We need reasons to declare war on other players

The only way to declare war on other players in my opinion, is to provide a reason for you to declare war on them. As I think the current war level rules and restrictions in the game are not working properly as we all know. Others in the game have proposed to eliminate the war levels entirely and go back to the 'good old days' of which we have heard many times before. This is not the answer, as it will put a lot of the new players at risk from being conquered by large powerful empires again.

So I have come up with a few ideas below to prevent it from happening again of where players declare war on you for absolutely no reason at all, which is stupid and chasing away most of the players in the game. These are some of my ideas below which are.....


1. To declare war on another player, you must have a reason to declare war.

2. You can still play a peaceful game, even with a large empire, by not provoking anyone in the game, such as sneak attacks etc., as this is as good as secured mode.

3. I think border clashes should be introduced into the game. The function will very much be like sneak attacks, except it's got to be a country that borders one of yours. This I thought, could provoke more tension and give you a reason to declare war. In real life, countries such as those in Central and West Africa has happened in the past because of territorial disputes. Although I do think in the game if an aggressor border clashes with another country too much, the attacked country should appeal to the security council for help and impose restrictions on the aggressor for a set time period. However, if the aggressor refuses to abide by this, the aggressive country should be made a legitimate target for anybody to declare war on as it's a just cause and good reason to do so.

4. Players who have already been banned from possessing any nuclear weapons or facilities, or have even using them, should give any player a reason to declare war on them. As I think they should be made a legitimate target by anybody if they are possessing or using them illegally, just like in real life. Such as Iran and North Korea for example.


Overall, it's still possible we can eliminate the war level rules and restrictions entirely if we had these reasons in place to declare war which means other players cannot declare war on you if you have been playing peacefully and have not done anything wrong at all, unless you have provoked them of course. I think these ideas will bring the all of the worlds to life of where there will be a rise of new petty countries of more or less 3rd world status, fighting each other. As well as rogue countries armed with nuclear weapons being threatened with UN sanctions and if they don't back down, they will be made legitimate targets by anyone in the game who are powerful enough to take them on.

Yes, war levels have hurt the war game. Almost all countries are unattackable because they stay below level 4. The solution to that problem is to allow countries below war level 4 to attack countries of a similar war level.

Regarding border clashes, it's unclear how a country would benefit from these territorial disputes. By comparison, sneak attacks can provide tactical advantages or economic punishment. An easier stimulus for minor clashes would be to make sneak attack weapons much cheaper.

Regarding being able to attack countries banned from having nuclear weapons, or that use nuclear weapons, that currently exists. But this is now restricted by war levels and war protection boosters. Even if those restrictions are bypassed, the Security Councils rarely ban nuclear weapons or vote on anything.

The next feature that can stimulate war is natural resources. That's been promised since at least 2007. If done well, that feature will provide genuine territorial disputes and compelling reasons for war. Since the game only introduces about one new feature per year, let's hope natural resources gets priority.

I agree a proper motivation needs to exist to enter into conflict. In short, the game simply lacks stuff to fight over. A properly done natural resources, or other idea, should be done to remedy this deficiency.

A recommended something along these lines:

-Allow players to choose a bonus for an existing country they own.

-They must pay for it in gold coins.

-The bonus only applies if the player is war level 4+, has removed war level protection, is not in secured mode, and lacks temporary war protection.

-The bonus for that country, once paid for, applies permanently for that country for any owner as long as the current owner is war level 4+, has removed war level protection, is not in secured mode, and lacks temporary war protection.

This allows players incentive to enter the world's political arena with stuff at stake, since in order to benefit they must forgo any game-provided protection. This strengthens the purpose of relationships and alliances to replace unnatural protections. It also presents valuable real estate on the map for more aggressive players to pursue.

I would also add that the incentives be made more valuable on FB in order to attract more warfare on the "war world". In my view, I see war as something to avoid, mutually assured destruction and the end result of a failed diplomatic exchange. I think that would add to the political arena and exchange between nations and feds. War should make the world nervous with severe consequences, think the Cuban missile crisis, or how history would be different if WWI had never happened due to a perfect storm of circumstances.

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Now, for those who enjoy the thrill of waging a war, I agree that a war world should be far more conducive for it, and without causing much affect to the other worlds. (Except for the shipping of nukes from FB to the rest of the galaxy). I totally get the frustration war players feel. Add to that, there are a lot of gun shy players. There are great player generated tutorials (see Aries'). Add to that, there should be a "consequence free" practice zone if you would. Just to see how weapons are used, how it pans out because nothing replaces experience when it comes to learning.

