W3C - The War Game

1. I have difficulty agreeing with this. You make it sound as if players play the same game in all the worlds.

2. You've already made conquering C3s difficult for those who typically use them as a tactic. Make them easier to conquer back and the problem is mitigated quite a bit. I've already suggested an approach.

I'm in the same boat as Gaz. I reached WL4 on KB but am on zero everywhere else, and have just started an econ empire on LU.

"once you start a war, any war, you should move to the empire war level. maybe this will be a better solution."
~Andy

Andy, please don't make WLs account-wide. I think C3 wars on worlds should be separate, but if a player participates in a PvP battle, the War Level automatically becomes the "account" war level for that world (aka the highest war level reached on any of the worlds).

Or you could just leave the system as is, which would be better.

The way you are suggesting would mean people would be forced to buy countries in order to actually have an empire.

"One more thing, maybe eliminate PvP wars on all worlds except for FB. After all, FB is the war world!
~Keto

No thanks.

It seems that you like to write, not to read. This is confusing with comments that are mainly based on not reading what was said before.

I was reading all over the place that everyone wants more war, easier to fight everyone, and no WL limitations.

So why not get rid of the war protection, and maybe also secured more.
You will be able to fight everyone even without any war level protection. You get up in the morning and a country might be gone.

I don't think this is what you want.

It seems that while many say they want more war, they are in fact scared and hide behind war protection and war levels.

The exception is wars against C3s or beginners, wars you know you will win and then even that is a problem because the loot is too small.

Then I suggested some changes that can reduce the trivial wars and the use of worthless countries to wage risk less wars and look at the reactions.

howev

Tom,

economy only is fine.
but then, don't fight anyone, and don't fight C3 countries. Don't purchase or produce any weapons. Just don't touch the war game.

Laguna,

the rules about purchasing military materials when in debt and numbers of soldiers and officers in the army have never changed. There might be an old loop hole in some types of spending but you cannot build a large army when in debt.

spending limits were out of control because weapons and ammo pricing went all the way down but the spending space is being repaired.

a C3 country has 10 fortifications.
Fortifications are not that relevant to strong defense.
we used to have thousands of fortifications and we will not go back to that situation.
with units participating in the defense, fortifications will become more important.

The problem of using just conquered countries to wage war cannot be solved with these rules. These countries should take more time to build up and take even longer to obtain nukes.

Andy, please have a think about how the limiting of the war game might impact on how purely econ empires might use the war game. It would hugely impact 2 things: an empire's ability to get cash/create new slave countries, and the ability for players to have different worlds for different purposes (e.g. my plan is KB pure econ, and LU as a place for potential PvP).

I don't want to spend GCs on WP on KB just because I'm an active war player on LU. It would make the game so much more expensive, especially for people who lack the massive cash-chests of the vets.
Please think about the impacts.

I'd like to see protection removed only if the cost of maintaining an army comes down drastically. Many people have said it Andy.

I think we'd all like to have our countries with enough defence but the cost of doing so at the moment is huge. Even a mediocre defence would break the bank for most people.

Maybe if the world's were split into 2 for econ and 2 for war?

On the econ worlds only c3 wars are possible and on the war wordls no protection and no war levels. I think that would keep all sides happy?

i dont like the idea of resetting war levels, i like the choice of playing the game i want to play on what world. i dont want to be a fighter on all worlds, for me its nice to go to my countries on worlds where im low war level and not worry about war...just econ, in addition i use the different war levels on different worlds to learn and perfect the war game. i need to be at war level 3 on GR so i could figure out better ways to take countries at war level 11 on FB and because im war level 11 on FB dosent mean at all that im one of the top fighters. The biggest factor is military assets more then expierence in my opinion. If the war levels set account wide i will not need to play on 5 worlds anymore i would reduce to one. It seems that we just keep looking for solutions for problems that war levels have caused, why not go back to the old ways and if any one takes advantage or bullies the game master could just send a random meteor or asteroid into there c

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I think we'd all like to have our countries with enough defence but the cost of doing so at the moment is huge. Even a mediocre defence would break the bank for most people. -Gaz<!-/Quote-!>

amen

the rule, for a long time, has been if you can't defend it, protect it. i recently ended up moving all my military to LU. leaving my WG undefended. one might argue, that i should have been vulnerable on WG, to a counter attack. not to mention i have other enemies...

i'm ok playing that way. its not the way it has worked, but shoot, i can do it. all or nothing on multiple planets, with every one at max WLs... i don't think thats what W3C wants.

but sorry for the side track. i'm now going back and rebuilding those defenses, with the intent of letting those countries out of protection, at WL7, my main world, (9 on LU) but have

+1 for your financial comments Gaz. That's what I've been saying too.

I have VERY MODEST slave defenses, and they ALL bleed cash.

ALL of my countries "make" money. Most have finance indices over 140. ALL except for my main, secured country and my tiny ones lose a trillion or more every day or two.

I have taken at least 1 c3 every day for around a week - netting me a little over 4 trillion per c3 (depending on how many corporations were in it). I have a stockpile of offensive weapons and ammo that I have not needed to replace. Since then, my empire has LOST money.

More than 4t per day and ALL of my countries "make" money. I do not have excessive auto ordering on, and I'm not placing orders for anything except schools, roads, and a corporation here or there. Certainly not 4t worth though.

