War

The bottom line is this:

This is a war game which states if you have more than one country, be prepared to defend it.

The biggest problem is most players have not learned how to play the war game. How much more defense can a country put up than what is in place now? If the attacking player has a very strong offense, it's only a matter of time before that player takes that country, especially if the defender is fighting defensively rather than offensively. Thats the problem now, most players dont know how to fight. They panic when they are decd, and they think how are they going to protect their country from falling in the hands of the attacking player, rather than preparing an offensive attack. Your defense will do just fine while you are attacking the aggressor, providing your garrisons and air d is set up properly.

Making defensive weapons stronger won't alleviate the problem. Providing the attacker has ample weapons,

"A way to eliminate c3 warfare is for wgc to increasethe distance fp/bombers/ military transport can travel. Maybe add re-fuellers to allow this. This would eliminate c3 tactics."

Not sure if I get this. It would allow people to fight from greater distances, but it wouldn't stop a player from C3 fighting to reduce risk.

And I don't see a reason to reduce numbers of wars per world. What good does that do? And why limit the number of attackers? One of the many parts of the game is making allies for attacking and defending. Personally, I think a lot if not most of suggestions are being made that won't affect an aggressive fighter at all. They will adapt and find other ways to do the same thing.

I'm saying the same thing over and over, because I believe its true. As a bandaid, use my WP suggestion. Let this give W3C time to make a more interesting and (severly) less time intensive wargame. Right now y

"24 Add counter attack units that will attack selected targets if the country is attacked.
We could add what a player called response units. The units could be of a special type, or stealth units. They could be secret, never showing how many units are available and what the attack plans are.

Attack plans will be set by the player. These attacks could be high quality and effective in destroying essential targets. The attacks will be triggered if the country is attacked and could be launched automatically in addition to the current automatic defense.

An attacker will not be able to assume that the war is just a matter of some clicking.
The units could be traded on the market, and as a player suggested here, they could be produced by a corporation (or created in the same way other units are created)."

_____________________________
automatic response units programmed by the gamer to attack specific targets

borderc , I would like to implement re-fuellers to give fp/bombers/military transport a greater to distance, after c3 warfare is eliminated. we can still take c3s for workers and such, but we shouldn't be able to attack another country using a c3, that has a off. index or def. index below a certain percentage.

Keto, stop spamming about c3 wars... please refrain from drowning out better ideas for use of w3c resources.

That subject was already addressed.

Keto, I would like too see the already promised features including the battle royal world. That special world made of 'fair fights' and 'good wars'. The one and only place I can see this feud between you ladies and myself ending, or at least producing a means to an end, before any of these changes are implemented.

And Keto, if you don't have anything new to add to the conversation other than c3 wars, pleasse refrain from spamming and drowning out those who are participating in the thread.

Who is spamming? You, so...shut up. He's adding ideas to the conversation. You, however, none at all.

Geez, windbag, can't you come up with your own lines without having to use mine?

Stop Spamming.

YO Everyone. Say hi back if you see this, It will give you good luck for being nice to someone

I will look in all details later today and come with a next version and possible new suggestions made in the last hours.

We also want to start moving and take some decisions so that the discussion can focus on issues that are controversial, adding more details and trying to concluded at some point.

we are not in a hurry to close the discussion.

In the mean time:

We will implement #4 (The time before war starts to 48 hours).
and #5 - blackout periods, from 4 to 8 hours.

We will implement #8 but details on exactly how many can declare at the same time will follow.

Point 12, the defensive power of weapons:

we will look into the individual weapons and will make some small changes to start with.

The weapons document will be updated to show all correct values. It has many incorrect values and must be updated independently of current tuning.

#21 is not relevant to this d

Awesome


And hi Barren...

It is clear that we will not satisfy everyone and it is also clear that whatever we do, will not really solve all these problems. The players are very different and have very different objectives, time they want to spend etc. We will not make huge changes quickly, but rather tune step by step.

We are focused on the objectives as stated before. We are determined to make the war game a popular option for many more players than before but at the same time, allow others to have a great time without it.

Making the war game a more popular option is only possible as mentioned many times, if they have a fighting chance and can make even very large attackers think twice. Make defense, supported by offensive power much easier to use so everybody understands. Some argue that this is the problem, so we should solve it by giving them easy tools to defend.

I cannot see why anyone can have any objections to a situation where an attacker is suff

I'm in favor of increasing the strength of defense relative to offense, compared to the current situation.

