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: LLW's Available
Next Thread: I need High Level Workers..

W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested

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

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 02:32 pm Click here to edit this post
This is a great discussion! finally! :)

I agree with almoth, balancing variables defense and offense would be a headache. If your suggestion is intrduced and the "logic changed", and some way to resovle the difficulties she mentioned were found, it would be fine.

The main problem with the limits is that an attacker is prevented from using more than a certain number of weapons in an attack, while defenses are essentially unlimited. If the defenses were similarly limited, while still being more effective and cheaper per unit, then there would be no problem. But why would limits be needed when countries have an option of being peaceful only, and defenses are already much stronger and cheaper than offensive units (which is the case now)?

From the perspective of realism, the limits are nonsense. And I think the only real objection in terms of gameplay - the concern of players with 1 country being overrun unfairly - would be fixed by your idea.

When a defender may use hundreds of thousands or millions of units in defense and an attacker is limited to 1% of that number, they cannot win, and wars will never occur.

For the most part, I think the weapons have finally come close to being balanced and workable.W3c has been ssteadily improving them and making them all work togetehr better, permitting a very intersting model indeed. The numbers of solidiers for a given weapon are almost perfect for all but perhaps 2 or 3 weapons (in my humble opinion), and most weapon types have some tactical use. I think a few numbers need to be tweaked here and there, but the only main difficulty is the existence of the limits imposed on attackers combined with unlimited defenses.

Regarding errors:

I have been collecting detailed war logs of my own, and some other players have been trying as hard as possible to collect specific data. I was planning to mail it to you once we had all finished our wars, since we are all very busy trying to fight them for now :) I know how hard it is to locate bugs, and how frustrating it can be when you cannot reproduce them from vague information!

I will try to provide more data then (specific countries and times of attack, and perhaps we can reproduce them for you in a controlled manner to make them easier to figure out), but until then:

1)Smaller air-based offensive and strategic attacks seem to shoot first, before triggering an air defense response from the country or federation they are attacking. In this manner, perhaps 5 strategic bombers might penetrate a defense of 5 thousand interceptors, drop their bombs, and only then be killed by interceptors. The defensive bateries fire before the attacking units do, then the attacking units, and only then does the airforce respond. For some reason, larger attacks trigger the air force properly (for example, a maximum 10000 attacking bombers or fighters), and the attackers are destroyed before they can fire by the defending air force. I cannot guess why this would happen, but it does. We can reproduce it.

2) Weapons deployed manually seem to be redeployed automatically, even when the autoamtic defense is unchcked. This only happens some of the time, and only after a country is attacked. Some players , when finding defenses deployed in a manner to stop them from penetrating it, will attack a random target once with a 'test unit', and force the defenses to redeploy. the country becomes vulnerable, and they can get their true attacks through.

This error is someteims hard to reproduce.

I will try to investigate this more and provide more specific data. I should mail it to you within a real week.

Apocalypse

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 04:13 pm Click here to edit this post
There are 2 types of empires in this game, financial empires and war empires; both are set up completely different the main difference being itís easier to win a prize with a financial empire.

Since I pay for this a game I have a right to take a prize and get my money back but the problem is as a war empire I canít compete with the financial empire so we are left with no choice but to attempt to drag the finance empire down to our level to compete.

Almoth and Erehwon are about to win the 1st place prize for the second time that I know of, in my opinion they should be challenged and prove they are worthy of finishing 1st twice. If top 10 presidents know a challenge is coming they will be forced to set up their empire different thus lowering their score making the game more balanced between empires.

A peace only empire would give presidents a choice of how they wish to play the game and a single country empire would have to recover from a 80% asset penalty after a win, if presidents choose to use a method of multiple countries collecting prises then they have nothing to complain about when a fed like the 12 monkeyís attempt to stop them because they have a choice and would have choosen the greedy option.

I think a peace only country would definitely balance the game and give people choices.

