BrythonLexi

Yeah, have to back up the general theme. There's no excuse to be a jerk about these proposed change threads, but oh boy does it not feel like we're being listened to as a playerbase.

A nation can only have 3 offensive spy ops done (succeeded?) on them each day. If alliance members could blow up 1.34 infra, that'd prevent enemies from wiping out their 32 spies.

I have a strange, bold, potentially absurd idea: Change the war declare score range to how they were prior to this change that caused mass-downdeclares in the first place. Nothing was broken, and that change only make a new problem. If a change doesn't work out - don't make even *more* changes, reverse it!

You won't find success in P&W without Discord, plain and simple. Get it. That's how every worthwhile alliance (with the notable exception of TKR's Slack for member purposes) coordinates military during global wars, reaches out to members, and conducts foreign affairs (even TKR does FA via Discord). Without having Discord and being in your alliance's Discord, you are in the dark. There is too much you need to know for nationbuilding to do it just on a forum.

You're in an alliance, you should be able to ask them on their Discord or other communication channels. If they aren't giving advice... oh boy. My alliance runs a full command economy so it's generally the Econ dept's job to hand out city, project, and infra grants; and all of our jobs to keep our members at the right MMR (the amount and type of military we have) and whatnot.

Welcome to P&W!

Can you add a column for cities built per member?

Credits do bypass blockades, yeah. But that's still real life money not everybody has.

We decided that it was not worth chasing them all the way up, though we did purchase a few cities. As i'm sure you're aware, we are a 100/100 alliance and secure our members' holdings, so they were not at any risk of losing much (let alone the $100m or so that the opponent spent). It is also about fairness in the game in general, and not just the specific situation that we were in. Had the opponent had Urban Planning, and the defending nation been an allianceless low-tier nation (or otherwise on their own for the war), they would not have stood a chance - which is very much unfair to the new nation, and may have even caused them to quit.

Awesome! Wonderful patch to prevent more egregious uses of this potential exploit. I accept if there won't be a minimum city delete time due to the economic suicide that it is for the person doing it, but at least this little oversight can be fixed up.

This post specifically: Artificial whitespace is created at the bottom from when I tried to copy and paste some nation logs. It shows as a blank table, wherein pressing backspace or Delete does not remove the empty table. Entering text in each row and deleting that also does not delete the artificial whitespace.

Right! Like, my milcom and I acknowledged that as the war was going on, but I still feel like someone shouldn't have an option like this since it still technically gets around reinforcement limits. Huh, neat! I was sure that removing your 11th city would disable UP, but I suppose if that's not the case, this does make the exploit even more dangerous. However, the opponent didn't have that project. -- Additionally, on suggestion i'm going to link the wars in question where the opponent of my alliance's newbies had used this exploit. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1404546 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1404893 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1404772 The particular city building from Zombie Springfield was as follows: Blegh, tried to fix whitespace problems, couldn't. Anyway, this was only a period of 14 minutes at best where my milcom could set up a counter. That'd be unlikely during a global, and definitely impossible in peace. That really doesn't seem fair, even if a monetary loss, as it's reinforcement that others would be ill-advised to pull off.

Hey all, In this last week, some newbies in my alliance had a very peculiar war happen. The opponent had purchased several cities and used them to create a larger than usual re-mil, then delete those new cities less than ten minutes later. In doing so, this allowed our opponent to have free Immense Triumphs and blockade our newbies. As one can imagine, this seems like an unintended exploit of city buying and reinforce mechanics to force a win in a war that would otherwise be trivial in the other direction. It is also largely unfair. This practice also prevents nations with higher scores from countering the quick-reinforcement that our opponent had, as the cities are deleted too quickly for a response without 24 hour surveillance. While this is economically inefficient, it basically makes a blockade impossible to enforce, especially combined with purchasing credits for buying the new cities. My suggestion is this: When a city is bought, you cannot sell that city for 120 turns (10 days), similar to the C10+ purchase timer. By adding such a deletion timer, this would prevent such quick-reinforcement exploits from happening ever again, and even the playing field when it comes to war in raiding tiers.

We applaud you for your wisdom, may it help you in the future

Exactly this, yeah. When I went off to form a micro, we did it with around 4 of us and with a treaty tie to our former alliance. While that micro didn't last too terribly long, we had a chance and could have held longer. A single person with no ties would've been my micro's type of raid fodder.