Simcountry Home   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Terminology
online games, multiplayer games
spacing
bullet Simcountry is an Online Digital World where you are the President of a country.
spacing
bullet No download needed!
spacing
What is Simcountry?
Beginners Info
What is Simcountry?
| | | | |
Previous Thread: Bey bey going only pla my ceo accoutnt my credits are up :-)
Next Thread: Nuclear Power Stations

W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested

Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board  W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested

Hectors Dream

Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:52 pm Click here to edit this post
hmmn grey, thats true - but they would not be able to reach the top population levels as rapidly as empire nations would. They could of course educate their people and perform worker exchanges every month, but that is much slower.

I think to make it viable in the long term, though, the defense index would need to be left alone as a component of score, rather than being continously reduced whenever someone managed to create a huge army at the expenbse huige economic sacrifices (ive always thought the reductions in defense index as a part of score were silly -the score a player with a huge army would have is already much lower than it would be if they had focused only on economics, given the domonance of assets and financial indices in the scoring mechanism)

I think the lack of an army to maintain would let peace-only countries be competitive with the larger empires economically given their much higher GDP and profit potential, while preventing them from dominating the empires economically for a long time (since c3s start out at a max of 20M pop at this point in time..and while a 40M empire country might have one third the per capita GDP, it could fit in more workers)

In short, I think peace-only countries prvented from having empires might be a good solution to the peace/war schizophrenia simcountry has had from the start.


I think this should only be premitted for new players, existing playerws with only one country, or older ones willing to start over in a new country (it would be hard for some hard to let go of your empire...but if you only want peace, then why not?).

Hymy, I dont think there will be any attrition. W3c seems determeined to continue existing rules, and change the war rules whenever anyone figures out (non-bug methods!) even a theoretical way to penetrate shared defenses.

:)

all that we need to see what happens is a bit of time :)

Jozi

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:04 am Click here to edit this post
I did not see anyone strongly against this suggestion. We should let some more people continue this discussion.
I also think that the lower cost will compensate for the single country trying to reach the top. Worst case we might be forced to create two seperate award lists but this will make the change more complex.
We also do intend to implement the "Army reserve" feature.

The "Peacful country" feature should be irreversible or possibly have a very long reverse delay. We do not want someone to become extreemly rich and peaceful and then turn around and build a huge army, made possible by his high financial index.
Building a large army however will take very long anyway and will be visible to all.

almoth

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:15 am Click here to edit this post
Last comment, i dont want to swamp the board and many others will have good input no doubt

While this would be an answer for many players, i still believe that while conquering enemy empires should certainly be possible. It should still require a signifigantly larger army to to do so. In warfare in the real world, with equal training, and equipment the attacker generally needs a 3 to 1 advantage. So, if someone has a defensive empire grouped with say 20 million purely defensive soldiers. Then the opponent really should be willing to throw at least 60 million attackers in order to beat the opponent down. At the moment there are several "holes" that mean smaller attacking numbers have got through larger defending armies. With a proper balance giving defence a signifigant but overcomeable advantage over attack then people could still play their empire and not be restricted to 5 minutes a day with one country(and know they risk conquering) but would also be able to build a large defence knowing it would take a huge financial and military effort to conquer them.

Finally jozi, i think people do get annoyed and write things here in the heat of fustration, but it is really cool to get this feedback

Ellie

Jozi

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:21 am Click here to edit this post
We have been testing the new migration function for some time and we can see the theoretical numbers on our logs. We intend to turn this function on. This will make changes in the population for all countries easier but the numbers of immigrants are never very large.
Peacful countries could grow their population faster with immigration.

I also saw a comment on the defense index.

The index is higher than all others and we tried to bring it down to size. Reducing its influence on the score can also be done (and was done) by reducing its weight in the total score.

Most indexes count one time, defense counts for 0.8 or so. Finance and assets count for much more.

We always tried to keep the total index under 10000 (succeeded) and the defense index under 2000 (failed).

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:22 am Click here to edit this post
I agree completely Jozi.

I am probably the most well-known aggressive long-term player, and I think I can speak for all or most of them. I think the feature would be balanced, but I also think it needs to be irreversible. I reflects a decision a player makes about how they want to play the game.

