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: Financial Institutions
Next Thread: "Peace only" country feature - Rendered Useless

W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested

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

luthien tinuviel

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:55 am Click here to edit this post
hehe gray its midnight here, you will have to excuse my incomplete wording.

To fully participate in warfare at the current scale..

better?

;p

anyway off to bed, have fun

Erehwon3

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:17 am Click here to edit this post
Repeats to self: "It's not a simulation, it's a game. It's not a simulation, it's a game. It's not a simulation, it's a game." Argh!

Erehwon3

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:19 am Click here to edit this post
If the proposal on the board to allow 100 months of immunity to new countries goes into effect it will allow any new country to register and then build for 100 months in order to attack a neighbor. Things are far enough from reality without giving Geography another kick in the nuts.

Ex

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:21 am Click here to edit this post
I agree erehwon when was the last time 5 million people died in a nuclear attack

Ex

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:24 am Click here to edit this post
to fix that prob with 100 months erehwon, the countries would to lose immunity when your strat and off index gets to high or their army pop to large.

new skin for old ceremony

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:35 am Click here to edit this post
good idea.

better yet, just lose the immunity when their defense index hits a certain value. After all the, point is to protect weak players, not new ones, or to endanger old ones.

I thought your issues might be those , matt. The tension as far as im concerend has come from trying to be both at once.A simulation that no one wants to play is worthless.
I think this idea will go a long ways towards finding a middle ground. SC hsa the potential to be good simply because of the difficulty of the prospect -no one else is really trying to do it, and if jozi succeeds, it will be unique.

much more to post but not yet :) Im preparing a marathon post with lots of info. You have been warned.

Erehwon3

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:43 am Click here to edit this post
I posted this in the wrong thread:

About the Peaceful Country notion, I personally think that it is an awful idea. But then this is a game and not a simulation (I think I read that somewhere else).

Rather than add more layers of silliness, the war system and it's relation to socio-economic elements need to be fixed. I have made innumerable suggestions in this regard, and a few have actually been considered by the game designers but not put into effect.

There are plenty of ways to make war in this game more challenging and interesting without warping things farther. Without going into all the details, here are a few ideas that could be combined with lifting the unrealistic weapons attack limits:

1. Limited Intelligence. Why the hell do we know where every last enemy unit is all the time? This one should be a no brainer and putting it into effect would add an interesting layer to the game (look deep in the Suggestions Thread for this one - there are lots of good details).

2. Fix the freaking ranges! Units are way too effective from far away than they should be for game and for reality terms. Or, add a command and control factor, based partly on relevant country indices, that would reduce the number of units participating in any attack the farther the range is as a proportion of max range.

3. Reward good economic management in wartime with more than increased purchasing power, e.g., welfare effects on war results (damage?), health effects on casualties, education effects on weapons effectivenss (technology should be key, but it has no effect and strong education is even washed out of the mix of workers employed by the military which is just plain wrong - it should have some effect).

4. War effects on economy: Interest rates go up, pup! War should use resources well beyond those needed to build units - units ought to use resources like gasoline, food, clothing, etc. They could use less in peacetime, more in wartime generally, and much more every time they are used! This too should be a no-brainer! Suggestions have been made on this topic too.

I have only begun to scrape the surface. But it goes to show that I think that the proposed new rules are going in completely the wrong direction.

Erehwon3

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:44 am Click here to edit this post
I posted this in the wrong thread, so here it is in the right place:

About the Peaceful Country notion, I personally think that it is an awful idea. But then this is a game and not a simulation (I think I read that somewhere else).

Rather than add more layers of silliness, the war system and it's relation to socio-economic elements need to be fixed. I have made innumerable suggestions in this regard, and a few have actually been considered by the game designers but not put into effect.

There are plenty of ways to make war in this game more challenging and interesting without warping things farther. Without going into all the details, here are a few ideas that could be combined with lifting the unrealistic weapons attack limits:

1. Limited Intelligence. Why the hell do we know where every last enemy unit is all the time? This one should be a no brainer and putting it into effect would add an interesting layer to the game (look deep in the Suggestions Thread for this one - there are lots of good details).

2. Fix the freaking ranges! Units are way too effective from far away than they should be for game and for reality terms. Or, add a command and control factor, based partly on relevant country indices, that would reduce the number of units participating in any attack the farther the range is as a proportion of max range.

3. Reward good economic management in wartime with more than increased purchasing power, e.g., welfare effects on war results (damage?), health effects on casualties, education effects on weapons effectivenss (technology should be key, but it has no effect and strong education is even washed out of the mix of workers employed by the military which is just plain wrong - it should have some effect).

4. War effects on economy: Interest rates go up, pup! War should use resources well beyond those needed to build units - units ought to use resources like gasoline, food, clothing, etc. They could use less in peacetime, more in wartime generally, and much more every time they are used! This too should be a no-brainer! Suggestions have been made on this topic too.

I have only begun to scrape the surface. But it goes to show that I think that the proposed new rules are going in completely the wrong direction.

Erehwon3

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:45 am Click here to edit this post
Begins to look like a new and different game, doesn't it Matt?

Simcountry Introduction