Azaghul

Unlike Donald Trump, we're willing to admit defeat!

Nice to war that doesn't go on forever with one side trying to drive others from the world. Well fought everyone!

I like this idea.

Can post screenshots/calculations if necessary. Infra destroyed when someone is defeated DOES seem to be included in the "Infrastructure Destroyed" statistic but not the "Value of Infrastructure Destroyed:" statistic.

I disagree with this. The updeclare range is pretty generous and beige often provides opportunities for a beaten down upper middle tier nation to build up enough to get in range to hit top tier nations.

With 9 cities, you could have up to 27 drydocks, which would allow you to have a 135 ship limit. It's basically notifying you that you are hitting the cap based on population rather than the cap based on how many drydocks you have.

Can post screen shots if needed. Planes lost is only including planes killed in air strikes. For both attacker and defender.

Alliances not using their nukes died with the Mushroom Kingdom using nukes in the noCB war.

I agree with this. Rebalancing it to help with spy defense or some other benefit is a good idea IMO. One suggestion: Nations with spy satellite get extra gather intel ops and/or automatically can see extra info on the nations they are at war with. Resources on hand, military buy reset time, military bought that day, and the like.

The first ten projects would be cheaper. This is probably true. I don't think it's a bad thing to adopt game mechanics that encourage this type of planning. Unless/until admin adds more projects. Yes it's better for top tier whales than upper middle tier whales, but that's a relatively small number of players. It would generally be beneficial for most middle tier players who are a larger portion of the player base.

The intention of this idea is to additional levels of strategy and trade offs to buying projects, and discourage projects from being something that people aim to max out. Project cost multiplier = 1+.05*current # of projects. To balance this out and keep the average costs of projects about the same, I'd cut the "base cost" projects by 1/4th or 1/3rd. Here's what the numbers would look like cutting the base cost by 1/3rd. Project Multiplier Compared to current cost 1 1 66.67% 2 1.05 70.00% 3 1.1 73.33% 4 1.15 76.67% 5 1.2 80.00% 6 1.25 83.33% 7 1.3 86.67% 8 1.35 90.00% 9 1.4 93.33% 10 1.45 96.67% 11 1.5 100.00% 12 1.55 103.33% 13 1.6 106.67% 14 1.65 110.00% 15 1.7 113.33% 16 1.75 116.67% 17 1.8 120.00% 18 1.85 123.33% 19 1.9 126.67% 20 1.95 130.00% 21 2 133.33% 22 2.05 136.67% 23 2.1 140.00% 24 2.15 143.33% 25 2.2 146.67% How I see this playing out in the real world: Nations generally aiming for a smaller number of more expensive projects, or a larger number of cheaper projects. Maybe even some dumping of cheaper projects before buying a series of expensive ones. The additional level of strategy to project ordering would be interesting.

Is it possible to get these numbers in the context of the current formulas and what the new formulas would be? That would make it easier to evaluate what the actual impact is here.

The flip side of the current situation is that it creates a reason for drama and politics, a good thing. Making it easy for most colors to max out the bonus kind of defeats the purpose.

You could make it so that you can only have the National Institute of Technology if you don't have any of the manufactured resource projects.

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.

I remember when steel, aluminum, and gas were around 1000-1500 PPU and 10 cities was upper tier.

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.

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:

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.

New Pacific Order

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.

One idea: Minimum beige only applies when you lose offensive wars. Loosing an offensive war generates 15 turns of minimum beige.

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.

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.)

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.