Leaderboard

I mean sure, but I wouldn’t characterize Thalmor’s voice exactly like that.

Does Kentuckian hick accent with slight feminine yet still masculine pitch ring a bell?

LOL and I thought I was late posting at 316 days... Welcome

My favorite part was when sheepy said "It's sheepin' time" and sheeped all over those guys. This cinematic classic hits me hard every time.

There would be good if when importing build to "all" cities you could deselect like few cities where you want to set build manually. If you want to have for example have 3 cities as farm cities with all (or just more) farms (Which have for example more land)

A new Thing I want to be added in-game which will for sure add Fun 1... Production Lines Its Pathetic to Make and shoot all capacity of DayChange tanks Making in one go,there has to be a production line added,where user will produce daily 25% 50% or 100% daily limit of his tanks or military.which will cost him a hourly steel required for that hour building tanks.if a desired limit is reached user will close its tanks production. 2...we know that everyone stockpile it's warchest which never decrease and it stays the exact(if not engaged in war or sold) after a month All I want to suggest that there needs to be A limit of daily warchest use where army use it for training and exercises. It's same like Soldiers eating food so 1000 tanks use 100 steel for it's daily maintenancE 1000 aircraft use 100 alum for daily maintenance Same goes to ships The numbers I gave are not acceptable if you guys think is high or low they r random and can be tweaked In the same way an overall army Will use daily based warchest for military drills, If you Guys think we are paying upkeep for daily Military,I would say why not decrease the upkeep limit and Fix a number of Steel,alum for maintenance and munitions,gasoline for daily drills Using this technique a Well trained military will have a little advantage over an army built overnight It's a Suggestion and all I need is Your thoughts Which army in the world is sitting in home Waiting for a war,they always do exercises and go through drills

Army training and exercises sounds interesting, especially in combination with army-experience maybe?

I think the issue is you may be the first person in this game to ever use a leader name like you are proposing it be used for.

Are you RPing in a game suggestion thread?

stop whining about soldiers please, your ideas are completely OP and ridiculous

Not enough imo, I think they should lose at least 50 resistance per attack :serious:

I'm hoping we could have some more realism in some game mechanics. Some ideas: 1- Pretty much everyone has nuclear power. Where is all the nuclear waste? 2- Pollution seems to have very negligible effects. Populations don't like it and are somewhat reduced because of it, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference otherwise. I speak as someone who has tons of it, precisely because the effects seem to be so minimal while the monetary rewards for disregarding it seem fairly substantial. In the real world, those effects aren't minimal. Pollution also contributes to global warming. Speaking of which... 3- Thinking creating a global warming mechanic might be worthwhile.

Can confirm. I hand-replied absolutely bizarre things to the 30+ recruitment messages I received expecting them to just be bots, and got dozens of WTF's in response.

remove prefontaine from helping with updates, he is trash and doesnt even play #changemymind

Agreed. Might aswell add that Alex guy to the list, he’s super obnoxious. Or that stupid Minesome guy, hate his guts.

He is absolute trash. We need that actual dumpster of a person out. Best QOL update suggestion.

Currently, the pages for war attacks only show the maximum amount of troops/units/infra that can be killed/destroyed with the attack. This data however is fixed to the maximum amount of units you have at your disposal. For example, take a look at the airstrike screen below: Even if I was to change the number of aircrafts to say 3, it won't update the information for Max unit/infra kills. My suggestion is that this should be dynamic. If I change the number of units, I should be able to see how much I can kill with the reduced number of units. This helps people who are new to the game and just spam max units to kill negligible amount of units as well as help people plan better on strategies. Not only this, in case of superiority, it should also show what is the actual army value instead of just max value. Along with this, a new field showing how much gasoline and munition is used in an attack should also be introduced. It will also auto-update with change in number of units selected. This would be a nice QoL to have which could make life easier.

You don't think that my population only survives on 6.9k food per day, do you?

It did! One thing to note is that if you're trying to search by discord username in the 'everything' category it won't work. I chose this because I thought it would be confusing for the majority of use cases where people are not trying to search by discord username. But, of course, selecting 'discord username' will search by it. It's even useful for me, often times players DM me on Discord and I need to figure out which nation belongs to them in-game

A (hopefully) simple addition to the search function: search by discord username. A lot of people don't have the same name in game vs. on discord, and adding a search function for it would provide a simple means of translating back.