Jozi since people will be able to choose the path they take to the top you should definitely remove the weapons limits to make it easier to stop players that choose the dangerous road to the prize.

almoth

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 05:11 pm Click here to edit this post
quote
________
There are 2 types of empires in this game, financial empires and war empires; both are set up completely different the main difference being itís easier to win a prize with a financial empire.

Since I pay for this a game I have a right to take a prize and get my money back but the problem is as a war empire I canít compete with the financial empire so we are left with no choice but to attempt to drag the finance empire down to our level to compete.

Almoth and Erehwon are about to win the 1st place prize for the second time that I know of, in my opinion they should be challenged and prove they are worthy of finishing 1st twice. If top 10 presidents know a challenge is coming they will be forced to set up their empire different thus lowering their score making the game more balanced between empires.

A peace only empire would give presidents a choice of how they wish to play the game and a single country empire would have to recover from a 80% asset penalty after a win, if presidents choose to use a method of multiple countries collecting prises then they have nothing to complain about when a fed like the 12 monkeyís attempt to stop them because they have a choice and would have choosen the greedy option.

I think a peace only country would definitely balance the game and give people choices.

Jozi since people will be able to choose the path they take to the top you should definitely remove the weapons limits to make it easier to stop players that choose the dangerous road to the prize.
____


Why did you have to build "pure military" instead of attempting to balance a detterant sized defence with a good economy?. ..The answer of course is because you choose to. No one forces players to build militaries that put a strain on their economies.


Yet you wish to impose your views of the game on others. You think the game should have penalties unless players are willing to spend endless hours fighting gigantic wars. Your view of fun within the game, is warfare. So you feel everyone should have to play warfare..and dismiss peacefull players telling them to "stick to CEOS" ignoring the other things presidents can deal with within countries.


Well im sorry, but many players cant logon for hours on end, they work, they have husbands, they have wifes. An online game moving at a medium pace suited them great, because they could fit it in around their lives.


If you read the introduction to the world @golden rainbow@ it describes it as a friendly world where economy is the winner. And it states that a strong defence can put people out of danger of warfare. It is intended to be heavily in favour of defence. You may find this boring. Others however do not.


Before the monkeys came to GR. This was not an issue. 2M was a large army. People where sociable generally. Players could logon irregularly if they wished. It is only when the 12M came and set up a huge, well prepared effort for war that this all changed, and we ended up in this situation.


I mean no disrespect to the monkeys i feel that decisins to not use certain weapons combos is very honourable. But many players who have been here on GR a long long time came here, because it was advertised as a FRIENDLY WORLD. Where the ECONOMY is the winner.

It seems you have arrived here, attempted to turn the game into a @war world@ and when the defence minded parameters (quirks aside) have made this incredibly difficult..want changes to make the game more war minded.

Put yourself for a minute in the shoes of a player who has been unagressive for years, built up nice countries in that time. And are suddenly faced with many many powerfull countries in their once peacefull world. Do they have less right to decide what sort of world they are playing in than you do??.

And finally regarding prizes. The last thing i want is another prize, the debt is a pain in the **. I will be doing my damndest to avoid it.

Outland

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:27 pm Click here to edit this post
The point of having empires is often to have an higher defense around a country that has a great economy. The richer your country is, the more defense you need to protect it from people trying to steal this power, and it's ok this way. Now a lot of people will only focus on economy which will remove all the challenge in war/politics because you wont even be able to plan an attack against a rich country that doesn't defend himself enough. This game is being slowly reduced to Upgrading corps, adjusting salaries and trade strategies. Now if you want to make this game the most boring you can, you're on a good way imo.

Outland

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:33 pm Click here to edit this post
Oh and by the way almoth. When the monkey arrived, all the old rich countries of GR were rich enough and friend enough to have built a strong military way before that. It doesn't take hours per day to buy a big military, it takes less time that building a strong economy. Stop blaming it on anything else if you can't defend your country properly. Defense is way too strong at the moment and if you can't do it, then find a economic-only game.

