Jump to content

Borg

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Borg

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    Danzek
  • Nation Name
    Borg
  • Nation ID
    189573

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    xdnw#5729

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't quote me on this, but I think the goal was so that raiders wouldn't have an advantage against a pixel hugger with high infra. But the end result is unbalanced for conventional war. If the goal is to nerf raiding, only the infra score should be changed, not cities and military. Though my preference is that raiding didn't need to be nerfed. Edit: What might be more balanced is determining score by rebuy + active military. So active military might count for e.g. 60% of military score, and the potential units from a double rebuy counts for 40%.
  2. For game development, informed decision making is usually better than design by committee, or design by the masses.
  3. Agreed. Though it may be problematic if the council is just a bunch of alliance leaders trying to push their own agenda. Also, why is slot filling controversial now?
  4. you could require there to be an active war for a war treaty to be declared. Dunno if it'd actually be useful tho
  5. It also could be useful to remove the cap altogether if the person is inactive.
  6. No, you are cherry picking similarities and then saying they are the same thing. There are a lot of different authoritarian ideologies, and only one of the is fascism. Here's a quick study sheet comparing the differences between fascism and communism: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism
  7. There are already bodies of nations, which are alliances. Since nations are controlled by individuals, I think would make more sense to have the international body comprised of alliances instead. Anywho, my vote is on calling it "The Collective"
  8. I think how it'd need to work is when buy/selling, it would add the tariff to the price listed. E.g. let's say you are selling food for 100ppu, and your alliance has a 10% tariff with alliance X. A nation from alliance X would see it listed at 110ppu.
  9. Ah yes. The ol' free market solves everything. I mean, sure, eventually it'll get so unsustainable that people will be forced to make changes, but taking action sooner will help the supply issue. I think most alliances would prefer that to happen before GW starts rather than after.
  10. TL;DR There continues to be a resource shortage, which obviously isn't sustainable (around ~60-120 days worth of supply) Many alliances continue using their aluminum focused builds they set when GW ended, which aren't very efficient given the current market prices Dtc Justice is selling lead Wolfe is hosting an interview with sui in 0 minutes: https://discord.gg/k8eDhg For some reason S. Wolfe now has two forum accounts and posted this in yearly awards I would disagree with the production of aluminum being the problem. IMO the war needs of an alliance, and thus aluminum is important enough to justify its continued production. What I do see though is a lot of people going for inefficient 115% commerce builds, and wasting slots on trying to get zero disease & pollution. Given the prices of raws, it's actually much better caring less about pollution, and trying to squeeze out the last few percent in commerce, and instead producing the most valuable raws. I also see a lot of people trying to have their nation self sufficient, and having a variety of resource production in each city, instead of maxing out a specific one (and getting the obvious production bonus) Also non whales wasting slots on nuke/missile project (among others) instead of resource projects means that alliances need to use more slots to meet their manufactured resource needs.
  11. Alliances can already force members to pay 100/100 of their income, and can sign treaties which prevent members from attacking. Why do embargoes suddenly cross the line for you and encroach too much on individual freedoms? (Especially when OP suggested that players should be able to opt out) A way to simplify the process of mass embargoing. I try not to embargo anyone, but I'd imagine it's very cumbersome to maintain a list of alliances to embargo, and getting every member adding/removing embargos to adhere to that.
  12. I think it might be worth increasing the number of slots new players have, so they are able to take advantage of the new projects.
  13. > Borg the bit you aren't considering here is balance. Atm there is no purpose in infra as it is a handicap. Why do you think raiders have bugger all infra? lmao. No purpose to infra. What about the tens of millions you make daily from your cities? It's already balanced. You can choose to have a strong military by using a war/raid build or a strong economy by having a high infra econ build. You want both. Which makes 0 sense in a GW context, as it means whichever side is winning is going to snowball because they are able to hold onto their infra better. > This means the game mechanics are all skewed to more small cities. For war? yes. For econ, no. > They can't lose a city, they can't lose land and they have about 5 bucks worth of infra. Raiding is 100% risk and consequence free while trying to build a nation is super risky. They lose a lot of money by having almost no economy. That's a huge opportunity cost right there. Raiders then have to put in a lot of effort for that tradeoff to be worthwhile. > Why shouldn't a larger nation be a harder target? It does. i.e. by having more cities or more military. Anyway, this is pointless. You dont want fair fights, you want no fights.
  14. The network UIDs are not persistent, nor unique per nation, they are based on your current ip address.
  15. Why dont we just give the richest player's in the game a panic button they can press which deletes the nation that's attacking them? Problem solved. Anywho, idk why you are trying to 1v1 raiders. Seems like a no brainer that if you want to protect your infra, you'd get people to counter.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.