Buorhann

I’ll admit it. Toxic joining DB proved my initial opinions wrong. He’s done good there.

Integrity doesn’t win wars. (Also are we referring to the AAs who paid Arrgh to hit Singularity that circumvented the NAP that resulted in billions of damage or the hypothetical that resulted in a scam with no actions/damages done?) Did Grumpy teach TI how to war? Is that why they disappeared after blitz day? I guess TI is going for Most Honorable AND Worst Performing AA for the end of the year awards.

It’s not overhauling a mechanic, simply tying it in along with what other military units have. And blockade cycling is easily broken, but that’s not the argument or point. (Let alone Baseball/Daily/Paid Ads go past blockades)

Just to clarify something since quite a few of you are messaging members of TGH, -none- of them had these suggestions. The only suggestion -I- contributed in here was tying Infra to missiles/nukes just like how the military units are. The double cost increase wasn’t my idea or anyone’s in TGH. That was someone completely different and I won’t mention who. Back onto my suggestion, and why, I mentioned to Alex that if players learn that a 0 Infra/0 Imp nation can still use nukes/missiles, they could fully intend on griefing the playerbase for lulz/drama. That’s not a healthy mechanic and personally I think it was overlooked on a possibility since it’s never been done till now. Now do I think 1k Infra is too much? Yes. Do I think it’s still viable? Yes. It’s not expensive in today’s game to build up to 1k. Especially with the inflated daily bonus cash. However I did suggest to have it much lower. My suggested idea was simply to prevent players who are “effectively” not playing to prevent them from easy griefing. The idea isn’t meant to stop the losing side from “fighting back” and it’s not meant to stop nations who legitimately turret for their services, it’s only meant to fix the possibility of griefing. It’s easy to sit there and think it’s not a problem now since it’s not being overly done, but it will become a more popular idea. Especially with the socialization of the game.

There's literally only been one war in TGH's history where we dogpiled an AA. An AA that deserved it. And it only lasted 2 weeks. Outside of that, we've had a long history of fighting against the numbers.

DB has performed a lot better than it's history. I'm not much of a stickler on selling infra, just as long as members show up to fight. Shows a unified front if their members sell Infra for better military standing while fighting, so that's honestly impressive there. They did a complete 180 turnaround here, even if it's in a dogpile. Hopefully they learn from this for future conflicts. TI is terrible. Even with the knowledge of the war coming up, they still didn't show up. How do you fumble that? And holy hell, look at some of their nations bleeding loot. Why haven't they changed their taxes to stop the bleeding if their nations aren't going to fight? Grumpy is very disappointing. I could rant on about them. They had a promising showing initially, but fumbled it because they didn't stick around to counter. Could've kept that upper tier if they persisted, but nope. Just tapped right on out mostly. What's the point of a 0 tax alliance if you're not going to fight for it? They've pretty much gave up the upper/whale tier fight to their rivals, and with other AAs growing their own whale tier now - Grumpy will be left in the dust sooner or later. WAP was doing pretty good initially, but they could've declared more wars. Granted they're on the dogpile side, so maybe it was tough for them to snatch up slots. TKR, as usual, doing alright given they're having to carry their side and fight against another dogpile. Plus it seems they're target #1 due to their ability to fight. Better to focus on pinning them down since their allies aren't doing much. TSC could do much better, but only a handful of them are trying to put up a fight. The rest seemed to have given up. I see you @Ronjoy Tehmina, you're doing a damn good job there sir. You'd think with some of these AAs chest puffing over their Protectorates or just handling FA, they'd fight way better in a war or at least put in an attempt. A lot of AAs here are really subpar, even on the dogpile side.

“Opportunity costs” are subjective per person. Cycling comes at a risk, as I already explained in the post you quoted. Plus randoms coming in and ruining said cycling is an issue too. Nukes and missiles shouldn’t be nerfed, but the mechanics behind it needs to be tweaked. I have a few ideas, such as tweaking beige, imposing a certain infra level, etc. Of course I’m looking at these as an overall thing (such as how it’d affect them during a GW, not just raiding/griefing).

