Zoot

Ok, I assume it is a mistake that it says "up to 4 cities" then? It should be 5?

I don't know if it is just me being dumb, but I don't understand what "Every turn the nation gets 1 raw resource for each raw resource they can mine (except food) for each city they have up to 4 cities" means

Wow, I didn't even know that was a thing. Yeah that's pretty silly. This suggestion is a good one.

Land is already way overpowered. As you mention it has positive benefits for both food production and population while at the same time being indestructible. If anything land needs to be made less powerful, not more.

You say this as if this is a new thing. It most definitely is not. If anything it is easier to survive as a micro today than it was in the past. Yes, there are raiders that will attack you, but in the past there were large alliances that would regularly look through the treaty web to see if there were any alliances with insufficient ties to protect them, and it wasn't just micros that were hit, but medium sized alliances as well. Trying to make an alliance without sufficient protection has never been a viable option. You either need friends capable of protecting you or you need to start out at a size where attacking you doesn't make sense.

Not so sekret anymore Best of luck in your future endeavors Camelot.

This forum is for making suggestions to improve the game. I am saying that your suggestion does not improve the game, it fundamentally changes it and creates and entirely different game without giving sufficient justification as to why it should be done.

No, adding something for the sake of adding it doesn't add depth.

What depth does it add exactly? Also a negative pollution index can be easily explained. It simply means that you have the capacity to handle more pollution than you currently generate.

The game is currently build around the fact that the only thing your position the map means is what resources you have access to. You can currently instantly attack anywhere in the world. You can currently instantly trade with someone anywhere in the world. You can currently instantly play baseball against a team anywhere in the world. Making the position of a nation matter isn't adding depth, it is making a new game.

You can literally move your nation. Realism is not a thing and I doubt you'll be able to convince people to support any changes based on it. If you want to convince people to support your change you have to explain how it will improve the game play. What will it add to it? How will it make the game more enjoyable to play?

Your suggestion is missing something very important. It's missing the "why". Rather than just saying "This should be changed", try to explain the reasoning behind it. How will these changes make the game better? How will they improve the game? What aspect of game play do they improve?

Look mom! I'm on the news!

Most Influential Player: PartisanBest Alliance Leader: YosodogWorst Alliance Leader: Dwight k SchruteBest Government Member (not a leader): PsweetPoster You Most Love to Hate: PhoenyxBest Villain: Dwight k SchruteBest Fighter: DtC JusticeMost Controversial Player: Roquentin

Most Powerful Alliance: t$Most Improved Alliance: BKBest Rookie Alliance (must be an alliance formed in 2020): Advanced Syndicalist MechanicsMost Missed Alliance: Guardians of the GalaxyMost Immoral Alliance: New Pacific OrderMost Controversial Alliance: New Pacific OrderBiggest Warmongers: ArrrrrrghBiggest Pixel-Huggers: PantheonWorst Fighting Alliance: PantheonBest Alliance Growth: The ImmortalsBiggest Alliance Decline: Schrute FarmsMost Likely to Succeed in 2021: t$Most Likely to be Rolled in 2021: The CommonwealthBest Government Line-Up: BKBest Bloc (can be a bloc that disbanded this year): ChaosBest Foreign Affairs Move: TI and TFP leaving SwampWorst Foreign Affairs Move: t$ and TKR keeping their treaty

Fixed the mistake in the first sentence of your announcement. You're welcome.

And by all means, continue thinking for yourself, just don't kid yourself that it will have any influence on the outcome. As for voting with ones feet. While it sounds good in theory, you have to remember that the majority of the player base never interacts with anyone outside their home alliance and maybe its closest allies. The majority of the player base does not read the forums. The majority of the player base does not seek information besides what is given to them by their leadership. The majority of the playerbase is happy simply trusting their leaders to make decisions on their behalf.

I am not arguing that it doesn't matter whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not. I am stating it as a 100% fact. Regardless of whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not, the war has happened and while, as seen by the discussions on these forums, some people are more than willing to discuss the validity of his interpretation, it does not matter with regards to the peace negotiations. Now you are, of course, welcome to continue ignoring what experienced players are telling you, but it won't change the facts and the facts are that the discussions taking place on these forums have absolutely no influence on peace negotiations. The leaders of the different alliances aren't going to read these discussions and suddenly decide to change their stance based on them. Hell the majority of alliance leaders aren't going to read these discussions at all. And before you start with something about the will of the people influencing the leaders of the different alliances you have to understand that the clear majority of alliances function as dictatorships and that includes most of the ones that style themselves as democratic. There is simply too much OPSEC information to allow anything remotely resembling direct democracy to work.

And that just goes to show that you have no clue how the politics of this game works. The reason for the war doesn't matter. Try asking older players if they remember the official reason behind the large wars of the past and chances are they won't remember it. All they will remember is that there were two sides that formed because one side wanted to bring down the other. 9 out of 10 times the "reason" for war is nothing but an excuse to attack people you want to attack, either because you feel threatened by them or because you want to take them down before they become an actual threat...or simply because you are bored of peace. All the discussion on the "reason" for war is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Most of the people engaging in these discussions know that it doesn't matter. They know that regardless of the outcome of the discussion it won't change anything with regards to the war. The best they can hope for is that it will make people think an extra time before trusting someone another time and even that is doubtful. Peace negotiations don't happen in the public, they don't happen because someone uncovers the truth. They happen because both sides have decided that there is no benefit in continuing the war. The way the war system of this game work, after a certain point the return on continuing the war just isn't there. The losing side has nothing left for the winning side to destroy and the winning side is so superior in terms of military that the only way the losing side can do damage is by attacking inactives or by throwing nukes and missiles. The only exception to the above is the rare wars where one side, for one reason or another, is determined to destroy their opponents. This happens very rarely and is most certainly not the case with this war.

No. We can't agree to that in the slightest. At this point the reason the war started does not matter even a tiny bit. Discussing who said what or who was going to do what does not matter with regards to peace. If anything getting bogged down in that kind of discussions will make the war drag out longer. Peace will come once the leaders of the respective alliances agree to it. It will probably end in something close to white peace with probably a NAP and some other minor terms. Exactly when it will happen depends on whether one of the sides decide that they want to drag the war out a bit longer to cause more damage. If they do, it'll likely last between a few more weeks to a month. If not, I would expect peace before Christmas. I base this on years of experience with how peace negotiations in this game and similar games work.

Useless and boring weapons are useless and boring. Please buff. Personally I think it would be cool if for instance they killed off some land.

Leaving aside whether I believe this is a good idea or not, if something like this were to be a thing, it should not be added through ingame means. It should be an agreement between alliances. If you want something like this to happen, then you have to go out and convince the people in power in the various alliances to support it. That said, it's never gonna happen.

But here is the thing. The cosmetic change you propose in stage 1 only has value if we assume that we will eventually be moving onto something which gives the map meaning and any changes that does so will inevitably be a fundamental change to how the game works.

You are literally suggesting turning it into an entirely different game.