The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

I think you're looking too much towards what you know and not enough towards the past when there was an actual war game Aries. It's pretty simple logic for me, past=very active war game, now=very dead war game. So, were people participating in the war game in the past in spite of it being worse (possible but not very likely) or are people not participating in the war game now because it is worse (very likely but still possibly wrong). There were problems in the past and there will continue to be problems, but in the past there was an active war game and now, there isn't.

I didn't bother to provide explanations for my suggestions but since you are questioning:

1. The rate of GC exchange used to actually be 460B per coin FROM THE GM's and when the market was flooded with cash from war conquests you could get 550B+ per coin. Talk about a stimulus to the war game.
2. Again, this goes to being

1. Yes, as said several times on this thread. Econ was practically useless, everyone who participated in PvP wars was forced to raid low-level c3s until their eyes bled. This introduced 100s of trillions of cash that just magically appeared into the game on a daily basis. This made cash to coin exchange rates silly. No, we should not go back to that.

2. I understand what you are saying here. I like the solution in my Total War idea better than changing this limit which rewards victory with coins in the first place which is balanced by the risk of open PvP.

3. I honestly have no difficulty sizing up my opponent. I predicted I might have to shoot down as many as 400,000 helicopters or more and I was prepared to do so. You did not disappoint. From a strategic perspective, I was prepared to make this trade as long as you would let me since I am aware I am unlikely to face a similar air defense anywhere else and I am confident in my ability to

1. I don't know that econ was useless, I have heard from other econ players that actually found more places for profit in the game than there are currently and my experience has been that there are less possibilities in the econ game than there were previously but I'm certainly not the person who would know on that. I've spent little to no time beyond basic strategies (which again are also from days past). It also isn't at all true that people made their money by endlessly raiding c3's, there were very few people who were willing to put in the time to do that because the profitability was even worse than it is now. People (like me and the vast majority of players who were driving the war game) made their money by raiding left behind assets and PvP wars and then there were others who were investing lots of actual dollars in the game on a regular basis to build assets. And by the way, that wasn't such a bad decisi

1. You admit you don't know. I will inform you. Yes, econ was useless in those days as I have said. The two options you pointed out were about it for getting ahead, that being either endlessly raiding c3s or spending real money.

Parity for effort in gaining assets is more even now and that is a good thing. What is lacking is incentives equal to the risk of PvP.

2. Pop transfers and worker exchanges are more useful than you put there. Check out Zen's very excellent guide on the Beginners forum. It isn't as simple as "raid country a" then "transfer to country b", there is planning to it similar to setting up good econ. Ever since unbalanced worker transfers have been in the game, moving pop is every bit as easy as space trade ever was. The "limit" you identify here is false.

3. As far as seeing what players have, have you checked out my Player Power Rankings on this same forum I posted some month

I'm mostly with Aries here. I'm a newbie, and not a terribly serious player, and I got a goodly-sized shuttle force together with zero difficulty. The hardest part was clicking those stupid buttons hundreds of times.

I had a massive response which was probably way too long but Aries would have probably enjoyed it but then as this wonderful site does, it crashed and I lost the entire thing so I'm going to briefly respond.

First Al, again, it's not a matter of access. It's a matter of strategy and being able to have infinite weapons without any costs to maintain them with the ability to transfer them anywhere in the SC universe with very little time required.

Second, Aries, raiding c3's is a newer phenomenon as it wasn't really profitable relative to the GC exchange during my time back in the day. And although I don't know how effective the econ game is now vs. then, I do know that I could have 400K ints and 200K helis plus max garrisons in my country and still make a little profit/break even with just basic econ strategies shared by others.

Also, if you think I couldn't have stripped out my countries in 3-4 game m

On space limits: I don't see where you have made the point on a change here would add to strategy. There is already a limit to space, as I have pointed out multiple times on this thread. Further, you can see what players are transporting on the eve of war if they choose to use shuttles to do it. That sounds like some strategy right there. In fact, I often move things that I want my opponent to see. If you looked carefully, I moved fighters, bombers, and their ammo before the war and deployed them on my map. My attack strategy was already set at that time but I about always show signs that I am going to do something different than I end up doing.