I have the experience and infrastructure to handle this cost. The vast majority of playe

War is expensive, as it should be. I do think that some tweaking of the numbers is needed, but if you want to take another presidents country that has made an effort to set up a reasonable def, the cost should be higher, possibly 3:1 ratio? Which although I have not run the numbers, Id say that its sufficient as it is now.

If a player does not want to have to set up a defense and play strictly econ, the protection shouldn't be free, I think they should have to pay for it. Of course there should be a 45-60 day free WP for new players, because by then they should be able to have a decent grasp on the game and have the opportunity to join a federation where they can learn as they grow their countries. But in all honesty, I think the idea of 'noob bashing' has been dramatized. Although Im sure it does/has happened, its NEVER been the issue that it has been made out to be.

As far as the 'worthless' countries having the abi

It's not the cost of fighting a war that im on about Serp. It's the cost of maintaining a full time army so we dont need protection.

For me to have a high value country out of protection I'd want a big army. From what I can tell so far it'd be unsustainable without playing econ on another world. Why play muti world otherwise

Perhaps Josias or SR could shed some light? You guys both have big armies on LU. What sort of numbers are you's seeing with maint costs? I wouldnt normally ask but it's relvant to this thread.

With all the recent updates/changes SC has made to the game, it's virtually impossible for 1 country to make a profit and support a defense to defend that country, let alone trying to support defense and an offense.
Why do you think that the majority of newer players are afraid of war? Because they can't afford it, and they are afraid of losing what they have built up so far.
I've been playing for 6 years now, and in that time its been hard to maintain an army for 1 country and try to make a decent profit. That's why players attacked other players or raided inactives, to offset the cost of having an army.

If SC wants more warring, as do alot of players, they need to drastically reduce the cost of having an army versus trying to maintain a profitable country.

Eliminating wp in favour of countries having more mobile defense units(auto-response), will not fix the issue, it will actually add to the maintenance

well, actually Gaz, those 2 countries with large militaries make money.

but theirs an umbrella of sorts. that once you get your pop over #, then things get easier. i've got a 50M country, trying to hold onto a strong defence, but loosing money. its kinda, the basic thing you need, needs to be maintained by like 80M+ pop countries.

Yes I see them in the green but does the total monthly cost compute the ammo usage etc? I cant remember.

The profit a country shows IS NOT the actual cash increase per month. There is the problem with reporting the profit. If the line wasn't muddied by x factors and showed an actual increase in cash after any and everything you have to buy or maintain, there is your real profit.

Each month look at how your cash increased. That should be the only measure of profit.

yes, actually its making money. well one of them is, but its true, the bottom line isn't the bottom line. and ammo usage, doesn't fit into the country's monthly profit

'Get rid of war levels, period. Give the security council some teeth so the player base can punish/prevent noob bashing, gang rape etc.' Crafty

No I don't think so, not the war levels just so i'll be a target again and the security council will be too late to punish or prevent noob bashing by the time they'll try to stop it, the war will be over before you know it and it will be the noob who will lose out. Even going back to the old ways Jackseptic an asteroid or an earthquake or something would'nt put off the big experienced players from doing what they want.


You get up in the morning and a country might be gone.' Andy

Well this where I thought of the 'overall defence index levels' where fighting will be much more fairer and stand a much better chance of hanging onto that country a lot longer without the fear of being overrun by a extremely large and powerful military in 2 minutes, just li

I don't know the particulars of your issue on FB Mr James, but if you were not 'on your feet' you might should have stayed in war level 2 or lower so that you could have amassed more assets in order to defend yourself.

Also Mr James, I wouldn't classify you as a 'noob' anyway. I'm sure your no great game god or nothing, neither am I, but I'd assume you have a good grasp of the game concepts and know how to play according to your abilities.

I could be wrong here. Was a few weeks since I had a defence up. I seem to remember 100 int wings using 500 missiles per month. Same for heli wings. My math is dodgy but I make that at 5B per month on wasted int ammo alone?

100 int wings isnt alot either, I'd want 200 atleast. That'd be 10B a month on int ammo then another 10B for heli missile.

I didnt get as far as garrissons but to defend a big country you'd prob need something like 50k batts each? I've no idea what the monthly ammo usage is for that amount of batts? It'll be alot though, no doubt.

That's not even taking into account offessive ammo usage or soldier salaries.

Im gonna test it next few days but Im betting protection is quite a bit cheaper.

Don't forget upgrades for weapons/ammo, gasoline, aircraft fuel, military supplies!

Yeah Orbiter, your big countries "make money" on the finance index, but if you leave them alone for 3 days, do they have more or less money?

Yes ofcourse, the supplies needed aswell. The costs just mount up.

The cost of maintaing an air defence alone is enough to put anyone off.

The Democratic Union of Mubalak, (The DUofM)

https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=1030&miColumn=vCmainCash

and Candle Light Express

https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=826&miColumn=vCmainCash

usually express is better than that. but it is the #1 war rank on LU, what would you expect?

Express isn't quite as good, and it has 10M more pop. But the differense, is that corp selection between the 2, is differen

That's good work Josias, but you're right it does help that those countries have 120 million population.

I see your point about wars being fought for 'glory' and 'politics' but there will be no 'politics' if no one is interested in the game. What 'politics' exist these days compared to a few short years ago?

The last war hydra was involved in exposed the severe lack of war game and competition within it.

What new players - and I mean within the last several years - have ANY serviceable war countries that they built themselves? I can think of one or two players at most from the three worlds I play on.