take a few C3s and start a war with no risk of their own.

Frankly, the main problem is that someone can own 5 main countries that are wealthy, put them in war protection, take 5 worthless C3s, spend a few trillion to build up their armies, and then attack someone with no risk. The most importaint solutions are:

1- take