W3C - War Missions and war levels (Little Upsilon)

Tom - Thank you for the response and yes that is clear and was the answer I was looking for.

As far as the HLW (or more general worker) issues, the reason more time/assets taking c3's will matter is that currently the only real fix to those kind of problems is taking c3's and stripping them of the workers you need in exchange for the workers you do not, generally LLW for HLW or HTE, etc. If it takes more time/assets to get that done because of the strength of c3's, what is already an annoyance (taking and stripping c3's) will become a problem. I'm sure that it will be looked at and managed, I'm just noting the potential issue so that hopefully it can be planned for/looked at.

As far as a market for workers, I understand the resistance to selling population, but sometimes it is necessary and I think a market as Orbiter suggested would be the best solution rather than boosters. As GM's you

Thanks so far.

I will be back tomorrow with more answers.

Can you guys feel the love?

My concern would be, what if I want a c3 (Y) in a specific location, not some country of war level X in a location that I consider useless because I have my own layout goals/plans. Would the war level be randomly distributed or be something that auto-adjusts to the declaring party?

If I understand this correctly, War levels are seperate from game levels. If so, do we all start at at war level 0 or are current players assigned different war levels based on our past war experience under the old war game rules? I guess I am confused, I am trying to catch up on the prior posts concerning the game changes.

Whiteboys post 5 up is spot on about raiding C3's to trade out workers. If you have a large empire with lots of corps in it trying to keep max upgrading you have to deal with personnel problems now and then by raiding C3s. Its not fun and would be a lot less fun if you had to face tougher C3's when all you want is to trade workers. I think what some of the warrior types are saying above is that they still want the option to raid low level C3s even if they are at high war levels, they don't want awards or points for the raid, just the ability to trade out workers. I agree with this, it's necessary.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

My concern would be, what if I want a c3 (Y) in a specific location, not some country of war level X in a location that I consider useless because I have my own layout goals/plans. Would the war level be randomly distributed or be something that auto-adjusts to the declaring party?<!-/Quote-!>

Seconded.

Scarlet and Poisonous - The system will only select the location of a c3 *for* you if you are wanting a 'leveling up' c3 war. If you are just choosing a c3 at your level because you want it in a specific location, then the system will just let you pick the c3 and it would be at your current war level.

Neidy - It appears based on what has been said so far, that everyone will start at 0.

Joe Green - That is exactly the issue I was talking about, however, rather than solve it by allowing players to fight against low level c3's, I'm hoping they set it up so that players only fight c3's at their current level and then they fix the worker issue so that we aren't required to be constantly raiding c3's any longer. I like the idea of c3's having some value, which they will for players who have attained higher fighting levels and raiding c3's for workers is tiresome, so that would be a great change.

If there is no threat to my ability to take C3s based on location, I'm good with that. I suppose much more limited C3 warfare maneuvers will become much more strategic, I kind of like that idea.

Hypothetically (under the system described), if I'm a clever mofo and maintain a low war level, I could still pull off C3 warfare AND raid against weak, independent players without worrying about stronger players intervening.

My two cents:
A low leveled player should be able to initiate attacks against players of any level equal or greater [Say I'm level 2: I can attack ALL players level 2 or more.]... and above a certain level [Say I reach a level X. Upon reaching this level, I can attack all players level X or greater, even if I become higher than level X myself].

Perhaps a final addition would be that players below level X would be unable to attack players above level X.

Once I sta

Assigning war levels to current players

We tend to assign low levels to everyone. Probably 1, 2 and 3 depending on the number of wars won.
However, this will not influence the game level right away. The game level will continue to depend initially, on the current defense index and defensive index. We will then start to lean over to the war level. It can be achieved by gradually increasing the required defense and defensive indexes so that game levels will start to decline unless you achieve higher war levels. This will be slow and allow enough time for everybody to achieve higher war levels.

CEO corporations

This is a misunderstanding. We want many more CEO corporations but this is beside the point of the discussion.

C3 assets and workers exchange

C3s will have increasing population and assets depending on their levels but assets will not be the reason to fight them. War levels will. Removing assets will be

"Keeping your country at a low War Level

Yes this is of course possible but winning war levels will result in GC awards and permanent advantages in defense quality boosts that will depend on your level.

You game level will also remain low.

One of the advantages of higher game levels for both war players and non fighting players will be the max level of corporate upgrades. Once you move to higher levels, you will be able to upgrade beyond the 200 quality. " -Tom

ok, that statement as is, is something i can get behind. i'm sure their is more detail to it, but yes, those do seem to be some realistic advantages to leveling up,

a nice trade off, to having permanently harder c3s, in exchange for stronger defense upgrades, and higher corp upgrades!!!

i have to say, i was rather discouraged with the thought of leveling up, for a one time award, and a permanent disadvantage. but this seems pr

I cant see any problem with a player attacking another of higher war level. They know what they are getting into and more power to the arm of someone brave enough to try. It would also remove a lot of complacency that could set in with the highest level players who would think there is no one around who can challenge them.
Yes, definitely Tom, allow a lower war player the ability to attack a higher one.

