seabasstion

you make a good point. hard to call something like gayjew tasteless when calling this many people a rapist. either you dont mean in (and it undermines your platform here) or youre doing some type of blanket prejudice statement against a group of people (which doesn't sound very tolerant - again against your platform here) its only been like 10 days right? i think we can hold it together a little longer than this guys lol. poor form here

yes but the key difference is we declared war on alpha. no declaration was made against hbe. if i recall there hasn't been a single time we've declared war on someone without a thread in my time in test.

So you prefer 'the grumpy' or just 'grumpy'

i hope i didn't misrepresent myself i have no issue with you guys defending yourselves. i was just more questioning the verbiage about it. i guess you are technically right that a 2 person raid is a hostile act. i just felt it to be a bit strong of a statement considering the crime. this thread made it sound like we waged all out war on your alliance.

no theres not something like that built in the game but it isn't hard to put some scripts together and use the api do to this for you. i would ask around in your alliance chances are someone would know how

ah see thats where we differ i guess. i didn't join my alliance based on fear of someone taking my stuff. i guess thats why youre taking this so personal

Sounds like you should be in cornerstone

As the one that sparked these hostilities I can definitively say the raiding of this inactive nation is due to the current dog pile. Gotta keep it fun while everyone is filling me up with hot saucy lead. This was just some low hanging fruit. They are free to take it as a personal attack if they wish though. I'm not going to hold that against them

Oh come on norman we all know the first 20k infra lost is no problem. It's those remaining 20k that we really need to worry about. You can't fool me you scoundrel

I honestly didn't even see he was gov. Lol it makes more sense now. I'm not sure what you're driving at with the fortifying comment though... fortifying to avoid beige loses quite a bit more pixels than taking the beige

well to be fair their bio also says that raiders will not profit but looking at the bank records of previous raiders clearly that isn't the case. when the precedent is set that the bio is false all bets are off. 3 counter attacks against 25ish aggressive raids in the past month prior to this recognition isn't exactly a glowing affirmation of their hot cop hard talk

so 2 raids on one inactive nation equates to hostilities. good to know

If it's one thing we all can agree on is the sense of wonderment we all get by shitting on each other

Bird

I have no idea what you're talking about

there are only a couple scenarios i can think of where it might be strategically useful 1) right at war start. fortify right away then do an air attack right at update (for the increased unit loss) 2) fortifying to reach a new day to do a double buy and potentially mount a counter 3) it is near the end of the war and your opponent is only doing ground/air attacks and the resistance works out where you can beige them later. say youre at 12 resistance and they are at 14. they have 3 map and you have 2 map. at the start of the next turn im spamming to fortify so when that air attack comes in im at 12 + 10 - 12 = 10. im now at 14. well now that i start to write it out i guess they would just result in a fortifying loop. still i think there is potential there even if i dont get the exact conditions for it to be vital to turning a war. to these points though - 1 and 2 are nearly negated in a 2v1 or 3v1 since damage is still so high by air in this game it wouldn't matter. when more than days worth of buying is destroyed in a single attack and there are mutliple attacks per day it will never regress back to a balanced fight (barring outside intereference or with the new addition of the spy damage). do we even know how much extra damage they are receiving? you have to remember that 3 map spent on fortifying is 3map spent not attacking. if the net loss favors attacking yourself compared to fortifying and waiting on them attacking than it pretty much doesn't have a place here. meaning if i fortify and lose net 200 tanks compared to using the maps to attack and lost a net 100 tanks it would make sense to just attack and not fortify. i dont have enough datapoints on this yet though to know what the case is but early results seem to suggest that fortification isn't worth it in this scenario for 3 - i think these cases would be few and far between. i think these type of cases are much more likely to happen by someone willing to wake up to a 3am alarm while the other person is not. so i think you are right tywin - fortifying strategically outside of simply avoiding beige is difficult to imagine. 99% of its value comes from the ability to avoid beige. i think there might be a discussion in forcing the defender to make that decision sooner than later to fortify spam (meaning they are only worth like 5 points each every time), but to make beige a mathematical impossibility i feel would be a very poor decision to make

yes and that is why this system (somewhat) works. it at least gives the person on the losing side a chance to determine their fate slightly. a chance to potentially mount a strategic comeback in the next rounds. your system where the attackers still get to do the highest output of damage while simultaneously looting at the end (the one that earns the most) is just giving more power to an already overpowered aggressive attack. i would be saying these exact same things if i were winning wars. dogpiles arent as fun as a good balanced challenge. what youre suggesting promotes more dogpiling.

yeah there was never a talk of us going into ts. i was also very pro ts while other members were more pro rose/alpha. i think that was one of the reasons why we never really did anything useful is we never really set our sights correctly. there was a moment of serious consideration to merging with pantheon but that fell apart when it became pretty clear fist's strategy was to walk the line between rose and ts and wait to see who would win before snuggling up to whomever that happened to be. that was the closest we would have came to 'merging' with ts