This got implemented. Yay 😁

Currently, the game rules ban "Treasure Trading", ie, the ability to transfer treasures to a different person or alliance for in-game cash. The way treasures work is that if you hold a treasure and someone defeats you in a war, you forfeit your treasure to the victor. This can work as a treasure transfer mechanic where you can ask someone to declare war on you or declare war on them and lose the war to transfer treasures to them. Earlier, treasure trading wasn't banned and I've talked to people who sold treasures to different alliances for a big chunk of money ranging in the hundreds of millions. Infact, the reason treasure trading was such a big business was because treasures give your alliance a 2% monetary production bonus, ie, if you have a treasure in your alliance , your alliance revenue goes up by 2%. Since a treasure can stay in your nation for upto 60 days since spawn, an alliance like say Error 404 making 250m/day or The $yndicate making 1.6bn/day in cash would make 5m and 32m a day more respectively if they had a treasure in their alliance, translating to upto 300m and 1.9bn over a 60 day period respectively. However, an alliance like Arrgh(12.5m/day) or Knights Templar(-9m/day) won't much benefit from having treasures in their alliance. Instead, these two alliances can make a lot more by selling their treasures to other revenue-based alliances and make some good money off it. I'm not exactly sure why treasure trading was banned but if the objective of the game is to have more smaller wars, treasure trading is the way to do it. Once someone steals your treasure, it can be a a cb for war against them or their alliance. If the treasure is stolen with the purpose of selling it to someone, this can be a cb for war against the buying alliance. Once someone has sold a treasure and has some money on their nation, raiders can come in to steal that money as well. Treasure trading can be a dynamic way to keep treasures moving about in the game even in peace time which I feel is lacking in the game. This also makes piracy a tad more interesting. And the best thing about this change is that it can be done within 10 minutes by Alex without ever needing to touch the coding of the game at all. Just an announcement and maybe a changelog update and that's all we'd need. I understand there is a system currently being developed to trade treasures on the market. However, I've been told it has been in development for a very long time as well. If such a system is hard to implement, this is an easy fix I'd say.

uhhhhh it's a long story 😅

I've been giving some though to a new National Project idea or Domestic Policy. It is my preference that the following suggested mechanic would work best as a National Project and not as a Domestic Policy. The idea stemmed from the Domestic Policy of Urbanization which reduces costs of infrastructure and I realized there is no mechanic to reduce land costs. I though adding such a mechanic would be welcomed by some players. Such a mechanic can be introduced as a project named "Agricultural Mastery" rather than a domestic policy and have the following effects: Agricultural Mastery - Agricultural Mastery is a national project that reduces the cost of land in cities by 5%. Agriculural Mastery also increases food production in your nation by 2% and reduces pollution in your cities by 1%. Agricultural Mastery requires Irrigation System National Project an City Planning/Civil Engineering National Project.

Instead of the recaptcha thingy, I suggest we have a math problem verification for every attack we do and every trade we do. Also a bonus random calculus word problem for stashing money and buying military. It could even be themed like for ground attacks it could be. "If Lord Sammy has 150k soldiers and builds 55k for 3 days. How many soldiers does he have in all?" The bonus calculus word problem should take like 10-15 minutes. And it can be on a variety of I game things. Such as "If you're alliance score is a function of the total gdp of every nation in the alliance and it doubles every three days, what would be it's score on Wednesday March 13th 2022 at 3:28 pm EST?" If you don’t get right it'll just regenerate another word problem.

a seperate graphics based game should be released

So i'm thinking there could be a global system similar to how Radiation works currently, but for pollution! It could also have a local index (on every continent) or it could be a purely global thing. Of course, it would also dissipate over time. I'm thinking it could perhaps increase disease as a negative effect. Not sure what the formula would be, and of course maybe it can do more stuff - perhaps ecological disasters? This would increase realism and encourage nations to be more eco friendly (or perform eco terrorism!). Opinions and suggestions would surely be appreciated.

Oh god make us start using the 'Thanks' react as downvoting again. 😰

Sounds like you want moderation, not downvotes. Keep in mind, some people feed on downvotes.

