MBaku

imagine thinking TI fought well or that you could gauge fighting after a day of conflict smh they went -8.5b and had a grand total of like 120 defensive wars, hardly something to write home about

I tried but I got denied womp womp

I think the fundamental problem is using nukes/missiles as the primary improvement destroyers. There is no way to balance the impact is has against small nations vs. big nations. 15 improvements (3 nukes) a day a ton for a c20 on 2k infra, it's nothing to a c50 with 3k infra. That goes back to @Buorhann's idea -and an idea that we've brought up many times in the past - but as @Keegoz says, have never come to a consensus on - which is improv degradation when you infra does not support that number of improvs or drastically increasing the ability for military attacks to destroy improvs. Generals will have some impact with some traits on their dev tree i think but that's still sporadic and unreliable to become the meta i would think. Here's another idea - Aircraft can target improvs - (3) for IT, (2) for MS, (1) for PV. After the general improv drops - we should reassess the new meta and we should absolutely revisit war balancing. Beige rework didn't work but that's only because there was a pointless beige cap of 5 days. But rapid military rebuilding in beige should be looked at because of the major buffs to nuke/missiles that discourage military fighting at all in a one-sided war. There should be a way to use military to gain some net with flash attacks in a way that can equal or surpass the damage that nuke/missile turrets do. This just isn't possible with the opportunity cost of a 6 day rebuild (extra day for rebuy).

Normally I’d be first in line for new military projects but the cost is kind of silly and these projects don’t really promote military game play, just the opposite. They promote no-military gameplay which I find boring. let me know when you get a project to build on Propaganda Bureau to build more MILITARY as a military project Here’s an idea - a project that allows you to build twice the military while in beige. Speed up rebuild time so you can actually FIGHT wars

They already doubled the number of improvs destroyed by missile/nukes and now they’re adding another improv destroyed. If you don’t have VDS\ID then a missile can destroy 3 improvs and a nuke will take out 5 am I reading that right? That means a single player can destroy almost 20 improvs a day? Not in a single nation of course, but a single nation could lose 15 improvs from nukes a day if I understand these changes correctly, and nukes don’t kill mil improvs so it’s all passive income killed. The downside is the improv destruction comes from nukes/missiles and not from military so if you want to punish turrets you have to nuke/missile them back and eat the net loss. Thats seems backwards. I agree that the turret meta is not a great playstyle and this could lead to longer guerilla wars, but it’s kind of a Pyrrhic victory because both parties are at war while the bystanders grow. I’ve been saying that we need ways for the losing side to fight back and deal solid net militarily but this meta is headed the opposite direction. There’s no point to sit in beige and spend 5 days doing no damage while you rebuild mil and eat spy attacks, just break immediately and continue to turret. It’s braindead and doesn’t reward advanced play styles. This COULD benefit micros by making the threat of nuke turrets much worse BUT what micros are gonna prioritize these projects over growth projects? None. So it makes no sense and won’t really help micros with smaller nations and limited project slots. Why not just remove the projects and just give us all the extra nuke/missile buffs?

aren't you in vm? who let you post on the forums

I don't think the solution is to give it 4% passive, that's a massive change and would make it required. I think the solution is to change the crime calculation so you need two police stations above 2k infra. Along with that, you could make the population hit for crime % less severe so it's not as punishing when crime is present. That would make SPT a viable benefit much earlier and not make it a required project which would hurt smaller nations.

but rn you only need 1 subway, 3 stadiums, 4 malls, and 4 banks for 12 slots to go 100. so it's harder for smaller nations to do commerce. and bigger nations are more likely to be able to spend the $120m on specialized police or ITC/Telesat. Not sure how this commerce change helps little nations. I agree with SRD, having 3% supermarkets punishes nations trying to max commerce at 125, nerfing stadiums hurts smaller nations. Passive commerce in projects hurts smaller nations.