"Put yourself for a minute in the shoes of a player who has been unagressive for years, built up nice countries in that time. And are suddenly faced with many many powerfull countries in their once peacefull world. Do they have less right to decide what sort of world they are playing in than you do??"
These players know they are playing in Simcountry, a game where War has a place. If all they do is building nice countries with absolutly no defense, they dont have any right to whine when they are attacked. This new peace-country rule is taking people for pussies. It's already Very easy to defend yourself with friends in a federation and a decent defensive army. Some rich people never defended themselves and they were conquered by others, it happened on All the other worlds and it happend here, and THATS WHAT THE GAME IS ABOUT.

almoth

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:48 pm Click here to edit this post
quote
_______________
Stop blaming it on anything else if you can't defend your country properly. Defense is way too strong at the moment and if you can't do it, then find a economic-only game.
_______________

lol i had hardly left my countries undefended.

Im not really interested in an argument with you on this issue. I was simply giving my view on how the nature of the game, and the idea of what consitutes a "good player" has changed. I have no bad feelings with the monkeys. And up to now our discussion on the issue has been cordial despite our fundamental disagreements regarding the game.

Why do you assume people who disagree with a war world are motivated by the person thinking they are about to be conquered??

La Republica del Mertana

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 09:29 pm Click here to edit this post
Outland quote
----------
This game is being slowly reduced to Upgrading corps, adjusting salaries and trade strategies. Now if you want to make this game the most boring you can, you're on a good way imo.
------------

This is exactly the situation for a new player for probably many real time months. What can be done to make new players to stay and pay 5$ a month. Come on guys give it a thought.

Rugnar Geer
President of Kalindra and Mertana
CEO of Geer & Son

Blue

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 09:30 pm Click here to edit this post
And you had your time for a war-free world for a loooong time. Now it's changing, and I think just as many, if not more people are happy about the change.

I can probably list off more non-monkeys who are okay with the war than who aren't okay with it. Interaction is up, the number of players is up, the chat room crowd has doubled in the past two weeks, etc.

Even if the world did get caught with their pants down about how war works in the game, defense is still king. I dare the entire world to take a Taylor Desert country to see what I'm talking about.

I'm really late for work now, but I can address other things later, sorry to see you go Elle.

-Matty

Asgard

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 09:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Why did you have to build "pure military" instead of attempting to balance a detterant sized defence with a good economy?. ..The answer of course is because you choose to. No one forces players to build militaries that put a strain on their economies.

Yet you wish to impose your views of the game on others. You think the game should have penalties unless players are willing to spend endless hours fighting gigantic wars. Your view of fun within the game, is warfare. So you feel everyone should have to play warfare..and dismiss peacefull players telling them to "stick to CEOS" ignoring the other things presidents can deal with within countries.


I can see things from your perspective elle. When I have spoken Abot the "schizophrenia" of the game, This is what I have had in mind. Now, let me try to describe things abit more closley how I see them :)

I do not see myself or any other player trying to push a 'pure miltary' game. I see us as trying to reestabish a balance - a game where war is not as important as the economic simulation, but where it IS important, even if only rarely and in certain situations. A world where there is actually a reason to bother with building a defense above a certain minimum and an offensive capability to match (there certainly is no such reason now, id love to be given the chance to prove it - but I think my colonies with very limited defenses are already doing so quite nicely, and ill leave the defenses as they are)

You and others are trying to force YOUR way of playing the game on those who would like war to exist every now and again just as much as they are trying to force our desires upon you and the rest of the world. I have certainly been persistent in trying to build the kind of game that I want - but so have others szuch as lorien,erehwon, and yes, yourself who have been interested in establishing a world order lacking significant conflict. They are just as megalomaniacal as someone such as myself, in game terms *lauhging to himself thinking about that image*. Well, maybe not quite that much. But still... ;)
is that so difficult to see?

