Samdoo

well this just makes tatician even more useless... and the population caps effecting things even when you aren't at max improvements. Thank goodness i can just use planes... oh wait, they dont destroy improvements. and ships cant destroy planes... looks like another war where tatics just dont varry.

So a massive world war happening in the same week of treasure spawns was just coincidence? it was easily the motivator for the conflict.. (not the politic claims.. i mean its been a month since the political claim started.) The treasures that recently spawned didn't move much this war. but a lot of the older treasures spawns did move quite a bit. no lime nations no longer have a treasure, no olive nations no longer have a treasure. the treasure on purple is a nation in vaca mode (which something sheepy is making sure changes.) treasures defiantly help keep conflicts moving. I think treasures that only effect one nation maybe something we see in the future because of how well a bonus helps to create conflict. right now treasure are a bit dull since it is less than 2% of the player population being effected by then, nation treasures would expand this and would possible making raiding something people consider doing rather than this waiting for a large conflict.

At least the terms didn't involve you forfeiting all of your lucky charms.

Change the name to do something about battle damage. The formulas are wonky and weird and like you said the losses don't really add up, the guy targeted your ships, and then you still a very lose proportion of your airforce anyway(compared to opponents loss.) Same thing happened to me.. I literally lost all my soldiers in 1 battle but only a small amount of tanks. (then when you don't have soliders the tanks are worthless.) the Navy does have a place.. I used it this war and completely loved it. (you need at least 30 ships) After 6 ground battles you win the war, infra bombing with airforce works well, but it doesn't destroy improvements. You naval attack your opponent you eat the infra as well as the improvements. The only other way to really get improvements is ground battles. air bombing.. you can lose 1000 infra but if no improvements are lost all you really lost is some population and the ability to move around some improvements... You eat 2 of each military improvements and a subway, your opponent has to re-build infra to re-enter the war, rather than just some military.. and waiting for peace to come. The small amount of ships needed for a big impact, makes them out value, using tanks w/ soliders pretty easily.. and its easier to build back.

I came for dank meme's.. already impressed but lacking.. Hope to see more

Watch out Polaris, Kazy is liking you. all this new and old leadership bound to bring up amazing results.

Since things are changing quite a bit and VIP was removed and well cosmetics are only made once, so fewer credits are moving Credits right now already offer small bonuses such as being able to purchase resources and be exchanged for money. I think we can add in mini treasures to this as well too. mini treasures are different from national treasures as they don't offer the alliance bonus and only effect the nation they are in. As well to make things interesting when mini-treasures is purchased in a nation, an identical one is spawned in a random nation. (this as well makes the treasure a not a pay to win bonus) This as well would help expand treasures to the game a bit naturally seeing as how only roughly 2% of the player base interacts with them currently. These treasures would last like 30 days and you can only purchase once every 3 months.. or last 7 days and can be purchased monthly. They can of course be stolen. The bonuses for mini-treasures 50% bonus of national projects to a resources income( 50% increase in gas production, etc.). and 1%, 2%, 3% income boost. and finally Money bomb, When this treasure expires receive 5X your daily rev the next turn. you'd randomly get one, again just suggestions, it gives more treasure options to that may have not be worth enough before a chance to be considered. (ideal mini treasures value would be .75% of a credit to give value to the player buying it and the random player just getting a small bonus.)

Random war on the normal server?? guess I missed the name being politics and war.. (everyone probably gonna peace this time) Excited to see a new battle formula. You as well said 1 day of beige earlier on and 3 days of war and then you changed it to 3 days beige? buying units every turn.. accounting for beige.. make sure one can fully restock mil in 16 hours (8 turns) to fully re-build mill during beige. (with this changing how much score would drop during war, you could actually attack back who attack you.) Otherwise it does sound like this will really liven up the server. 3 day wars, and 1 day beige sounds like a better time formula

So you are going to replace Maximum infra/land purchase with Recommended to help get new players to more quickly understand optimal quantities.(like infra being rounded to 100, this doesn't make a difference until 700 infra if I remember right. but cities would more quickly reach this threshold.) Will this as well work with the city manager tool when implemented where purchasing 500 infra is spread across 5 cities instead of all in one.. Or could players accidentally build 1 city to 2k infra and not build up any other cities? (this may be problematic in terms of the unlimited purchases but it is the optimal way.)

