| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 03:08 am |
Having fewer countries wont ruin the fun of war itself but it will ruin the War impact on the Awards. I think that to win the 1st award someone has to master both sides of the game, economics and weaponry. Those who will decide to fight wars will have to build a strong economy while having a very good defense and offense to win an award while the Peaceful countries will only need to have a strong economy. Yes, the armies can give some points to score but it's a small part compared to economy and a Peaceful country just has to build a small only-defensive army to have an high score.
Peaceful countries should have only very smaller awards avalaible since they decide to play the game without any risk. Less risks should mean less awards or the game isnt really fair anymore.
Matt, I had no reason to post/tell anything before, Im not really active anyway. I just found this thread interesting and that I could bring my point of view in it. But hello anyway
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:28 am |
Having a sliding scale of attack limits based on defence would have several problems
It would encourage people to build empires with tiny armies..after all why bother building a big defence if after the effort, your no better off than someone with a tiny defence (and of course less strain on the economy). You might even end up with the situation where empires destroy weapons in order to make themselves less vulnerable!. Part of the challenge is
balancing a large military with the economy.
This slideable limit would also lessen the signifigance of federations.
For new players you could either extend the unattackable phase, or simply make them unattackable untill they start their first war (including c3 countries). As a single country they are a threat to noone, they have all the time they want as well then to build defence.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:21 pm |
huh, best solutions are always simple. i think you might have solved the problem. there are enough large countries to start. with high health and welfare index combined with workers exchange and comming migrations there are enough means to get higher population even if you dont take C3s. instead of investing in army they will invest in population growth. problem is what to do when they hit 60 mil population mark.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:53 pm |
There is a good point here about higher awards being paid to players doing the complete game. We do pay ceo's who are playing a limted game with fewer competitors.
So awards should be seperate or we can look into combined peaceful countries awards with CEOs awards?
Making a country involnurable to attacks as long as they do not start a war, is also smart but if we let them buy a huge defense before they start a war, that will give them a big advantage. We can extend the no war period for new players to 100 months. That will give them more time.
In that case we can increase the attack size. A sliding limitation is indeed a strange concept and may invite all kinds of manipulations.
We will also make another increase in the amount you can spend each month and possibly lift more limitations to increase the pace. With countries in the free worlds limited to 130 days, they will also be able to build faster.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:04 pm |
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:04 pm |
jozi, elle, I think youve just solved it simply and elegantly. I would have suggested the same thing , 90 or 100 month protecion (about 1 real month), but you had both already posted it.
I have known many players quit because of the problems spoken about in this thread. Many of them asked me to email them "if things changed", and they woudl return to the game.
I think what they were waiting for all this time was this very discussion.
Frankly, if this suggestion is implemented, I think the justification for all of he limits placed on warfare (besides the ones we are planning on adding!) will be gone, and they should be removed once and for all.
lions foot, making population growth harder as opulations increase is the asnwer. This is also realistic. Plagues are also being introduced, which reminds me, sine jozi is reading this thread:
I think the msot elegant long-term solution to the processing problem is to make computer controlled countries build poor health care systems, and be afflicted by regular plagues. This models the real world rather well, with high birth rates and high death rates in countries lacking developed helath care. When players register these countriesz, they can fix the health care systems and achieve rapid population growth until their populatoin reaches a large number and density. If this is done, the game popualtion will be limited, and the processing will be much much simpler for all worlds. The economy will also be controlled more by the players (owning many corporations in large countries) than the computer, making the economy much more realistic. I think this would make the game better in many ways.
A simpler solution would be simply to limit the population in computer countries to a smaller number.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:24 pm |
i hope a warning would be issued before plague type stuff is put into the game..while i do appreciate its a nice idea (although in reality the poorest countries often have the largest populations)....(rushes off to build some hospitals, then remembers she isnt supposed to be here anymore).
With respect to limits, i think the quirks need to be hunted down and eliminated first before we even look at limits..avalon and i had arrived at the same conclusion as to what was happening, but im too lazy to write it down ;p. Also with no limits it might alter the balance between defence and offence, with people buying just one effective weapon in huge quantities. Which they can then use in a focussed attack on a single target. Whereas the defence has to be spread amongst many defensive units to cover many potential types of attack. ATM with RDU staying the same, agressors have something to work with. Id imagine an attack by 10000 RDU would take some stopping..
I still think that a defensive army of 1M if well thought out should need a much larger offense,
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:48 pm |
To have a limited population in the Computer Controlled Countries (is that CCC or C3) might be a good idea, but that will make it even worse for a newbe to buy that country. Och..
President of Kalindra and Mertana
CEO of Geer & Son
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:14 pm |
elle, it does. the world doesnt end when you lose your airforce. In fact if things qwuiet down id love to hallenge you to take one of my countries without an airforce, or with a tiny one, using a country of yours with 5 times the army at sea, or 3 times the army as a neighbor. id even take the neighbor for you.
10k is something, but many fed defenses still could not be broken with it. It would simply be the matter of beating the artifical limit...again. This is a huge step back.
Once people realized that the limits made tehm invulnerable, they simply stoped buying defenses. I know I did. ifg it were removed, the sky (and the employment numebrs) woudl be the limit.
plagues have been in the works for ages elle. I expect that they were just waiting for the new server to implement them.
I feel weve been over your other points 100 times. Dont get cold feet now, were on the brink of something big..something ive been workong towawrds for ages!