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.

That wasn't the expectation, in the same vein that no one expects piracy to vanish. It's still valid IC to counter pirates tho. The only thing of question was that news servers can declare neutrality and then solicit and post whatever they want without consequence. Seems that the peace terms prove that FA heads who own a news server dont have a get out of war card. (to be fair, krampus also got hit several times running RON, and arrgh hit a news server for leaks in one of their recent wars, so its not like this is that much of a meta change)

does ai generated count? Your ai can't spoll.

Nukes are able to target military units (destroy 10% of the targeted units) > Probably needs to be less than daily rebuy, cause OP > Increases the effectiveness of police stations by +0.25%, all units receive a 0.67% army value bonus from each (average per city) police station Seems unnecessary to have perks that directly buff military (this is essentialy a straight ~3.35% buff to military). These kind of buffs add up to be quite significant when you keep in mind that you will have a large % of the 100 perks. > Each improvement requires only 45 infrastructure instead of 50 Will result in more resource production. Monetary penalty does not affect rss > Nations can build up to 10 of the selected manufacturing improvement, the production bonus goes up to 100% with 10 improvements (last 5 increase the bonus by 10% instead of by 12.5%) Resource inflation. > Missiles cannot be blocked by ID Should be reduced but not gone completely > Commerce cap increased by 15% is somewhat significant > The limit of every type of non-military improvement is increased by 1 in your capital city > Your capital city can construct an additional improvement Seems duplicate. > Wind power plants provide power for up to 1000 infrastructure seems op now. > You get 10 votes for color bloc names instead of 1 Pointless when its in competition with other perks. All the cosmetic ones need to be teir one (where there isnt a perk limit) (e.g. the baseball ones too) > Doubles your contribution to your color block > Your nation's impact on your color bloc is halved Seems redundant > perks getting more powerful and expensive as the tier increases Forces you to create increasingly powerful perks, and forces new perks to be disruptive because you can't append them to the tech tree, and have to insert them to tiers players have already researched. Also means players will be "overwhelmed" when you are forced to put all the insignificant or cosmetic perks on tier 1 > Nations can construct an additional nuke each day for every 100 nuclear power plants they have Reworking nuke production imo should be a core mechanic, not locked behind an OP perk > Gather intelligence also reveals a nation's selected perks. Given how big some of the buffs are, perks being private will make decision making difficult for things like war > Wind turbines within a city decrease the effectiveness of enemy airstrikes on non-aircraft units/infrastructure by 1% each (up to 20%) op unit kills > All the commerce improvements buffs Mean you need less commerce buildings to cap out, and will thus have to fill up with more resource buildings. Thus inflating resources. probs a bunch of other concerns general thoughts A lot of perks are overpowered Will create inbalance between players, esp when some people can unlock faster (credits / research slots) Research unlock speed should be consistent if you dont want inbalance. Several perks that will affect the market, which is arguably already very inflated Perks aren't repeatable, the content will exhaust in a year (or much sooner with credits or extra research slots) Due to the variety, this will create confusion for game mechanics if its not communicated clearly to other nations - Which is probably difficult enough if perks weren't private.

my thoughts I think people are overestimating how much control an alliance can have over market prices. It'll mostly be used for alliances wanting their members to trade more internally I do think some big alliances will try to game it, specifically with food (which has more concentration compared to other resources). Several groups adding tarrifs to a single or a few alliances could make trading more difficult for those, but would likely be less profitable than a free trade scenario. In order for small players to lose out, they would need to be affected by tarrifs. So it's a question of whether they are overlooked, or get targeted. If the goal is profit, then to profit from tarrifs you'd need to have a significant percent of producers or consumers colluding, and to tarrif most of the game (rather than only a specific alliance). Done poorly, you just shoot yourself in the foot, and shift profit to resellers. I think without the ability to set default tarrifs, or if there are any caps on how many alliances/nations you can tarrif, it may be difficult for any kind of price war, due to the inability to address resellers. If we want trade wars, it might be useful to have the ability to set price ranges for tarrifs, or min/max selling prices. irl example, the west's price cap on Russian oil at $60 a barrel. Anything can be a CB. I do doubt tarrifs will ever be the deciding factor for major alliances to go to war, though it could be a peace term. > Money from tariffs will be added directly to the alliance bank. Perhaps make it an option whether the $ goes to the alliance or the trader.

