Leaderboard

This is a simple suggestion: whenever you declare war on someone you will automatically gain the effect of an immense triumph for every category they do not have any units in (assuming that you in fact do). Why? This could be an interesting way to boost raiding against very innactive stronger nations (eg free blockade). This could be an interesting way to make actually blitzing without build up more viable (which would be interesting in my opinion; it wouldnt really give any strongadvantage against a well prepared opponent). This could be an interesting way for people to cooperate more (for example if people keep one ship to prevent immediate blockades, you could work togheter with someone who decs, destorys the one ship and then you can dec yourself blockading them anyway). That's all for now folks.

I think it'd be useful to have the option to send spies into a nation to sabotage their Iron Dome missile defense and reduce it's effectiveness by up to 100%, depending on how successful the operation is. But it would only be valid for the very next missile being launched at that nation. Meaning that you would need to launch the sabotage operation prior to EACH missile strike, if you want to guarantee that your missile will have a high probability of successfully evading the iron dome.

Hello, Last month I heard a proposal from some guy called Alex about reducing city score from 100 to 75. I really like this idea and I think we should do it, so I wanted to put it to the top of the page again so whoever makes the decisions sees it.

I think you should think more in terms of ship units, not ships as a general concept

Tell me you are a c3 without telling me you are a c3 (yes I did steal this from SRD) Yeah, no. This one is way to OP and the plane one makes no difference.

I don't lol. LPH ftw.

Hol up folks, the only reason this would work is if beige remains as is. Shortening or removing it would defeat the purpose entirely, and is a terrible idea in its own right.

Disclaimer: Locutus infra damage calculations were broken for the last few days, so I did the best I could to conflate Locutus and CTOwned statistics into an aggregate number. This is probably why some things will look weird here, but not meant to be a serious video and it's more or less close enough so I hope that's okay This timelapse was brought to you by Ducc News Network! Join the #1 news network in the link below: https://discord.gg/MDYdBkzFh4

For the record, I would prefer to be referred to as a Kraken, and not a whale going forward. FYI to the guy that posted above, at my size you dont buy cities to make more money, you buy cities to increase your military might. at c20 you may be buying for cash, but at my size I grow to increase my military might, not my cash flow. Remember smaller nations have the advantage of there being a ton more of you than us, and that you can hit us, when we cannot hit you. I purposely eat nukes during wars to try to lower my score so I can keep fighting, even doing that I am out of wars to fight by the 2nd round. The actual issue I think many of you have is that the upper tier alliances are generally some of the most active and organized in the game. When Grumpy rolls out, we roll out with 95-100% of our members in our opening blitz. If we fought like WTF/Fark, who used to have a pretty large upper tier, none of you would care because they didnt have the organization or the effort to properly utilize their upper tier to fight. I think the other issue many of you run into too is your alliance is not focused on your individual nation growth, I hear that many of you get taxed an arm and a leg, and your alliances use that money to build up your smaller players, if you are trying to grow, that really sucks. You know what I did when I was around 22-25 cities and got sick of it? I created my own alliance that prioritized individual nation growth. For those that say it takes forever to build cities, I am a day 1 player, and have always been in the top 10-20 largest nations in the game, and it took me 1000 days to reach city 25. That was 3 years, people are doing that now in a year or less, which is bonkers to me.

