War

tom, i'd like to apologize for my above message,

i believe that in parts of it i went to far, and would like to offer you an apology.

i had mis-read your statement, were you said you were NOT going to implement all the features. as i that read you would. even still, that is no justification to state that you allow one player to influence you more than another. and i went to far to suggest that you do. after reflecting on many of the things you've said in this, you truly are giving all players an equal say.

i do believe that much the rest of what i said was valid. and felt the need to state it based on the fact, that many of the changes, are to an extreme, and combined with other changes, makes things extremely difficult in the opposite way. and allot was leaning toward making the war game so difficult, that it would be unpractical.

if players really don't want to fight, i mean if they just don

The reason I'm opposed to the increased fed defenses is that it very much unbalances the defense over the offense. I think it's a simple change that has big consequences. Perhaps if were implemented in a way such that you can share as many extra player's air defenses as the number of attackers, to even things out, would be balanced, but otherwise I think the other ideas that have been presented (automated defenses, changes in weapon powers, etc.) are going to get you closer to balancing the game. Enhancing air defenses is just an asset protection move and highly discourages the offensive game. Maybe I'm wrong. You guys have better ways of testing these things. But maybe we should roll out smaller measures initially so that we don't find out we went to far. Otherwise, if you could think of a way to make it unabusable, the # of fed defenses equalling the numbers of attackers may solve a few problems at once.


Also wa

Some thoughts:

1. ok

2. strongly agree

3. strongly agree


4. strongly agree


5. ok

6. I agree, but I am concerned about fake wars to increase spending limit.


7. I don't agree that we should compare war indexes and set some limit. If we do, countries will just maintain a low war index to prevent being attacked. This really hurts new players as experienced players can easily defeat a new player without a weapons advantage.


8. I'm not a fan of this either. It really incentivises players to own 3 war slaves, as opposed to 9 countries with each 1/3 the offensive force. I think it may be reasonable for an initial attack; however, for a counter-attack, there shouldn't be a limitation. if someone attacks one of your countries, you should be able to use all your countries to fight back if you want.

9. I do not support a direct time frame, but would

24, is really cool
25, no
26, yes
27, i like the concept of a "peaceful world," but i have reservations. WG is currently suppose to be the "peaceful world," and the forum is usually dead as a doorknob. although i think the reason for that would not exist in a truly peaceful world. so i like the idea, with reservations.

You know what I think would go a VERY long way to creating balance in the war game? Not changing defensive weapons to be stronger than they already are, but instead, creating levels of c3's. As follows:

Lvl 1 would be as they are now
Lvl 2 c3's would have say 15-20 mil pop, 20k ints, 10k helis, and 100 mib/100 aab/100 dmb garrisons plus some tanks/arti/av's
Lvl 3 would have say 20-25 mil pop and have 30k ints, 15k helis, and 200 mib/200 aab/200 dmb garrisons plus some tanks/arti/av's
Lvl 4 would have 25-30 mil pop, 40k ints, 20k helis and 400/400/400 garrisons
Lvl 5 would have 30-40 mil pop, 60k ints, 30k helis and max garrisons

Make it so that there is enough in cash/assets in some of these such that someone can make a slight profit if taken efficiently and federate some of them so that full int/heli response is there. Also, provide rewards for the first one taken, ju

"7. I don't agree that we should compare war indexes and set some limit. If we do, countries will just maintain a low war index to prevent being attacked. This really hurts new players as experienced players can easily defeat a new player without a weapons advantage. " -chrys

i agree with you. it will allow bottom feeders to just build huge defenses, then dec, then transfer in weapons... but if you must put a limit based on the defensive index. flip the offense to be double the value of defense. then put the relative index limit... that way, players with huge offenses, the ones with the aggressive strength, have the higher war ranks...

24......


I think the automatic response units or counter attack units would create enough balance to perhaps not have to tweak the strength of the responding passive/fed defense.

Depending, of course, on what the GM's have in mind. If I have stealth fighters hidden that will automatically hit your FP and ignore your drones or bombers, then who needs a stronger passive int responsive?