•Cost 12 MAPS •Requirements opponent must be inactive for over 5 days. (Open to more requirements) Abandons The War. No loot no beige. Reasons this is needed: A raider declares on an inactive, the alliance counters, they agree to peace out on the inactive but the countering alliance doesn't want to accept peace right away, so they can attack if he goes back on the agreement, creating a valid reason for what can end up being in essence slotfilling if the raider has other wars or is a target for any other reason. The raider is also technically slot filling in this scenario, preventing other raids or a blitz from touching that nation Other reasons why & scenarios where this is beneficial: The countering alliance can move on faster, and not have to worry -You accidently declare an incorrect war type -You declare on the wrong enemy -Your alliance orders you to peace with an inactive because of raid policy or because a priority target is in your range

brb changing disco name to mess with zig rawr

I think it's a cool concept to be able to customize your military more, however I think there is actually quite a bit of room to improve this though. Firstly I think it's clear that some of these perks are better than others which I think isn't ideal, it will cause people to mostly pick the same stuff. Having equally good perks will cause a greater variety of viable builds. 2 of the obvious picks are Armored Panels on planes and Anti-Air guns for ships, they have their downside of increased cost but are essentially necessary for dominance in the game. Another strong one is the Advanced Chassis for tanks which is a straight up cost-reduction with no downside other than it uses a perk-slot. On the other hand there is some to me sorta unattractive ones such as the soldier perks. Soldiers are basically free atm so adding an actual cost with these perks seems unattractive to me, especially since they will force you to pick them with gas mask in a set, since you dont wanna have half of them blown up by missiles if they get an actual cost to them. The soldier perks are basically not a consideration if you are in a position where your soldiers die frequently, while they are kinda alright if you have plane control in which case your soldiers may survive, but then they just aren't as good as the plane perks. I think some perks that keep soldiers as a suicide unit would be more attractive, for example increased recruitment rate or more loot or something. Then by direct comparison some of these are oddly balanced with each other, take for example in the case of tanks Flamethrowers and Radio Comms. Radio Comms cost only 0.05 alu extra while Flamethrowers cost an extra 0.5 gas which is way more, while i dont think the Flamethrowers stand out clearly as being better. Then secondly to balancing them among each other there is balancing questions about who benefits from this stuff more than others. I already addressed soldier perks. Basically bad if your soldiers die and alright if they can survive, but that also means you are buffing someone with the perks who is already dominant, which is questionable? Then anti-air guns are the most controversial i think. This one will be an absolute killer for whales and not as good for the ones at the lower score side of things. Basically ships add score which is problematic if you are worried about downdeclares, but not an issue if you aren't worried about it. So for anyone low score getting ships this will buff their defense but also put them in downdeclare range of people with more planes, additionally when you consider this perk makes a ship equal to 2 planes but gives 4 times the amount of score a plane does then perhaps this isnt that great as a defense. On the other hand it makes whales a lot harder to take down as ships only act as aircraft in defense so someone with 2000 planes updeclaring on someone with 2500 planes and 300 ships will basically face 3100 effective planes instead in their offensive attacks. I'm not necessarily saying this is bad, perhaps whale-takedowns are a bit too easy atm and this is actually positive for the game, but it's something that needs to actually be given thought before this stuff is put into the game. About missiles: EMP warheads will be stupidly op at the zero tier. Someone shooting a missile at a 3 city nation will straight up disable a third of their cities. On the other hand chemical weapons will be better on the high tier than at the lower.

It's not fair that the same amount of resistance is lost when in the ground battle, there is no soldiers for the country that you declared war on or are defending themsleves.

If I may respond with a counter-proposal... Rather than having a bluntly implemented "PENALTY" to existing stockpiles based on simply having stockpiles, instead we could implement something with a similar effect but without all of the "YOU LOSE STUFF COS BALANCE" knee-jerking. Instead of a direct penalty to stockpiles, my suggestion is that nations must pay upkeep on improvements and infrastructure in the form of refined materials. I mean, think about it. Our population has malls, why don't they have cars? Why do they eat food but don't use gasoline? How is it that we've got airforces but no civilian airlines? How do our police function without using any bullets? Refined materials are necessary for a modern lifestyle, so we can call the refined resources degradation "civilian use" or "upkeep", and balance it to cost more for larger nations and/or nations in larger alliances. Now, unfortunately repackaging the mechanic doesn't change it for anyone that sees and understands my proposal, but for the players that don't check the forums regularly and will never see this it should help the medicine go down. WoW had a similar problem, where in order to fix the problem of people grinding literally 24/7, they implemented a penalty for anyone playing too long at once. Nobody liked it, so they changed it to where after a period of inactivity, people would instead come back to a "bonus"... which was exactly the same numbers, just said in a different manner. Alternatively, we could set up costs for bank transfers. 1% fee for everything moved to a bank, or from one bank to another bank. Boom, degradation. Boom, war incentive. Boom, cost to hiding bank. Fixes so much. Edit: And, NPO, I'm not suggesting that taxes nor withdrawals to nations be penalized. It's your offshore bank that'd get the nail, just like literally everyone else's, so don't even start on your "but that'll cost our communist model more" nonsense.