Golden rainbow IS friendly. I do not think a war like this will ever happen again, my creation and training of the 12M was something like a celestial event. Large wars are incredibly rare and will always remain so given the inherent bonuses given to defense -completely ignoring the limits, and pretending they did not exist! This is a good thing! However, for myself and many others, the possibilty of a plausible war is necessary to make the game worth playing. To quote you again:
"Do they have less right to decide what sort of world they are playing in than you do??. "

No, but neither do you have more right than he does! :) When the existing GR powers dictated the way the world would be run , by force when necessary, did you hear the victims (such as myself) complaining about their "right" to do so in game? (think back to the very few previous times when aggressive players were stomped out by world-wide action)

The game is divived into camps of people with different goals, and it has been described as something that can please both of them. This is difficult and I think jozis suggestion is one means of fixing this. Perhaps part of the problem was the initial attraction of many players to fearless blue(advertised as a war world), and the eventual migration of these splayers to the only upgraded golden world available - golden rainbow, which was advertised as a peaceful world. Still, I think that this is only part of the problem and that the real issue is much deeper.

There is a difference between a "war world" - a world dominated by conflict in which war is the most important aspect -, a game in whcih war is uttterly irrelevant and is not important at all -which is the case now given the current war rules - and a balacned world.

Think through your understanding of the war mechanics. Ignoring the new units whihc will likely be changed again very very soon, which of the 3 versions of the world do you reallt ythink exists?
When the top players cannot be defeatead by any conceible force, then the game may as well lack armies altogether, and it becomes stagnant.

I happen to have a very good memory for things I have read, although I can remember about bugger all else. I can recall about half a dozen comments of yours verbatim over the past year and a half in which you indicated a desire for occaisonal conflict: the balance I am describing. I coudl even paste logs or refer to the posts where you put them if you wanted :) Perhaps you recall the scenarios involved? Have you changed your mind? Did you forget? Should I write them here?

Look at the agreement and support you find chiming in on this idea. You have NO idea how many players have approached me, asking to be involved in my federation, and how others "on the other side have told me" they are having fun (poor erehwon, harried and time-less, might be the one in the worst posistion atm). I think such playes constitute not the minonry, but the majority. Many, MANY players have left becaue they did not think the game fixed its "schizpophrenia" - some left because they fought a war they never wanted to fight when starting the game (single-country peace-only players), others because the increasing war restrictions/limits made them decide that conflict was untenable and the game was threfore no fun (volcanus, 75% of the once-members of my fed, HR and a good dozen of his friends, most of the syth, dozens of FB players I could list by (real) name, etc). Although I am perhaps the most vocal and well-known of these players, I am far from the only one.

on golden rainbow, lacking resets, the POSSIBILITY of conflict is perhaps the only thing that could convince many new players that they could be competeitive within many months after starting.

I think many people might join, only to quit in hopelessness after realizing that the top-ranked countries have hundreds of trillions of dollars. Fighting to be competitive would certainly be incredibly difficult , but it would be more plausible than waiting around to accumulate more cash, however unlikely victory might be. If it is possible in the rules, it will occaisonally happen, Even if players willing and able to do such things are rare...they come around from time to time.

This is not only interesting for a game, I think it is realistic as well. A simgame in which force is irrelevant cannot claim to be a simulation of a world in which there were major wars every year over the last century.

I think Jozis suggestion is absolutely inspired. Combined with a very few changes to the war mechanics(removing the limits or chaning the new units, tweaking a very few numbers, and fixing the errors) I think it would provide the blance lacking probably since the beginning of the game and the ability to satisfy anyone. Ive already stated why in previous posts.

I believe this is a crossroads, and a crossroads I worked very hard to force into the open(!!!!!finally!!!): I think The only other rational action would be to remove player-player war altogether, which is think would be a mistake for the game, but would make it internally self-consistent and please some people while making others quit.

Simcountry Introduction