Scatheon

I like this guy. I think you need to take a nap.

I swear, everybody takes me more seriously than they should. EDIT: Also, it's 2014, get it right.

Absolutely not.

I'm new here.

Peace in our time.

Silly Jaden, you should have known that posting this would get us brutally roasted.

Is it this nation? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=306712 If so, me too. Very graphic.

This band defined my teenage years and early twenties.

Spies seems to be a bit of a stretch. These were just your members openly reaching out to us about the war. I don't know if I buy the whole "milcom/trolling" bit. Everyone seems to fall back to "lol just trollin u" when they get called out. But hey, maybe this is the one exception.

Hi there. I am a person that met Jaden and Hideri and decided to team up with them after everything with IRON went down. I mention this because I think it's important to note that I am not affiliated with IRON in any way, and I have no dog in the IRON fight. In fact, I only joined the game a couple months ago. I literally 0% give a shit about IRON and its future. If they do well and prosper, that's wonderful, I hope it continues. If they don't, I don't care. Well, that is up until the events of a couple days ago that resulted in this RoH, but that's beyond the point. I agree with you that it is not an IRON civil war. I want to correct an inaccuracy in your post, though. The offshore we created is literally just an offshore. Just an extension alliance created to offshore funds in case of war, which is a tactic as old as the concept of banks existed. We named it IRON because we thought it would be funny and get IRON all angry about it. Clearly, that worked. They are very upset. Your theory of "government-in-exile" is wildly inaccurate. There is no claim to leadership of IRON. If IRON were to lose all of its leadership today, I guarantee you that Valyria would shrug that event off and continue on its merry way. We don't want anything to do with the tainted name of IRON. Let it burn. We are Valyria. Luna, you've reached out to me before, but I'd love to have a frank conversation with you where we just lay the facts out on the table. Maybe there is something both of us are misunderstanding about everything. If you ever want to talk, I'm all ears.

All things considered, it was a well-timed and well-executed attack. It's just unfortunate that they are lying to their members about the true reason for war.

Imagine wanting to be the best IRON. Imagine wanting to be any kind of IRON at all.

Based on conversations I've had with your alliance mates, that is very much not the case.

Anyone have any extra bottles lying around?

I support this wholeheartedly.

Has there been any thought given to implementing two factor authentication in the game (e.g. one-time codes from an authenticator app or SMS)? Would be nice to add a bit more security, especially after having spent a few bucks on VIP. Could be an opt-in feature, as I know a lot of people find 2FA annoying.

This is a forgery of my signature but I'll allow it.

Some sort of "occupation" phase could be cool in the event of a lost war (maybe a new war type would be more appropriate for this). The aggressor stations an occupational force in your country for a capped amount of time (probably on the short end), and each turn the defender has an opportunity to roll for some sort of resistance that has potential to do damage to the occupational force and even break the occupation. During the occupation, a percentage of the resources generated gets taken by the occupier, but they also spend a lot to do the occupying. No idea whether that kind of concept would be fun but it seems interesting in my head.

What about a spam label? Force spam bots to identify as such, then have the game automatically mark those messages as spam and allow them to be filtered into a separate folder as an opt-in feature.

It's a perfect opportunity to practice your creative writing skills.

The development time it would take to build this feature seems hefty but I agree with the sentiment here that city management when changing builds is a slog and only gets sloggier when building more cities. You could achieve something close to what you're looking for by using the import/export function. When you're at a build that you like, use the export tool and save that with a title in your dossier or in a forum post somewhere and repeat with your other builds. Then when it's time to switch builds quickly, use the bulk import tool to flip all your cities over. This gets a little less useful if each city has a unique build, though. It's also not super intuitive. I think it would be cool if the city manager page had number/text inputs for each cell in the improvements rows. That way you could bump the numbers up and down to your liking all in one spot without needing to click increment/decrement buttons one by one. Then, on save, the page could utilize the same calculations that the bulk import tool does and let you know about errors or about costs incurred when successful.

Can confirm. I hand-replied absolutely bizarre things to the 30+ recruitment messages I received expecting them to just be bots, and got dozens of WTF's in response.

I heard Prefontaine smells like mung beans.

You really had to dust the cobwebs off of this one, didn't you 😉

I don't know what this means and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.