The current wisdom is that you can't win a war playing defense alone; a necessary part of real defense is to go on the offensive. That's not a rule of the game, it's just what we've figured out as good tactics, based on the rules as they currently stand.

There's a good percentage of players who would like to participate in the war game to the extent that they set up defenses which they expect can in theory withstand attack from any offense, if only they are strong enough. I don't know if there should be such thing as an impregnable country, but a fully garrisoned country should be able to last well more than a few hours, even against four players.

When a strong fighting fed is running on all cylinders no country or cluster is safe. That's why people keep #1 war-ranked countries in

Tom I have had the luxury of testing some variables that I assume have already changed. While the numbers and results seem a bit steep, a good air defense seems to really become a much more viable option than WP.

I personally like the results this will make it very difficult to attack a player for the thrill of attacking and curb hyper aggression that is a problem in the game.

I tested some fighter wings vs a single air defense Wing.

My combos were as follow

1000 bombers 900 fp. Avg Unit Q 130
100 - 160 ish bomber loss to 180 - 240ish interceptor loss

1000 attack drones 900 fighter planes
900+ attack drone loss to 250ish Interceptor loss

smaller combos of fp were used but same shield ratio. The results were slightly less favorable as one would imagine. The above top two examples were an avg 130 attack wing, vs a single 100 Q defensive air wing.

While I think the numbers are sta

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

Mostly positive reactions but based on players, not countries.
We think of 3 players with max three countries. (Example: 1 player with 3 countries or 3 players with 1 country each). Response declarations should be limited too. " -tom

ok, i strongly disagree with the number of players/countries being 3. its already been proven, that with out ANY changes, stronger defense can take 4 or more... by allowing more decs against a country, 10, it allows aggressor to bring enough guns to defeat beefed up defense. meaning, that defenders would need fed support. This would encourage the fed system. however, manually setting a limit on attackers, in such a way that makes it possible for unbreakable defense, is not the goal...

Tom, if unbreakable defense is the goal... then the 3 number is an excellent choice.

....

Now, no one will have WP YAAAY!

I can agree with most except:

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.

We don't see how anybody could object. This will increase the defensive power of countries and make the war more risky to the attacker. An one who objects to it really wants a free ride and trivial wars.

I've been largely on the econ players/defensive players side in this argument and I'm completely against this. I have to go back to work, but I'll hopefully have time to state my argument later.

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.

We don't see how anybody could object. This will increase the defensive power of countries and make the war more risky to the attacker. An one who objects to it really wants a free ride and trivial wars.

"I've been largely on the econ players/defensive players side in this argument and I'm completely against this. I have to go back to work, but I'll hopefully have time to state my argument later." bc

bc, i'm with you on that. and am looking forward to your comment.

We're making a lot of progress!

6. If defensive spending is increased for the defender in a war, that creates an incentive for fake war. I don't see a way to prevent fake wars. Some players will bribe someone into declaring a fake war, or will use a multi account. It's more fair not to increase defensive spending for the defender.

10. Automatic building of military units is excellent! Please do the same with supply units. Alternatively, military units and supply units could be sold as products of corps.

12. This is not a good idea. Offensive weapons don't have an advantage. If increasing the power of defensive weapons results in more clicking to destroy targets, that will discourage war. I thought the goal was to encourage more war.

18. The "nominal value" page of each country calculates the nominal value in terms of gold coins. That could serve as the basis for calculating a payment to end the wa

"There is talk about war incentive and we agree, but not to the extent of denying peaceful players awards.
Simcountry has the option to play peaceful or to play the war game. Both are viable options. " -Tom

You made a valid point, please hear out my counter point.

theirs allot of ground i'm willing to give. but the more that you try to make players safe, with out creating any incentive to be a war player, or disadvantage to being peace only... the less desirable the war game will become.

as it is, many players don't play the war game, based on the fact that they are intimidated by it. but by going to extremes of equalizing it, will remove any incentive to start a war...

where as i feel that any rule can be used both ways... their is an obvious extreme, that makes the game unplayable.

for example, if a player's interest in sc is the war game, why limit them to 1 dec against a player

oohhh ohhhh ohhh, Thats real nice, 1 person said hi, Everone cares more about war then to say hi to me

war war war Hi, BR! war war

THANK YOU

There is now a toall on this fourm. U have to say hi to me before makeing your long lecture.