Buorhann

What if I show you guys an interesting nation. 0 Infra/0 Imps. Not self sufficient obviously, but is still able to buy/launch nukes/missiles as long as they have the RSS on hand?

Not always since they've changed the war calculation. There's a chance you can still get a Immense with 1 ship vs 2, lol.

They’re currently running away from the alliance and moving on elsewhere.

They knew exactly what they were doing. They’re not “new” to this game.

I think he was wanting the mods to delete even more money that had transactions with his bank. Like he's self-reporting himself. What a trooper.

What.

Dear sir/madam, May we please report you for rule breaking? -Decides to Nuke Raid/Blame Kastor -Brags about it -Breaks a rule hiding his bank through a newly created city -20% of the bank he stole from another AA is deleted -Still has plenty left (Unfortunate) -Whines about and posts a dumb thread -Gets more mad at the people he attacked initially

1) A rule break is a rule break. 2) Why are you upset? It’s a stolen bank from Cypher AA. 3) I didn’t report it. 4) Thank you for revealing that mods are still influencing the game. Almost like the Queen M/Alex/Thalmor bounty situation.

Imagine calling someone a noob after having 20% of his bank deleted due to transferring through a newly created account.

Partisan was not right because his methodology would inevitably go straight to two major sides like it did in the past. Partisan enjoys the idea of working with individual AAs, but the issue with his movement was that it didn’t predict what those AAs would be doing in their own interests. All you have to do is look in his history of handling politics. Eventually it becomes far more of a cluster!@#$ than it is right now. ”Vassalization” isn’t necessarily a bad thing considering the majority of AAs can’t even wipe their own ass. If an AA really wanted to be a player in the grand scheme of politics, they’d put far more effort into performance, recruitment, and growth. Seriously, go pull up the charts on every AA’s spending, growth, and war performance. It’s VERY obvious what AAs actually put in effort. If you like just having 2 major sides, then yeah, you’d think Partisan was right.

What show?

Thanks for bringing this up. It's been very slow for me lately too.

Man, I'm quickly forgotten on being the first person to advocate this change for several years. (But yes, I'm still of the opinion that ships need anti-air value)

Funny, I’ve also talked about Ships for -years-. I’ve literally been the loudest advocate for them receiving some anti-air buff. You can check back to 2016 on that. Not sure what the problem with spies are though? They seem fine?

Because the point is to fix/balance things before they’re exploited and become a larger issue. You should know this from past years of them changing things mid-major war.

Yeah, I edited in the VDS change in my previous reply. I swear to god I've seen a resource reduction in the past to them, now I'm searching through all the game changes. I do agree on the Fallout Shelter.

I'm not looking to stop raiding or nerf nukes. I'm looking to find balance. Everything but this has a reliable and effective counter. -At least $4mil a day in cash bonus' -250% updeclare change -Protection from spy ops the day they're built -Improved Imp destruction plus projects if you get them -Didn't they get a reduction in RSS requirements at some point too? This particular area of the game has been buffed so much with little to no balancing to counter those "positive" changes. I've been in this game so long that I've seen every military unit, spy operation, etc altered multiple times, both good and bad. This one has just been good, over and over. (Now that I look it over, the only "balance" that happened was the recent buff to VDS - which was long overdue)

2400ish Infra is what I'm getting depending on how you want to build other Imps (I included 5 Barracks, 1 Naval for the build just to hit raiding inactives). Think you can go as low as 2100 at the bare minimal, but if a Imp gets removed - you're screwed. The bonus' to production kinda screw up figuring the perfect build, and it's not considering resource projects. Takes about 10mins if you have a buddy, which if you're doing this as a group - easy. If you're solo and a introvert, definitely hard. IIRC, there's a script that makes rewarded ad bonus easier, but you're right - the payment doesn't always work.

Baseball isn't capped at $2mil either, it just drops off after that. In any case, there's enough out there to build and attack with things that cannot be countered other than a percentage chance if the nation has VDS/ID.

I've been running the numbers on it. You're not completely wrong, but that's the part of it that makes it so damn difficult. You'd have to pick a build for Missiles or Nukes. Can't do both (Obviously you can if you buy the RSS for the other). For example, Africa is a good one to have your nation if you want to build a self-sufficient nuke nation. You get $2mil daily bonus, $2mil baseball, $2mil paid ads, plus color bonus ($125k a tick if you're on Green, Pink, White, Maroon). Plus if you're raiding inactives at the same time. Financially, you're covered no matter which build you go with on the daily even while blockaded. The only counter if you go with a minimal build is if someone targets your RSS Production. If I ran the numbers correctly, you can do this at 16 cities reliably. If you're larger than that, it gets easier to build a self-sufficient turret nation. Way easier. Even at low Infra, you're not running enough of a deficit to stop building your daily nuke/missile. So hitting high Infra targets AND forcing them to invest enough time and finances into killing your Imps... Everybody keeps bringing up growth but no one tells me why growth is so important. Literally the only reason to grow is to fight conventional military against likesized players, but you can do that at every tier of the game. Sidenote: Retooling your nation for self-sufficient nuke/missiling also doubles for having resources while fighting conventionally.

Also this made me chuckle.

Yes, you did DM me and we've had a pleasant brief conversation about it. It still didn't hit all the points, let alone this particular post of yours is missing some points as well. I'm not completely oblivious to countering "turrets" or anything of that sort, let alone some of the insane costs of doing it. The problem lies in how the design team is balancing the game. With the way how the balance is - countering current self-sufficient builds of turret nations is the most difficult in the game. Since 2015, I think it's actually the most difficult. Not difficult as in "Declare Raid, swap Tactician, etc." but as in the cost and dedication to it. It's absurd. Everything else has an effective counter. Turrets do not. It's a huge time and cost investment to do it, and arguably almost impossible despite all of your words here. Do I think an AA is running around turreting and terrorizing the game at the moment? No. Has it been done before in a war? Yes, not optimally but it's been done a few times. >I'd love to see you put your money where your mouth is

You always knew a hit would happen when he VM'd.

Whoa, whoa. Let’s not get hasty. You may fix them with such suggestions.

Lol