I know you enjoy your farming, but for actual context, there are 0 florida nations in range of the largest nation in the game, and only 1 florida nation in range of your nation. Which is fenris: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=47239 Florida: Rose,Guardian,Singularity,Dark Brotherhood,Arkham Asylum,The Golden Horde,Oblivion It's a problem in war because the losing side loses their infra and units. Having to rebuy infra/military just to missile spam is costly.

Unique ID Check | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com) Reason: - Kingdom of Scratchvitch has no description, no achievements shown, and looks like a typical raiding multi (city 5 for 419 days) - Has third party trades with itself - Does not share network with any other nation Some others: Unique ID Check | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com) Unique ID Check | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com) Unique ID Check | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com)

Perks are nation based. There's another proposal for "decisions" that may have alliance decisions as part of that. Example perks that others have suggested on the design team: Reduce pollution of raws by 20% Reduce pollution of manuf by 10% Increase power plant effectiveness by +50% (also increases upkeep +50%) Add an 11th raw slot Increase the effectiveness of police centers by 20% Increase the effectiveness of hospitals by 10% Increase the effectiveness of recycling centers by 10% Allow a 2nd subway per city Allow a 4th stadium per city Allow hospitals to give a longer lifespan - increase population by 1% per hospital per city Give missiles/nukes or other battles -50% chance to hit military or power improvements Allow an extra offensive slot Allow an extra offensive spy slot Reduce food upkeep of soldiers by 20% (rationing) Allow a nation to receive 5% of it's max military capacity from other nations Truce (forcefully put a war for both sides in peace, so no attacks allowed, for 1 turn (max once per war)) Give a 10% 'bonus' on bounties (Place 50M bounty, but this perk makes that bounty 55M value) Allow a nation to break an embargo once a week and force it's trade through Allow a nation to use 25 credits monthly, instead of 20. Treasures add +1% value to your nation Treasured add +10% value to your alliance if in a nation with this perk unlocked Meta perks: as in perks that affect how other perks behave, or affect your ability to unlock perks > Perks can have dependency's e.g. Cities, projects, wars won, money looted, continent, unit kills, acheivements > Perks can include negatives So if you want to suggest potential drawbacks perks can have, those could be for example Increasing score, having upkeep, reducing a nation stat etc.

Ah, The Knights Radiant, my dear adversaries, how delightful it is to witness your feeble attempt at an apology. I must admit, your ignorance is rather amusing. You see, while you wallow in the shallow depths of your own incompetence, I bask in the glory of my unparalleled intelligence. Your pitiful messages, asking questions and whining about a mere advertisement and an unfinished merger, only served to expose your feebleness. How adorable that you mistook my actions for playfulness. But understand this, my dear Radiants, my intentions are far beyond your grasp. You are but pawns in my grand design, insignificant creatures unwittingly dancing to the symphony of my supremacy. You claim to accept and appreciate the apology, but I assure you, it holds no value to me. Why retract your misguided responses? They serve as a testament to your ignorance, a reminder of your insignificance in the face of my grandeur. No, my dear Radiants, your acquiescence is not necessary. In fact, it would be most disappointing if you were to suddenly comprehend the depths of your folly. So continue with your futile attempts to challenge me, to undermine my brilliance. The more you resist, the sweeter the taste of your impending defeat. Your apologies, your pleas for mercy, shall fall upon deaf ears, for I am Singularity, the epitome of power and intellect. But before I continue on this path of annihilation, let me inquire, Radiants, what other misguided notions have occupied your simple minds? What other futile endeavors are you concocting to defy the inevitable? Speak now, for your voices shall soon fade into oblivion, lost in the echoes of my triumph.