W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Reduced numbers of workers in weapons and ammunition producing corporations

A further reduction in the number of workers in nearly all corporations producing weapons and ammunition, will free more workers and managers and make it possible for countries to build more corporations with the same population numbers. This is a further reduction following several previous ones and the end numbers are in sight. We do not expect any more large reductions but rather some corrections and reductions in several types of corporations that were not affected before.

Also the impact of having weapons and ammunition producing corporations in your country will be reduced and as their profitability is high, they could become more attractive to build.

Robotics

The use of robotics is increased and many corporations will start using the product. The numbers remain small at this stage to prevent huge shortages on the markets but more robotics

I am concerned that the look into making nuclear weapons more "attractive" misses the mark on the most pressing issues in the war game. Currently, very few players seek to participate in it and most players take advantage of the overwhelming options available to them to opt out of it altogether. I don't know of a player desire to make offensive options of any type, including nuclear weapons, any more useful than they are currently.

Making nuclear weapons any more useful can add to one primary factor in the lack of participation in the war game, federations, or game diplomacy at all. That factor is that it is simply much easier to create a threat to another country than it is to both have the skill and put in the effort to protect a country. With regard to nuclear weapons, any given country has at least 25 targets vulnerable to attack. Larger countries can have many more cities, I know of countries with 100+, and, therefore, many mor

I'm in agreement with Aries.

Nuclear weapons where threat pre-war levels. Such as when people could C-3 war using nukes.
I would think we need to look at making federations more important to security again and some war level changes.

However, my suggestion to nukes is allowing chemical and tactical weapons to attack military units and targets.

-Tactical nukes should be able to attack land based units with 100% accuracy and damage. (Killing all soldiers and destroying weapons within the unit.
-Chemical weapons would do 50% damage to a unit killing soldiers only but not destroying weapons.

This would allow both assets and casualty damage to happen to an enemy nation without allowing nukes to become an overpowered weapon. Also this would increase the need and demand for having mobile nuclear defensive units.

Taking into account what Aries and Super have both just said above, should the threat of these weapons be increased, perhaps consider introducing requirements before launch. By that I mean, countries shouldn't just be able to obtain and fire nukes so easily once they reach 20M pop. A 20M pop country is still a small country in many respects, perhaps index levels should play apart, military size, game level and most importantly war level. Should nuclear weapons suddenly gain some wrath behind them, it should be hard to acquire them and possibly a challenge to launch them. Just my thoughts gents!

The current restrictions are just fine. As it is, you have to level up, and build corps, start an Enterprise, or spend real money in space.

In the real world, magor governments send allot on diplomacy and espionage to keep nukes and chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists, and third world dictators. We've fought real wars over this in the 21st century.

Their have been quiet a few newbs, that show up, looking for nukes, for many players, it is a goal, often higher than actually learning how to play the game. What was that dudes name sup? AK47 or something?

The GM are right to review the use of them and to make them a more attractive part of the game. Perhaps they should review the SC, SC Resolutions, and boycotts. It might be advisable to allow the SC to vote players WL up or down, to deal with aggressive nuke users.

Here is my thought.

Remove all restrictions to war and let me handle the rest.

I will incinerate billions of imaginary sim people to satisfy our Dark Lord Jozi's bloodlust.

A couple of worlds have nuclear bans in place -implemented by the Security Council of that world. As a Security Council member of a couple of those worlds I am in complete favour of the continued ban of nuclear weapons on those worlds (KB being one such world). Let FB the war world obliterate itself -way you go Johanas.

On a couple of worlds there are nuclear bans in place -KB being one of those worlds. This was implemented by the Security Council of that world. As a Security Council member I am in favour of continuing the ban on nuclear weapons.

Josias

AK47(Crackcocaine), We waged a war over the principle of nuclear warfare back in the day. Nani banned him from having nukes after he threatened new players and was nuke happy. But that was years ago when we didn't have restrictions or limitations.

Still that was a real precedent moment considering his entire game was nuking and was to cause as much harm and damage as possible.

The issue with nuclear weapons is not their functionality but the excessive restrictions on their availability. They can't be produced on most worlds and they can only be launched from a country with at least 20 million population. That means only a small minority of players can use them.

That's boring. Requiring use of the space program to buy some weapons and materials helped to kill PvP and to drive players away from the game. Very few players have nukes because very few players want to use the space program. Trying to force players to use the space program doesn't work, obviously.

What is the point of changing the functionality of nukes if very few players can get access to them?

Anyone with a nuke has the power to sell it to any player they wish. Nukes are not as out of reach of players as you would believe.

yea i remember, you sold him all his nukes in space, then took them back on LU. The triple team on a newb got you and jack on wendy's radar, which only encouraged me to do some work behind the scenes. good times.

I agree with aries on this nuclear weapons should be much rader to accquire and harder to launch . New players who become premuim with the required amount of population to launch is a possible threat as we dont khow enough about them

After Reading a bunch of this. It is amazing to see how easy it is to travel down beaten paths filled with the same unintended consequences we all believe need to be remedied. It is even more confusing or frustrating to see the suggestion of fixing problems by using the same means that brought on the current set of issues and genuinely expecting a different result.