Just my two cents.

Well said Khome. Let the war world be the 'war' world. Fix the problems there.

I agree the war world would be the best place to test 5he outcomes of any changes before implementation of changes on other worlds. The parameters for declaring war are very tight, agreed. But that is a symptom and not the problem. The problem is that people don't want to war in general. Especially with a high probability of loss.

This probability is built in naturally. If a player decides to start the game and ends up fighting a war, he will always be pitted against a player with more experience. The experience of even a single pvp war can create a gap so wide when compared to a player who has only dealt with c3s.

I am probably responsible for introducing scores of players to the war game. Some countries I trashed some I may have conquered. I don't recall a single instance where I removed a players empire. This was either because of cooperation between federation allies or because I didn't really want to liquidate a player. Sometimes, the act of declaring war on an otherwise peaceful player is all the spark that is needed.

For example, war is declared, out of fear of conflict the victim(as I will describe it here sarcastically) begins speaking to other players about defense. In nearly every case, players who were otherwise non aligned begin to assist that player with preventative defensive measures and perhaps invitations to federations or defensive declarations from powerful players who were adverse to me.

Long winded I know, but sometimes the act of declaring war is enough. If the threat of war is never real, players can ignore this part of the game entirely. The ability to do this it is very difficult to balance the game naturally, so GM intervention here is the only recourse. I can comb through the forums and name off many players who were peaceful merchants that got to enjoy the other part of the game and create a bunch of connections along the way they otherwise would have no need for. These players not only went on to learn the war game to defend themselves adequately but became important figures in the worlds' largest federations. They essentially went on to lead in many cases.

In my current state I cannot resume the role of instigator. My account is simply too small at this time. That is not to say I won't in the future. I don't plan on being destructive the game needs a creative spark. For example, I would attack the weakest link among my enemies to provoke an entire stagnant federation back into activity.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The problem is that people don't want to war in general. -- Psycho_Honey<!-/Quote-!>

Yes. But why don't players want PvP? PvP was once very popular. What happened that made PvP unpopular?

PvP became rare because the game introduced too many obstacles: military units, supply units, unlimited forts, logistics that sometimes don't work, war levels that make most countries unattackable, the requirement that some weapons be obtained from space stations. These are too many hassles for 99% of players.

Those hassles need to be corrected.

I'm one of those who never witnessed those days.

Wow, thanks for all your feedback on this page, I appreciate it.

Madoff, it is true that there does indeed needs a reason to justify these "border clashes" as there needs to be proper reason for it. Such as like you say, a "special resource" of some kind to trigger the dispute in a genuine way, and along with cheaper sneak attack weapons will encourage this even further.

Also regarding banned countries with nuclear weapons, I can only think there needs to be some kind of reward for the members of the security council to successfully ban a player from having nuclear weapons, something to drive them into doing it, probably in the form of gold coins or SC$ money in order to encourage this.

Aries, you speak in moderate way and you make your points clear as I could not have done it any better myself. I am glad you agree with me that there needs to be a proper motivation to enter a conflict, but I am not sure about some of your suggestions though that requires a certain war level, or removing protection of any kind. My idea is to eliminate the unnatural protections altogether, as well as the war levels if need be if it interferes with any war declarations, of which we all know it does. The war levels should only serve as purely on your war skills now. The only way to be attacked is if you have deliberately provoked another player in any way. If not, you can't be attacked at all, which will serve as your natural secured mode anyway.

However, to pay for a natural resource bonus in gold coins is good, and would sense for the game too, as well as for the GMs.

Khome, I can remember the days when there was no war levels at all years ago. Until the war levels were introduced a few months after I first started playing. It was a much better war game then, but the biggest problem was, is that your countries were soon taken over overnight for absolutely no reason at all, and this is the major reason why the war levels were introduced, in order to stop this abuse. However, the GMs has pushed the war game almost out of existence now. And this is why I thought of this idea of mine now, in the hope to revive it again.

Michael, I agree Fearless blue should be a war world, and that is a reason why i'm on that world now, as well as numerous countries to settle in. I am still on LU, but I only have 1 country there. So sooner or later I'm thinking about selling it for gold coins since it has a population of well over 100M people.

