We need reasons to declare war on other players

Secured mode is embedded into the game and removing it would disrupt what is seen by many as a game promise. It would also threaten the players more interested in the econ aspect of the game. I feel it is important to keep a balance where a player can choose their style of play and find a home in Simcountry.

@Aries -read your third post and I agree with it. If a player wants a natural resource they can pay for it in gold coins.
There would only be temporary protection for new players.

Further to my thread above -having no secured mode would increase player interaction as players would have to join federations and form alliances (example in real like NATO).

The econ players can band together in a federation. Or perhaps buy an aggressor off.
I do agree on keeping balance. But the balance has (in recent years) shifted too much one way.

Michael being able to secure one country I don't think you'll find anyone playing this game awhile against.

You've not seen entire worlds at war in PVP situations.

You have to sit at your computer 24 hours a day to beat off attacks. Some people have to go to work and have outside interests.

If you were a large empire you had to take down your opponent quickly and completely. While in every case I remember it was their own fault by declaring war or joining the wrong federation, there were many that lost years of work.

With one secured country nobody can be completely knocked out of the game. They can build an economic power base, a military power base or both if they build across multiple worlds.

I do however believe that any war protection past this one secured country per world is detrimental to the war game.

If you wish to sit in your secured country and play the economic side more power to

Maybe they need to make an evil C3 country with ability to attack player countries and be super armed (call it the CSIS of simcountry). Would make the game interesting.

Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of that form of aggravation for little or no gain. Doesn't sound any different than in times past when a swarm of players would grab a country close to their target and launch sneak attacks and declare. Generally disrupting plans and frustrating a player more than anything. Usually there was very little gain involved.

The simple fact is eventually they will be forced to do something. It's the premium members along with free members buying GC's keeping the game open and I think most of them play simply out of habit rather than any real entertainment factor.

But, I've been saying that for years now.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

As far as "reasons" for one player to go after another? They will eventually provide their own. Breathing my oxygen is as good as any other.

That is my humble opinion on the subject.<!-/Quote-!>

Agreed, there should be no reason at all. War is a part of this game.

I do suggest this Andy, perhaps 2 secured mains can be replaced by the current single main. Currently, with new restrictions, a player can technically play in secured mode with any number of countries(I.E. Xon who has some 20 countries under war level on FB of all places). This adds some reasonable base of protection. This also drives players to "play nice" with others if they plan on expanding beyond those 2 entities. It restores the fundamental reason for player interaction and federation building. This is all missing due to half a game that has reduced beyond expectation. <

We need some time to get back on this.
We agree that there should be more war motivation and are looking at what should be done, functions needed etc.
(without a major rewrite...)

Andy a good step in the right direction would IMHO be:

Remove secured mode for players with countries that haven't signed in for 4-6 months. I thought the reason behind the free play was your account was secure as long as you were active.

This step alone would give everyone something to do for a while. There are a lot of little inactive empires that would be worth a lot more than a C3 if we could get to them. And since you can't attack a player country from your secured main, that would mean THEY would have to have something hanging out there to snap those countries up.

Remove all level requirements and give everyone ONE secured country on all worlds (FB included). That way you can't be knocked off any world and expansion of an empire has always carried risks.

Yes there are massive players that it would take years to challenge but you know it took them years and a lot of work to get that way.

We will relax limitations and controls. we have already started doing so. Check the war game and the ability to use medium range missiles from bases.

We also decided to push forward the resources game.
we will publish some of the main features on the forum in the coming days.

Thanks Andy, this will ease things a bit. Well I'm pleased you've read my thread as this means a lot. I'm surprised there's been a lot of feedback on this page alone, I want to thank everyone for all their comments so far.

we are not done.
We want to proceed with more small steps without rocking the boat.

Alright, fair enough. As doing too many changes at once could ruin the game play for a lot people, including myself.

So Andy, what do you think of my suggestions at the top this page? Please tell me which ones you like or do not like, and explain why. Thanks.

Next update will relax the rules on the trading of nuclear weapons on FB.
Currently, some products cannot be traded.

With the introduction of a maintenance product for these weapons, we think that it is another reason for making the trading on the market of these products easier.

For every new regulation we should remove two. right?
all these regulations, SAD!

Its true that there too many regulations in general and I know that introducing a maintenance product on weapons makes sense. As it costs the countries for keeping them which is fair enough.

What isn't fair though is that the enterprises do not have to pay a single penny for the upkeep for all those weapons they have stored in those enterprises. Why?

If theres a way of making those making enterprises pay for the maintenance of those weapons like how the way countries do. It would spell an end for players who have a huge amount of military weapons in them, which would force them to sell a lot of them, if not most of them. Which would balance the war game much more. As they store them there to avoid paying for any maintenance in their own countries.

If you view the value the amount of the military assets some enterprises have in the game, you will see what I mean. Knowing the maintenance of all that is for free.

Why would we want to "spell an end" for any player? Would it not be better to improve the war game and create incentive to participate in the war game? In this way, players would have reason to use these weapons. The real problem is there has been no active war game causing players to put their toys away. Adding maintenance to enterprise weapons will not create reason to war nor would it "balance the war game".

But aries, why would any reasonable player without any CEOs ever declare war against a bigger target who does have CEOs?

This game should be about striking a balance between economic and warring.

