W3C - Game News Sept. 7, 2017

here are our thoughts.........

reduce forts to 40 max country empire wide every world but increase their power like they was 1000(or whatever amount).
reduce each base to max 20 country wide other than offensive bases max allowed 100 empire wide.

reactivation of weapons

defensive weapons increased to 18% every game month
offensive weapons decreased to 4% every month

imma only thinking out loud..........?

Thanks for the suggestions.
I am sure everyone has different numbers in her mind.

The numbers of fortifications and bases could be reduced further.
we first have to deal with the ones already having far too many right now.

It must be possible to block the borders of the country with fortifications so 40 seems too low.

We will concentrate on the war features as described before and some require preparations and a lot of work.

The way to prevent an attack is not by setting up war protection but by not owning an army and by never attacking anyone.
This will keep you out of the war game.

We think that if someone does participate, on any of the worlds, then war should be a risk.

we see FB as an example and will start with it but at a later stage, may implement on all worlds.
as long as you have a way to stay peaceful.

"It must be possible to block the borders of the country with fortifications so 40 seems too low. "

I believe you have a misunderstanding. If not, you will contribute to one. Forts do not block units. Try it.

Some other things. If you make fewer Forts,I am okay with it. Make each stronger? sure. However, don't neglect to increase the maximum garrison size for forts. Currently, very few weapons can be places in each one. The numbers of forts to be destroyed for victory is their current strength. With fewer forts, the math changes. Each one is more important and will require a larger garrison presence.

Another thing. As items are removed, cities and forts, do existing deployed garrisons, weapons and ammo, get returned to the country stock? I assume as much, but I have many deployed weapons and this is an important concern, as I don't want my weapons and ammo disappearing as well..

--------------------------

Forts don't block units, Aries is right.

I haven't destroyed a fort in a while but I remember they where pretty tough to kill. So I don't agree with making them harder to destroy. Plus, In a PvP war if I'm at the point of attacking forts the air defence is down and I'm going to win anyway.

Restricting fort numbers makes sense. If they block also that would make them much more useful. and it might buck the trend of everyone putting all there targets in a single spot on the map. Which is horrible to look at and to an old vet like me is just wrong lol

It used to be 100 max forts and you couldn't contract to yourself after you reached 100. Why cant we go back to those rules Andy? I don't remember any players having complaints with that rule set.

Or if you's don't want to restrict them Andy you's could add extra cost to maintaining so many forts. After 100 forts the cost goes up? <

This games so complicated for anyone starting out I'd probably give up if I was new. So many rule changes and restrictions these days.

"I haven't destroyed a fort in a while but I remember they where pretty tough to kill. So I don't agree with making them harder to destroy."

Um, do you mind spending a few minutes testing and graduating to an informed opinion. You do know that a few dozen cruise missiles destroys a fort right? In PvP, forts are one shot kills, unless weapons defend them. The weapons and ammunition document has all this info as well.


"If they block also that would make them much more useful. and it might buck the trend of everyone putting all there targets in a single spot on the map. Which is horrible to look at and to an old vet like me is just wrong lol "

You misunderstand why this is done. The GM might not (I would guess no) even know right now. A change in fort blocking would not change this trend.


Macro/Gaz: I don't know how many times I need to tell the GM, and now I will tell you. I am

Lol I haven't been away that long.

I don't think I need to waste a few minutes to gain that information. I know forts are easily killed with cruise missiles if they're undefended, I just presumed someone in a PvP would have their forts defended. Be daft not to. They're not so easy to destroy with a few hundred missile batts defending.

I know exactly why someone places all their map targets on top of each other. To defend every target with Mobile units making there defences that much stronger. It's a smart thing to do but aesthetically it's ugly to look at and I miss the pretty maps of old. I'd be very surprised if the GM'S wasn't aware of that also.

I did say MAYBE it would stop people doing it anyway, but me myself would still have targets on top of each other. Use land units to block. But I'd still like the maps back the way they used to be. Even if it makes defence weaker overal

We are checking the situation with fortifications.

Fortifications and military bases should block the movement of units.
We will also look at the possibility to prevent objects to sit on top of each other.

I will be back here with results and conclusions when we have them.

As I said before, we would like to have a smaller number of objects on the map but the ones we have, should be functional, and the ones that are war related, should have a significant function during war.

The problem isn't that objects can be on top of each other Andy. The problem is that offensive units are large, and defensive units are small. To protect yourself in PvP, you must meet every attack with 3 air wings, a mobile units, and, ideally, a garrison. If you don't, you get rolled. Try it Andy. Last player I fought had such a defense, and I still shot down 400,000 600 quality mobile helicopters (that he duped, another story).

The fix is to extend the defensive range of mobile units, the mobile missile defense, the nuclear defense, and the air defense so that the range as such that they defend the entire country. Or just don't do it Andy. I am looking at being a bomb thrower anyway. Check the other thread.

Andy, how about addressing where I point out your concern about a difficult war is wrong and whether incentives lie with bomb throwers or builders? Your vote to which one I will be will be codified in game changes

Thanks for your insight.
we will look into it.

Fortifications used to block passage.
As a result of the comments yesterday, we checked and we now know where is was changed and why.

It will be fixed.
Fortifications will block units and will have to be destroyed for the units to pass.

...any thoughts about the defensive units..? That's the unanswered part of the question

defense units were upgraded in the past weeks and we will continue the process.
There was a discussion about it before with comments on the units becoming smaller.

I said then that this was a long time ago and that we are increasing their size as part of the change to reduce the number of targets but at the same time, making them more robust.
This includes units and garrisons.

