Johnson Boris

Great post, it definitely changed my mind completely on certain points regarding the situation.

GOGOGOGOGOGOOGOGO

Honestly, I would argue that the main reason ships are not all that used during peace time is that they increase your score too much for how effective they are in war (the ground/air fight is the most important to win a war).

I have to say I really like the idea about grey becoming a factor that affects war range.

I think you should think more in terms of ship units, not ships as a general concept

I'm secretly a VOX mp, so no can't do

Tldr; a new alliance has just been created, its name is Unidad Hispana. It is a Hispanic alliance for Hispanic people. It is protected by Waffle House. Translation of this post will be below. Unidad Hispana !Te presentamos la única alianza hispana del juego! La esencia de Unidad Hispana es reunir a todos los jugadores hispanos del juego en una alianza o, por lo menos, en un servidor de discord, creando una gran comunidad de hispano-hablantes. Así que te invitamos a que te unas a nuestro servidor de discord para hablar con demás jugadores hispanos, escuchar música y leer noticias del juego en español. Alianza fundada por Panky y Boris "Me gusta fumar porros con hispanos" - Elon Musk. "La pasa Fabregas, la chuta Iniesta, GOOOOOOOOL GOOOOOOOOL GOOOOOOOOL GOL GOOOOOOOOOOOOL" - Manolo Lama. "BRUm brum BRum brUM." - Sergio Pérez. "Te quiero bro." - Ibai. "Uno solo puede estar seguro de que es hispano." - Descartes. ¡Hispanos Unidos! Translated bit: We present you the only hispanic alliance in the game The essence of Unidad Hispana is to unite all the Hispanic players in a single alliance or, at least, in a discord server, creating a great community of Spanish-speaking players. So we invite you to join our discord server to chat with other Spanish players, listen to music and read Orbis news in Spanish Alliance founded by Panky & Boris Quotes will not be translated so that there is no chance for the words of the authors to be mistranslated. Discord: https://discord.gg/ZG7pSw8BXx

Cities=bad. Individuals should stop worrying so much about growing in city count and should worry more about learning, having fun in wars and improving their reputation. As for the alliances, this is just going to happen naturally in a game of this kind. I would reduce the extent of the importance of the high tier by increasing project and city score, but there isn't much to do about it.

I think that would be a shame and I'll give a few reasons: 1. The most addictive city count is the super low city count. Allowing player to grow quickly early helps the game's overall engagement and gets them addicted. 2. It also takes no time to reach c5 in comparison to the crazy lengths of the game and having this growth period helps somewhat mitigate the crazy slope in the city growth curve. 3. TKR tiers at c3 to raid and with the new city score changes c2 may be even better to stay at to raid. Cities=bad for mones. 4. I think it would be a design flaw to start giving cities or projects are rewards, it is better to follow an uniform dynamic by which the player gets resources and then has to decide what to use them for, trying to figure out what is most efficient. I think it would be a much better mechanic to give them almost the exact amount it takes to buy c3 instead of just giving them the city so as to carry on with the process described above.

Boris Johnson approves this post

All those changes certainly look interesting. I am a little bit unsure about advising new players on infra levels, I would probably prefer it if you left that to the alliances to decide or just gave very broad suggestions. The reason being that the best infra level depends on many of the alliance's decisions. One of them being the city count at which the alliance is going to (and should) recommend them to stay at to raid. Other factors such as mmr would also influence the infra level at which newbies should stay.

Posting an offer to sell stuff at a lower price than someone else because it is beneficial to you for whatever reason is not market manipulation. You are not manipulating anything. You are just showing your desire to sell a rss for a lower price than another individual.