Well damn looks like the minimum treaties to be in the top 10 has gone from 5 to 6.. Well expect for GPA.. but i mean.. they are getting rolled right now by about 20 people....

Hurray!!! look forward to seeing the new FA on IRC

no way.. #rollgpa, does this mean the june 14th will be the treasure drop that finally leads to war?

Got the screen shot right http://prntscr.com/bbp8o5 nation activity says, the city was founded on the 28th. The nation score changed happened on the 27th. Why does the nation score graph jumping before the "city was founded".( i know this isn't the case but the graph makes it look like that.) The dates with the events and score of the nation don't line-up. Nation link here https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=11527

I was looking at nations score change and the date with the nation activity did not match up the score change change graph. Below, I've attached screen shots as well as nation links to further help with what the issue maybe, I think the update time change didn't get pushed through but nation activity did. The correct nation? http://prntscr.com/bah5q3 or here https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=40045 Wrong date? http://prntscr.com/bah61j or here https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=35728 A different date with the same bug http://prntscr.com/bah6e7 or here https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=11527 I don't think the bug is game breaking, It just makes for some really weird graphs and dates. I think it'd be a simply fix, and I don't think someone can buy troops knowing of this bug so the score change is displayed on the alliance page at the wrong time. *sorry I broke the links somehow. and the edit isn't working right, the nation IDs should help explain.

This looks like a reward for larger peaceful nations ONLY. This I'm assuming would not be destroy able, so yes it would be best to classify this as a " national project" makes the conversation clearer too. Not putting this stipulation in would simply be just giving larger nations FREE power.(projects already do this) Lets assume this project at current for just 1 resource(3 mines) in a different country and max production would BEAT nearly every manufacturing project. A similar example of larger nation project would be the ITC project, assuming resources don't change since you say this wouldn't have an impact on the global economy, This would be cheaper and a safer version of an ITC, with no penalty for going to war, and a faster ROI by about a year. ANY sort of military influence pretty much instantly adds a 10-20 million price tag, (looking at other military related projects.) Again the price to benefit of this suggestion is way off. The economic impact would be turmoil for younger nations. Ideally the economy would work small nations produce raw, mid sized nations buy raws and sell manufactured goods. Larger nations purchase manufactured goods for war. This ideal is already fairly far off, Currently the ideal would be small and mid-size nations produce manufactured goods, Larger nations produce raw and manufactured resources and then buy manufactured resources. Eventually enough war will happen where Larger nations quantities would drop to make it profitable for smaller nations to sell raw resources. This addition wouldn't allow the economy to ever move back to the ideal. This would completely limit out new nations from entering the game and not promoting growth. since mid and large nations would fill in the gap of smaller nations. with how much MORE impactful larger nations would become. Your suggestion would be best to explain as a national project. Off shore- colony : allows access to 1 resource that is not native on your continent.( max 3 mines) If at war with a nation on the same continent as your colony, you receive a 10% boost in combat. Cost 60 mill, 3000 land (not sure how to make a project cost land but this would be a cool feature to this one) and 200,000 food. the max 3 mines would stop every colony from being oil/coal based purely on number of improvements you could make. This as well would bring in continent favoritism as continents with a weakness would now lose that. Slightly better approach to the idea but on the fact alone of creating continents having higher power really kills this idea alone.

