Lu Xun

I actually prefer that your side doesn't surrender. Worst come to worst, I can bring in a gold farmer team.

There are people who want this war to go forever and would go as far as to bribe BKNPO coalition leaders to make it happen.

The horrible thing is, with all the abusiveness on forums, I'm not even sure if an unconditional surrender would be accepted. Certain political entities have gone all-in. Their rivals, perhaps, have also gone all-in. It's very irritating to me, but what can we do?

You guys are really intent into making RC a meme, aren't you?

Bidding: 21.1 million. Actually, Bid Withdrawn. Logistics aren't going to work out this week.

First BK gets rolled alongside Camelot and Solar Knights, then KT / TKR. It's almost as close as you can get to a real Knights bloc getting killed.

Probably behavior testing. As I've said before, it's their rebuild funds. What the hell, I've offered to loan to them, Horizon has offered to loan to them, other banks have offered to loan to them. Just stupid.

2 million, just a starting bid

Thanks about being proactive about this. @AK: hoping your damage control is less incompetent.

It's being fully prosecuted at this time; i.e, Daveth seems intent on beiging. Let Alex rule, please.

As in the other thread, slot filling is defined as attacking someone without intent to win the war / fight. There have been no engagements for about 12 hours.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=103058&display=war KT declares on ET, ET is at war with the same opponents, but we also have ET's war on KT etc....

The rules state it's about whether the war was declared with the intent of winning it (although this means expired slots is banned). I'd also ask about whether all slots were filled, or if only one slot was filled.

The wheat, evidently, only comprises about 1/60th of PnW proper's population.

As you can see, I've offered proposals for discussion, but nothing particularly definite. There's various options available, from Zephyr's "let's reduce starting MAP" to the "let's reduce MAP accumulation rate" to "let's reduce unit damage rate". Obviously, all of these ideas have their flaws, but they can be patched, i.e, with the unit damage rate, what I'd prefer, I'm suggesting that unit costs are also increased to compensate. Infra costs and loot yields aren't touched, so the amount of infra being destroyed remains the same and the loot being gained also remains the same. One radical option I was proposing but not seriously considering would be to halve unit destruction rates, but also quadruple unit costs, i.e, war would become extremely expensive, the opening stages of a war (where it's really contested and interesting) would become quite prolonged, but wars would also end faster. @CitrusK I suggest you consider thinking over the content in this thread before making criticism. Empyrea has lost 50% of its members. You could say that's just weeding out the weak, but it's not necessarily good for the game.

High server lag often suggests that someone is exploiting (i.e, inducing server lag to permit breaking of race conditions). I'm just aiming to log these lag spikes on this thread. Lag spike: September 16, 15:47 Server

Wars are slow because of cost, my proposal is to increase war cost while decreasing war activity requirements at the same time. This war could have ended when either or both KERCHTOG and BKNPO were economically exhausted. But that's not happening.

This war has gone on for what, 3 months? KECHTOG has been at war for almost 4 months by now, and if things go well they'll be at war for completely half a year. The activity requirements needed are excessive. As I've posted elsewhere, you want to make it so that, first, the game isn't so taxing on players (i.e, more time to counter, less requirement for constant activity), as well as increase the cost of warfighting so that wars end more quickly.

Latest Akuryo Dunning Kruger.

Look, I'm sort of busy and I have some strategic objectives to obtain. Can you guys, like, not peace out until January? kthxbai.

Power.

Part of the design is that attack types are so that resistance efficient attacks are often not damage efficient. Unfortunately, it's backfired to an extent with planes being rather efficient because they destroy resistance so inefficiently. Zephyr put out the point quite well that the shift from "doing nothing" activity to wartime multiple log-ins is bad for player activity and retention. The original idea I was thinking was 50% damage speed, 4x unit cost, which would have made combat more kinetic. But limiting the game to activity hounds and no-lifers isn't healthy.

Starting wars without MAPs doesn't need to be an if-or, it could simply be starting wars with 2-4 or 3-5 MAPs depending on Blitzkrieg/Fortress position (old Blitzkrieg may not be so broken if it were 3-4 or 4-5). One thing that has to be pointed out is that no one is still capable of the classic Mensa "I 3-countered you and blew up your planes before you could even attack" trick. These days, I mainly see 3 decs from NPO (battle groups) and counter times tend to be higher than they should be. Of course slowing the pace of war favors alliances with high activity that can put in hits within 1 turn of attack, but these barely exist anymore.

CoC is better anyways.

I think one thing I've pointed out is how war in this game is so antagonistic to casual players. The activity requirements are simply too high, which results in high player attrition during wartime. One way to deal with it is to reduce the speed of war, that is to say, to increase the amount of time available for players to counter, as well as to punish players less for being semi-inactive. The two ways of doing this would be as follows: 1. Reduce MAP generation from one every 2 hours to one every 4 hours, or some other factor. This would also decrease server load, but it'd also make the game a lot less energetic for active players. The averse effects would be that this would effectively punish raiders, as well as decrease the rate in-game in which infra is destroyed. 2. Reduce the rate at which units are destroyed by non-spy ops / improvement destruction. As before, this would make it so that players have more time to counter. The primary adverse effect would be making it harder to stop raiders, as raiders can deal more damage before their military is zeroed out. In both scenarios, this would require the cost of units to be increased to compensate for lower war destructiveness (the point is not to start 12 month wars), and have the adverse effect of making it harder to updeclare and making downdeclares more dangerous, as unit rebuys are more powerful. One way to deal with that is to simply halve the rebuy time, making it so that planes now take 12 days to max out, soldiers take 6 days, and so on. Alternatively, for a third option, soldier, tank, aircraft, and ship maxes could be further increased, but this would make the problems of downdeclares even more irritating, as cities and infra now comprise smaller score components of the game. Still, slowing down the pace of war would have many benefits in that the power of the blitz would be much reduced and that players and alliances would have more time to react to a preemptive strike. It would help reduce the tyranny of the offensive and create more tactical combat that's focused more on counters and deployments instead of simply who gets the better overwhelming blitz.