You would have had to make the choice to pull stuff out shorty after the decs were made. That is your choice and I am not sure what your position on this is. Are you saying that a player that is caught by surprise by a war declaration should be limited by space to the extent that it would not be possibl

It's pretty simple on how it would change the strategy, people would actually have to have defenses in their country and incur the maintenance costs of those weapons instead of being able to magically change an econ slave into a war slave overnight. Because they are incurring the costs it limits the size of forces that can be there by your econ strategy and how much cash you can produce on a monthly basis. There will also be players who have more weapons than their countries can support and they will in turn have to raise cash via other means (hmmm...PvP wars perhaps?). To further increase the likelihood of PvP wars, players will actually be able to view the defenses of their potential foes or at least have an idea of just how much they have by their war rank (which is a completely meaningless stat at this point and should be improved in general).

Space also makes it such that you aren't just fighting what a player has

Couple things there.

1. The reason I pointed out the value of your weapons it to point out the futility of some type of space limit lending itself to requiring country defenses. All ammo can already be there. Weapons can be moved very quickly since it is their value that is taken into consideration when moving through spending limits.

2. I am well aware you moved in stuff in the run-up to war, as you should. You had a good jump on it as much of your ammo was already in place. I see nothing wrong with that. As the attacker, I had plenty of time to have my stuff in place before even considering the war dec.

3. I am going to disagree with who it benefits to add this limit. I don't say this lightly. No player in the game is more experienced dealing with game limits as I am. I likely know limits that you don't even know about. If a change was made in space transport that affected war build-ups, this would not change who I wou

I will add that the current space limits are already very real. As many as you own, only a bit over 200 will actually transport items while the rest sit idle. Obviously, each shuttle, in turn, has a limit on how much it can carry. I put in transport orders last night, they took about 12 hours to complete. I put in some more in about 4 hours ago. I will be lucky if those are done 10 hours from now.

Maybe something you haven't considered with a new space limit is just how much ammo is used by defensive weapons kept in your country. As I said before, I already do this. here is a look at CC2, an average country in my LU empire:

Ammo Usage per Game Month:

Anti-Aircraft Missiles 1,241
Defensive Missiles 1,941
Missile Interceptors 2,692

Again, that is one country's use. For those curious, this is about $60 BILLION in ammo consumed each game month. This is also omitting defensive air wings, and any other wea

Still not done with that second transport. A good ways to go still. Had to retire 8 shuttles too.

Very real limits means I can take a country with no weapons at all and turn it into defensive index of 2000 and an offensive index over 1000 in less than a day? Give that a shot with just buying military assets with spending caps in place.

With every point you've made it's as if this would be a completely novel concept on which we had no data and we'd just blindly be guessing by moving forward with it. But this game existed for 6 or 7 years without space at all and during that time, less or more PvP wars?

As far as how I'd limit it, if I had my preference it just wouldn't exist as it didn't exist before which keeps the worlds more unique and forces you to develop assets on that world if you want to become a power on that world. While doing so, you're at risk and would have to rely on fedmates/allies to make sure you aren't taken down while asset poor. But, I highly doubt that is in the cards, so, what i

On econ and supporting military, I have already gave it a shot. Have you checked out my LU empire yet? I have max garrisons in cities and bases and have garrisoned all forts. As far as whether econ is "better" today, it is about the same but more balanced with war as the war game no longer has an unlimited money maker outside of PvP.

I had an idea about how your idea could work. Spending limits should not apply to shuttles. Those limits should be unique to the other methods of transferring and acquiring products. It would be much simpler to stick with how space transport is currently limited, how many shuttles will work simultaneously. The most logical thing to do is relate that to the number of owned space ports of the player.

For each space port the player owns, whether in a country or enterprise, that player can operate, say, 10 shuttles. That way it appropriately scales with the size of the player holdings. For example, if yo

You said "on the econ side, once you get it set up, it's relatively minor maintenance"

Candinnalm versus WB 001 AB FB

Candinnalm

Population: 284,129,009
Workforce: 143,161,287
Employment Rate: 96.84
Number of Corporations: 453
Total Employment in All Corporations: 110,980,616
Worker Income: 560114.70M SC$ ($560 Billion)
Monthly Income per Worker: $3912
Monthly Production: 1,781.29B SC$ ($1.78 Trillion)
Monthly Production per Corporate Worker: $16050

WB 001 AB FB

Population: 298,093,041
Workforce: 136,443,906
Employment Rate: 96.88
Number of Corporations: 391
Total Employment in All Corporations: 99,750,534
Worker Income: 392085.60M SC$ ($392 Billion)
Monthly Income per Worker: $2874
Monthly Production: 1,138.66B SC$ ($1.14 Trillion)
Monthly Production per Corporate Worker: $11415

Yes, you can

You just opened up financials or my pages are wonky.

