first, yes, i have no interest in being committed to war, at some one else's convenience, that has, and always should be the advantage of the attacker. the defense gets to dig in, the attacker gets to choose the time and location, this seems fair to me.
further, i have no interest in fighting any wars, like i said, i work 12 hour shifts in factory, i pour metal, lift heavy, red hot molds, on a 4 foot fork, i grind and weld parts, i'm covered in sweat when i get home, some times i'm not not safe to drive home, and spend most my off time just recovering enough to do it again, add to that, my wife is disabled, and my kids are disabled, i don't have the time, or will to fight, at some one else's convenience, i was making an example, as i said.
diplomacy, of course, plays a role, its a no brainer, my idea does not specifically include that, but it kinda goes with out saying, dotcha think? silly hobbit
as far as
I still think your war engine change is a solution looking for a problem. I can no longer follow what it is supposed to solve. Are wars back and forth affairs that take 8-9 hours without breaks? Are countries too easily taken in just a few hours? Which is it?
The change itself, again, would empower dozens of throwaway war countries in which the owner would have little attachment and threaten countries of other players who have real attachment to them. The throwaway countries would seem to be able to count on several days of a free hand in attacking without any concern to setting up defenses. This strategy would be repeatable to the defenders frustration.
As far is diplomacy, it is currently a "no-brainer" if you mean that in the sense that no one gives it a thought. That is true. Diplomacy is currently mostly dictated by unlimited free game-given protection. Even on the war world.
I gave my experience not as what is
*face palm*
your the one making the example that a strong country can be taken effectively in a matter of hours, but can be defended to afford sound sleep. making the statement that if people played like you, then they would either be marathons, or boat races. the suggestion is a middle ground. making wars last long enough to react, with out requiring long sit down sessions. but it would obviously give an advantage to assets, skill, tactics.
"throw away countries," is that really a change? something new? common on
further, the attention needed to take out an poorly defended country, would be simplistic.
for developing diplomacy, creating a player base that is competing. is the best method to increase diplomacy, and politics. i think that this, will players a better risk to reward factor.
My point is that I think you are paying too much focus on the period of time after the war goes active. Who is in position to win and how long the keyboard sessions are going to be is largely decided before then.
I have said before, and it is true, that wars have three parts. Planning, preparation, and execution. I have given some advice to my war theory to those that still bother to come to chat. Those first two parts are as important as the third. I can both quickly and efficiently take a country of my choosing and defend a country of my choice, affording me a sound sleep. It is a matter of skill.
You appeared to be offering up a war engine change because one must rush to their keyboard and be prepared for an 8-hour shift of button-mashing to defend their country. What I am saying is that, if you must do this, you have done something wrong and the game does not need to change to correct your error.
and i'll pass, at this moment, about calling people out, when they call difficulties, bugs
catching up to your last post,
i disagree Aries, and in fact, you disagree
<!-Quote-!>Quote:The right strategy can bring down a country with very formidable defenses. At least three times, against three different players, I have defeated an opponent who was online and had substantial reserves, the most recent being Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>
so your saying Punisher's "very formidable defenses" that you are using as an example that any country can be taken down easily, still doesn't match your concept of a defense that would allow you to sleep?
slow the whole thing down. why do you expect a player to click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click to select a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a uni
I don't think you answered my last post at all. Your focus is still on after the war goes active. Though the active war lasted 3 hours with Punisher, that was simply the last phase of a war in which it failed the first two (phases). The first two phases are where you will find strategy and preparation important (and a lot less clicking). They included not only the 48 hour PVP war delay but a considerable time before that. No PVP war is decided in 3 hours. That is just dishonest. 3 hours was to address where you said wars consist of 8-9 hours of considerable clicking. That just does not have to be the case.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:No PVP war is decided in 3 hours. That is just dishonest. 3 hours was to address where you said wars consist of 8-9 hours of considerable clicking.-Aries<!-/Quote-!>
yet,
<!-Quote-!>Quote:The right strategy can bring down a country with very formidable defenses...I have defeated an opponent... Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>
my suggestion is not meant to directly address planning, and diplomacy, but to make the actual fighting more causal and easier, inviting more of a need for diplomacy, and planning do to increased popularity.
it does soften the blow of lower experience, less preparation, less planning, true enough. but it does not dismiss those things either. it does not dismiss experience, and invites new tac
Yes. Yet, the right strategy. You know, all the stuff that happens before the shooty/clicky stuff. Punisher was not a victim of the war engine. Stop being silly.
You are the one making up problems, you silly. You admit wars are more than the simple execution of the last few hours of clicking but think a war engine change is warranted to stretch it out. That is silly. The war process already involves days, if not weeks or longer. It is found in a culmination of the world diplomatic situation, sizing up potential threats, and the preparation of meeting threats long before any shooting/clicking happens.
The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly. Don't be silly you silly billy.
well, the reality is its not gonna happen, this is true.
how ever to address your comments,
the intensity of sim-war, has always been a deterrent. entire feds amassed assets, and stayed safe, largely do to the immense effort to defeat them, than their own fighting skill. that is, they were great at planning, politics and building, but poor in execution, those feds eventually fell, and most those players quit, because it took hyper-active players, hours and hours of clicking to destroy years, and years of work. leaving many so dishearted, they did not see the point of continuing to play.
creating a shooting environment, that increases time to react, will not distract from pre-war maneuvering. if anything, it will improve it, if the shooting environment appeals to more players, it will create the need for greater pre-war maneuvering.
the current war engine might work well, but the war-game its self is a failure,
I'm not persuaded that a 3-hour war is representative of typical PvP against a well-defended country. That story just doesn't add up.
Aries claims:
"The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly."
First of all, you're trying to send them back to the drawing board to create your "battlegrounds" and "total war." Those would require major coding, not minor tweaks. Secondly, if the war engine is so wonderful, why do 99% of players avoid PvP?
By comparison, Jonni said in March:
"As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons an
I agree with the lack of motivation but believe game rewards are a significant part of it. There are significant rewards to be found many different facets of the game but not in PVP wars, which are a zero sum game. You can only take something from another player or lose something to another player.
It is this significant risk that should lend itself to the possibility of earning something extra, similar to the rewards of my Total War or Battlegrounds suggestions. Wars over resources, as others have suggested, would be interesting too. Perhaps unique benefits should be imparted on countries on each world that are not able to be shielded by any type of game protection.
If there is something to be gained, it will encourage more participation in this part of the game. Currently, many see more benefit to unlimited free protection and they are right. Costs of maintaining adequate defense and the effort to maintain an advantageous diplomatic s
Madoff, I am not sure what you don't believe. Punisher was not just a typically defended country, as Orbiter mentioned it was the #1 war country. I gathered a lot of data for the attack, part of my superior preparation, and still have it. My attacking country was AA8 which declared on Punisher and Botulism. The troop numbers when the declaration went active were:
AA8 3.7 million
Punisher 6.5 million
Botulism 2.7 million
I posted an after-action report here:
https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/24866.html?1433621286 Oh, pre-war operations btw. It is a tactic that I sometimes set a dec to start in my blackout period. Shooting couldn't happen until it did.
I defeated Punisher in 21 days of game time with Botulism falling 12 days later. I defeated an army of 9.2 million and shot through additional fed a
Oh just shut up and get it on.
100GC to the winner (if there were a way to trade them :/ )
Just make the check out to A-R-I-E-S. thanks
Hmm, it appears as if ARIES thinks he's invincible
Nobody is untouchable...
P.S. Except for Andy