Psycho Honey, I also agree the war world should be a place to test any outcomes as well. Particularly my idea of course, if the GMs allowed it that is. I shouldn't worry about the number of players you have eliminated in the past, the GMs allowed such things to happen, especially to the weak peaceful players who have not provoked anyone at all, and this is why I think an idea like mine should be introduced, because it would balance out the game for those who want war and cause trouble between each other, and for others who just want to play the peaceful game, and won't be attacked because they hav'nt provoked anyone at all.

I have not eliminated anyone. That is a common misconception. Old propaganda wars were the culprit. Now you see why this is so effective in the real world theater.

Personally I do not believe that the war game is non-existent, there are wars now and then on all the worlds, however I don't necessarily like the idea of war levels as you are right if war levels were removed the amount of wars would most diffently skyrocket. Therefore removing war levels without adding some way for new players to defend themselves would be disastrous, that is why I propose that there could be unlimited forts or at least more forts because this would make new players seem (not worth it) to be attacked by larger empires. Furthermore maybe new players could be protected for up to 2 months, but the new players could still disable this protection at anytime. Additionally federations could be able to share all units not just mobile units which are hard to create. By doing this it would allow new players to join a federation for protection.

Overall I really hope that you can see that this is a reasonable idea to improve the realistic aspects of the game by removing war levels completely while still allowing protection for active new players who do not want war by allowing them to build lots of forts, join a federation and have initial war protection.

This should allow for big empires to attack small and large countries of inactive players who do not spend lots of time in the game but would still provide protection for those players who do not want wars and spend lots of time working hard to develop their empires.

Finally I fell it important to note that I am a fairly new player to this game and I have never seen the game without war levels but it would seem to be more interesting and would make the game more fun to play while providing protection for active players who do not want war.

Believe me Inventor1012, the war game here is non existent as compared to 10-15 years ago when this was a dynamic and growing community.

Many changes were made quite simply because it was necessary for the developers of this game to make money. I have nothing against that, if they don't make money there is no game to play.

Originally however, there was absolutely nothing to protect you from losing everything you'd wasted months if not years to build. Some of us actually have a life and cannot sit and wait for a war to be declared 24/7. You could take off for a weekend and return to find nothing left. That's where federations and good allies proved their worth by protecting your back when you were on vacation, in the hospital, or simply to busy to spend time in front of a computer.

Right now, you have one country nobody can attack. Unless you are stupid enough to place it in a federation and sign a war treaty where it auto declares.

If you don't want to fight other players simply put all your efforts into that one country. Expand your empire at your own risk.

Right now there are to many ways for one player to aggravate another and nobody has any recourse.

Historically it was never the large players randomly knocking off the smaller players in this game without a reason. Most generally that reason was a pack of smaller players going after a large one to break them up and whining when they got their collective asses kicked.

Interesting points, if I could put some input into this discussion. I say that there be no war protection, and in the situation in which one should lose their war (against an over whelming aggressor, or by their own hubris) that they hand over all their slave states but are left with the ruins of their main country.

Instead of dwindling down the main country to WS 0.0, the attacking country could lower the index to about 40 or 30, that way the main country would still be left with some infrastructure to come back from.

The winning country (or empire) will then be able to tax the loser for about two weeks or so. This is so that there will be an incentive to declare war on other players.

Lastly, in order to stop abuse, the loser country will be in temporary war protection (the war protection would last longer than the empire tax)

Just my two cents.

P.s excuse any grammar, I'm typing this before class starts.

Wished people would give more feedback and ideas on this thread.

Feedback about what? Reasons for declaring war on another player?

Sorta reminds me of what I was taught about fighting with a knife.

1. You are going to get cut, if you can't deal with that don't.
2. Don't fight with anyone bigger they have reach.
3. Don't fight with anyone smaller as they are probably faster.
4. Anyone willing to fight you with a knife probably knows what they are doing and will cut you to shreds.

War is nothing but the violent application of force to achieve national objectives.

All you need to ask yourself is "what are my objectives". Everything else is going to sort it's self out.

Either you have a reason to risk everything you've built or you don't.

I have one country nobody can touch unless I'm stupid enough to take it out of secured mode.

That country is set up to provide 100% of it's defense to the Federation. So while it can be bled just like anything else, the cost is going to be higher since it can't be attacked directly (including the defense it's providing).

Everything else, yes you'll get it if you want but, it's not going to be worth the cost of taking it (esp. if I'm online and judge I can't win).

Simply put, that is all the war protection I need or desire.

Chances are unless someone is planning on leaving the game in a "blaze of glory", nobody big enough to take them is going to bother me. Anyone noobish enough to go after the measly assets of my slave countries is probably someone I can take if I have to.

