| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:52 am |
Matt, of course you're right. Matty, you too. Ex, the AF really wasnt that cohesive a force, and everybody in it started off small too... But that's old news.
Earlier, I was thinking regretfully that had I only been more active in keeping my fed together, or had I only spent the last couple of game years using my huge economies to arm, or had I... whatever... And then I realized that had I truly wanted to do that, I might have done it. But I didn't do it and it made me a fat, vulnerable target.
Not that I wasn't aware of the threat. The Monkeys didn't plop down in Taylor D. and move on into the next province to the north, for no reason. Like defending an ally in a hopeless situation, I made a choice.
I've got so much new here to do in a new job in a new country, that I really don't regret decreasing my participation in SC even more than I have done. Who knows, maybe in my spare time I will work on a new game...
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:54 am |
And how, you may ask, am I online at 4am?!?! Ha, I borrowed a friend's laptop and dialup connection. It's so slow I think I could spit the bytes faster, and my phone bill is going to look something fierce, but here I am sort of...
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 05:17 am |
Here is another idea how about starting the range of all units from the edge of your federation not from point of origin
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 06:38 am |
I'm glad to see Jozi has rethought the population limits. The clumsy attempt by W3 and myself to reduce population by 20m made my country so vulnerable.
Personally,I see no great attraction in an economy only game (live by the sword , die by the sword) but the small attack bug with the strat bombers needs to be fixed.
I enjoyed all your posts, this forum is long overdue. Good idea to increase the time period of protection for new players , but what if ,as happened to me, an obviously aggressive neighbour appears? There needs to be a limit to what they can build aggessively with impunity. (As I think someone suggested)
Did I understand correctly that country transfers are over? I hope so. At least with the enemy on one world he can be watched (even in my own low-tech way)
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 10:43 am |
Alright, now its finally time for me to put my money where my mouth is and offer the feedback I promised. Jozi, these will not be short posts, but I will try not to make them any longer than I need, and I will try to be clear. I wont talk about any details of the current happenings in-game unless I think they are directly relevant to my points.
This is the first post, and will be about the peace-only country option. I think that the idea is great, and it will fix part of the fundamental tension in the game, but has a few fatal flaws as it has been implemented. My main concerns are 1) When a country is allowed to become peaceful, and 2) The competition, or lack thereof, between peaceful coutnries once they are started.
The decision to run a peaceful country or a non-peacful country is not a decision about a trivial detail concerning something within the game itself. Rather, it reflects the attitude and goals of the player involved. Some players want only an economic simulation. They do not have much tiem to spent, or want the abilty to play very casually. Others liek teh excitment and challenge of empire building, competing with other players in conditions of risk.
As such, I think the option to become peaceful should only be given to new countries which are just being registered or to countries which have only been registered for a short period of time (perhaps a real life week?).
This will permit those players which have no interest in anything but the economic side of the game to chose that road immediately, and never worry about being conquered, war, or politics in the game at all. At the same time, it will ensure that the ability to become a peaceful country is not abused. If the option exists for all players, they will abuse it in two important ways. Countries will be converted when they are capable of winning awards after being built up to large populations using slaves captured in war, as part of a large empire. Even more importantly, countries at war who expect to lose will convert to peacful status and save themself from conquest. No one will ever be conquered in war again if the ability to turn peaceful exists, and no one will ever attack -why bother, if your opponent can become peaceful at will?
If this option is not changed, w3c may as well remove the ablity to fight against other players. Some countries facing certain extinction have already chosen this option, and the thrust of the current main war on this server stopped when the aggressors decided that there was no purpose in prosecuting their battle when the enemy could evade them at will. It is one thing to outthink, outbuild, outplan, out-strategize, and outfight another player. It is anotheirng thing entirely to try and do the same to the people in control of the game itself. God, as it were
Obviously, this has already happened, and I am not asking for things to be changed back. I am quite willing to accept the current chain of events in exchange for a game which is more balanced in the long run, and I knew that the implementtion woudl be difficult and have some kinks. I just wish it had waited a bit longer to be a little more thought out.
Second, in oyour initial suggestion, you said :
You will be able to compete for the same awards without incurring the cost of the army but you will have no empire and will run just one country and none of the financial advantages that go with it.
You have not followed the suggestion as you first described it. Players continue to have empires, within which peaceful counntries exist. This feature must be implemented. Players with a peaceful country should only have ONE country. Conquering many countries - playing the war game and building an empire - and then changing your mind and becoming "peaceful" is not acceptable. It is not fair to those countries which only DO have one country, or to other competing empires, and neither does it does not make sense since the decisions is supposed to be about the players attitude toward the game itself.