Lets visit the Calculating City Population of the knowledge and tutorial and lets see how we address disease ((( 0.01 * Base Population Density^2 ) -25 ) / 100 ) + (Base Population / 100000) - (Hospital Disease) + (Pollution Index * 0.05) Wow. look at that land is how the formula addresses population density which matters to disease. The improvements that flat remove pollution are actually designed for smaller nations so they can have more pollution in their nation and not have it negatively effect the nation as majorly. Larger nations being forced to buy land to further decrease disease (which doesn't become an issue) is helpful in lowering the cost of food as nations have to build land, making farms more efficient and creates more nations making food at a higher rate. This allows smaller nations with less land to not have to waste improvement slots on food. Your premise for helping large nations is flawed and would hurt the game, This improvement isn't at all needed and would hurt the game.

A tariff is used to discourage external trade. This to an extent gives the ability to encourage trade with others rather than discourage trade with everyone. As well the pricing with a tariff system would be a nightmare, An alliance as well could trade spike someone with a tariff easily. It could as well set a 100% export tax and essentially take someones resources for free. This is a way to add preference to trade without changing prices for everyone all the time. Your explanation as well explained it with a specific resource, Specific resource tariffs and tariffs in general could be used for an alliance bank to make a profit by buying a bunch " or buying out" of a resource and then be the only market for the resource. The current lack of tariffs protects us from that.

As it stands market sharing is as helpful as the alliance trade market and honestly both are rarely used. There are a few exceptions in very large alliances. I've even heard some alliances simply trade to and from the alliance bank to keep all trades internal with how difficult the alliance trade market is. It'd be a good idea to overlay market sharing with the global market place (and well remove the price and date filters, you could even just remove the alliance trade section with this idea.) The global marketplace is just dull and simply put always organized by price, there is no political aspect to trade. One of the bigger things that politics does effect is trade, The game currently lacks this. How the idea would work, Your alliance market sharing would mean something. To keep the global market around everyone would share with the global market.( and you could pick varying degrees) There would be a trade scale of 0-10 a 0 on the scale means embargoed and a 10 means preferred. This would be a major change from market sharing being a yes or no. This is still probably a bit confusing but I'll use an example. There are 2 alliances, and the global marketplace. UDN (the united donut nations) and MJ (Micheal Jordan). They both just started out so their global marketplace is on scale 5 (the highest number for global trade so market sharing has meaning). So their trade offers are seen on the global offers. UDN decides to trade only internally or with allies but would still like access to the global market so they change the scale to 1. their global score between the two groups moved from (10 to 6) MJ would no longer see UDN's trades since other groups have a larger Global Marketplace scale. Now UDN decides it wants to trade with their new ally MJ.. So they send a market sharing offer. Each ally selects a value between 0-10 on how much they'd like to trade the numbers are added together and filtered into the market sharing rankings. lets assume both alliances go with the value 6, they'd have a trade ranking of 12. so they would see each others trade offers before the global market but other allies could have a higher ranking. Rather than trades being ranked purely by price they’d be ranked by market sharing and then price. If 1 side of the market share picks 0, it becomes an embargo between the groups. If someone puts the global market to 0, they would not be able to sell or buy goods globally. This would not effect personal trades in anyway. Thoughts or questions?? Sorry if it's confusing. its easier to model then explain.

I like this idea.. I got some stories about each and every city... Yea cosmetic changes.

The baby nation doesn't even look for a guide to build his nation, (who even builds supermarkets, or bothers with farms when they have 500 land).. and wants other nations to work with him to create a treaty. Boo you got to work on yourself first. *slams head into desk*

Oh yes.. We have the stuff and the things.. and I'll hug you.

This doesn't work at all due to the fact P&W is a PvP game.. everyone needs a constant day time. if 3 nations had a start time all a hour apart. and double purchased and declared on the same nation. The nation declared on would face no interaction. and coding around stopping something like this to happen would be very complicated. and it'd add a bit too much startagey to combat and hunting down membership in different time zones.

Best of luck alpha membership... Alpha leadership, I have my favorites.

Glad thats cleared up.. Time to take a nap

Glad UPN gets to fight and didn't have to sell down infra to fight. I still remember my fights with my raiders, it wasn't fun being down declared by someone who had 2 more cities than you. Best of luck in the fight.