The range is the range of the weapons.
many of the defense weapons have a very long range.

Can we get the details on this change? A quick look shows that mobile interceptor wings are now smaller than regular ones. On range, we are talking about the range in which units such as mobile missile defense will participate in the defense of a nearby target. This is currently vary small, leading to the need for redrawing a map to get value from these units. Extending the range so that they cover the map of, at least, most countries would not overpower the unit.

Keep mobile units range as they are. It just means spreading them out on the map and not every single target on a map can be covered so easily by a single mobile unit. This is the way it should be in my opinion. It's unrealistic, way to easy and it's disgusting to look at.

It used to be impossible to move targets on top of each other.

It used to be impossible to defend a country without taking out each attacking country. Defenses were considered nothing more than a "speed bump". I do not believe it is intended to stack every advantage to the attacker.

But again. I'll be flexible. If it is my opinion that an incentive system as well as war mechanics favor the attacker, I will burn empires to the ground, sending players screaming to the forum one by one, just to make my point. It is Andy's choice whether correct choices are made the first time.

On whether forts block, it really matters little in PvP Andy. I wouldn't waste any time on it.

The problem with units not being stopped by fortifications is in fact a problem with Garrisons.

Garrisons were not blocking invading units and they should have.

This is now fixed and will be part of the upgrade next week.
It means that defended objects, (all defended objects) will block the movement of invading units.

We are also looking at the placement of map objects on top of each other.
Many times there are more objects on the map than map areas in the country but there is no reason to allow an unlimited number of fortifications or bases on top of each other.

we will get back to this next week.

Andy, are you intentionally avoiding to address the real problem with the limited response range found with mobile missile defense, mobile air defense, and mobile nuclear defense units? It would be nice if you also acknowledged that it is more difficult to defend 20 countries from 2-3 countries than it is to defend one country from 20 countries. Have anything in the cupboard to help players with that one?

I don't think we need to think of many countries attacking one.
we just need to reduce the number.
In general, we should rethink the number of countries on each side and the fighting capabilities of countries where the president is not active.

We will start these changes in a week or two.

I do not think that the mobile units should cover a very large area.
I can see it will reduce the cost for some but we are now concentrating on the PvP wars and new players/beginners/not very experienced or rich countries.

I said before, that units (also garrisons) should be larger, mainly defensive units. The defense should become more balanced. We are making small increments to prevent shortages and major changes in the balance of power.

Cities continue to grow and their numbers will be reduced some more.

We will also start to reduce the number of fortifications in countries that currently have more th

I think there has to be a balance between attack and defence. Right now with mobile units and map targets stacked on top of each other the defence has to much of an advantage. It's to easy to defend. A player can keep dropping fresh mobile units out of space and BOOM they have every target defended instantly.

Aries your war with Whiteboy is the prime example. As you know it was massive. Constant attacking hour after hour and you made no breakthrough. Days gone by with that amount of pressure over many many hours countries would have fallen. Yet you didn't even get close to taking the country because of mobile units defending and the ability to keep ressuplying those units through space.

There has to be a point in war where countries reach a breaking point. This ability to send never ending supplies through space is over powered.
An empire should have a good defence in place in case someone decides to attack them and a

Hi Gaz! Hugs! Long time no see! :-D

Why are we so obsessed with emphasizing on the war aspect of this game? It's not just a war game; it was supposed to be much more than that.

Andy; are we suggesting that an attacker would have a limit on how many countries they could "send" into war against a certain number of countries? Just looking to clarify that.

Secondly; does this also mean that there would be a limit as to how many countries one attacker can wage war on? Like, instead of being able to attack 20 at a time, reduce it to just 3? This is a big question that is not being answered, if not, clearly...

"Aries your war with Whiteboy is the prime example. "

There are a few lessons from that war, but there are some aspects of that war that are unlikely to be seen again. Gaz you were aware of that duping bug. The only difference between you and Whiteboy is that you got caught. Whiteboy somehow got away with it and built even more resources than you did with it. No other player in the game could have lasted as long as he did against my attack, compliments of his duping. However, even he would have fell eventually if the casualty damage of my country didn't add up and force me to stop.

"Even you couldn't get through a defence Aries with all your gear and knowhow. "

I could, if it were not for three things.

1. Whiteboy got away with utilizing the most duped weapons in Simcountry history. Whiteboy lost 400,000 600 quality helicopters, in addition to other things.

2. Whiteboys blackout period ki

Andy you said you guys are "focusing on the PvP side of the game"

Now's a good time to have the war level debate if that's the case?

I' would argue that there cannot be a PvP side of the game with war levels in place as they are now. They're to restrictive for encouraging war. A re think on war levels is needed with the community's help maybe?

Me and many others know what it was like before war levels. Anyone who doesn't has nothing to fear. Even then wars where rare. On occasion a massive war would break out and people would loose. But it was mostly peaceful. Nobody was going around stealing countries for the fun of it.

But the fact that someone could, out of nowhere declare war on you and take your shit adds a certain something to this game that war levels has taken away.

There's no need for diplomacy because I don't have to worry about anyone attacking me. A

Hi Jan. Nice to see you

Khome the war aspect of this game is the most important that's why I'm so focused on it so much. Without it the whole game suffers. We're all here to build but there comes a point when building just for the sake of building becomes boring to be honest.

I don't want loads of wars myself I just want that threat of war to be real. Then I'm building with purpose and I'm interacting by being forced to. The game was vibrant under these rules and I don't see why it cant be again. Nobody wants war but this games needs the threat of war. Lol I like that. Maybe I'll use that as a mission statement. Nobody wants war but this games needs the threat of war lol.