Players who wish to do both could possibly start more than one account, or play on more than one world. However, this is related to another difficulty, which ill get to shortly.
In both cases, we have the problem with inroducing the feature. My suggestion is that for the next 2 weeks, any player may tag a country as peaceful. If they do so, they must give up all of their other countries, and their population may be reduced. If they already have tagged a peacful country, they must deregister it or designate which country they want to be peaceful, and lose all other countries.
After this 2 week period is up, new players must decide whether a country they register is peaceful either as soon as they register it, or a short period of time afterwards (perhaps a real week time, to give them a while to decide). If they do not convert their country to peacful status in this time, they will never be permitted to do so. Of course, they will still be protected for 100 months.
The game documentation could be updated to make it very clear what this decision would mean. Players who are not interested in conflict at all can chose the peacful option imediately, and those who feel intersted in conflict and empire building, or want to keep the option open, can leave it alone - and avoid the temptation of exploiting the option to become peaceful if they are ever threatened.
The next difficulty is how peaceful countries will compete. First of all, players should not be allowed to own more than one peaceful country on golden rainbow. One player already has 4 accounts with very well-established peaceful countries. He plans to win awards each month if possible with a country, accepting the penalty in that country only, and then win the next month with one of his other countries. Since he is alredy rich and established, I think his plan will work. This is very, very unfair to newer players who will try to compete with him. the only thing that might have levelled the playing field is war, and war is obvouly not an option with these countries. As a result, they wil never be able to compete with him or others who do the same.
Also, since growth rates will be so slow and there is no danger of conquest, peaceful countries may need another option besides total assets and money to make competition possible.
One suggestion would be to make the common and local markets 10 times as important in calculating the score. At the moment, the monetary sacrifices a player makes to play the common market thoroughly make them less competeiive, not more. If this were changed, the score of peaceful countries would be much more depending on planning the needs of their citizens and designing their economies in complicated ways. The financial index and per capita GDP could be important as well.
If you are willing to listen to other ideas, I am willing to share them. Otherwise, I wont take up both of our time in writing them down. My conceren is simply that new players will not be able to get to the top ranks as a peacful country with the current rule system, no matter how well they play.
Finally, the 100 month protection should be forfeit if a country declares war, OR if it acquires a very large dfense index. It will not need such protection in that case, and might even be planning a huge war on its neighbor, against which they could do nothing but watch. The exact number suggested is open to some debate. Perhaps a defense index of 500? (which is quite large, and should offer a LOT of protection but not presenta huge danger either)
I think that these suggestions will finish balncing out the peacful country option, and make everyone happy, despite the fact that the introduction of the rules will cause (and has already caused) some degree of chaos in game. Changing them sooner - to stop potential abuse - rather than later is wise.
I have faith that you will think it through and come to a decision in time. I know that it is not simple, and this discussion has waited a long time. I am frustrated, but I can wait a little longer - and I think it is worth waiting for. I remain convinced that if this function is worked out prperly, simcountry will gain many many more players very soon..players who left becasue they were conquered, and those who left in frustration at the limits to war.
My next post will contain all of the details of the bugs in the war system that I have gathered.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 11:03 am |
Just a pathetic unrealistic game feature that has been introduced yet again that has just managed to save hymyland v in the nick of time. This game is becoming an extreme boring joke that doesn’t reflect any real life strategy. Are the technicians below ten years of age and I must be mad for paying for this rubbish.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 12:26 pm |
2. War bugs.
The first and most critical war bug involves the response of defending aircraft. Before I talk about it, I will refer anyone interesed to the war logs for the country "hymyland V" (country number 919) for april 2149. An example of the kind of attack I have in mind:
Hostilities between Plague and Hymyland V
Thu Apr 24, 2149 Plague ground or air force attacks city of Maraton
On the side of Hymyland V there were 91771 casualties and 275314 people were wounded. Maraton is very severely damaged. On the Hymyland V side no weapon losses were reported. The Plague forces lost 36 strategic bombers. The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles. The Hymyland V defense was assisted by the air force.
From the war logs, you will see that that country had many defending interceptors (around 10000 at the time), and many many more were in range to defend it using the reources of its federation.
If the interceptors had fired before the strategic bombers, they all would have been destroyed before launching a successful attack. This is the main problem. Making these units fire first should end the flaw, period.
When larger attacks were launched, all of the units were destroyed without doing any damage at all. This makes eme suspect that the when the attack is large enough to require federation assistance to squash, the defending aircraft fire first for whatever reason. This fact made the bug very confusing, hard to find, and hard to verify. You can find examples of this by looking further in your logs against other countries; just search for attacks against very large air forces in which the attacker lost the maximum number of units. An intentional example not using air units follows between country number 570 and country number 1219 in october 2149:
Hostilities between Hectors Dream and Erehwon3
Thu Oct 5, 2149 Hectors Dream ground or air force attacks Odin offensive military
The Erehwon3 forces used 716 missile interceptors in the defense. The Hectors Dream forces lost 10000 mid range missile batteries. The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles. The Erehwon3 defense was assisted by the Gondolin,Hyperboria,Icaria and Kodiak air force.