All FP should not be lost when that attacking unit is hit by an auto response stealth unit, but he should lose some FP. Quality should be a factor here as well.

The stealth units idea could be rich with depth. stealth fighters, bombers etc... All with different attack priorities. responding only when a certain attack occurs which happens to be programed into the stealth unit to stimulate a very specific response.

you GM's have a real gem here if you flesh this idea out. players could customize weapon platforms an

Well, I thought this was going to be change we could believe in.

I personally like the result of the tuning as it is. Unfortunate that I will now have to buy a lot more weapons and ammo just to shoot through defenses, but even still. More people can now take the option of NOT staying in WP. Also they can spend more money on weapons and ammo, instead of WP. Opening the possibilities of new war players and less players in WP.

This IS what you wanted right, WhiteBoy?

i agree with you barney, this idea should be more fully detailed... as i have quite a few ideas myself

for instance, why click 100 times to take down interceptor wings? when i can automate it...

and your also right, lets explore this option, to it fullest before we explore other options. the more i think of it i agree.


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. It could be started manually during a war. Stra

I can set my auto response to only respond if attacked by say 1000 weps. otherwise, i ignore your probes.

again, this is rich no?

Offered Countries and Enterprises By Requested image #Bids Best Bid Result

bid
Republic of Mindressa on LU Elechristian_EC 5,000.00 GC 1 50.00 GC Aug 26 06:07


I was unaware that country at war could be sold, wassup with this guise?

There has been no adjustment yet, don't know where you're getting that idea. Unless you're referring to the upgrading of units which has now been increased.

Impenetrable defense is not what I wanted, what I want is more players to get involved, impenetrable defense will keep everything exactly as it is now except for even less war. No one will have any incentive to use the war engine because wars will have no effect except to piss weapons into the trash/possibly annoy people and leave all new people as the only targets because they will be the only players without impenetrable defense.

I think my suggestion above is the best option to create a more balanced game, it will give people incentive to learn and teach players how to play the war game. That coupled with some changes to give people more time, fix wp and reduce the amount of clicking will make things better.

allot will depend on how it works, how specific we get... and yea, its really cool

like setting up a c3 with 100 lrd, with just hj and hav, to auto-attack everything they encounter... and when i see the HM are gone. start auto attacks with missles

set up 50 wings of drones only, and auto order them to attack...and set up another 50... lol

it actually opens up allot of avenues of attack that were unpractical before, based on the tedium.

Comments on some of the more creative ideas:

Keto sounds like he's talking about doing away entirely with using c3s in battle, not just doing away with using c3s while hiding in wp. I'd like that. How to do it? maybe a week-long wait before you can dec with a c3 you've just taken? Fighting big country vs big country is fun, and seems to be intuitively how many of us see the game. Allow a naval rdu and each individual country could have a world-wide presence, and players would have less tactical need of taking and using c3s .

Whiteboy's suggestion of higher level c3s is too great to expect to happen. I agree with all his reasons for it. Though it would devalue a lot of hard-won warlord experience, lol.

Barney's idea is interesting. Smart, crudely programmable weapons? Custom made. How do you price those? It could be done. That would toss things up a bit!

Orbiter and others are leading towar

I'd like to hear from Tom on my idea, is it really hard to implement? If so, then I totally understand, otherwise, I don't see any reason not to implement it.

As you mention Jojo, it'll allow players to easily attain all the basic knowledge that you and I have attained as warlords without the losses and stress we went through. Should make it more balanced. I really hope it would be possible.

"maybe a week-long wait before you can dec with a c3 you've just taken? Fighting big country vs big country is fun," -jojo

sorry to hack and slash your comment jojo. waiting a week seems a bit much... but waiting for the normal auto protection to fall off... can't tell you how many times i've used navy to take a c3, dropped a coin, used c3 to take 5 more c3s, then boom, 6 c3 decs... never really seemed fair. but then again, how many people actually daily check the region their in? if they did, their would be less multi-world empires.

Thats right, Ignore the toall. I said hi to someone today and i found $20!

jeese hi br, is it really that important?

can we start a new thread, this one is taking long to load...

