Lord of Puns

Join Lordaeron

This is probably the best suggestion on war change so far. So long as this only impacts the war it occurs in, and not all of the opponent’s other wars. AND it applies to ground control as well in an either/or - pick/choose fashion. Otherwise you’re inadvertently nerfing air

Just because Hodor or Kata haven’t posted recently doesn’t mean you can call them out like this

If you’re seeing 15 city down declares, it’s because the issue is that it’s still too easy for massive nations to play on 800 infra and not lose improvements. Increase the rate of military improvements destroyed when infra is much lower than total improvements owned.

Tactical Chaining Incoming!

A prot that isn’t hugging pixels is a good prot indeed. Good luck! Welcome to the fray!

Something something, Food Cartel, something something, being paid off by big food to start Nuclear War again before food prices fall further

The old rich man is dead, long live the rich man!

I’m just here to shame

It is interesting to think about how strategically shallow most of our FA decisions are. In reality we are not picking optimized allies, but that was never necessarily how the game was supposed to go. Of course the reality of this being that alliances formed out of strategy are much weaker than those formed out of other connections, like a common goal or friendships. I like the concept of “randomize alliance” in a socialization standpoint (not in an actual treaty mechanic), it would be cool to have an initiative where two random alliances were paired to get to know the other better. Might help the game feel closer and less polarized.

CB - Cuz Birthday!

Guys someone contact ONN, we’ve got a guy here that disagrees with his leadership!

How’d you make a signature that suggestive?

Imagine Minesome complaining about shitpost-etiquette

Brb mining pixels - TKR to the Moon!

Everyone wants these sphere wars to be quicker and not last for months, but no one wants them to be more decisive. You can’t have both. You either have quick wars with high losses, or you have very long expensive wars. If you remove the number of spies killed, their use in battle is nullified. Units are too hard to spy away if your opponent has more than half of their spy count. If you increase the number of spies you can get per day, the meta will be to murder spies until the end of time. That doesn’t solve anything, if just takes away from spying’s other uses in wars. Your spies are still going to die, it’s still going to be fruitless to buy them back, but now you get to do it for a longer time! The issue is with how the spy vs. spy mechanic is set up. But this isn’t the thread to introduce an entirely different mechanic idea.

I’m with Rap on this. Credits have insane value right now, people that don’t buy them usually don’t stick around long. And those people aren’t going to be buying a credit to use mass infra kits, those are going to be the 20+ city count boys that typically already buy VIP. If you want new stuff to make VIP more worthwhile and marketable to the people that don’t already buy it, fine. But a tool that people only use when they have too many cities that it’s obnoxious is not the way to get new buyers.

You’re gonna be leaking lots of stuff after we’re done with you

I look forward to the dirty spy ops

You act like Iron Guard wasn't full of Neo-Nazis

Forget GoB's stability, give me market stability. The cost of coal is too damn high