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: Attention: New 12 Monkey War Policy
Next Thread: Selling some weapons

War problem

Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board  War problem

Venus

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 01:31 am Click here to edit this post
Recently, there has been changes to the war index, making it near impossible to take over a C3.
Now let me give an example of a recent war. I fought c3 with it's index starting at 60. After destroying nearly all the major cities, it index went down by 5-6 points. Destroying the capital and the remaining cities would probably take down another 6. (12 points.) Next, i targeted the corps. Each corp gave me 0.2 reduction in war index. Each military base gave me a 0.5 reduction. (note there were only 3 military bases)(total 1.5, assuming wc3 is correct, that the reduction due to war index is calculated in already).
Given these figures, i roughly estimate that destroying ALL the military bases,cities capital, plus war damage will give a mere 20 reduction to the war index. Where are the other 40 points going to come from?? Destroying the counties will only provide another few extra points. And to reduce employment and business and trade index, i would have to destroy nearly ALL corps to get a significant reduction.

War before was already hard with the defense of C3 boosted. Now, it's nearly impossible to conquer a weak C3. (not to mention the poor c3 after my attacks has an asset of -11 billion, lol). I feel that such changes, although they do they make harder, is just way too much and is likely to discourage new players from warring. And if you have to destroy everything valuable in the country, i'm sure not many players would spend the effort to actually war each other, and simcountry would lose one of it's appeal of its game. Could you look into this matter.

MaBo

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 01:48 am Click here to edit this post
I sent them this email two days ago:

While I appreciate all the hard work you do, and the
way you're clearly listening to what we say and
responding to us, I can't express anything but dismay
at the new war changes. The gap between the dominant
players and the newer players has been widened. In
order to conquer countries and expand one's empire, a
person has to virtually destroy the entire desired
country...which ruins the whole point of conquest.
This isn't the same game that I bought so many Gold
Credits for just two weeks ago. In my opinion if you
destroy all the military and cities of a country, it
should fall.

It's appreciated that all the defensive holes have
been plugged, but it is now literally impossible to
take some countries. Implementing rules to punish
successful players doesn't necessarily make it easier
for newer players. It only makes the game more
difficult, stagnant, and boring for everyone. I get
the feeling these changes are intended to slow growth.
But the dominant players don't NEED to grow any more.
Only the new players do. They're the only ones
you're harming.

My feelings on this matter are not uncommon. Many
influential and established players have quit recently
for this very reason as I'm sure you've seen on the
bulletin boards.

'Holy Reign' on Golden Rainbow has recently quit the
game, and declared war on many very powerful GR countries.
They're using up all their offensive forces trying to
take him, and can't. The changes are far too extreme.

If you have intentions of continuing to phase out war
as an aspect of the game, or don't intend on
rectifying this recent stagnation, I wouldn't mind
getting my money back and having my gold credits
revoked. Certainly I won't be buying any more.


...

They haven't responded yet.

Treboria

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 01:50 am Click here to edit this post
I'm having the same problem with a C3. Have wasted a few thousand navy fighters and a trillion dollars worth of navy fighter missiles but can't seem to get it below 12% even though everything was blown up 100%. Only the 30 corps left but they will not get me the 12% I need to take it over. :( So am currently just torturing the population until something gives...seems that the only countries being taken over lately are those that are being imported from other worlds.

l Imperio Colombiano l

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 06:13 pm Click here to edit this post
Its amazing how this game changed after the resets. It has become a shore and not a fun game. Many people will leave unless this "Improvements" are changed.

Missouri A

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 08:43 pm Click here to edit this post
(sigh) Don't know why you can't take C3's I've done it here, I've done it in the free worlds since the changes.

Yes I do have to destroy the military (which was a major reason I had for conquering a C3 before) and a lot more infrastructure than I use to but I've still been happy with the result.

If you have a real reason to take a C3 you can do it two ways.

1) Get several of your countries involved in the attack and hammer the hell out of it until it's yours. This is impractical from a time standpoint as it takes around 4 hours.

2) Just plan on 3 game months and hit targets when ever you have time and the inclination.

The days of blowing through a country in two game days with brute force are over. You have to have a wider range of weapons to not only do it but make it worth while.

IMHO they have not widened the gap between the small player and the large ones, they've just made it more important to decide if war is worth it.

War is nothing more than the application of violent force to achieve national objectives. What are your objectives????

That's not to say I don't think work needs to be done. I just seem to be one of the few if not the only person in this game that doesn't see that big a problem.

And before you start, I'm not in a position to take on someone like HR however, I AM in a position to prevent someone like HR who just wants to go out with a bang from doing damage I can't deal with before he burns out.

It's possible people, just not like everyone is use too. Nobody likes change esp. if they feel it effects them adversely. Adapt or continue to whine hoping you'll get what you want, that's your only two choices at the moment.

Imperio Colombiano

Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 11:32 pm Click here to edit this post
Well... for the poeple like me (WARMONGER) Its a little frustrating to hammer a country day after day.

The problme is they are trying everything possible to avoid wars between active players. Why? I'm not here to click upgrades and win awards.

Its false adverstisment. Sneak attacks, special forces, transport ships? WTF, 2 of those things are noexistant, and one has no benefit then lookin up what your opponent has.

Another thing is the so called "realistic game of the worlds" What realism? You killed half of the population, destroy ALL defensive weaponds, all corps and leave a bunch of umemployed persons wounded. I think it would be common sense to surrender if all this things happen.

I WILL continue to whine. I was excited to come to GR with my nation to only relaize that it was a farse.

And I have 3 options... #1-Whine, 2#-stay, - or #3quit. Number 3 is looking very appealing at this moment.

Missouri A

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 04:55 am Click here to edit this post
There is no reason for you not to go to war if that is your desire .... other than of course the idea that you might not be able to just walk in and take someone down for giggles.

You can still do that .. it's just going to cost you alot more for alot less gain.

I got nothing against going to war if it fits into my over-all objective. What I do have is an aversion to is just loading a country up with weapons and taking over someone who's worked game years even decades on thier economy and defense and being able to walk all over them.

Why should I think I could take on a empire like HR who undoubtably has 10 times the military. On the flip side why should he be able to just decide he wants to prevent my expansion and take me out on the "cheap".

Wars can still be fought and won, they just require much more investment in diverse military hardware and tactical application.

And I'll once again say no I can't take on someone like HR ... but considering the empires why would anyone think they could without similar resources???

Missouri A

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 04:58 am Click here to edit this post
I have to ask .. how many tactical nukes do you own?

Treboria

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 05:53 am Click here to edit this post
Can someone put their hand up who has taken over a normal 11.5mill C3 in the last real life week? Just curious...only countries I've seen taken over recently are imported high population countries. I've taken over 7 C3's in the past and agree it was too easy but just want to ensure I don't waste another few trillion dollars of ammo on the current C3s. I've calulated the points and even if I blew everything up 100% (as I did except for corps) it will not get war index to 0.

Simcountry Introduction