Keegoz

There is inherent issues in only rewarding warfare. It needs more stick than carrot to work.

I may just make an open thread for econ ideas to see where it goes. Might make my life easier. There are a few considerations I would stipulate but maybe doing this more publicly will receive less confusion at least.

I don't agree with your first assumption tbh. I've been told I cannot rework the game in the way you wish it to be. Alex ultimately does not want complete rework. Catch up mechanics are a different debate and not the basis to refuse any different changes. Alliances don't wish to go to war, even if they have a grudge match against someone, fearing another alliance just gets further ahead. The game has become ways to dodge wars whilst your enemies fight, but I sense now everyone is playing the same game. They can now know that they will at least fight a war every 6 months and not sit at peace endlessly. Meaning we may actually see people fight grudge matches because they won't look over their shoulder at who is growing at their expense. I say this as someone who has seen how difficult it is to convince people to actually take risk or go to war in general.

That's kinda where I've been thinking of going with the next econ update, yeah. Look, no update is a silver bullet solution, it will take a few different updates to fix this game.

I think it's a good idea because the game relies on war. It's what creates politics and community engagement half the time. Wars have increasingly become less and less frequent as time has gone on, and the game has become less active as a result. You don't need to attack me personally for having a different point of view, I am yet to do so to you. I will refrain from responding to you from here on out and I suggest you accept that you have had your say on this proposal and move on.

I disagree with your assessment and I think we'll need to agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for your input.

You can effectively farm for 5 months at the same income as now, if you play it correctly. So 2-3 times a year, maybe 4 at best. Again, most people fight 2-3 times in a year now.

They'll be roughly 2-3 a year, about the same as now for most people.

Yes, the increase to rebuy would be linked to the current cost reduction bonus. The current price increase is due to the game all trying to do it at the same time. Over time this won't be an issue. Planes cannot be reduced to 5 aluminium (most people barely rebuild them after the first round anyway). Sketchy outlined a way to avoid impacting smaller nations, which I will likely adopt. Spies need to be completely redone and it isn't high on the priority list, nor has legit anyone given me a good way to rework them, I'd have probably 10 times the amount of people complaining in this thread for even remotely tweaking spies. I sounded people out of your spy suggestions and they came up with fair arguments as to how it would make spies even more useless. Until I think of or someone gives me a good starting point for a rework, I cannot just magically make it happen.

I am not really forcing much, you could farm for almost 5 months before it becomes more negative than what you're doing now. Most people do not have much more peace than 5 months, so I'd argue the majority will realise this doesn't do a lot. The game is never going to be reworked like that. Sorry but that one is out of my hands.

No, I said it was a key component of the game and in the title of the game. You can feel free to not war if you wish, you will have adverse effects compared to those who do. The game was designed for wars to be a key component of the game though.

Not sure what alliances (who aren't broke) are taking more than 1 week to rebuild. All wars end within a week. You are not wrong, people often tell me the sky is falling when a change comes in that has adverse effects and we're all still here.

Yeah, as mentioned this is not final and some suggestions to stop people abusing the system have already been suggested in this thread. Minimum amount of damage and activity etc. It only really makes you go to war every 3-4 months. The first month of negatives, I suspect some alliances will eat because it's still cheaper than fighting. I don't think you'd see indefinite wars, because the buff isn't that much.

I am focusing on war for this thread. I have done an econ focused update before this and will again before the year is finished. War is a vital part of this game and I will not apologise for that. Most people talk to me about war changes more than economic ones just fyi.

Slight miscommunication between myself and the dev team during the test tournament basically. Only just noticing now due to someone bug reporting it. You won't be able to build any units without having at least 1 military improvement. The game is designed for war, not sure what else to tell you. It's half the games title.

Didn't consider that, you could do a fixed amount of rebuy but it wouldn't be 4 cities. Simply because it won't math splitting 4 cities over 10 levels of upgrades. You'd likely need to increase it more than 4 cities worth. 10 cities would make my life the easiest tbh lol

Suggestion via discord for idea 2: - Make it only against active nations to avoid abuse. Easily done via the diamond activity tracker, nations that are a purple diamond (have not logged in for more than a week) do not count towards reducing stagnation.

Spies need a complete rework and those advocating for changes haven't fully thought out the implications of their changes. They also not a high priority.