i think you have a misunderstanding which may change your opinion. this isn't true. under the old system - yes. uranium, coal, iron, lead, bauxite, oil were immune from looting. however in the new system it is NOT immune (shout out to mage) the issue with the old system was nobody would 'win' wars. they would just perform a ton of overpowered air attacks (which did not loot the opponent) doing as much destruction as possible without ever giving the losing side a loss which sent them to beige and theoretically time to recover and fight back (5 days whenever a beige happened). i think what he meant by 'winning' wars was incentivizing them to go to beige to get this recovery time for a comeback, not simply do a one dimensional air attack every time. under the old system it was very easy to get perma rolled with the bottleneck being the downdeclare range https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17829-12162016-coming-winter-update/?p=297371 alex posted this a few weeks after the 'winning wars' quote you referenced. he directly stated his goals are to improve player retention. with your suggestions in mind what i think it would do is it would blend the two systems together working against this ideology. you would be able to do maximum damage with air AND get a large amount of loot. the player would be receiving the maximum amount of damage (via planes or ships), and with the occasional ground attack that could steal an entire day's worth of income if youre in the right score range you'll be put at 100k cash, have your infrastructure lowered to the point where you can no longer buy maximum units (not that you could buy maximum units to begin with), have 10% of your infrastructure removed when beiged (furthering this infra cap), have a large sum of your cash and warchest stolen as well, and only 2 days of beige to recover. the only way you would be able to buy back to full strength would be if you had 3 people beige you simultaneously as it takes six full days to build up your planes (the dominant unit in this game). however youre probably strapped for cash as its now been stolen. youre probably not at a high enough infrastructure (it burns really quickly in this game) for max units. and now you've had ALL of your warchest stolen, not just the war materials. your post above suggests that there is now a 'safe' resource to invest in. there is not. there would literally be zero safe haven for any form of wealth aside from credits which have a redemption limit. additionally if youre blockaded you couldnt trade out your resources anyway so it wouldn't even matter. ships are much more valuable in this way system so blockades will be a very common thing. it would take the stars aligning for a comeback to happen since the buy times to full military take so long, and are so expensive once you realistically get to 50% or so of your opponents military (which happens pretty much in the initial blitz of an attack). i get what youre trying to suggest. it isn't realistic/sensible that someone could just fortify endlessly and prevent a beiging. but there should be some form of limiter allowing a losing nation to come back or at least attempt a comeback. in the current system (even with fortifying) there is no realistic chance of a comeback barring a huge enemy blunder like not having enough gas or munitions once you are in a 2v1 or 3v1 type scenario. the math just doesn't support it. ive brought this up for well over a year now (and i think the post youre talking about is one where i casually mention that the math worked for like 5 cities but not 15 i did a few days ago) so if the end goal is to retain players (which is what his goal should be as increased number of players should yield an increase in credit purchases) than enabling a system where not only do nations get bombarded into zero infrastructure but the people doing it also get paid handsomely isn't a very sustainable system in my opinion. the incentive to perma roll people should be due to personal reasons not financial. and what you are suggesting is giving a financial reason to perma roll people. if that happens you will have the war profiteers come in and farm not only the inactives (which is what the current system is like) but also the actives once the dust settles and one side 'wins' the game as there would be no feasible way for them to come back. i could envision farming active players would serve to drive people out of this game as people typically dont like seeing years worth of works evaporate in a week. there have already been a number of changes alex has made to prevent this 'active' player type farming by people in positions of heavy superiority. these were primarily by people that played in an atypical way that put them in a vast and uniquely superior niche. your tweak of the new war system would basically ensure someone gets not only max damage but also stolen from a large amount. at least with this system there is the tradeoff - they can fortify and see their infrastructure burn as long as their aggressors wish, or they could take the beige and attempt to recoup. with your version, once someone is beaten down, there is literally no reason to fortify if the beige is inevitable. all it would do is allow for more of the infrastructure to be destroyed before the beige happens making the smart thing to do is to not do anything (except hope someone comes in to bail you out i guess) and get to beige as quickly as possible. that or go to vacation mode i wrote a lot more but im starting to digress so ill just cut myself off now

at least we all now know they have no interest in ever fighting their own fight. i hope you are getting paid much more to fight for them this time than the last war they sat out

With the 100k loot floor this suggestion would have extremely little impact in doing what fortification is attempting to do. Sure go ahead and boost casualties. When you only have enough money to buy 2 ships after the wave of ground assaults come in you still won't have any recourse to fight back. So on the surface, yes it is a good suggestion. But when coupled with other factors (such as the Looting limit) it would still remain an ineffective solution and would only further the attackers cause. This suggestion in practice wouldn't do what it's attempting to do, and I think it is pretty easy to see why when you have a better understanding than the surface layer of the overall war mechanic and what Alex's motives are. This update hurts raiders. People looking for alliance wars or alliance defending (which I'm guessing what this guy is doing with his grand total of 20 maps spent). You would get the benefit of beating your opponent without a fight back for 5 days while leaving them unbeiged for the next round of fighting to immediately follow. Raiding can still happen via inactive raids but you would now have the added benefit (in Alex's point of view) where younger nations in smaller alliances can now ride out a raid with fortification and not lose their stash if they want. They are basically safer as raiding active people is much much less successful. As far as I'm aware Alex is looking to retain players. This could be a way to help that. The current system basically yields a result where it only makes sense to raid inactive nations while still allowing for global alliance warfare to perma roll people. Yes you get to a point where this beat down will cost more money than the damage you are inflicting. If the goal is to inflict damage though (to war) this shouldn't bother you. This effectively decouples raiding from warring and boosts your strength if you actually show up. I do yield that treasures are problematic. Perhaps a solution for that is if you have a treasure you can't fortify. But treasures would need to be transferable in that event as its not exactly fair to someone that would rather be rid of the threat.

Wow a master of the mechanics and foreign affairs. I'm sure those skills will be put to great use when you have all of your allies continually doing your fighting for you

i've looted almost 100 million since the war change. superior military force confirmed but seriously - i think we should do as this post says. afterall he does have 3 cities, has played the game for over 2 weeks and is in the most knowledgeable warfare alliance (if we are talking about knowing where the vacation button is)

im sure calling out bk will work out well for you

i choose norman and his lovely underpants