Danzek

To add to the above by hidude and others, maybe something like this could work better? Add info about consumption (though this could instead be part of the table) Add population needed Add war/peace upkeep info (and use correct prices) Add enlisted upkeep info Show purchase cost when entering an amount Add individual buttons for purchasing each unit

Issue #1 Alliance disbandment seems broken. Submitting with incorrect password and everything else blank/unchecked disbands the alliance Issue #2 Upkeep is incorrect, and cost for soldiers is incorrect. Other feedback: The buy/sell is a bit janky, in that select all likes to sell units if you cant purchase any (e.g. lack of resources). I think it would also be nice to have a select all button thats just for conventional units (not projectiles) The tables are a bit messy compared to the previous tables that had alternating row colors/borders and full descriptions. I also think the lack of detailed descriptions / link to wiki is worse for new player useability.

I have no stake in this, I just like the drama. The entire backroom context is potentially lost on me, but for anyone curious, I think it refers to these messages posted by canbec in RON: https://discord.com/channels/446601982564892672/599998912128090133/1315494152430944327 Which brings me to the bruhaha surrounding the 24-Hour War. It's no secret members were angry about that war - that's the whole reason I decided to step down as King, as I felt I would be unable to regain members' trust. But again now that time has passed, I can reveal some extra information that we were not able to provide at the time due to the need to maintain OPSEC. I was against our involvement in that war from the outset, and after resisting for about 2 weeks, eventually agreed to a war our allies wanted, in exchange for certain concessions from the coalition that was requesting our help. In exchange for our involvement in that war, we had secured support from Rose, Singularity and others to ensure that Eclipse would be handed two defeats in the first 6 months of 2024. This was designed not only to get our revenge for Eclipse attacking us for no reason in September 2023, but also to stall their growth for a significant amount of time. We would not have taken part in both wars ourselves, which would have ensured we did not fall behind any of the other major alliances. Unfortunately, the 24-Hour War did not go as intended, and we ultimately agreed to a ceasefire after 24 hours to save Florida (Rosesphere). At the time, I was convinced that the quick peace would not affect the other alliances' commitments to us regarding Eclipse, as it was not solely our decision to peace the war. Unfortunately, Singularity were successful in spinning a narrative of dishonesty against TKR, taking advantage of the void left following my resignation as King (as I was the one most intricately familiar with the specifics of the negotiations). They claimed we had colluded with t$ to set up the 24-Hour War to play out as it did when in reality we had not discussed with t$ at all until they came to us offering peace following the blitz. Singularity were particularly mad because they did not get the Win they were hoping to get against t$ after having waited 2 weeks for a coalition to come save them. This campaign by Singularity not only gave other alliances an excuse/out to not support our efforts against Eclipse, but sowed so much distrust that Eclipse was able to get them to sign onto a never before seen peacetime NAP, to isolate us ahead of the war we fought in May --- T$ came to us (TKR) for peace about 12-14 hours after the blitz. We asked if they were only offering us or if they would extend the offer to the whole coalition (because we would not have agreed to just leave them hanging). t$ said they'd be willing to white peace Rosesphere & ODOO and would finish their war with Sing&Co. At that point we checked in with Rose to see what they thought, with a view that it might free up manpower to focus on Eclipse. Important to remember that at that point, Rose had the most to lose from continuing the fight since they were likely going to be dragged down by Eclipse, while ODOO was fairly well position to win against SAIL even if Rosesphere fell (as we were NAP'd with Eclipse). After discussing, we agreed to request WP for Sing&Co as well to avoid any surprises from separate peace talks between Sing and SAIL. t$ agreed on the condition we also all peace out Eclipse. So that's where we ended up. Because of the way this back and forth played out (essentially adding one bloc at a time), by the time it was brought to Sing it was pretty much a fait accompli - so I can understand their claims to an extent. While I believe Sing would've been quite happy continuing to fight, they also had nothing left to lose at that point while Rosesphere was looking at an L and ODOO was looking at an expensive W. --- canbec: Yeah Grumpy signed Rose like 2 minutes before Eclipse blitzed canbec: Which I think would've been very hard to hold up as a basis for Grumpy defending Rose against Eclipse despite the NAP canbec: I wasn't involved with that treaty but I don't really think there was a plan. I think both parties panick-signed and then realized it was ill-advised canbec: It certainly wasn't part of any well thought-out plan canbec: Eclipse decided to intervene in yet another war that didn't involve them, forcing us to pivot canbec: The war itself didn't involve them. The commitment I got for future wars did

The colors, if anyone is interested: (without the new colors) With the new colors (note: Aqua and teal have very similar hue, and thus overlap). My feedback: Possibly make gold darker, to see if that works better. Don't add bronze. Consider a very light color between aqua and blue, and a color between either green and aqua or green and olive (since eyes are better at distinguishing greens than any other color). The value of the projects, by day, for context. {FOOD=1,500,000, COAL=24,000, OIL=24,000, URANIUM=72,000, LEAD=24,000, IRON=24,000, BAUXITE=24,000}

My post was to point out issues with your TI comparison, and the graphs relate strictly to that. The graphs are context. But I can reiterate my point differently. Wars are not linear versus time. A damage graph would also show damage per war is much higher at round 1. I'm sorry, that by omission, I gave the impression that I was presenting a politically biased view on whether this is a Rose collapse, or that Rose should accept your side's peace terms quickly, I was not. Side note: I disagree with Kastor's post on TI. It reads to me like a shame post. I personally didn't think TI's blitz was terrible. (Rose's lack of one, was).

and to think @Sri Lanka 001 wanted to kick all my farms from E404 /s Anywho, there's always going to be a place for playstyle specific alliances, because there's an attraction to a playstyle that can't be as well met by mass member alliances. But they would have to compete in aggregate (i.e. with allies) as opposed to rivaling the majors 1 to 1. You also see a lot of "democratic" micros pop up with a lot of members, because whilst being dysfunctional, offer less barriers to gov participation to inexperienced players.

