Danzek

> change the cap to the following formula. Currently this is around ~111k with the above changes. I think a ranked turn bonus split might make more sense, as that simplifies calculations and avoids the cap being all over the place for seemingly irrelevant factors (number of new nations). It also avoids there being multiple colors with the same bonus (and thus no benefit to switching between) e.g. You could have a cap of 140k and then rank the color blocs in steps of 10k revenue Edit: You'd can use the formula you have but instead of that determining the turn bonus, it determines the ranking. > Recruit Bonus = (Total Nations <c11 on Color/(Total Nations <c11/5)) * New Turn Bonus Cap A bonus based on nation age may be more useful as that avoid disincentivizing growth. Though raiding would remain a disincentive to grow still. The median age of a c11 is 195 days. (wtf)

I think we should buff colors randomly, decided by a fair dice roll. I've attached code for it below NationColor getRandomColorToBoost() { return NationColor.GREEN; // I rolled a die and got this color }

quite terrible advice, but best of luck in your future endeavors

If it destroys 20% more infra, that's not actually 20% more damage. Infra cost is exponential, and it's the higher level infra that's most valuable, which gets destroyed regardless. You're actually damaging the cheapest infra with the 20%. Missiles will get more out of that 20% bonus simply because they do less infra damage (and thus are less affected by infra cost being exponential), whereas a 20% boost to nukes infra damage could be closer to like 4% infra value. (depends on city infra level, and war type/war policy) Also keep in mind the project costs 800m (current market prices), so will take multiple losing wars to ROI.

First they removed (one) Sam Cooper for best fighter, then they removed darkblade for best high gov. Who will the award team go after next?

Based on this shocking news, and feedback from a colleague, I have updated my treaty web map.

They all fought on the same side this last war. If anything, it's even bigger, maybe throw some micros like TKR in there as foreign agents of sail in their respective sphere.

Congrats. I shall update my treaty web map

{MONEY=45,994,000, FOOD=305, COAL=294, OIL=755, URANIUM=1,000, LEAD=1,000, IRON=1,200, BAUXITE=2,000, GASOLINE=1,100.44, STEEL=4,000, ALUMINUM=10,000} Worth: $118,249,138.84

Here's some data related to the change. 1. Breakdown of FOOD project expenses (old pricing) (1year) project amt spent % ADVANCED_URBAN_PLANNING 995 2,487,500,000.00 60.91% URBAN_PLANNING 1174 1,174,000,000 28.75% RECYCLING_INITIATIVE 252 25,200,000 .62% GREEN_TECHNOLOGIES 203 50,750,000 1.24% CLINICAL_RESEARCH_CENTER 495 49,500,000 1.21% SPECIALIZED_POLICE_TRAINING_PROGRAM 119 11,900,000 .29% RESEARCH_AND_DEVELOPMENT_CENTER 912 91,200,000 2.23% ACTIVITY_CENTER 6263 6,263,000 .15% GOVERNMENT_SUPPORT_AGENCY 820 164,000,000 4.02% FALLOUT_SHELTER 102 10,200,000 .25% BUREAU_OF_DOMESTIC_AFFAIRS 136 13,600,000 .33% 2. Total spent on projects and cities for the previous year Using old project prices: {MONEY=479,987,500,000, FOOD=4,084,113,000, COAL=23,560,500, OIL=36,409,000, URANIUM=54,294,500, LEAD=18,510,500, IRON=26,959,000, BAUXITE=17,499,000, GASOLINE=42,327,550, MUNITIONS=46,910,000, STEEL=86,135,625, ALUMINUM=158,377,875} Worth: $2,995,900,652,425 Using new project prices: {MONEY=505,949,500,000, FOOD=3,441,013,000, COAL=28,073,000, OIL=29,836,500, URANIUM=24,917,500, LEAD=29,093,000, IRON=32,191,500, BAUXITE=28,081,500, GASOLINE=30,594,000, MUNITIONS=30,088,000, STEEL=7,589,000, ALUMINUM=71,468,000} Worth: $2,258,877,002,000 Difference: {MONEY=25,962,000,000, FOOD=-643,100,000, COAL=4,512,500, OIL=-6,572,500, URANIUM=-29,377,000, LEAD=10,582,500, IRON=5,232,500, BAUXITE=10,582,500, GASOLINE=-11,733,550, MUNITIONS=-16,822,000, STEEL=-78,546,625, ALUMINUM=-86,909,875} Here's a graph using price at different times in the year blue = old prices red = new prices City purchases: $9,037,247,484,375 3. How it may affect project purchases by tiering. This is from the previous year's project purchases, tracked by city count. Yellow is the value of city purchases by tier. Note: The price and mechanic changes will change, future project purchases may not be the same There is an increase to MLP project - which can be considered a noob trap when purchased at city 3. Here is without MLP price changes. Price changes may deter early purchases of missiles. The subsequent spikes are from the city planning projects. 4. Expenses by day Using current market prices:

Could change the default option to say "Select a resource" instead of coal.

imo stealing a bank is still very un-cool when its done by someone with position access in the alliance. It's not like war where a nation's in-game actions are quite measured. Bank theft doesn't have any mechanical recourse, and is detrimental to an alliance's prosperity/enjoyment on a large scale. > "If it becomes common practice, we'll have to do something about it" - Alex To me this comes from the classic Alex desire not to moderate, not a glowing endorsement. I think it'd be a worrying implication that API key abuse could be a viable strategy people pursue in-game. 1. It's not readily apparent who knows about one's API key. Sharing can be incidental (e.g. with a sheet one links to another gov). In contrast to alliance positions which are clear game actions, and viewable in-game. 2. The api is intended as a tool, not as gameplay in itself. Its akin to a user/pass, but with scoped access. API can for instance; send in-game mail, disband an alliance, and steal a bank. (Depending on the scope) 3. Nuking a server vs nuking an alliance or its bank Technically one can say the former is OOC, and the latter IC - but both are imo toxic. These are just my views on bank stealing in general, not any validation of the CB.