| Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 08:09 pm |
Matty, I think you miss my point. That is, with attack limits removed or significantly raised, the dynamic of war will shift too far in the other direction. I'm not saying that things are OK the way they are. I'm trying to point out that removing attack limits may cause SC to devolve into a mindless bash. I don't have to wait to see it happen to understand the implications of proposed rules changes.
| Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 08:28 pm |
with attack limits removed or significantly raised, the dynamic of war will shift too far in the other direction.
Well I disagree with that, and know of many others who would disagree as well. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but seals and RDUs have recently been weakened to about 33% of their former strength, and nearly all defensive units require less soldiers now.
Even in your scenario, it would take a much larger attacking force and much more planning to conquer a defender. If you can't deal with the fact that the 12 Monkeys greatly outnumber you, and border you, then do something about it other than trying to change the rules again. Move your empire, or quit complaining that you only have 5 countries in the top ten now instead of your usual 7-8.
The fact is this. You have by far the richest empire in the game. You are bordering by far the largest, most experienced military in the game. A military which wishes to conquer you. That's your problem and only your problem. It is not a problem with the war rules.
And I think maybe you miss my point. Nothing so dramatic is going to be changed by w3c pre-emptively. Every change I've seen so far has been reactionary, so I think you're wasting your breath.
| Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 08:37 pm |
Also, there are far more pressing problems with war that Jozi just won't address. Like all the little bugs that can make a country invincible.
| Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 09:21 pm |
Matty, I absolutely agree with you about the "invincible" war bugs. They are problems requiring solution soonest.
About the war limits, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Sometimes the changes made to the game tend to "oversteer," and I think that elimination of attack limits without other changes to the war game will be one of them (if and when it ever happens).
But I don't think you disagree with my sentiment that the war game needs to have more depth. I'm more optimistic than you, perhaps, about the willingness of the game designers to see that.
About my empire being a juicy target, I know you are right (though I'm not sure if I'm the richest, and I certainly won't be if I win next month). I never had to be as concerned about war, so it's natural that I have some concerns about the direction of the game.
| Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:03 am |
About the war game, it's about time someone finally figured out that it has ALWAYS been possible to attack a major empire or federation. I know that I have dropped a few hints in some limited conversations with other players.
As far as I'm concerned, all the fuss and bother over the war game and the evidence that it is impossible to attack a large player has been so much meaningless noise. The problem with the war game was not the inability to attack - in fact the war game favors the attacker and it always has. The problems remain, as ever, the lack of depth and the very odd ability of everyone to know exactly where every weapon all the time.
I haven't written this to Jozi, but perhaps I should describe it to him in more detail if I make it that far.
| Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:30 am |
the reason you are able to see your opponents weapons whenever you like is because of your long range "radar planes"' which i beleave double for spy planes, like the U.S has. However it might be interesting to add in mock weapons to your weapons stockpile to decive your enemies .
| Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 04:23 pm |
Read my posts under suggestions from long, long ago, suggesting a method of representing limited intelligence instead of unlimited intelligence. Much more realistic, more challenging and fun. Never instituted.
| Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 09:06 pm |
This is unrealistic, even the best spy planes can't know locations of weapons with such precision. It is impossible, unless you have omniscient pilots. And yes I beleive everyone knows that you hafta to have a long range radar planes in order to inspect targets. We are after all not stupid.
| Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 10:13 pm |
How about spy satellites or just plain old spies....
Or maybe you have a team of accountants that track the sales of every weapon company to where they go and then track the losses of each weapon through the very public newspaper thus are able to put together a picture of what every country owns