Azaghul

Are the spy attack damage formulas posted somewhere? I can't find them.

Cut infra damage from nukes dramatically, say 500 infra per attack. Instead, nukes mostly target military. A successful nuke destroys 50% of any type of unit (the attacker chooses which unit it targets). Reasons: 1) Requires coordination with other players to use to maximum effect. One player nukes, other players follow up with attacks based on that type of unit. 2) This change would make nukes more dynamic, not just a substitute for conventional attacks like they are now. 3) Good balance in that it gives players more opportunities to fight back conventionally against specific types of units without eliminating the winning side generally having the edge in most categories of military. I'd also consider drastically increasing the impact of radiation. Maybe resource and military improvements don't function in a city until all radiation the dissipates.

An unbalanced market isn't necessarily a bad thing. Having some imbalances between costs of military units is a good thing, it creates room for different units in different ways and a larger variety of strategies and tactics, all things that make the game more interesting.

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.