As a simple player, there is NO incentive for me to attack you, even with a large army of my own that costs a 100 billion a month.

Why? Because even with a large army that I have spent trillions on, upgrading and maintaining, I know that Titans like you, SuperSoldier, Khome, and etc. have been hoarding weapons and ammunition for years.

I dare not attack any countries of yours, even if they have no defenses because you would shuttle in so many mobile units, transfer military products from CEO to country and have a military that's 50x bigger than mine.

Let's be truly honest, getting rid of the war levels just makes it so that Titans don't have to face each other, but can level lower players with impunity wit

Realistically, James is also correct. In the real world, if you put some fighter planes, ships, and tanks away, don't expect it to still be able to compete with weapons 40-50 years later.

We can't put 1,000 F-22s or M1 Abrams in a garage, not have any upgrades or successors and then still consider it top of the line in 40-50 years.

They should undergo degradation.

Now, we've had MULTIPLE players ask about this, and there are some pushbacks, namely from players who have abused this feature and don't want to see their 1,000 trillion in army assets waste away in quality.

As a simple player, or any player, there is little incentive to risk attacking any player at any time. Rewards are mostly found in the econ game or with raising game level or war level. Attacking any player, let alone an experienced war player, is a risky proposition. Most aggressive war players eventually met their match and lost big.

It is true, and rightly so, that you are not able to limit a defending player to the defenses in a single country. As an attacker, you also have no such limitation. You can attack the same country with numerous countries, marshaling forces for such an assault as you please. Why would it be so that the defender has any less choice to respond to a war that you declared at a time and location of your own choosing? Limiting the defender to the resources in the single country that you choose would be ludicrous.

I never said anything about removing war levels, except for making it so on the "war world" 

You know people this is a game and is suppose to have some entertainment value.

What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.

We all come into this game with nothing. Those who are successful, adapt and grow. Many times that involves YEARS of effort.

Then along comes a new group of players expecting everyone to give up years of effort in order to level the playing field for them.

That's bullshit people. If you want the same advantages afforded to anyone else you can own a CEO and a country on any or all worlds.

CEO's are clearing houses for product they cannot use them. They can of course direct their resources to back countries that player owns or really any country in the game.

The advantages CEO's provide a country they build in already outweigh any disadvantage you may "think" they have in stor

But Yankee, there's going to be no entertainment value left when it's all one sided and heavily favours those who have enterprises which allows those players who have countries, to store their weapons in there for free. I could do that myself since I have an enterprise as well. I see it as loophole and as an extremely effective way of saving maintenance costs. To be right, I should be storing all my weapons inside my enterprise and not my countries, in order to save on all those maintenance costs. But I choose not to. Besides, I want to have an active an active military on standby at all times when or even if, I go up to war level 3. But knowing that theres players at those war levels who also keep huge amounts of weapons in their enterpises for free, I can't see it ever happening, which is why I am still stuck at war level 2. If I went up to that level, I could well lose everything I have built in this game to these maintenance free weapon hoar

Did I miss something? Why can't any player do the same thing? Also, you have not explained how this "improves" or "balances" the war game?

Something that amazes me too is the constant thinking that it must be you versus the world if, oh my gosh, you leave magical game protection. Why don't you try to make friends? There are these things called federations that noone really uses because magical game protections have replaced them. The community is fully capable of policing themselves if you let them.

Look around. Who is left playing this game? Honestly, all the aggressive players have left. All that are left are econ players. You have a choice. You can join the community, make friends, join a fed, and play the game like a multi-player game, or you can continue to stay in war level 2. Why should the game bend over backwards for you so before you dip your toe into, gasp, war level 3 so some phantom "balance"

What I can't understand is the mindset for some type of entitlement to a level playing field against people who have invested YEARS into this game.

Everyone, has every tool available. You can't even claim lack of misunderstanding of the game documents (if you bothered to read them) every large player here will explain how to do it. Thing is you obviously know about it and simply choose not to do it.

You have access to a CEO, You have access to a secured country which nobody can take away from you unless you do something insane to drag it out of protection.

If you want to play the economy game, nobody can touch you.

(Unless of course you like giving up all your shares in state owned corps then try to rape other players by attracting them with zero tax then jacking them to the limit making money on both ends. That tends to hurt doesn't it James?)

I'm just as vulnerable as anyone and

James and SeizeForce: It's your choice whether to grab the tools available to you or to forgo their use. It sounds like you're choosing to not use and to instead complain. I suppose that's your right.

It is malicious to want to "spell the end" for players who don't play like you. Changing the rules to hurt players who have been playing by the rules for months or years, while presenting contrived (and overly simplistic) justifications? That's not balance or realism, that's called spite.

The balance already exists. You've already revealed your selfish motives - why should you receive a handout?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.<!-/Quote-!>

This has been the most overlooked issue of all. Even subtle changes that cannot be anticipated, or expected, has too great an impact. On Everything.

One Word: ROLLBACK! Then leave it alone.

We need a paradigm shift and change our algorithm to a similar one weighted 80 -improving to 20 -changing

80 -the framework that existed(Graphics/Servers/Functionality/p2p interactions)

20 -any changes deemed absolutely necessary to facilitate a successful rollback.

As far as avoiding a major coding burden. I suggest a rollback on a single world. Just make the changes prove themselves before implementing it on a larger scale. This way it is not wasted effort and gives you a good timeframe