Hey all, This thread is to be seen as floating a few ideas and seeing what people think. They are not linked and further details will likely come later for a few of them. Idea 1 - Buffing Cost Reduction Military Research This will be the only one in which I will confirm, *something* will happen with to buff this side of the tree. Currently we think this side needs an extra mechanic to be seen as viable when compared to unit cap increase. It should be noted that a few bugs are being removed from the unit cap which weren't intended upon release (e.g. being able to have units without any mil improvements). Anyway, the idea is fairly simple: Add 0.5% rebuy buff for the unit being researched per level - this would be 10% rebuy should you complete the tree for that unit. We would need to probably rename this side of the tree to Military Efficiency rather than cost reduction. Idea 2 - Encouraging War It's no secret that wars are detrimental to growth and economics. This has swung to the point where political actors seek to avoid war rather than promote them and has led to political stagnation. The solution is to therefore give incentive to alliances to not farm endlessly but to create wars to also benefit them economically. The idea: Introduce a new metric tracked on peoples nations. Each day, their stagnation ticks up by 1 point. Once it reaches 60 points, the population and resource production in cities begins to decline based on the following formula. Population (%) = 1-MAX(((I23 - 60) / 240) * 0.6,-2) Resource Production (%) = 1-MAX(((I23 - 60) / 240) * 0.7,-2) Now I will say, these are some rough numbers to give an idea and the way it would work does need more fleshing out, but please see below: As you can see, after 60 days a negative modifier will slowly kick in. Every 30 days (roughly 1 month) the modifier gets worse. Conversely you can decrease your modifier so that you gain economic output (this is capped at -30). To reduce your stagnation modifier, you would need to complete wars. The amount being reduced I believe should be linked to war type declarations: Raid War - Reduces stagnation by 2 Ordinary War - Reduces stagnation by 3 Attrition War - Reduces stagnation by 4 Please note, both the nation losing and the offensive nation would have their stagnation modifier reduced by the same amount upon war completion. This may also encourage more even wars as the fight over slots becomes more important. Idea 3 - Make wars cheaper Quite easy this one. Reduce military gained by cities & research by 20%. Makes wars cheaper, promoting more wars. Flattens war range allowing for more interaction between tiers. Reduces the impact of cities on overall war strength, in preparation for future mechanics, making the war system less dependent on cities. These are the numbers: Reduce hangar capacity from 15 to 12 Reduce tank factory capacity from 250 to 180 Reduce barracks capacity from 3000 to 2400 Reduce drydocks capacity from 5 to 4 Reduce by a similar rate across military research Feedback: Please note that these are 3 discussion ideas and not all related to each other. Upvoting or downvoting this post gives me very little idea of what people do or do not approve on and therefore written feedback is always better.

That would mean he'd stop getting attention, and I don't think he can handle that yet.

Thanks for voting everyone. The poll has now concluded with Economic update with more engaging day to day economic mechanics winning the poll overall and will be a focus when developing a new update in the future. We also note that Improved nation simulation mechanics surrounding policies, government types and approval. had significant support and will also be explored by a few design team members as well. Please note that although we will develop ideas around this, hopefully within the near future, other updates may come out before their design completion. This does not mean we have abandoned any of the aforementioned design areas but that designing new updates can hit roadblocks and take longer than other ideas. Hopefully you will hear from me soon with some new exciting updates!

Feel free to go back to the asylum friend. I don't think we'll be taking pointers on war performance from Grumpy. Just saying.

People do realise we willinglying went in to lose a war because making TKR fight for 4 months was amusing. I know many of you have forgotten this is a game to have fun in. That's the direction we have decided to go however and just because you don't, doesn't diminish our goals. Feel free to consider sitting around doing nothing and then dogpiling someone every 6 months as being successful. It's something we could have done all year but again that's not our goal.

Afaik it should happen for May. The devs are aware it hasn't updated.

Wars aren't preventing rollouts but I have asked to not be involved in rollouts to avoid any side accusing me of bias. If an update comes out it is because the Devs and/or Alex deemed it was time for it to come out. Release dates would be feasible if we had a full time coder working on the game, but we do not. The game is designed and coded by people who have full time jobs and do this in their spare time. Design and development therefore happens spoaradically and that's not something we can fix. We have largely stuck to an idea, tested it and hopefully it will now be implemented once the feedback suggestions are done. I am generally trying to add QoL updates with whatever main update we focus on as to knock a few out. The devs also sometimes do some QoL updates when they can as their own seperate updates. I will skim ideas on the forums once an area is selected on where to focus next. You can probably read above to answer a lot of your questions.