Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Azaghul last won the day on September 8 2018

Azaghul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

358 Excellent

About Azaghul

  • Rank
    Senior 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

1062 profile views
  1. If you don't like these projects don't get them. If they push resource prices up it'll reach an equilibrium where fewer people get the projects. It gives people options and that's a good thing, especially for alliances doing targeted growth.
  2. Azaghul

    Treasures - Random idea that might be trash

    I'd be inclined against individual nations just because it's too easy to effectively sell them that way or steal them with military means, it makes the auctions less important. As for replacing treasures or being a new feature, I'm agnostic. The fact that it might make or at least encourage people who don't like each other have to work together is a benefit. It creates more potential for drama. The choice to do something that benefits yourself as well as an enemy makes that choice more interesting.
  3. On the display page for each city. https://politicsandwar.com/city/id=90014
  4. Azaghul

    Treasures - Random idea that might be trash

    Expanding on this idea: Calculation Color bonus = Income bonus = 1.5 x ((Players on Color / Total Players * 16)*Number of Treasures On Color)^.7 For a color with an average number of players: 1 treasure = 1.5% bonus, 2 treasures = 2.44%, 3 treasures = 3.24%, 4 treasures = 3.96%, 5 treasures = 4.63% If a color had 2x as many players as the average color, it would need twice as many treasures to get the same bonus. Similarly, a sphere with only half the average would only need 1 treasure to get the benefit of 2. Bidding 33 Total treasures, or an average of about 2 per color. A treasure lasts for 66 days and one expires every 2 days. Every treasure is associated with a resource, each resource has 3 treasures associated with it. 2 days before the treasure expires, bidding opens up. Any nation can contribute to the pool for their color. Bidding is done with the resource associated with that treasure. At the end of the period, the treasure is assigned to the color with the highest bid. All bids are non-refundable. The Benefits 1) Making it resource based would make it a resource sink. 2) Bidding offers opportunity for drama, last minute steals, individual players to screw up plans coordinated by broader agreements about bidding, etc. 3) There are diminishing returns to limit incentives for one color to run up the score. 4) The revolving nature of it makes it more continuously interesting. 5) There's some potentially interesting politics. Do all the alliances and colors work together to share with non-compete agreements? Do alliances on a color work together to raise funds and/ coerce alliances on the color to contribute to bids? When do they choose to bid? 6) The non-refundable nature of bids gives people more incentive to be strategic, and also to be mad if someone steals a treasure out from under them.
  5. Azaghul

    Treasures - Random idea that might be trash

    What about a game wide pool of treasures that each color bid on that would apply to the whole color? With diminishing returns to disincentive them all going to the biggest colors and some diminishing returns based on player count. Would require alliances on every color to work together to raise money. And create potential drama between color spheres.
  6. Right now, the "population density" displayed on a city page is calculated from the total population. Total population / Land However, the formula for disease uses "population density" that is calculated based on base population (infra x 100). This is unnecessarily confusing for players trying to figure out how the disease formula is calculated.
  7. Azaghul

    City Discount Project

    One thing to consider is that the easier you make it to do something the less fulfilling that achievement becomes. A lot of these boosts to small nations serve to devalue the challenge of reaching various benchmarks in the game. Achievements are a lot more rewarding when you have to work hard to get them.
  8. I'm going to against the grain and say I'm not a fan of this. Broadly, I'd like to see a lot more dynamic city builds within a nation. Right now most people have a cookie cutter build that they use for every city. That's kind of... boring. It would be much more interesting if the game gave people incentives to create specialized cities. Right now, city age is the only underlying factor that changes from city to city for any particular player. It is by and large the only thing that would give them a reason to build some cities differently than others. What this change would do, by boosting up younger cities so quickly, is make city age less important by greatly narrowing the gap between cities that are young but not brand new and older cities. It would further reinforce cookie cutter city building. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to keep the current age gap but give younger cities some kind of boost in some other attribute that would give them more reason to treat young and old cities differently. Specifically, something like a boost to resource production that declines with age. Or something that affects pollution. Or military.
  9. Azaghul

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    This is a very fair point to make. 1) Is it really much different to do it for cities vs infra in terms of user experience / interfacing / etc.? And infra could more fairly be done without having to complicate things by making costs retroactive. I know the programming element could be different but just curious. 2) If the problem is making things too complicated for newer players, it could be a higher threshold like you have it for cities. Something like only costing resources starting at 2000 infra. 3) Just talking about things you do to seem like, I think adding upkeep for infra would be much better than adding it for cities. My only qualm is that high level infra is already super expensive and has a low rate of return so I think it would be good to balance it by lowering infra costs that it applies to. Infra would more realistically work as both a sustained and substantial resource sink. And lower initial cost would make it easier to rebuild, less of a disincentive to fight, and less of a drag on people rebuilding. 4) If you do the cities thing, the numbers you give are too small to really have a significant dent. The resource cost for city 40 is only around 150 million or so, that's not big when the cash is 3 billion. IMO it would make more sense to, above city 20, make the cash amount stop increasing and make all of the growth in cost per city resource based. For example city 30 might cost only around 300 mill in cash but around 800 mill worth of resources (more long term as resource prices go up), City 40 has 300 mil in cash but about 2.45 bill in resources, etc. 5) Another possible way to talk this issue this which I suspect would be easy to code since you already do it for manufacturing resources would be to change commerce improvements to require resources rather than cash to upkeep.
  10. Azaghul

