John Kern

here is an idea to make alliance war each others. - divide the map in area. (with each area giving some kind of bonus) - alliances could try to gain control of the area (therefore starting a battle for the area where all members of an alliance could join in the fight against the alliance owning it.) - alliances can only invade area that are next to area they already have. (first area being the one with the alliance headquarter.) - after a battle (be it a victory or a defeat), there would be a cooldown where the area cant be attack, to allow the owner to rebuild it's defense. (like it happend already for players) - members of an alliance could contribute to the defenses of an area by placing some of his troop in the area. (like irl, where some nation contribute in a coalition by sending some plane while other nation send infantry.) - alliance that got their headquarter's area invaded could either relocate it's headquarter to another owned area or pay a small tribute to the invader (if their headquarter was the last area they owned) that way : - there would be some more conflict in the game (and therefore some more wars) - the alliances would be able to fight "alliance vs alliance" battle and not many "player vs player" battle. - great player, that have huge armed force could divide it into smaller armies to defend many regions. (giving them more challenge than just "defending himself") - with something like 500 area, it would be difficult to conquer the whole world and every alliance could have their own area for their headquarter. (there would need more than 500 alliances to break the rule of 1 headquarter per area.)

this is how i see the battle mechanic: (from what i read in-game) - tanks are enhancers so they only give bonus to soldier (make maximum 100 soldier (1 per tank) gain 4000% efficiency at a cost of 1 munition and 1 gasoline) - munitions are enhancer too (make maximum 5000 soldiers have 175% effectiveness at a cost of 1 munition) - you lose tank at a slower rate than soldiers but tank cant fight alone as they are only enhancers.(tanks need soldiers to drive them to battle) the math, IMO, can be like this: (soldier (with tank bonus) *40)+ (soldier (with munition bonus) *1,75 )+ (soldier (without bonus)*1) = total firepower. with the fact that soldier without bonus die faster than soldier with munition bonus, soldier with munition bonus die faster than soldier with tank bonus and soldier with tank bonus die with their tank. my opininon, if all of this is correct, is that the ratio of 1 tank (with supply) give 1 infantry 4000% efficiency is a little bit overpowered. (by maxing tanks you can easily get an army of 3000 infantry with a 3000 tanks bonus for a total of 120k firepower and have little problem to replace the soldier that died. without speaking about the small food expense.) in my opinion, as the tanks cant be piloted by a single soldier, make the ratio be 1 tank (with supply) giv 5 soldier 800% efficiency. (that way, if you still want to have your 3000 tanks bonus you would need 15k soldiers and if you have less than 15 k soldier then you cant deploy all your tanks and attain the 120k firepower.) it would be a small change but would make the tank's enhancing capacities less overpowered.

an idea i got while reading all your post. what about making alliance pay a fee to keep it's structure and representation on the leaderboard. the fee can be like this: starting fee + (number of members* "insert number") + (total point of the alliance / "insert number") the "starting fee" could be high enough to dissuade player to create "one player" alliances. AFAIR, the color bonus is based on the number of players and the number of alliances in that specific color. too many "one player" alliances on a given color would decrease the color bonus ( and could be abused to damage another alliance economy) so there is a need for an incentive to merge, reducing upkeep/member for larger alliance (the upkeep would increase with the alliance but would be divided on all it's member) could lead to the creation of larger alliances. the upkeep cost could be counterbalanced by the alliance tax.

it seem you dont understand it or dont want to understand it. (i wasnt against the "progressive taxation" but against your false idea about score based "progressive" taxation) If you make player pay more if they got high score, it would punish player that got great armies as armies generate score and eat your income so you would gain less income because you got an army and would need to pay more taxes because you got an army. the only solution for them to keep a good income and expand would be to reduce their army which would be detrimental for their alliance as they would lose firepower. i stay on my position, progressive taxation work only based on income and what you ask for is a taxation on score. score dont generate income so two player having the same income could be taxed differently because they have score higher or lower than the limit. for example: nation A got 10k income/ turn and a score of 99 nation B got 10k income/turn and a score of 101 player below 100 score pay 5% and the player with score higher than 100 pay 10%. nation A would pay 500 credit of tax nation B would pay 1K credit of tax. therefore it would be counterproductive for nation A to increase it's score as it would lose income and be slowed in it's expansion while the tax he is paying may go to higher score player that have expansion problem due to the same tax system. basing the tax on the players income would be wiser than not looking at the income at all. progressive taxation is about "progressively" increasing tax rate based on income tier. like this, for example: - first 10K income are tax free -next 20k income are taxed at a 5% rate (maximum of 1000 credit for this income tier) - next 20 income are taxed at a 10% rate ( maximum of 2000 credit for this income tier) - ... with that progressive taxation: someone with 15 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k and 5% of the remaining 5k . therefore he would pay 250 credit to the bank. (1.6% of net income) someone with 25 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k and 5% on the remaining 15k. therefore he would pay 750 credit to the bank.(3%of net income) someone with 35 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k , 5% on the next 20k and 10% on the remaining 5k. therefore he would pay 1500 credit to the bank. (4.2% of net income) that way every player are taxed the same way, the amount of tax they pay depend on their own decision (about how they build their nation and the income it generate) and not the alliance leader decision to tax player with discrimination about their score.

