Malakai

You are arguing in favor of Arrgh? I think I’ve seen everything now. These Pirates, thieves by any rational objective point of view, deserve what they get. If they (ie. you or any member of any rogue alliance) left allied nations alone, life might have been and continue to be more pleasant. Anyone who accepts membership to any alliance is responsible (by proxy) for the decisions of their leadership, other members, and subsequently the ensuing consequences. I submit that your argument, much like your logic, is flawed, and I encourage you to look to your past alliance leadership if you need to blame someone for your misfortune.

Stranglehold is a bit much. Its not the greatest overstatement of the century but it certainly takes the cake as the grossest overstatement ever made about anything in this game.

Just because Alex won't do it doesn't mean its a bad idea. It just means he's not willing to do it, I personally love the idea. It adds a dynamic aspect to an otherwise static game.

Maybe rename to “Center for Disease Control” or something similar? Beyond that, I love the idea.

I would definitely suggest retooling the costs, duration, and amounts. Return on investment is definitely a focus and a price tag of $300M+ is going to limit this projects uses to whales, which also severely limits the scope of who will be affected. It might be worth considering to make this available to smaller nations at a price around $80-$125M? To make cash and resource garnishment equitable I'd suggest 4% for 3 days as a flat rate making the system simpler. Additionally I think "colonization" may be less accurate and very confusing. Maybe "International Sanctions Program" or something similar? I like the idea of this added element to the game. Good start on an interesting idea.

@Alex is it possible to code a project in such a way that its effects were limited to cities in a certain range? For example, Project X removes Y number of dollars from purchase of cities 8-15, but not 16 and above?

Read the other comments. I explained that I was after an increase of energy output, thus the expansion of being able to cover 3,000 infra instead of 2,000 and the increased uranium costs. This logic only applies during a time of war. A mid level nation that is part of an alliance during peace time would likely only be affected by cockroaches like Arrgh and they are easy enough to squash. I've talked to nations ranging from 10 cities and up and most of them are very eager to see if this project can be streamlined and added to the server for testing because they want it. I'm already working on balancing it. I always over estimate the cost to allow for the natural back and forth. The attached image is my current costs analysis based on back and forth in this topic.

I haven't. It seems to have resolved itself.

I've never seen anyone above 3k infra, mostly due to the infra costs during rebuild. Do you see this as a means to encourage builds beyond 3K? So are you suggesting doubling (maybe even tripling) the uranium cost (making it 30k-45k total) and removing the 1.9 uranium per 1k infra upkeep requirement? I can't see removing the $10,500 as viable, however, I could see a reduction, perhaps dropping it to $6,500 a day instead. Its not the greatest savings, but it would be something. Personally, it would drop my daily liabilities by a sizeable chunk.

I can agree with some of that, my question is "How would you rebalance the costs to make it worth it?" Cut the cash, steel, and aluminum by a third?

@Prefontaine This is a fair point. You are moving forward with major changes with the votes of .0034% of the populous weighing in. Something of this magnitude should have been broadwaved to the entire game. Additionally serves only to alienate the people you are claiming to serve. In effect you are saying that only those who have the inclination to change or improve the game should be or will be given a voice. Most of the time when something is posted in this area its met with scorn, derision, or random comments calling the suggestions junk. The fact that you've gotten so much response (a lot of it positive) indicates to me you should be willing to deal with the masses instead of a specific demographic.

I think you are failing to accurately take into account what you could put into the slots, not slot. You could easily use these slots for a basic resource gathering, refining, or a revenue booster, and they would net well over the $20k you've assigned to them. Your rate of return estimates might as well be based on empty slots. Additionally, this would enable all nations (top to bottom) to streamline their future development. Every ruler can look at their nation and do Cities*(1) = Newly Freed improvement slots and from there the possibilities are vast.

OK. So the project is meant to modify the current output of a nuclear reactor (which is based on fission). All fusion reactors to date have not been able to have an output greater than the electrical input to run them and I want to stay as close to authentic as possible. I think it might be better to note that I used the word efficiency loosely. Perhaps I should have use capacity, which is why there is an increase in uranium usage, because the project upgrades their shielding, foundation, and ultimately their output capacity. Alliances are having their members purchase nuclear at the earliest possible convenience, making this a far reaching application, not limited to whales as it frees up slots and makes it possible to run a high infra city on one power plant. Maybe it would be better to balance the infra it would support by reducing it to 2800? Below is the updated version, including the description and costs. What does everyone think?

Effect: Increases the efficiency of all nuclear reactions. Nuclear power plants use 1.9 tons (0.16/turn) of uranium per 1,000 infrastructure and can power up to 3,000 infrastructure. Operational costs are $10,800 a day ($900/turn). Cost: Cash: $85M, Steel: 45k, Aluminum: 30k, Uranium: 12k, Iron: 10k

Any idea how long this is going to last? It’s fairly annoying.

