Dr Rush

Not really, at least currently it requires competent internal communication to distribute the info. Although the entire spy system is scuffed. Same issue as the war system in general; mechanics are structured as 1 vs 1 but its actually played 1000 vs 1000.

Can't blame noobs for doing exactly what the tutorials says and the first step in 99% of simulation games.

Why, how, who?

Another option would be moving everyone to a temp war alliance during wars and leaving only a few trusted players to guard the home front.

Denying loot to your opponents is just as important as protecting your own. So this creates a meta where the good alliances will delete and reform at intervals and prior to entering a conflict. Also how are you addressing the imbalance in the world economy from both of these ideas?

Or we could just not.

I really dislike removing player agency. I think even new players should be allowed to build however they want. Just some handholding being offered. Even Alex understands this, but he doesn't understand the game well enough to do it and every focus group has just died. So for the moment I'd like to focus on bullying dev time into fixing the location where the tutorial is just straight up wrong.

By far the most common mistake new players make is building farms. And while I usually think allowing players to do dumb is a good thing, a slightly gentler approach should be used for new players. And in particular the games tutorial should not be actively directing new players into doing dumb things. So two things need to happen. 1. The objective to build a farm should instead be made into an objective to buy food and have explanation of why farms are bad. 2. Attempting to build a farm below 1.5k land should require confirmation that they understand it is a terrible idea.

that is intentional.

The core concept is solid, but it should be part of larger expansion of the war system. As a project this moves instantly to the must have pile and there are already too many of those.

That would be all the people that put in.

Appeal denied. Per your own statements your not even interested in being in the server. You just wanted to harass staff into giving you permission to do something, again.

Tbf you only did that because 2/3s of the old one was filled sheep snuff films.

I would like to petition the forum mods to add the word 'hegemony' to the word filter on the basis of spam.

Yeah yeah its late, no one else started it. Yeah yeah, there is already a working title, still gotta go through the formalities. Post your nominations below, nominations will be vetted (for length, actual technical feasibility, and adherence to rules) by the wiki team as usual once the war concludes. And then another thread will kick off the voting.

Mass message system use Update Treaties see tax totals Declare war message

Alliance banks get stolen only slightly less frequently.

Double Post Time. Just a minor update.

Ah yes the micro mindset, big numbers equals good.

In regards to the OP. I think the effort would be better spent streamlining the existing mass tools. Although I still say the correct solution is shift the mechanics away from build swapping as a meta. Something something choices something something.

Really eHonor(tm) in a spreadsheet simulator? Really? Thats the PR route you wanna go? Against Tjest of all alliances? Really? Thats alot of damage.

There is literally nothing worth remembering pantheon for except maybe as lessons in how not to conduct an alliance. Just like you and your alliance will be unmemorable in a month or so when you disband under the weight of your disastrous decisions and ego.

Why?

1. My nations uses breeder reactors. 2. Why? 3. Why? Realism is not an argument in a spreadsheet simulator.

Hot take: RNG in a PvP strategy game is dumb. The amount of salt over bad rolls in battles is legitimately valid, wars should be decided by player strategy not a code function of suspect reliability. Scaling that up to global effects such as random zombie apocalypses is not a recipe for success. If you give events enough of an effect to matter they can and will skew stuff such as global wars. And thats not adding decision making, its taking away player agency in their own fates. If events are not strong enough to have real effects they are reduced flavor text, and there is much better use of dev time at that point. That being said I do agree the game needs more actual decision making. But that decision making needs to be in core gameplay, not rng flavor text. Adding in stuff like alternate city build paths, additional war options, other things that the players drive and cause. From there going back the OP. Approval rating was supposed to have effects originally, but in practice the formula driving it is unstable to say the least and prone to massive runaways in both directions. And further it would have skewed the meta towards undesirable actions like war dodging or dogpiling. There has been talk of trying again but its low priority compared to stuff like making beige be not dumb. When the times comes though it'll likely be a new value as supposed to messing with the old one. Which leads us into the 'RP' features. To a certain extent in a political sim, player agency includes being able to adopt and support a persona and identify. The RP stuff is an extension of that need and need to remain divorced from direct mechanical effects. This is why stuff like war policy and domestic policy are in their own things neutral to the RP aspect. If you tack on bonuses etc to rp aspects, they cease being useable for RP at all. And that would be a removal of player agency. That is not say decision tree bonuses are bad, but they should be their own selections.