seabasstion

well for me 'the war' is also counting raids from outside alliances. raids that i would not be doing if it weren't for the war against us. so sure - while ts and co have done the majority of the 300m damage to me, a figure i am probably not close to recouping from ts and co alliances, im still coming out ahead in the grand scheme for 'my war' so basically you guys are winning 'your war' if you want to limit the scope and im winning 'my war' when i consider the entire war as a whole. additionally, considering i have no real value of infrastructure left to lose while the availability of raid targets has only slightly decreased moves the needle more in my favor in 'my war' while staying stagnant in 'your war'. you have guys spending 300k per attack to destroy 50k worth of my infrastructure at this point. infrastructure i dont really need aside from bill lock which happens only at the smallest of infrastructure for me due to a change in my improvements. levels that daily bonus type stuff can fix. so like i said - im not really bothered. im running real lean and getting paid. and im not really an atypical case for test right now. define 'substantial'

not really. 0 to 2k infra costs 15.7m. call it 16m to be conservative with the minimal infra rebuilding ive done at extremely low levels. at 18 cities, 16m each is 288m just cash alone i've looted 246m but there are resource costs added into that. to demonstrate that value you need to look no further than my 19th city i just bought (236M) with 4000 land purchased (35M in cost). i've also raised my land an additional 7k land across my cities with varying costs at various levels. but all my cities were above 3k land prior to the start of the war. that is 388 land per city. 3000 land to 3388 land = 6.9M per city. 6.9M * 18 = 124M. this figure is more than likely much much lower than what the actual cost is. so my total land/city purchasing during this war is over 400m. my total infra lost is 288m i also have more aluminum, uranium, and munitions than what i started with this war offsetting the minor loss in steel and gas i have at the moment (as i simply dont really need it) oh, and i also bought 13 credits yesterday day at like ~6m each so you can go ahead and throw another 75-80m on top of that. so like i said....not really bothered here

i've looted more than the value of the infra i've lost by quite a large margin. only real loss was the lost wages from my infra. theres quite a few of us in test that can say that. so yeah ... im not really bothered

ive got tasteful SRD nudes who wants em. silent auction ending 1/20/17 12a orbis time. for the real dirty pics post your bids below

This is my favorite moment in this game. Supremely well done

i would guess the average age of test members is close to 30

what is the index change as a whole? i see some that are positive

can we just refer to you as 'the load'?

whenever an update happens preferably

is it possible for you to provide the bar graphs more frequent than that? im looking to leverage this into my own processes

so what will it be then. bar graphs or line graphs!

14 would probably be better than 30. you would not really be able to distinguish between them if it gets too crowded. you would sort these chronologically?

how many days would you include for each bar graph?

maybe chronologically for each day for each resource? you would probably need separate graphs for each resource if that is the case. or do you suppose this would be too much work on your end?

How do you plan to track long term price changes with a bar graph?

I'm always a fan of the lowdown. To the moon!

im always a fan of the scatter plot but a gold old fashioned bar graph is nice too if it has the correct sorting.

what type of graph do you think you will use?

theres quite a few of these existing https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=51372 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=48186 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30876 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=55656 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=54315 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=43735 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=54316 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=49657 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=52301 and they all have the unique ID cb0cf3109e61373be1c18de4 although the unique ID could be related to whatever error is preventing it from having a real minutessinceactive value.

excellent! when will these graphs come out?

whats the best way to refer to this alliance? all the successful ones have nice short abbreviations/three letter acronyms that just sound good to say. tS (tee-ess) tkr (tee-kay-are) tEst (test) black knights (bk) while wildly unsuccessful ones are quite difficult to say lordaeron (lord a-aron)

is it possible to get the text font of expired wars to gray? once you get a large number of wars logged it begins to become very cluttered with all the colors. it would bring attention to your eye the important active wars.

not true. if someone uses only ground attacks and doesn't waste any maps ships will never beat ground 30 maps used with ground = 100R 28 maps used with ships ( + 2 maps queued) = 98R i think cutting fortification in half is too much. 6 would be a better number. i think it would give the defending nation an immediate question to answer - do i fight back or do i fortify turtle the entire time. if you cut it in half all it takes is ground attacks the entire time. over 60 map (and 20 attacks) the attacker reduces 200R. 20 fortifications = 100R. this is a guaranteed loss with 100% fortification. a defender that tries to whittle down their opponent through moderate or phyrric victories has this turn requirement reduced further. ships now do 210R damage in this time. this idea would work in 1v1 type scenarios, but the actual gameplay rarely does 1v1 fights. also the damage/war system in itself does not properly support a 1v1 as barring any major blunders by the aggressor once you get to any form of higher city count. i think fortification would be better off removed entirely than reducing it by 5. all it would really serve to do is prolong the beige causing more infra damage during this period. preventing the beige is 99% of fortifications value. edit: i think an altogether better option than fortification is to raise the floor for looting during mid war but keeping the loot higher during the beige mechanic. 100k is an extremely little amount to mount a comeback. it makes no sense that one ground attack on one city loots from every city. if the purpose of fortification is to allow a defender to mount a fight back this low floor will largely undermine it as a nation wont have the working capital to buy units to fight back (hence the delayed beige i was talking about). to me it doesn't make sense that a 1 city nation and a 30 city nation have the same operating cash floor. they are entirely different war experiences. 100k gets you 25 planes, or 2 ships. if this tweak is implemented to the war system it incentivizes ground attacks and ship attacks heavily as they guarantee beige. ground attacks will continually steal the money. naval attacks will embargo the nation from selling to get more cash. planes would still be able to mount a comeback but aha! we dont have recourse to get the money to buy them apart from selling our expensive improvements like stadiums and drydocks and air force bases which would lower your military might. i suppose the only real option is purchasing credits (you capitalist dog you!) which have a redemption limit.

this is very interesting stuff! will there be graphs to go along with this in the near future

this does make a lot of sense. soldiers would steal from the businesses themselves not wait for the tax day and steal it from the government so it is justifiable.