I don’t know if “thrill” is the right word

Was finding a high infra nation and clicking the nuke button too hard? Smh, it’s just a poor philosophy imo, we should have ways to fight back conventionally.

I think the idea of buffing nukes and missiles is going in the wrong development direction. What we need is a way for losers to fight back with conventional military and be somewhat effective with enough coordination and game knowledge. The only positive effect of nukes and missiles is helping losers farm more beige, but without tweaks to conventional warfare, nobody has an incentive to stay in beige and build up its better to just exit immediately and launch more nukes/missiles. 2nukes/3missiles a day has to compete with the net value of building military that can be spied in order to exit 5 days later to deal damage. If it’s easier to get positive net launching nukes and missiles and never rebuilding infra or building a single military unit, then we’re just making war much more dull. And you’re asking for wars to get dragged out, because the losing side that sees their net climbing will have no incentive to peace. The “winners” will just have to sit there and get nuked until the “losers” are bored because the downdec is capped. What about a tiered beige exit? When you leave beige, only one defensive slot can be filled per turn. So it takes three turns until you’re fully out of beige. This would allow for some serious counter play from militarized nations. (Just a random idea I literally just thought of, but I like it.) We should also look at the beige rework again. I know the idea flopped, but it was mostly because you guys put a cap on beige time, which completely defeated the lint of encouraging nations to go max mil in beige to fight back conventionally.

I don’t know what’s so impossible about balancing war decs. They reduced city score, inflated infra score, and then are surprised that downdecs are easier. The three score variables aren’t that tough to balance. Generals are supposedly coming out to provide some disparity in military power for active fighters and trait boosts. The limitless updeclare range is stupid. It just shifted the meta further towards nuke turreting. If it was supposed to make it easier to consolidate the low tier and climb up in conventional warfare, there are other things that would have to be added to make that a viable meta.

For your consideration on my nominations: It's hard to really know who has really done what in this game, usually it just goes by reputation or personal experience so I figured I'd share a bit of my 2023 CV for those that are undecided. For best fighter - My plane kills (about 155k) for 2023 alone would put me in the top 60 all-time leaderboard and tank kills (about 2.12m) for 2023 alone would put me in the top 50 all-time leaderboard. My $34b net on the year is surpassed only by players that had large bank loots like Sam Cooper and TheDoom. I'm near the top of the leaderboards for every war I participated in. For best war criminal - I think a qualification should be actual warfighting. I'm the only person to roll Pika this year - the most protected player in the game. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=274541&display=war I've stolen treasures, taken over $500m in bounties, and single-handedly rolled micros all year long.

Nominations are closed 🤣

For trait development - How many simulated battles happen in a simulated war? I assume it's something like 8-12 like in a normal war. Which would mean you get 16-24 simulated battles a day at and it will take you no more than 4-6 days to develop a trait (at 1% rolls, we'll assume 10 battles and call it 5 days). If you equip 3 generals to army, air, navy, do they all get experience during war simulation? Also, Enhanced Engineering allows you to train for specific trait types? How does this work? Once I pick a type are all my future battles sims of that type? Do I pick ground/air/navy each battle and it changes the odds of recruitment a bit? is that the case for actual war too? will ground attacks help earn towards ground traits? Assuming max academies, worst case scenario a trait general every 15.5 days. you'll have 6 generals with traits at 93 days, or 31 days if you can equip 3 generals a time. Then people will just start force retiring generals with unfavorable traits until they get the preferred trait. They'll always have 5 trait generals and one in training. That will be the new meta. Raiding/warring nations will just be able to hit this cycle faster but since it's random, there's no incentive to really farm it because there's no guarantee of getting what you want. So I take back my previous statement, this will not encourage more warfare among nations because training is sufficient to get enough traited generals and the cost/benefit of actual warring won't make sense to get a general with preferred traits. Random traits will also not shift behavior in the game, it just creates more consequential RNG. So I stand by my opposition to random traits assignment.