Candinnalm

Total Govt Income: 673,580.72M SC$ ($673.6 Billion)

Total Non-Defense Govt Cost: 222,392.88 SC$ ($222.4 Billion)

Total Profit -Defense: $451.2 Billion

WB 001 AB FB

Total Govt Income: 338,470.53M SC$ ($338.5 Billion)

Total Non-Defense Govt Cost: 196,557.94 SC$ ($196.6 Billion)

Total Profit -Defense: $141.9 Billion


I don't count defense costs due to my country philosophy. I see countries as tools and the ability to host a military as a capability. As such, I measure the might of an economy without counting what military forces might currently be stationed there. Basically, I don't see an economy as better or worse if you happen to move more or less weapons into it.

I don't think I am undervaluing the time argument, unless you are talking about econ in terms of trading in either products or stocks, I could see how that could take a lot of time. But, again, very little risk and I bet you could make some serious cash on a daily basis if you got very good at that...not as much as you could make raiding back when you could raid Lvl 4's at 1T payout each but I bet the return would be slightly better when you factor in the risk.

All of the stats you post are regarding country income/profit so I'm making the assumption that it is that aspect of the econ game you are speaking to and yes, you're right, that takes a good amount of time to SET UP. But, my point was that once it is set up, it requires relatively little maintenance. So, take your 300B per month difference (again, not really an apt comparison as you're basically looking at an econ system I set up over a year ago and haven't t

Oh and I just did my own test on space transfers, averaged 211 mobile units transferred per HOUR with 845 total units transferred in 4 hours (all different kinds). At 600Q each mobile interceptor wing has an imputed value of $230.37B, 850 int wings in a game month (4 hours) would be the equivalent of $196T in military assets per month, that's a limit to you? That's 1.2 QUADRILLION per real day in possible transfers. I'm going to test out just bombers and then just ints and then I'll test out some ammo. But, it's ridiculous, if you could buy 600Q mobile int wings with military spending space you could buy 1.5 per month without going into negative spending space the following month (depending on size of country) or take the quality effect out and you could buy 9 per month.

Oh and I just did my own test on space transfers, averaged 211 mobile units transferred per HOUR with 845 total units transferred in 4 hours (all different kinds). At 600Q each mobile interceptor wing has an imputed value of $230.37B, 850 int wings in a game month (4 hours) would be the equivalent of $196T in military assets per month, that's a limit to you? That's 1.2 QUADRILLION per real day in possible transfers. I'm going to test out just bombers and then just ints and then I'll test out some ammo. But, it's ridiculous, if you could buy 600Q mobile int wings with military spending space you could buy 1.5 per month without going into negative spending space the following month (depending on size of country) or take the quality effect out and you could buy 9 per month.

You still undervalue the time, effort, and skill it takes to setup "impressive econ". I teach econ and war skills and I will tell you what, it is more difficult to teach econ. I assume you have seen my C3 guide on the Beginners Forum, and if not you should take a look. Teaching raiding is as simple as step 1, step2, etc..

Teaching econ isn't as simple. It takes much more skill to do it well. It also takes continuing effort beyond what you give credit for. It would take you a lot of work to get close to the economic performance of my countries if you even knew where to start. I will give you those 10 days. Heck, I will give you 30. Good econ isn't as simple as spending a short time building it up and a shorter time maintaining it any more than it is simply building enough corps to employ all your people and setting a tax rate. See your country in 30 days (I will post your results) and we will see if you are undervaluing time

On transferring mobile units. Yes, these move quickly. A quick glance:


---Takes 50 Shuttle Trips----
50 Mobile Air Defense Units
(20,000 Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries)
(600,000 Anti Aircraft Missiles)
------------------------------

----Takes 128 Shuttle Trips-------
20,000 Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries
600,000 Anti Aircraft Missiles
-----------------------------------

----Takes 50 Shuttle Trips----
50 Mobile Missile Defense Units
(4,000 Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries)
(6,000 Missile Interceptor Batteries)
(10,000 Defensive Missile Batteries)
(120,000 Anti Aircraft Missiles)
(180,000 Missile Interceptors)
(300,000 Defensive Missiles)
---------------------------------


-----Takes 128 Shuttle Trips--------
4,000 Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries
6,000 Missile Interceptor Batteries