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    1) The price of infra goes up exponentially and I'd suggest that resources do the same,. And you could balance that even more by making infra just cost cash initially and the resources comes in later. That way if prices do go up, it hits larger nations buying infra more. 2) I think you'd make the conversion of the infra cost from cash to resources based on prices a little above the current market in anticipation of prices going up., roughly where we'd expect to be after the change. If/when prices go up long term, it'll hit bigger nations more and any increased cost to smaller nations will be more than balanced by more profitable resource sales. 3) I see doing something roughly along the lines of this. The first $500,000 worth of infra is the same, after the first $500,000 the rest of the cost is split evenly between staying as cash and being converted to resources. 6000 is roughly the PPU of 1 steel + 1 munition + 1 aluminum + 1 gasoline. I'm not suggesting this as a final formula, just a starting place of what something might look like. Infra level Infra cost now Proposed Cash Proposed Resource Cash Value How much of each manufactured resource (resource cash value cash / 6000) 500 $100,645.38 $100,645.38 0 0.00 600 $146,727.46 $146,727.46 0 0.00 700 $205,637.03 $205,637.03 0 0.00 800 $277,861.83 $277,861.83 0 0.00 900 $363,826.84 $363,826.84 0 0.00 1000 $463,910.01 $463,910.01 0 0.00 1100 $578,452.57 $539,226.29 $39,226.29 6.54 1200 $707,766.26 $603,883.13 $103,883.13 17.31 1300 $852,138.46 $676,069.23 $176,069.23 29.34 1400 $1,011,836.14 $755,918.07 $255,918.07 42.65 1500 $1,187,108.84 $843,554.42 $343,554.42 57.26 1600 $1,378,191.06 $939,095.53 $439,095.53 73.18 1700 $1,585,304.13 $1,042,652.06 $542,652.06 90.44 1800 $1,808,657.80 $1,154,328.90 $654,328.90 109.05 1900 $2,048,451.50 $1,274,225.75 $774,225.75 129.04 2000 $2,304,875.43 $1,402,437.72 $902,437.72 150.41 2100 $2,578,111.45 $1,539,055.73 $1,039,055.73 173.18 2200 $2,868,333.88 $1,684,166.94 $1,184,166.94 197.36 2300 $3,175,710.15 $1,837,855.08 $1,337,855.08 222.98 2400 $3,500,401.42 $2,000,200.71 $1,500,200.71 250.03 2500 $3,842,563.04 $2,171,281.52 $1,671,281.52 278.55 2600 $4,202,345.03 $2,351,172.51 $1,851,172.51 308.53 2700 $4,579,892.46 $2,539,946.23 $2,039,946.23 339.99 2800 $4,975,345.83 $2,737,672.91 $2,237,672.91 372.95 2900 $5,388,841.33 $2,944,420.67 $2,444,420.67 407.40 3000 $5,820,511.19 $3,160,255.60 $2,660,255.60 443.38
  11. Azaghul

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    Requiring resources to buy infra could be balanced by reducing the cash needed.
  12. Azaghul

    Fixing the war system

    One thing that I would add to this discussion is that this could actually limit an underdogs ability to damage an opponent because many times alliances in a loosing situation can have their multiple nations focus a blitz on an individual nation and take them down even while loosing in the larger sense in most of their wars. It keeps the outgunned side from exploiting and sustaining any kind of edge they might have.
  13. Azaghul

    Enable Alliance Leaders to Set Embargoes For Members

    Exactly. To be honest Alex: I think you're out of touch with how active the average player is and the difficulty of controlling members on this particular subject. Sure, in theory you can force everyone to do it. But that takes a huge amount of time and effort. Energy, time, and motivation, from alliance leaders is almost always limited. There are always going to be things that they could do to improve their alliance, like making sure their members are building and operating at optimal efficiency with their improvement builds or warchests or resource buying and selling, that they don't do because of lack of manpower and motivation. This falls way down the list and isn't even close to being worth the effort that it would take right now, which is why as far as I know no alliance has tried to do it in earnest. The fact that support from the player base so far is unanimous should tell you something. When was the last time that literally everyone who weighed in supported a suggestion?
  14. Azaghul

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    I'm lackluster on but not opposed to doing it for cities but very strongly support adding a resource cost to infra and/or a resource upkeep cost to commerce If you're trying to increase overall demand for resources assigning a resource cost to things that are generally one time purchases like projects, wonders, or commerce improvements doesn't work very well. It doesn't scale with the game very well because the average nation age goes up so the significance of each one time purchase goes down. And the impact it can have is limited by the fact that if it is very expensive people can choose not to buy it. A resource cost that increases exponentially with infra level, and resource upkeep for commerce improvements, would more organically grow in impact as average nation age and size increases. The more people grow, and the more profitable commerce and more infra become, the more demand there is for those resources. This will put upward pressure on resource prices over time as the average city has more infra and creates extra demand for resources. It would also create more balance between demand for resources during peace and demand for resources during war.
  15. Azaghul

    Fixing the war system

    I disagree with this idea. The limit on what you can buy adds a lot to both strategy (how much standing military to keep and what that costs) and tactics. This would make it less dynamic and interesting. I do agree that there is a general problem and want to see some changes. A few things I think would help address the issue of people not being able to fight back: 1) Make the combat casualties less directly proportional to the opponent's units. 2) Different types of attacks that might give someone at a disadvantage a chance to do some damage that is less than what a conventional attack would do. Raiding, Guerilla attack, etc. 3) Some kind of combat stance that tells your units not to contest defensive battles. This could be in line with choice of attacks that might override it, when you attack you choose to focus on killing enemy units, stealing cash, killing infrastructure, or killing resistance. 4) Make nukes kill less infra but kill half of one kind of unit of the attackers choice. Coupled with good coordination where other people follow up this would offer a way for a group of zeroed out nations to get in a position to win some battles.

Important Information

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