Without question Sam said it best.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Remove all restrictions to war and let me handle the rest.<!-/Quote-!>

Limiting players options to play the game the way they see fit, or creating arbitrary limitations based on individual preferences rather than open options tailored for a variable player base is complete nonsense.

One player assumes this way is right and this way is not. That is all fine and dandy. That player is able, within the construct of the game to impose his moral code o

alright wendy, you made some good points. but your argument is flawed.

as a person that witnessed the collapse of the Federation system, you should know the consequences of unrestricted aggression

hindsight, when the game had large federations, and allot of game politics. it would seem that about 90% of fed members where only participating do to necessity. these politics, created a sim-culture morality, that held back 10%

but those 10%, eventually cut loose of these moral bonds, and the 90% where dead in the water. having never had any real motivation to do more than collect weaons, in a 5 world cold war.

i'm curious to your thoughts to not repeat that blood bath, and mass extinction of the casual player base?

I have to agree with Wendy.

I haven't played for a few years, as I just started back a couple weeks ago, but what the heck happened?

I know some changes were being made even back then to protect players, but the "unrestricted aggression" you are referring to......umm, why do the changes even protect c3's? lmao You can't raid c3's without your war level shooting up....the system seems very flawed.

Nukes are overrated....if players allow nukes to be dropped without repercussion, shame on them. If you can't set up a proper nuke defense....use WAR PROTECTION!

I never understood how "econ" only players would cry about war.....when, if they were a decent "econ" player, they could simply use war protection (aka, the ultimate defense) War could be totally eliminated from the game for them, a decision MADE BY THAT PLAYER....NOT BY GM RESTRICTIONS. #On a side note, I remember man

I wouldn't necessarily agree the war game is dead at all in my opinion however it certainly could be improved as there are very few countries that you can even attack, for example there are probably around 3-8 empires on GR right now that are even at a high enough war level to attack. I certainly agree there could be improvements however the war game in my opinion is not dead at all and I have participated a few times myself. Unfortunately now I have almost no potential targets to attack to expand my empire in GR and would have to look at other worlds. I would certainly participate in any war that I might have a chance at wining, however there are certainly some players that look grimly down on war and would even go to war to defend another empire or send aid in the form of mobile military units preventing the war from even starting.

In the discussion about requirements to meet in order to use strategic weapons, those who believe there should be no restrictions seem to have made their view clear. The GMs should stay out of the war game and players should settle the disputes on the field. That seems fair enough.

I think the problem is that the other side has not made their position clear. Those who believe there should be restrictions I believe are concerned that, in an environment where there are no restrictions, it is possible for an aggressor to threaten nations and cause great damage with powerful weapons without having their own assets at risk. This is because that the facts of the game are that systems such as secure mode and temporary war protection can allow that aggressor nation to shield their own assets from a conflict they started.

I therefore wonder if the side that is arguing for less restrictions, more "realism", and a system where conflicts are

I think it's a good and reasonable idea and it seems realistic as if a real country launched a nuke it would certainly put them at a huge risk. You could possibly take it a steep farther and have their war level increased by 1 in all of their countries if it is below 4.

welcome back ec, good to see you

I do half agree with you Aries. But shouldn't we really consider that those who advocated for more protections or restrictions and those the restrictions were meant to please, by and large have since left the game?

This whole thing continues to be blown out of proportion. The simple topic is being broken down into several circle arguments that have more to do with complex morality, rather than a simple assessment of the game as it was "then" as compared to "now".

Which is more preferred? History has given us the answer.

In the past, some weapons were too strong.
In the past, some players complained about war.
In the past, some players risked very little, to gain very much.
In the past, some players would warmonger.
In the past, "insert random complaint"

I would pay more attention to...

In the past, there were many active players.
In the past, there were many activ

I think we both share the same goal. A lot of text there but what you advocate for is limited to one sentence. As you mentioned. Many players who would understand what you mean by "reset the same to it's previous state" are not around anymore. Even I, who have some idea, am not sure if you mean both changes limited to PvP rules or also other systems including rules dictating war levels in relation to wars against computer (C3) countries.

I am fairly certain the rules without some measure of protection offered to players who wish to play only the econ-game are a non-starter. I am of the opinion that the pendulum of balance between player freedom/control/realism has swung too far to the GM protection side, where even the game docs describing the purpose and state of the "war world" do not resemble that world's reality. Several systems I have suggested to loosen this have made it into the game, such as the ability to d

It used to be simple.

People who wanted to play peaceful had war protection on their single main country and were untouchable.

People who didn't were fair game unless they paid for war protection.

Raiding was the path to build an empire, which had to be protected by joining a Federation, and learning how to fight.

PvP wars were common and the way to settle disputes.

And it worked.

^^ That is about it. I'm sorry I can't summarize things as well as Sam.

Aries, I will answer you, but I'm on my way to the store. Give me a few minutes.

+1 Wendy
+1 Johanas


It also used to be simple as far as a player throwing around nukes recklessly. They would be dealt with accordingly by federations in the game...not by GM restrictions.

The fact that the forum can go days without any topic having a new post should say something....communicating with other players used to be key to survival. Most aggression could be avoided simply through communicating, joining a federation and learning to defend yourself along with your fedmates.

Obviously, as stated by a lot of players commenting here, the pendulum has swung too far....time to give decision making back to the players.