"8. I'm not a fan of this either. It really incentivises players to own 3 war slaves, as opposed to 9 countries with each 1/3 the offensive force. I think it may be reasonable for an initial attack; however, for a counter-attack, there shouldn't be a limitation. if someone attacks one of your countries, you should be able to use all your countries to fight back if you want. " -chryso

i'm not a fan of this either.. but i'm seeing allot of this swing way in the favor, of defense. as you make defense stronger, you remove the incentive for aggressive war... and those that do, have less and less mercy...

if we want to turn off the war game, W3C could just do that...both attackers and defenders should be at risk. allot of whats been said here is about putting attackers at risk. fine, agreed, but defenders should still be at risk. its been said that, before changes, it took 4 countries to take out on heavily defended c

again, before any other changes lets explore 24

It's hard to argue that defense is as powerful as offense when a can kill 800 ints and only lose 160 bombers. The only balancer is the cost of OA2A missiles which make it as expensive to attack as it is to lose all of the interceptors in defense. The problem with that is that I can store as many missiles as I want without cost and transfer them where needed. Defenders don;t have that option. They are limited in the number of ints they can maintain, and even moreso if they are trying to make a profit.

Having said that, if W3C wants to increase the strength of the defense through bumping Interceptor efficiency or increasing fed air defenses, they should consider decreasing the cost of OA2A so that the war game can be balanced.

This is the next iteration.
I am trying to consolidate and move features up the list or out of the list.

Repeating again:
We will not make any extreme changes and will not implement all these features. The ones we will implement will not be extreme but rather tuning of the current system.

I am busy in and out of the office for a large part of my time. The texts from the forum were collected here by a lady who removed all the names, and formatted the text in a compact word file so I can edit quickly and take the relevant points.
In addition, I do not know the names of the countries or players involved in one side or another. I do know some serious players who contributed in the past and were very constructive in their communication to us but I have no idea on which side they were in the past war and have no idea if they are on one side or another of the discussion.
Even when I know the name, it is not on the file I received.

Is the desire of many players to have their def withstand any offensive onslaught? If so, that is unreasonable. I dont mind giving a bit more help to the def, but lets not go overboard here. As somebody said somewhere on the forums(cant remember who), YOU CANT DEFEND YOUR WAY TO VICTORY. I think that says it perfectly. Therefore thats why it is important for players who chose the full game to learn the war engine.

For a very long time many of those in my fed didnt use wp because we tried to stay vigilant with our defenses. Not only the def though, but offensive weapons as well. Other feds/players can do the same. As has been mentioned before, it was not lack of def that cost WGC, but it was lack of 'shooting back'. No passive def can/should stand up to an active offense. If players do not wish to spend the time involved in doing that, then simply buy WP and play peaceful, not try to do both.

There are many good suggestions

"the purpose of the war game in Simcountry is not attacking C3s but playing a full war game against real players. " -tom

just wanted to highlight this one.

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.
A new idea here is to have the max number of defense partners, depend on the number of attackers!
---
i like that, if you want a buddies help, their will be higher risk, but 2 people clicking is more of an advantage, than the increased damage would do. so how does this work? normally one on one, the country being attacked would get one fed air wing support? but with 2 players on one side, the country being shot at gets 2 i wing support?

following this, it would create an incentive not to have 5 countries against one, as the air responce could be decimating... how ever, 5 players

Im like a dog with a bone on #24

The ground units are indicated to be complex for the GM..... granted.

How about simple steath Bombers and stealth fighters to begin?

To avoid encouraging C3 warriors from adding another feather to their hats, these could be allowed only in larger countries. The amount would depend on country size.

For instance, for every 20 mil pop you may have 3 stealth auto response units, up to 9 per country of at least 60 mil.

This way a player can not leverage these units to such a degree that they would become another co opted weapon of the war lords who know how to leverage the most out of weapons.

if we limit the amount of these auto response units the pendulum will not swing to far in the favor of defensive war. offensive players will have to account for these. not impossible. the uncertainty around whether these units exist in a target country will make the pre war planning m