??? you actually say( and therefore acknowledge) that the idea to tax 2 players differently (based on personnal criteria) has been shot down already, yet you ask for possibility to tax 2 players differently (based on score). be it based on personnal criteria or based on player score, it is the same, you dont consider the player income. instead of "punishing" specific player (whch could be the one with really high income), you "punish" all player for the simple reason that they have better score (regardless of their income). futhermore, even though you are the player that initiated that proposal, you dont ask for a progressive taxation but a tiered taxation. (you cant tax "progressively" based on score. you can put different tax rate for people within specific scores, which is a "tiered" taxation and has been shot down) Progressive taxation work based on income. here is a video about progressive taxation. (so i dont have to explain it all here.) https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/taxes-topic/taxes/v/tax-brackets-and-progressive-taxation even though the system we have now is good, it could be ok to have the progressive system (including the "no tax" on the first tax bracket that would help new player.) however, such a system would be complex to implement and could be abused so it's possible that even this system could be shot down.

as firetrout said, it promote "seal clubbing" and "raids on inactives", there should be no reward in attacking defenseless player. such a reward could be ok only if it reward "better tactics against worthy opponent" and not "simply preying on the weak". so the qualification for such a reward could be: - attack (or be attacked) by a player that have the same amount (or more) military point than you. - deal more damage to him than he does to you. - win the war.

just to give my idea: what about talking about %age of veteran in the army. - the maximum limit could be set by the amount of military improvement you have.(like 0,5 % infantry veterancy per barrack, with some national project able to raise it to 0.75 or 1 % per barrack, for example) - each veteran gain 50% more firepower. so if you got 10 barrack full of soldiers, you would have 30000 soldier from which 5% could be veteran (1500 veteran). therefore, if your army reach maximum veterancy, instead of having the fire power of 30000 soldier you got the firepower of 30750 soldiers. (that firepower count could happen before ammo are used, so an army with veteran could use more ammo.) - after a battle there could be two check: 1) based on your loss compared to your army initial size, you lose same %age of veteran. (if you lose all your troops in a battle, you lose all your bonuses) 2) based on the enemy loss compared to your initial force, you would gain some %age veterancy (gaining more veterancy when engaging army around the size of your's +some small default %age for the fire baptism of the new recruit). - as your army would be aging, battle-hardened veteran would, at some time, retire and be replaced by new soldiers, so the amount of veterancy you have could be reduced over time. that way: - the bonus would be greater for big nation with big armies, but the challenge would be to get in a battle that can raise your army's veterancy.(as raiding defense less or nearly defense less nation would not increase your army veterancy that much) - the bonus got a limit and could never allow scenario like "a single 'experienced' soldier defeat an 'inexperienced' tank".

an idea in my mind would be like this. - tourism work in %age like commerce, but unlike commerce is reduced to 0 during a war. - some improvement may raise the maximum limit for tourism. (like national parc (could be a project) , natural parc, beach resort, attraction parc, airport, ...) - tourism gain 1% (or 0,5%) every day at peace until it reach the max. - as commerce work with population (so indirectly with infrastructure) , the tourism could work with the land area. (the greater the nation, the more touristic site you can have on your land.)

here are two differents national project i have though of. National project name: Empire State Building Small description: The "empire state building" popularize skyscrappers and encourage public societies to build skyscrappers. Project effect: increasing the ratio of habitant/infrastructure from 100 to 125. Resource cost: 2,500 5,000 2,500 Cash cost: $45,000,000 NB: it's a double edge project as it would increase food consumption and population density, but it's counter balanced by the profit made by the economy National project name: solar pannels societies Small description: by investing in solar pannels citizen could produce energy for themselves. Project effect: generate 20% energy for free in each city. (or generate infrastructure / 5 unit of energy) Resource cost: 5,000 2,500 2,500 Cash cost: $45,000,000 NB: could be helpfull to reduce the ressources used for power generation.

i always asked myself a question about the population. where do they live? farm produce food out of land, but use all the land available in the math disease is calculate based on population density and pollution but it use only land (and not infrastructure) in the "population density" math. if we see "infrastructure" as a 1 square mile of land that have some construction on it (like houses and roads) and therefore cannot be used for agriculture. then we got two option: 1) infrastructure are build on land (like in the game for the moment) then the cultivable land (the value used in the farm production math) would be the land without infrastructure on it and not the entire land available. then, the math would be like this: total land - infrastructure = cultivable land 2) infrastructure and land are two different value. it doesnt alter the farm production math, but, then, it's the population density math that is incorrect the math would have been then: population / (infrastructure+land) = population density. that could still making it possible to reduce population density by increasing land. there is obviously something wrong somewhere. maybe i am the one that is wrong, maybe not. please could you consider all possibilities. and bring me an answer.