I will instruct a federation member of mine in-game to ensure that the discussion continues with other existing players, and ask them to post comments in this thread.

Since youre reading this thread, I think a very simple thing you can do to make the game more interesting is add a chat link that directs players to the mirc server and chatroom that most of us are using, perhaps even opening it up in a new window with a java client. People in this game would be much more likely to interact in a real-time chatting environment.

In an unrelted note, this large war is letting many of the players work out 'kinks' in the war system. When things quiet down in a few days or week, I will be sure to post and email you a list of bugs, with explanations of how they work written as clearly as I can make them. Many of these bugs can only be found in large wars, and large wars are very rare. Golden rainbow probably ill not have a war like this one again, it is like world war II.

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:36 am Click here to edit this post
ive started a poll for this topic on TNN here.

Jozi

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:40 am Click here to edit this post
The defense should indeed be strong enough to prevent an easy takeover. We have been tuning the defensive power for ever and it has improved for the weapons we have for a long time.

Now we discover that some of the new weapons are in fact too powerful and we have updated the Seals this morning and there will be another tweak tomorrow morning for the Seals, RDU and SF.

We will probably need more tweaking after that and everybody hates them because they change a running army that might even be attacking while the changes are implemented.

We had some periods when conquering a country was close to impossible and other periods when it was too easy. We are making small changes to prevent disasters.

There are now huge armies that are impossible to defend against if you are a one country player hence the suggestion to have "Peacful countries".

I agree with you Ellie that the attacker should need a much larger army than the defender or at least a much larger investment in his army. Defense should be cheaper. The number of weapons is not the issue but the cost and the size of the army.

I think that this is the case now but we will keep looking at the logs and listen to your suggestions even if we are sometimes very slow in answering.

Reducing the number of soldiers specially in the defense is an important issue as preventing war becomes an (economic) show stopper. You need to put all your workers in the defense force to become unattractive for an attacker.

"Peaceful countries" will help some but a more balanced "war rules" table must remain an objective.

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:42 am Click here to edit this post
Unless I'm mistaken, w3c would probably let you use one of your current countries (some presidents have very nice ones.)

Im not sure, but I dont think they should. Current countries suddenly free of military defense entirely would immediately dominate the rankings (unless they made 2 ranking systems..but yes, that is complicated, although it would work just fine) Im thikning of jinson in particular :)

another altearnative would be to have a peace-only golden world and a war-enabled world, but to do that, wed have to combine kebir blue with white giant, and use the old kebir server to hold our new smaller war world :)

I think making a huge pecae only country should take time and require building it up a lot from the bottom up, planing the economoy from scratch (well, from its status as a computer controlled country anyway).

Starting in a new country with a c3 should be required. Obvsiouly, one coulnt start out as a 'peace only country' and conquer a huge country....so they would need to be built up in time.

given the huge per capita GDP possible (75% of my money is spent on weapons in most countries!), I think these countries would be economicaly very strong very fast, anyway.

and by the way, I think the game is slwoly working out most of its quirks. More than anything else, all it needs now are new players.

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:47 am Click here to edit this post
I agree with you Ellie that the attacker should need a much larger army than the defender or at least a much larger investment in his army. Defense should be cheaper. The number of weapons is not the issue but the cost and the size of the army.

We all agree with this.

Neverthelss, it should be possible to defeat a defense, even if it is very difficult.

given federation sharing of defenses, the fact that in some cases MILLIONs or hundreds of thousands of weapons are in range and shared, and the 10k attack limits, defeating many defenses is literally imposible.

I think the fact that offensive weapons are more expnsive and use more people is balanced properly, but there must be some method to overcome shared defense.

Sugegstions would be removing the limit, enabling shared offensive weapons (finally, after all this time), or keeping the rapid deployment units the way they are.

This war was started as an attempt to prove the invulnerabliity of most defenses, and it would have worked to do so, were it not for a few characterisitsc of the new limits.

I think I can guess what the 'tweak' will be, and I expect that the wars will end as a result.

Jozi, it is interesting and very neat to actually be involved in a disucssion with you on the boards :)

Simcountry Introduction