You are a character. I meant from a raiding context. I haven't had to raid in years, so I want to make sure this doesn't end up being a foot on the throat of some of our up and comers.

I don’t see a benefit of the scenario. How would you use it? Be detailed please.

I've whittled the costs down considerably. I've also incorporated your improvement slot, however, I doubled the infra. I really don't see nations with 1k buying this, especially with a minimum of 25 cities required to purchase. Plus it feels more realistic that a nation would need to have a sizable infrastructure all around to be able to think about colonizing space in any capacity. Effect: Reduce city cost by 8%, reduce global radiation effects by 20%, and adds one additional improvement slot to every city over 2k infrastructure. Cost: $120M, 1.75M food, 75K steel, 50K aluminum, 35K uranium, 30K munitions. Prerequisites: Missile Pad, Space Program, and 25 cities

1. Civic Planning Commission 2. City Planning Commission 3. Urban Planning Commission 4. Industrial Fabrication Program 5. Commercial Development Program

Orbital habitats would decrease the population on the planet, reducing the density. This modification to the mechanic is not the focus of this particular project, so even if density would be affected by a 3% instant bump, it still doesn't fit logically (to me), additionally this project isn't meant to directly drive up revenue, but cushion building costs. Its not a matter of controlling play style, its rational deduction. UP and AUP offer reductions of city costs at cities 11 and 18. The next logical step would be around city 25-27. Maybe I'm thinking too deep into long term game play, but I'm willing to remove all other effects from my recommendation if it shifts the focus of this project to make it a scalable application, rather than a fixed unit, to adjust an element that increases exponentially. I've also reduced the cost factors, what do you think? Orbital Habitat Breakdown.pdf

This project is meant to target larger nations, to help reduce disease without sacrificing improvement slots for hospitals, which in turn would help population growth in the long term instead of a single 3% boost. Additionally, realistically, pulling people off the surface to live in such a habitat would reduce the population density, not increase the overall population, at least not in the beginning. The city requirement is necessary. I wouldn't expect alliances to change their build orders for improvements, as the UP & AUP already offer lower tier nations a means to reduce city build costs. It would cut into military readiness and resource production for warchests. Besides, low costs paired with raiding, alliance accelerated build programs funded via taxes, and low yield bank loans offer an efficient means to become self-sufficient in record time. This project is not a catapult with which to launch a week old nation to whale status within a few months to a year. Its a minor reduction for exponentially increasing costs for long term players. As for the costs, you are beginning to colonize space, its going to be expensive. The resource cost is intended to be excessive, though I went over the top to allow for room to trim it down. Honestly the cost of cash and resources to build it should exceed the cost of cities 25 & 26 (~$941,697,500) in my opinion. My next city (32) is going to cost roughly $1,136,988,750, the savings I would get is an additional $51,479,550 over the UP and AUP but as I add cities that is going to grow and grow, therefore purposeful restrictions for building and the initial investment needs to be larger on the front end to rationalize the value that will be realized with each new addition.

Effect: Reduce population density by 3%, reduce future city cost by 4%, and reduce global radiation effects by 25%. Cost: $275M, 3.50M food, 115K steel, 95K aluminum, 75K uranium, 60K gasoline, 20K munitions. Prerequisites: Missile Pad, Space Program, and 25 cities

Wouldn't alliances just force their members to pay for membership? Cities, infra, and improvements are visible, so it’s not hard to develop a calculator and present each nation with a bill for the revenue you are suggesting they be cut off from. Who wins a war in this game is largely determined by destruction and alliances track these numbers closely. What’s to prevent them from dividing the total loss by their membership and presenting another bill? If an alliance doesn’t have the funds to help their people, why have them at all? Your intent has some merit, but unless you refine the method, you won’t gain any traction. It just adds an extra step to collection and most alliances take care of their people well enough to make the rates worth it and when they don’t members leave in favor of those that do.

Those of us who spend the time producing anything shouldn’t be penalized because we have the temerity to save what is rightfully ours and do our best to prepare for anything. I’ve never paid to play, so everything I have is earned through patience and any changes to that means my efforts are meaningless. Sketch is definitely an apt term to describe resource expiration. Food MIGHT be the only area this could play, but again, I cite my patience, my savings habits, and my productions plans as the means by which I survived wars and rebuilt after. This is the saving grace of my nation and my alliance and I don’t see a reason to penalize anyone for it. The only result of your changes are bankrupt alliances, nations, and constant war. Boring....

Same happened to me, rather disturbing.