I see the problem that you've laid out, and its safe to say that anyone engaged in the broader community of this game sees the problem too. The problem with trying to solve this problem, is how? There is indeed, no silver bullet. Any solution will have ripple effects that I believe will negatively impact the game in ways we can't forsee, or predict. They are the oldest and largest players in the game, do they not deserve to be forces of nature? Whales do win wars, yet is this not representative of the way of the world? The USA is (or was, that's open for analysis) a global power. Any war that directly get involved in will tilt the scales in their favour. Simply because they're rich (think: whales' tax contribution, or lack thereof to individually fund rebuilds after war), they're developed (think: military power scaling with large amounts of cities per nation), they're generally experienced (think: this one's logical. You'd expect a c40 1500 day old nation to know what theyre doing). So, yes. Whales win wars, yet this is not a mechanical issue in my humble opinion. I think it's far more accurate to refer to this as a structural issue. This does not have a one solution. In fact, if one sphere amassed a power great enough to strongarm the rest of the game, would it be mechanically incorrect? They're just playing the game, afterall. The mechanics allow for it, therefore it is within reach. When I refer to structurally, I'm speaking of how this game is structured and how the individual player and alliances fit into this. This is a combination of how the mechanics impact the players, and how players choose to respond to this. Minispheres, duopolies, hegemons, whatever you wish to label a sphere, they're all our own constructs in this game. Mechanically, after all we can go in any direction we want. Structurally, alliance leaders must figure out what they want, what their alliance needs, and what's best for the overall game health. These three groupings can often conflict. Using Grumpy and Guardian as an example, to anyone who states they should part ways, as their tiering compliments each other nicely and that they skewer any bloc they join in their favour. Why would that do that? There is no mechanical reason for them to. They can stay together. It might piss off some of the game, they might make enemies. But that's not a mechanical fault, it's a structural fault. The main question is, why shouldn't whales win wars? And yet, I dislike it as much as anyone else. I believe its a structural failure that the game has come to this point. There is simply not enough variety in tactics, abilities ingame, customization, options. Every alliance is the same, give or take. They are all nearly carbon copies with the same style of government, the same functions, and similar mannerisms. Quirks exist here and there, and some alliances function significantly better than others. But this game has no variety, which is why we end up in the same situation after every war. 'Every war' is another point of contention. Having some "global war" once or twice a year, it's boring. It truly is, and why do we do it? Unironically, raiding alliances are the most fun to watch and observe in this game because they are unpredictable. KT, for all of its drawbacks, toxicity, and edgelord culture, when they went paperless in 2020 I believe, hit micros and raided around, that was entertaining. We need more of that, variety. Too many people are content to build up and tune out of the game, hiding in their private discord servers. Talking to the same names and faces, disliking the same people, and hearing the same echo chamber. I name no names, because it's highly likely you can apply that to any alliance worth their salt in this game. I don't like the war system. It is hyper-realistic (barring guerilla warefare, because in this game that refers to maxing out your losses then hurting the enemy more) in the sense that the bigger number (whether that's nations, cities, or military) always comes out on top. There is no way to counter such a significant advantage with quantity, so much so that it becomes the quality. There is simply no opportunity to play around with kinks in your military for unexpected bonuses, to fight an unexpected advantage. The larger number will always win, going forward. It is no surprise that the major alliances create larger and larger blocs. Once one bloc does so, the others have to follow. It's a simple adapt or die scenario. These walls of texts that have been occuring recently, unironically, restore a small medium of faith in the game. It shows that people at least do care, and public debate is fun. And we need more of it. If you've made it this far, then you've probably realized that I have no solution. I don't know what to change of the structure of this game. Do we entrench the tiering? Raise the city score? Is there a cap on down declares? However, doing so will adversely effect large raiders who have low score. How can we change the war system to allow variety? What incentives can mechanically be given to alliances to create political variety? I am, above all that I've said here, a believer in the fact that diversity and variety will save the game here. Whether that is some alliances adopting forums, dicords, some being economic some being military, some raiding, this game needs variety. Edit #6: I think a good summary of what I've written is that structurally this game rewards hegemonic behaviour. As well as poor choices in mechanical decisions.

These are all great; therefore, will never be implemented

Don't build infra. Problem solved

As much as food prices increasing during global wars where radiation causes -100% food production can be an annoyance, I have to say that I'm ultimately against this and for the same reasons as @Majima Goro stated. The chokehold of losing the global food market plays a role in the political sphere. Sucks that noncombatants have to deal with it, but that's how it would be in the real world too and it's nice to have at least some realism.

The cold war introduced us to the theory of nuclear warfare and how such an event between even two parties would lead to Mutual Assured Destruction. Nuclear Winter is a real thing and this game does a beautiful job and portraying it. Global zero food production in fact can play large roles in politics especially if a war drags out long enough to drain the food banks of smaller alliances. Infact, I would contend that nukes should be made stronger by allowing the radiation to also affect disease rates globally!