Simcountry Home   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Terminology
online games, multiplayer games
bullet Simcountry is an Online Digital World where you are the President of a country.
bullet No download needed!
What is Simcountry?
Beginners Info
What is Simcountry?
| | | | |
Previous Thread: TNN SimNews :: Your News- Stand for Simcountry
Next Thread: Shortage of HLW and insufficient traintracks maintaince

W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested

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


Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 06:11 am Click here to edit this post
Actually, I think there was some amount of non-bug damage done to 12M Taylor Desert countries via nuclear submarines. Not much damage, and at great expense to the attacker, but it was something.


Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 11:59 am Click here to edit this post
My suggestion is to create the "Peace Countries" and make it irreversible. This will make people decide what kind of game they want to play.

We want to implement it on all worlds and allow existing users to convert to the "Peaceful" status.

This conversion will only be possible under some conditions. An obvious one is that the country will have to rid itself of all conquered countries. We might want to also limit conversion to countries with some max. population.

Once converted, they cannot sell any weapons, cannot declare war and cannot be attacked ever again.

We are not completely sure yet about the population limit or other limitations.

Any ideas?

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:10 pm Click here to edit this post
That detail is difficult to decide on. I like your suggestion as it stands. The populatoin limit, if implemented, should not too small (or the new countries will take too long to be competitive, and existing players will be unlikley to convert), but should not be very large for the opposite reason. Perhaps 15-25 Million people, since that is about the level of the largest computer -controlled countries, and would let both types of countries compet - for awhile, until the peace-only contries had time to build up.

I would like to hear input from people who would be interested in converting.

Perhaps wait a little while for people to discuss it, and post the suggestion on the other bulletin boards, and see what such players think?

Hectors Dream

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:12 pm Click here to edit this post
perhaps if a country was over the maximum populatoin before converting, the population could simply be reduced to the limit, whatever it was, permitting any players interested in the conversion to do so without losing the country they have worked on for perhaps a long time.

La Republica del Mertana

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:15 pm Click here to edit this post
Im a new player and have been here for a week or so and I dont like the idea of making irreversible 'Peace only Countries'.
This ideea is only good for old and very powerful countries. As a newbee you have big problems to just understand the rules (which seem to change often).
I have 2 countries Kalindra and Mertana. I m also CEO for Geer & Son.
You should pay more attention to the newcombers and make it easier to get started.

As it is now we are getting boored and will not continue paying for playing here.


Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:37 pm Click here to edit this post
I was under the impression that the old weapon systems were finally close to a ballance. We see very large wars and it seems like the attacker does get through but a good defense can prevent a lot of damage.

We also see countries being conquered every game month and luckily, not all wars end with defeat of one of the two. Winning a war is possible but not easy and rightly so.

Our main worry in the war game was the single country, not interested in war, being conquered by a large army while the player was someone interested in the economic aspects of the game.

We also limited the size of attacks for this reason.

With the peace option in the game, the logic may change. We can make the max. size of an attack depend on the defense index of the country being attacked. If it is very strong (index > ???), the size of the attackes can be larger.

The new weapons are a danger and we have now tuned them once yesterday and once more today. We will keep an eye on them and try to balance this more quickly than in the past.

I see references to errors in the fighting process and I know of none. There are probably some errors in there.

If someone claims that part of the process does not work we need details, not just general data.

We need a short message telling us what the error is, the world, the countries involved, the details of the attack, time may help, and what went wrong. We need data that will help us identify the attack.

If we get such specific mail, we can look into the fighting log that shows us each and every attack that took place. The log is massive and shows everything blow by blow. If something is wrong we will see exactly what and why.

Unfortunately what we usually get are impressions that might indeed point to an error but are insufficient to pinpoint the attack. By the time we have the details, the log is gone.

We have at least 5 Gb of logs (not only the war logs), for each game month and we cannot keep them for ever.

We have also looked into the air defense. More testing will be done today and whatever we find will be corrected. It may also be that with very small numbers, defense is rounded down and there is an increased chance that one or two attackers get through.

We will test more and let you know.

pink enterprises

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:59 pm Click here to edit this post
With the peace option in the game, the logic may change. We can make the max. size of an attack depend on the defense index of the country being attacked. If it is very strong (index > ???), the size of the attackes can be larger.

I like a lot of the ideas discussed here. But i think this one would cause all sorts of problems.

It would be open to abuse with people maintaining very small looking defence indexes to limit the attacker(for instance using offense weapons deployed in defence, or only using weapons that do not greatly raise defence index). And it would make unagressive players, in some cases more vulnerable as a result of working on their defence.

If balancing defence vs offence is a headache atm, i would dread to think how difficult it would be to balance a variable attack / defensive limit and keep track of the loopholes people find.


Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 01:16 pm Click here to edit this post
i'm not to sure if i would agree with the idea. because the game is based apon war and economics, you carn't have just one or the other. by introducing such a thing you would be changing the game play. if some one wants to work on an economical side of the game tahts why you can be a CEO, if you want to control a contry you must take every responsability taht comes with it.

Lions foot

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 02:10 pm Click here to edit this post
strongly against peacefull countries, too. now there are mainly two powerfull alliances. rough speaking monkey and nonmonkey. one is devoted to war while other isn't. implementing peacefull countries will throw world even more out of balance, because i can't imagine any of monkeyes to take peacefull option, leaving them in dominant position. i don't have anything against you guys. could as well be any other fed.

also two different types of playing, with single best player list is a bad idea too. there will never be equal conditions for both, it's impossible. peacefull countrys will need a lot of time to get on top, but when they will, war like won't have a chance with finance and assets index valued high as it is now.

at start war countries are in great advantage. for instance you can have 5 developed countries. one totally peacefull (no army and in fed with others), others armed to their teeth to repel possible attacks. if one fed gains military control over GR world, achiving this would be very simple and easy to maintain. in extreme situation all would agree to become peacefull and have 20 countries to run against 1 peacefull. i could go on for hours...

i'm suggesting implementing battle casaulties. didn't notice them (although there might be). it's kind of funny looking wars where only civilians die. soldiers just keep returning for new hardware and rushing back to war. if his weapon is destroyed, soldier should die. not all (some of them are only maintenance staff), but some should. different number for defending and attacking, since attacker is in hostile enviroment while defender isn't. this will prevent contracting weapons in quantities you expect to lose through war. there won't be anyone to mann them. also it will require large amounts of manpower to be trained to wage war and economical situation will be cathastrophic because workers (LLW and MLM) will be killed, throwing off balance number of working and others (retired, disabled... ).

Simcountry Introduction