Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Azaghul last won the day on June 14

Azaghul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

757 Upvote Apprentice

About Azaghul

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Austin, Texas
  • Alliance Pip
    The Knights Radiant
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    Middle Earth
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Recent Profile Visitors

1417 profile views
  1. What's the alternative, no content? If building up your nation is just a "grind", than almost anything about having a nation in this game is going to be a grind. These statements are contradictory. This isn't about maintaining a gap. It's about not hyper charging growth so much that growth stops being rewarding.
  2. I remember when steel, aluminum, and gas were around 1000-1500 PPU and 10 cities was upper tier.
  3. There's a balance here between making growth to slow and making growth too fast. My gut feeling is that this is on the side of making growth too fast. We are seeing a cycle of inflation, where cities and projects are easy to build, so they have less perceived value to players, and they get bored of building them faster, so admin makes it even easier to build them to account for people getting bored of them quicker, and the cycle repeats. And I think this hurts rather than helps new alliances. New alliances generally don't have as many big nations to fund faster lower-mid tier growth. With my 33 city income, in one week I can completely fund one new nation getting all the way to city 15. With city timers, there are limits to how fast alliances with deep pockets can supercharge a new nation's growth.
  4. Yeah that's what it did last night. The timer disappeared when the 8 turns were up. It's off again after building another project:
  5. From here: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/projects/ https://politicsandwar.com/city/create/ When I built my last project: When I collected screenshots: By my calculation, and verified by an API call on my nation, the timer should expire at 6AM on August 2nd (in game) or in 8 turns. So it looks like the create a city page is wrong. I've noticed this error before. IIRC, The number of turns listed on the project and city page matched a week or so ago shortly after I got my last project, so it's not an error all of the time. I can verify that after I buy a project and the start the timer again.
  6. I don't have time right this moment to address criticisms but I think this is a much more balanced system than before. It allows people to eventually get a reprieve from being endlessly cycled while still giving a big advantage to those who strike first.
  7. One idea: Minimum beige only applies when you lose offensive wars. Loosing an offensive war generates 15 turns of minimum beige.
  8. If there are people trying to stop them from raiding, I don't think that's a bad thing. Part of the problem is that the ONLY way to keep someone from raiding/attacking you is to just sit on them, kill their rebuys, and not beige them. It's boring for everyone involved. Minimum beige gives the side trying to counter someone an alternative to just sitting on them that will generate more interesting gameplay.
  9. A few thoughts: 1) I really like Prefontaine's idea of beige banking where it's player controlled when you get it. One of the main problems with beige right now is that you can easily avoid giving someone time to rebuild with beige cycling. 2) I didn't see much negative feed back on the auto-accepting peace mechanic and I'm confused about why it might be removed. Maybe it's just my personal experience but a lot of the slot filling I've seen is people having friends beige them after launching offensive wars so they can't get countered. Beige should be a mechanic to let you rebuild, not to let you avoid getting countered. This mechanic also gives people an incentive to use in-game victories as a tool when countering someone. Right now when countering someone, the incentive is to sit on them which is boring for everyone involved. This offers a way to neutralize someone as a threat to people they have declared on other than just sitting on them. The auto-beige instead of expiration removes an incentive to do this as well. 3) I strongly disagree with removing infra damage / loot from wars that end with auto-expiration. I'd like to know what the reasoning was behind it. Especially the infra damage, it's a good disincentive to avoid abusing beige and only bait it when you really need it. 4) I disagree with removing beige for aggressors. I don't think *baiting* beige is a bad thing and it's good to have as a viable strategy. The limit on when someone can come out of beige was intended as a balance to beige baiting, and I think it's a much better way to balance out the problems removing beige for offensive wars is meant to address than just removing beige for offensive wars all together. 12 turns is probably too restrictive... 24 turns is probably better. The point is to create a potential cost for beige baiting: you get more beige that you want (6+ days) and end up sitting for a few days at full military that you can't use. I don't think that's a bad thing, it doesn't prevent you from coming back out and launching a blitz (more interesting for all involved) but does give people an incentive to give you a long beige (it delays your blitz and gives them a few days where they don't have to worry about you.)
  10. 1) I really don't like the way the new system could nerf blitzes. If both sides are building up their units in reserve, whoever strikes first will probably be at a disadvantage. And if one side is building up first and the other side is waiting a couple of days, they can strike while their units are still in reserve after their opponents are knocked out. The incentive to strike first right now is really significant for the politics of the game. It leads to more wars compared to say CN, where there were (when I used to play) a lot more false starts when it came to potential wars. There's a big political cost to being the "aggressor" that the first strike advantage is a good balance for. I'm not sure how to fix it, just stating that this is a major issue that needs to be thought through thoroughly and addressed. 2) I'm honestly disappointed in the way proposed changes to beige to fix it were brushed aside and feel discouraged about putting any effort into offering meaningful proposals. That's not a hit at you Pre, you've done a lot of work and I appreciate you trying to salvage the situation here. 3) Regarding tanks: I would rather reduce the max tank amounts by 50-75%. I like the fact that there is a very cheap unit (soldiers) coupled with a very expensive unit (tanks). It makes ground fighting more dynamic. The problem is maxed tanks are about double the power of maxed soldiers, so you really have little choice to use them in most circumstances and be competitive. Tanks as an expensive supplement to soldiers is better than soldiers as a cheap supplement to tanks. 4) Not enough improvements are destroyed during war for improvements being lost to have a major impact. At least in the upper tiers. Maybe that could be addressed, and also add to the value of blitzes and help rebalance the air/ground balance, by allowing planes to target improvements.
  11. I agree that having rebuys available is a big advantage of coming out fresh. I think the problem here is trying to adapt this to work with two separate scenarios: The impact of initial blitzes vs the impact on someone trying to rebuild. One really good thing about the advantage of striking first is that it helps to balance out the political disadvantage of being the aggressor. It encourages preemptive strikes when tensions are high. If everyone builds up because of tensions but most of that is in reserve, that not only takes away the first strike advantage but turns it into a major disadvantage because counter-attacks will be more effective than initial attacks. I think there's merit to the idea in general but it needs to impact rebuilds without impacting first strikes. What you propose doesn't change that, but I think we could figure out something.
  12. Point 2 is definitely the least important, though I'd be curious to know what you think is unbalanced about it. Point 3 is the most important. IMO one of the biggest problems with beige right now, and one of the biggest reasons people slot fill, is that it can be used to give you cover from being countered while you are still fighting your current wars, even if you are winning those wars.
  13. I try to give Alex the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. Being a game admin is hard, people love to complain, and there almost always is a lot of knee-jerk opposition to change even when the changes are good. That being said, I share your frustration about beige just being removed without warning when there have been tons of suggestions over the years about how to fix it that don't seem to have been seriously considered.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.