Nah, putting up multiple offers makes sense for sellers and buyers because it is more difficult for the market to be bought/sold up if there are more offers up. It could be kind of a problem if the market was even more susceptible to be 100% sold or bought up since it would make prices more unstable. I don't see how this would ever be an actual problem, if you want to sell or buy stuff you can do it instantly without the need of posting an offer. The sole purpose of posting an offer in the global market is to sell/buy stuff for more/less. If you don't want to be bothered fighting with other people, I think it is totally understandable (and the healthiest choice) to not post and offer and just insta-buy or insta-sell. Besides, it is beneficial for the market for traders to be able to post more offers since the prices will more closely mirror the current state of demand and supply for a particular resource at a particular price. If people weren't able to show their interest publicly, then it would be even harder for prices to remain stable. A good example of when being able to post multiple offers help happened recently. The sell offers for iron were recently completely bought, meaning that there were no offers with a price below hundreds of thousands. Thanks to Hoffman and I as well as other traders it took only minutes for the price of iron to go back to a reasonable amount. I wouldn't have indirectly helped reduce the price of iron that someone increased artificially if there was no way I was gonna make a profit. Also, if Hoffman and I would have filled up that maximum of offers, there would have been close to no one bothering to post bids and the price would have artificially stayed up for longer. Making people unable to bid for a rss artificially restricts the amount of demand there can be for a resource at a certain price.

The problem I find with this would be the practical implications of the deletion of city timers inside established alliances. Newbies are very often simply granted their cities. If we delete the city timer, the safest economic decision for alliances may be to just make every new member that wants grants to raid at low city counts until they reach a semi-arbitrary amount of money and rss. At which point, instead of getting them to city 12 or mid 10s cities, the alliance would jump them to city 20 directly within a day and avoid the city 10-20 tier altogether since it is the least profitable tier (at city 20+ it is more profitable because it is safer to have more infra and you can build more projects). The effect of this situation may be a complete deletion of the city 10-20 tier within the alliances with grants, which would have many indirect consequences. In addition, we could see more players leave due to being forced to raid for longer. In essence, I feel like this change should be looked into more deeply, there could be a lot of long-term effects if this change were to come. It is not just some minor change to the game, it can deeply change how econ departments work

Please stop voting to have a third UP project at or above city 25. The whole reason why UP and AUP are good is because they allow new players to escape the city 10-20 tier more easily. The reason why escaping this tier is important is because it is clearly the least profitable; above city 20 you can start having more infra as well as projects to supplement your improvements and earn more per city. Below city 10 you can raid and make over a 100 million a week. The purpose of a third UP project, if any, should be to allow new players to "escape" the city 1-24 tier. This could be good because above that city tier you can really begin having more project and infra as well as maybe even farming. Also, make UP projects in general have a ROI of about 4-5 cities pls.

As it is, it is ok. The only thing I would add is to either change the bottom where it says "join" to saying "apply", be more clear regarding the necessity for new players to join their aa's servers or requiring new players to become members of their alliance to continue with the tutorial. The first option would honestly make a big difference since, as a new player, it is often confusing whether or not you are in an alliance the second you press join or not. I like the style part that you mention, but instead of making it about what part of the game you like more, which is hard to know for new players, you could make it about the overall vibe of the alliance. Defined with adjectives such as "heavily political", "dank" or others. I understand the part that you talk about forcing new players, but I'm sorry, it is necessary to join an alliance at some point, it is almost forcing if you want to play the game. This game is super hard to decipher and understand otherwise. New players should definitely be forced to join some kind of alliance I'm sorry, but as someone who worked in IA in a small aa, our IA department was decent or at least way more decent than some of the alliances in the top 30 that come to mind. Stopping at aa in the top 30 completely devastates alliances below that rank, reducing diversity and options in the long run. Big alliances are already favoured in the long run anyways due to the fact that they appear first in the alliance search tab.

I think it should be made the amount it protects should be in absolute numbers and thought with the idea of protecting those in cities 1-25. The project should be good enough to make every milcom department to at least consider it after the members have gotten IA, PB and MLP. The reason for this being that raiding is way too profitable and this could be a good way to heavily reduce raiding profits.

I was one of them. Roasis inc. just didn't seem to even bother to fight seriously and get good stats by raiding our weak members, of which we had a ton.

It was a fun war, but I'm glad it is over.

I fricking love this RoH. Good job

Why should wars be made more difficult? It is good to have global wars, they make the game dynamic. What we should do would be to change the mechanic of blockading so as to not make the gameplay of the victim boring af and make military destroy less stuff in general. That would make wars longer and more affordable. Making the game, overall, more entertaining.