There’s a 0 Infra/0 Imp nation constantly nuking/missiling. Cash isn’t an issue. When you can accumulate $6mil+ cash through a blockade (Daily, Baseball, Ads), cash is the least of your problems. Resources, on the other hand, can be locked out unless they spend credits to buy resources past a blockade. Still, when someone is loaded up on resources, you either fast beige and loot (Get hit with 2 nukes still) - and allow them to restock resources while beiged Or You let them beige you so you have a small chance of keeping them blockaded. Which they loot you, cause more damage, and keep going. Of course there’s 5+ offensive slots to use too, so there’s a chance to farm beige to break out of cycling depending on circumstances. Let’s not forget that in order to even have a small chance of countering it, you’re spending exponentially more time and resources to do so. No other area of the game requires as much investment. Not even close. You also have to have infrastructure in order to build military, but not missiles or nukes. It’s a broken style of play. In other words, turreting is more of a grief mechanic in the game. It just hasn’t taken off in popularity till recently once players started to wise up to it. Either through self sufficient builds or just going in with nothing but a RSS stockpile.

It’s not just $2mil a day. It’s $6mil a day. You folks are forgetting the other venues of getting cash, even while blockaded.

Honestly this seems like a repetitive idea. Should rework the combat units into more niche roles before introducing more imo.

I get the point you’re making, but you can also point to the fact that Grumpy hasn’t adjusted or adapted to anything to counter other AAs working on a counter for them. Their growth stagnated (Which is fairly normal for anybody over c40), their recruitment is abysmally low, and their political game left them vulnerable. The mechanics is one thing, but part of the game design is to work with other AAs or build your AA up to achieve whatever goals you set out for. Just so happened that Grumpy had rivals that wanted to topple them and they didn’t shift or act on it soon enough.

See, that’s with already established players. Majority of new players don’t have nukes/missiles yet. Those aren’t my concern. Raiders, strangely enough, aren’t my concern either. As for certain AAs, some of them just suck at organizing military and want to choose the easy way out (They even do nuke/missiles wrong too in a war lol). Most of those players could fight conventionally. Hell, most of them did for the longest time. You’re also not wrong about numbers. Majority of the time, you will get overwhelmed. Unless you’re very active and are able to land counters as the hits come. I’ll stop there though since your problem is much different than mine and I don’t want to derail it any further. I’ll be starting a new thread about my particular issue(s) later.

It’s kinda sad, honestly. HS is getting attention not from themselves, but only through their Prots.

So your issue is something completely different that caused you to cite me twice? Ok, cool. Let’s clarify. My issue is the game mechanic behind turreting and how it can be exploited if only to grief players. Very rarely is it used to be an effective tool for war. I could go on with examples of this. Your issue, which you somehow tied it into my discussion with Hatebi in her thread, is something different. Going off of your bolder statement, your issue is that players have to join a major alliance’s government to play? I can agree to an extent with that. The game is more social driven than mechanical afterall. If a player doesn’t join an active community or participate in some community outreach, it is hard to retain said players. Just a sidenote to one of your points. “Restricted by alliance”. Not all alliances are the same. Some are very restricting, some are very flexible. No alliances own the players. They’re free to make a choice to join any alliance or community that fits or is as close to the way they want to play.

There are multiple non-major AAs in the game that hasn’t died or is even in a threat to “die”.

There is a lot of words there without actually addressing a “problem” and a “solution”. Turreting is nothing but a grief mechanic currently and beyond your first paragraph, you don’t touch it anymore. Your problem, if I’m comprehending correctly, is that you can’t compete against similar sized nations in bigger or more coordinated AAs??

Is this a legit DoW post? I don't know if I Like this or not.

There. Handed out Likes to recent DoW posts. Thank you folks for your service to these forums.

C'mon. I got Likes to hand out here.

Yep. Making it weird that 0 Infra/0 Imps can still build missiles/nukes, while they can't build any military due to no population.

No one is forcing you to stay in AAs that have NAPs.

You have to be very meticulous on beiging them though, otherwise one slip up and they restock.

You know how stupid of a baited question that is?

Nah, although I do miss her

Watch all of you get blue balled when nothing happens