No matter what I do with my empire one thing is going to be constant, my slaves won't ever be a money making prospect for an aggressor. Population, maybe, but I can also rape a country so quick that the debt you have to absorb to get it out probably isn't going to be worth it either.

Flip a coin, it's your call what are you trying to achieve?.

You want to subdue me? Make me fear you? Make me worry about some basically worthless assets in a game? Not likely

I read some, not all yet and I tend to agree.
we need to create more motivation for player vs. player wars.

As before, we also need to protect players against huge countries destroying them and pushing them out of the game.

Maybe you have some ideas on that issue?

We will also get back here with some more response

Andy,

I don't ever remember a "huge" player going off the deep end and slaughtering smaller players to no end.

What I remember is:

Larger players going after the assets of inactive players. Generally speaking, those that hadn't logged in for 60 days if not more.

Some of those may have come back and whined that everything they had was gone but you know, either they didn't read their emails or those emails went to a bogus or inactive account. Most of those wars could have been stopped if someone had bothered to say anything before the final couple of hits.

I do remember a lot of little players banding together and attempting to take down larger empires, and kept pushing the envelope. Well you know, at what point do you think someone fully capable of squashing someone like a bug is going to put up with that before nuking them into the stone age?.

And yes I saw many of those players cry and whine after they lost.

We have one country that can be left in secured mode. That is all that is necessary to protect. They can put all their effort there.

Expand at your own risk.

You might even think about removing protection from single countries (esp. non-premium the whole idea I thought behind being a free member was being active) where they don't log in for 4 months. You'd see some cleaning done on LU, I would imagine it's similar on all worlds.

People are always going to whine about someone being bigger even though they haven't put the months or years into an effort to build something themselves.

Thanks for your thoughts Yankee.
We had good and very good periods when war rules were easier.
But we had also do very bad times with players trying to cause damage to the entire idea of the game.

I have accepted the in-game protections as they are but I believe there should be a way to opt into the war game where added risk comes with rewards. The system would reward shedding game-provided protections and replacing them with real sim-diplomacy, bringing meaning back to game relationships and federations. Towards that end, I suggested the natural resourced idea, found above and I have also suggested mechanisms to teach PvP skills and graduate to the war game, like the War College (a system similar to game levels) and Battlegrounds (a system to offer rewards for real PvP, rather than "fake wars" against a computer opponent that doesn't shoot back). The goal would be to attract and retain players motivated by diplomacy and acquiring rewards through a real war game. In my opinion, this is what has been lost due to a combination of game rewards being mostly concentrated in the econ game and current PvP wars combining very high risk with zero-sum rewards. Current real PvP is only motivated by ego.

War College

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25043.html?1453899584

Battlegrounds

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/25045.html?1439461174

Perhaps a motivation could be certain countries have specific resources. This was brought up in another thread -can't remember where though.

Michael, check my first post on this thread, the third overall post. I like the idea about resources as a war game incentive, but they must not be protected by fake protections, like war levels and secured mode. One must also consider that there are game mechanisms in place to discourage owning too many countries, especially beyond 10. Many players stopped at a certain threshold and may hold not interest starting over (building a new country) for some possibly fairly minor bonus. This is why I recommend the ability to purchase the resource with gold coins and that the bonus only functions if you have to protect it the old-fashioned way, with real diplomacy, federations, and your weapons and ammo that have otherwise been collecting dust in this game.

There also is a point where a "game" requires so much thought, that for the rewards received, it becomes a mental drain and is no longer entertaining.

You can always push the envelope higher and find someone willing to play however, if I had no experience what so ever in simcountry, and considering the player interaction, I'd probably lose interest and quit in a week.

Not really a way to expand your player base.

Perhaps as a suggestion why not do a way with secured mode on all the worlds. If a country wanted to remain peaceful they would still have that option but would have to sign peace treaties and maintain friendly relations (like in the real world -look at example Switzerland or Iceland - peaceful and most other nations know that) (makes a another point in real world there is no secured mode or actual security) so maybe game should do away with that.

I agree that it is possible to be overwhelmed with so many items to attend to. This is one of the reasons why I no longer attempt to tell players what to do when giving advice. It is more realistic that most players will specialize in areas they enjoy, such as different aspects of managing your country or playing the war game. The current problem, as I see it, is that there are not sufficient rewards in the war game for someone to enjoy and maintain that style of play. I feel we have lost most of our war game players and currently have little to offer them to retain or attract that style of player.