No damage was done before all of the units were destroyed. The proper defenses were triggered, requiring federation assistance to quish properly. I would like to have used an example of attakcing air units, but I have not launched one in the last 18 months and lack the opportunity now. If it will help, I will attack a target and lose a full 10k of them in a controlled circumstance to demonstate the point more clearly.
The defensive aircraft are suposed to shoot first according to the documentation, but they do not. The defensive batteries shoudl shoot next, not before the aircraftl; then offensive batteries deployed defensively should fire, and finally defending land units.
The flaw seems to have something to do with the response of the defending batteries - missle interceptor batteries and defnesive anti aircraft batteries do shoot first. Then, the offensive weapons fire, doing damage on their chosen target. Only afterwards does the air force respond.
I had considered speculating about it the causes on the boards, but ill leave it to the admins, since I have no way of being sure what is wrong without looking at the code and any speculation might prove simply confusing. If youd like to hear my thoughts anyway, ask and ill share them.
The next bug involves the auto-defense system, specifically the deployment of defensive batteries and land units. Players have the option of turning on auto-defense, meaning that a location which is attacked will have its defenses changed dynamically by the computer system in the event of damage and attack. Users also have the option of manually defending the locations in their country, and unchecking the option for the game to defend it manually. This bug occurred when shiva was conquered by cymru bychan (country number) in june, 2148.
After defending his targets manually, M P, the player controlling Shiva, went to bed. When he returned he found his country nearly conquered, and that almost all of his batteries had been automatically undeployed - despite the fact that he unselected the option for automatic defense.
Becasuse the targets were mostly undefended when the system moved the units around, they were easy to hit and the country was quickly lost.
Units were sent to defend fortifications which did not need defending, drawing massive numbers of units away from the more valuable cities and factories, where they had been placed.
The defenses seem to always stay where they are put until an attack occurs. This bug is also hard to verify, but ive seen it happen at least a doxen times in the war. It also occured in th country "stardust" (permitting his corporations to be hit by nuclear submarine missles until I called a halt to it, all of his missle interceptor batteries were automatically withdrawn from them to home base) and in the coutnry "grey" (deefnsive anti aircraft betteries were the case here).
The next 'bug' is that countries no longer reset when their business and trade indics hit 0. You can see examples of this in the countries "spring dice" (country number 236) around october 2147. Prior to being conquered, its business and trade inex hovered at 0 for several months, and the country did not reset.
The first 2 errors are important. The thrid is les simportant but still worth noticing.
Some of this may be confusing. If you require any more details or explanation I will be happy to try and provide them.
It would be much easier for you to understand them if you would be willing to fight a test war against a real player. I would be willing to volnteer to let you shoot at me. I do not intend to be presumptuous, but if you saw these things for yourself, many things about the war system as a whole which are confusing would be clearer. Please consider the sugegstion , regarles of whteher my explanation is clear.
Next , a few (simple!) suggestions concerning the war system. Other features are not bugged, but I think require a bit of balancing. Dont worry, there arent too many
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 01:38 pm |
Im in the middle here.
Many will say "why should established countries be offered a peace option". Well the answer is simple. The world many of them came to play, in which war was small scale..has been turned completely on its head. And the relaxing of the limits has meant it is set to turn frther on its head. So, they are being given a chance to keep their part in simcountry, while allowing the more warlike payers lessening of the limits they hate so much.
However, i understand the fustration, and greys comments about people might feel they have a free liscence to do what they like...then go peaceful.
Well the answer imho is simple.
Once a country FROM THIS POINT declares war on anyone. It loses its ability to gain a peacefull status. Short term this may cause issues with current wars. But looking long term. This would work well, ie the first sign of agression the country shows, it loses its option.
Certainly though grey, avalon etc. The scale of warfare on GR has changed dramatically. And there will be players (not nessecarily many) who want nothing to do with the "new" GR but dont want to quit the game altogether.
This allows them to do so. Its just very unlucky on your part with the countries involved and the timing
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 01:40 pm |
on the subject of bugs there seems to be one i dont understand.
If one member of a fed has a weak air force, and is attacked. (attack on its defenses to draw the fed air force out). The other fed air forces sortying to help seem to become very vlnerable, like lemmings in fact.
Wether its because they dont shoot first if from a neighbouring country, or im just imagining it but there ya go.