im317

my word has it really been 10 years? curse you Ogaden, that means i have been here for 9 years and 365(its a leap year) days

these people running out of money, are they taking any time between losing wars to get some aid well on beige? or are they declaring 3+ wars and fighting wars at all times? if they are actually taking even 24 hours with 0 wars and still cant afford nukes and missiles then the issue is with there alliance not sending them aid and not the war system. people want to have it all. sit at 500-800 infra where it costs almost nothing to rebuild and still be able to afford 1-3 missiles and 1-2 nukes per day well fighting wars 100% of the time. changes that were supposed to make fighting back from the losing side of a war possible turned into doing max damage for minimum cost instead of having a chance to actually turn around the war. lets not pretend that everyone is being honest about what they want here. do i want to not get hit at all? sure, but am i upset that i was hit? no. my issue is that rogues hitting my alliance are getting those stats added to larger wars that we are not involved in to make themselves look better. people were not hitting Yarr because they wanted to hurt us specifically, otherwise they would not have been completely unwilling to keep wars with us out of the stats of larger conflicts that we are not involved in.

and the first time you did it was fine. even the second time was ok. its when you were able to do it a 3rd time almost a full month after the first time despite having dropped about 5k score to my 2.5k score that it was an issue. that and the fact that the only reason you had not dropped 2k more score was that you ran out score that could be dropped. if it was 2x score instead of 2.5x you would not have been able to hit me that 3rd time a month later.

as expected the increase to 2.5x was a really bad decision. in fact the in game text about it almost makes it seem like whoever wrote it did not even fully understand it. if you try to declare on someone outside of your war range the message reads "You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +150% (29,266.18) or -25% (8,779.85) of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you." maybe this was simply never updated but 150% of my score is actually 17,559.705. i get that in practice the formula is (your score)+(your score x 1.5) which is the same thing as your score x2.5 however i have no idea why its written (and coded?) that way. the way its written has me still not completely sure that when the change was made the person making it actually understood what they did. imo it should be 2x your score. i think nukes and missiles need to cost more thought im not sure if that should be an increase in cash, resources or both. we get $1m a day for logging in now. what was a fair cost when it was first put in place has become something incredibly easy to afford even on an individual nation scale compared to the damage it does. a nation with 40 cities, NFR and 500 infra per city has a score of 4280 with no(!) military and can hit a nation with 10,700 score. that could be a c35 with 3500 infra per city https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=180876 meaning the nuke does more then $50m in damage. we are seeing nations this past war who with 40+ cities who hit 5+ nations at a time and were able to buy missiles and nukes every day for a very low cost and over a month into the war a single missile could still do over $100m in damage. this change supersized the incentive for nations to hit random people not involved in the war in order to make there stats look better.

let me start by saying that i think there is to much food in the game. however prices never went below 100 ppu because it was to good of a value buy, which stems from farms being to valuable on a per slot basis. that said you have to invest to make up that value, as it takes buying land and the food production project. im always a proponent for gradual changes, so you dont end up swinging things to far. i think a better idea would be to reduce the max bonus on farms to 25% rather then removing it outright. then check back in 3 months and see if it has had the desired changes. also what is the desired change here? if its just to get food supply under control relative to the other resources then changing all the manufactured resources at the same time as food will mask the effects of the change. the issue with most (all?)of the other resources is due to inflation imo, and i agree with Exalts that raising the improvement cap would hurt smaller nations. at the moment there best options to get the 50% bonus are uranium mines and manufacturing. imo only food and manufactured resources are actually in high supply and since manufactured resources are critical to fighting wars there will always be an organized push by alliances to keep producing them even if its not the most cost effective thing to do. you need to take into consideration the massive amounts of resources that alliances keep for warchests as those are kept off the market. also please stop raising the cash exchange value for credits

as a nation who would be helped by this i am strongly against it

i forgot about this. i guess this is why raw prices have gone up so much? i still think there is a lack of total raw both overall and more importantly actively moved on the market. plus a huge glut of cash, credits quietly went up in 20% in base trade in value in November(?). we had the month with 1 credit for $270m, plus the pay to win Super Contributor 2023 which added an extra $159b the last 2 months of last year. all of that has combined to push raw prices and overall inflation very high. maybe when this actually is added and people make the purchases prices will cool down but im highly skeptical.

#LetPerksDie whale here, c47 that is super expensive for 1 extra nuke per day in a drawn out war. i will just go to 30+ nukes on hand instead. the other project is more interesting to me if im reading it right. it gives you the chance to try and use a missile to destroy 2 targeted improvements? being able to have a chance to take out 2 military improvements in 1 shot seems like it could be valuable. the issue is the cost and the high odds of having the missile shot down. how about we make it something actually worth it and give a second roll if the missile/nuke is shot down. let it have a chance to do half infra damage and take out just 1 improvement if the second chance roll hits

is extension adding time to a current treaty or a new treaty? also im glad to see my suggestion for adding a marker on trades posted by your alliance members is going to happen

please. also sorry

ok so i was mistaken but if this results in it becoming clearer for people then this was not a wasted topic.

if that is the case then they should combine the listing in game so it shows up as a larger bounty. either way the current system is lacking

add the ability to add to an existing bounty. right now there are people with multiple small bounties that are not at all worth trying to collect. im not sure if people dont get that you can only collect one of each type of bounty per war or what but those bounties will be collected due to wars that were going to happen anyways as opposed to being fought for the bounty. if people could add to existing bounties then over time the small bounties would add up to the point where its actually worth hitting someone just for the bounty.

traits, tying in projects, aging, effect on score(NS)

at least this is not just a straight rip off of CN like some other added features over the years