I do think it's both an FA failure of Rose to not be prepared, and also a milcom failure to not have a way to do a better counterblitz when they get caught with their pants down (which seems to happen frequently enough with Rose). That said, I'd like to highlight a number of factors that make a direct comparison not all that insightful: TI was militarized, and participated in a blitz, whereas Rose was not fully milled, and hit unprepared. Rounds are also not 5 days. To have rounds be 5 days, all wars need to be beiged (not expired), all enemies (Rose) to get slotted, and no-one staying in beige when they have it. For your consideration, Rose has 55 members not fully slotted, 146 in beige, and 110 in beige without wars. Round 1 performance is the most consequential, but you are also comparing stats for a war that has gone on 44 days to one that has gone on 35 days. Attached: TI's last war, vs Rose's current war. The main difference is that TI has a good number of round 1 wars (which as I said, is the most important time period of a war). Note: TI's last war being Espresso, not the forum post you linked. The bot command is /alliance stats alliancemetricscomparebyturn

This isn't markdown, it's a WYSIWYG editor wrapping html.

Feels like a good place to see if anyone wants to add to this, but it seems like a reasonable list of spheres to me (the second list) - aside from a few cross-sphere M level treaties, like TSC-WAP. Then we could do a real tiering comparison between the spheres.

I was interested in checking, to see city value over time of the alliances. Add about 120B in your head for E$ And here, avg infra over time, to visualize # wars, and how much those wars inflicted. "Paragon,Shuba99M,Fumo,MCXA,Shuba10KM,Terminus Est,Penguin Party" is what I have on the stats site. Don't think it makes a difference, maybe the eclipse ones do since they are all mega whales (but you've also missed a bunch of extensions on Rose's side). Not sure on the logic of including TFP/Yarr and all the Penta (Tetra?) alliances and avoiding doing similar for Eclipse, but I don't do FA. (I did initially think the spectre war was part of the same conflict, until it got peaced lol).

Yeah, a big setback for sure, hopefully you can bounce back. I wish you all the best. Just going to post some notes here. I reported them mid November. I believe Alex has been quite busy, so it took a while. Of the 33 deleted multis, 20 were in Pokimans (half your alliance). With many being there since the founding. With a seeming lack of discord, but were active doing much of your countering. It might useful to other alliances if you were to share how you ended up coordinating counters with them, and interacting with for deposits/grants - so others can avoid a similar situation. I'll also mention, your high gov member, who shared networks with the multis, you just set to member, but did not remove: Multi-Buster Tool | Politics & War (note the deleted nation ids) Do you think they had anything to do with it? Or was there another reason for the demotion? Edit: Images. Also shoutout to toxicpepper for helping report the multis.

Alliance page includes VM nations, but not applicants. Edit: I'm getting the correct result when I do this, make sure your query is including nations in VM.

Arguably the value proposition for missiles would still be there if the price doubled. The infra requirement seems inconsequential in that you'd want to have that much infra anyway, because it'd pay for itself even if you are turreting. For nukes, doubling the price means that if someone has the cost saving projects, it costs you more just for the nuke than you do in damage to say, a 2.2k infra city. (nuke cost would be on par with 2.05k infra but you dont destroy an entire city's infra with a single nuke) I'm assuming TGH asked for this because their CoC/Wei skirmish, and that's what the proposal is aimed at. It would negatively effect the meta of the losing side in a GW (which seems like the main issue with things) Even if there's not much to damage in a person turreting like that, they still have opportunity costs. The nukers are spending money that they saved up (or got paid), making no nation revenue, which doesn't progress them in the game. The result for TGH is that they are still making profit, but lose ~15% to vengeful pirates.

An increase in demand also increases the value of stockpiles. I think there is also an issue with the market being self correcting, which to be fair, isn't really addressed by this change - but you'd add more market control by increasing the competition between building slots. Consumption changes I would argue would be less self-correcting in that you're less likely to say, not power your cities, or not have soldiers during a war - due to resource prices.

The overall resource costs of projects wasn't a huge reduction. The UP/AUP/MP individual had a big reduction (specifically food), but other projects increased in price. The change to projects was an estimated 631,800,000 extra food per year (assuming no shift in player production) The difference in food from feb to pre-war is 5,040,000,000 I think the food issue was a problem before, and the change to projects exacerbated it, and presumably is an expected result (though still an unsolved one) Im not sure how useful it is to focus on any specific resource, like food, given that people can switch food production for another buildings if the overproduction leads to the market cratering I dont think there was a switch, if anything more people are focusing on food production now (pre war) There's large stockpiles, and the market depth is a tiny negligible fraction of the game's food probably there's the mindset that "food will be expensive in the future from war so i'm not going to sell now > Oil/Coal power are kinda useless atm,, so changing NPP to 1.5k infra (or lower) would make sense anyway > I think it'd still be the default since it lacks pollution, and would power more Was my view on it. The goal was to increase uranium consumption. It was voiced that there was too much manu, and that the production bonus could be removed. I advocated instead for an increase in buildings: > You could increase the building cap for manu, and then scale back the production appropriately. > That way people can trade other buildings (e.g. commerce) for more manu if needed > Im just thinking that if you do a 50% cut (by removing the production bonus) and it's too much, you're reducing the max ppl can produce, so there's no elasticity

> 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