As long as my ability to pick and choose is retained, I'm content.

Im ok with lower level players fighting higher level players, so long as they dont dec with worthless countries. IE... a 10-12M pop c3 with less than 10T mili assets decing a 40M or so pop country with 100T mili assets.

Nope, no low level players fighting high level if the reverse is not possible, it creates a completely imbalanced system and will allow players the choice of remaining low war level so that they can basically have free war protection while deciding when to declare on higher level players. In particular, it continues to allow c3 warfare AND it allows people with high skill to join new worlds to build up right next to high war level players and then dec on them without the high level players having any repercussion until they're all the sudden stuck with war decs.

The only exception should be that federation members can counter declare on any level, other than that you are 100% correct in the system Tom and I love it, it's perfect. It will separate those who want to fight from those who do not while at the same time giving players an incentive to learn the war game AND eliminate c3 warfare. Perfect.

Now, if you add in the part ab

This whole level thing sounds like bull. Too complicated and caters to a very small group of players getting what they want with it. It doesn't make sense to limit the game in this way.

i agree with you actually, tang, how ever, we don't really have a choice, W3C is going to do something to encourage warlords to war each other, and leave the doves alone. so considering that, it looks pretty good...

I think you miss a couple of points WB, war levels are going to apply to presidents game wide arent they, not country/world specific and its sounds like eventually different worlds might have different war rules anyway. Secondly I vote for presidents going up levels with the more wars they fight, not just missions, so you wouldnt get away with C3 warfare many times before you are high level yourself. Choose your wars carefully. The only reasons to take many C3s is to fight C3 warfare or for worker adjustments. Tom has said he is fixing the worker system. Both problems eliminated.
Of course you could always multi-account or terminate an account and start again but you'll never make it 100% perfect.

The way SC is now, everyone in WP, there will be no chance for levelling up from warring. Everyone will still be too scared to risk anything, and end up staying in WP. By the sounds of it, it sounds like SC is not eliminating the fighting from c3 issue. I stand corrected in my assumption that SC stated lower level players can attack higher level players if they feel confident to do so? sounds like c3 fighting to me.

If thats the case I have no problem attacking anyone on SC, on any world, and using c3's only. I can dereg all my countries and fight that way. Will that change any of the crying in the forums about certain players being attacked by bullies? No it won't and we'll be back to square one.

If they do apply game wide then even better and I do agree with you Crafty, player v player wins should count for something as well.

Keto - All statements from the GM's (at least by my reading) read that there will be a limit in both attacking higher level players and lower level players, this should do pretty well to fix the c3 war issue.

Well, yeah. Because if you are going to take C3s to fight C3 style, then the C3s you need to take to do that are going to be at your war level, hard to take, so it must make C3 warfare much more costly, time consuming and generally difficult. Hopefully to a point where it makes it virtually pointless. I expect there will always be room for it though (watch out the bingo klub!).

except of course, if the player fighting from c3s has the liberty to fight from a low level against high levels

in theory, if a person chooses to fight some one stronger, it would seem that they are courageous. but by allowing low level war players to attack up at any range, you WILL have at least one player that will stay at level 3 or what ever minimum level for fighting players, and constantly attack level 10s, just to harass them.

Would it be possible for players to use basic nuclear weapons? Me for example have build MASSIVE stockpiles but i have yet to test or learn to operate firing one possibly could you make it so that we could use only level 1 fallout weapons(Chemical and Tactical nukes) that why at least i can learn so when war i know not only how to work the system but i learn i must do A-B-C then my nuke gets though defenses. Also reasons on level 1 is that the fallout is only the C3 regional or surrounding countries wouldn't receive any fallout.

Orbiter - Directly from Tom: "Second, we will allow wars between presidents when levels are equal or similar. exact definitions of similar will follow and we hope to tune them, based on players response and how they experience level differences."

The intent is to allow war between players of similar levels, so it would not be possible for a player to maintain low levels to be able to acquire cheap c3's and then attack high level players. Again, this is a great way to deal with the issue of c3 warfare with more of a market solution than a direct solution.

i realize that wb, how ever their is also conversation in this thread about allowing lower level players to attack

"Attacking players of higher levels

I wonder what others think. In any case, we will leave the players with lower levels in peace. Attacking higher war level players does not seem to be a problem. ?" -Tom

so yes, their should be a "window," say up and down 3 or 5 levels, depending on how they choose to set up the difficulty scale of C3s. and how popular war is... also, with the up/down thing, it'd make sense to me that it should be the same, both up and down. so that a player fighting up, can't dec, and then the defender can't counter dec