Sir Scarfalot

Naw, the proposal (as I understand it) would just increase the advantage of numbers rather than provide more interesting strategic and tactical options.

!@#$ cancer. Seriously.

Happy birthday~

That's a pretty rambling two- or three-liner, so yeah I agree

Sounds like a problem that can be easily rectified by a quick programming check and an error message

Hello~

What's 'peace'? 🙃

Rose badman

Did we pass?

Hello~

Wow, nice effort! Not many people put in that much work to their intro post

Hello~

Happy birthday~

I want 200 billion as bonus

Welcome to Orbis ~

Well done and congratulations ❤️

Ideally don't double the money cost, but otherwise this should be a good adjustment

For some reason, the timer doesn't show up after I watch the ad and I have to manually refresh the page; is that intended behavior?

not really 🙃

noot noot

Creating an alliance requires a very clear vision of what you want from it. I made a one-man alliance and it worked out for quite a long time, but that was only because I had the power of fortification and a goal of hitting salty people with missiles. If you want to make an alliance, then power to you, but these days you need the capacity to offshore resources and cash, discord for bots and coordination, and enough of an internal culture that you can survive nuke turrets and poaching. Right now your "Teutonic Knights" has exactly zero of those things except a basic discord, so fix that please before you start recruiting and giving new players a misrepresentation of how the game can really work.

Welcome~

Two nukes built per day means two targets can be nuked using two separate wars, since each war gets its own MAPs. Go learn how to war And again, if each nuke does one full day's income worth of damage then that completely nullifies the targets' growth, at virtually zero cost to the attacker. And your counter argument is literally that one simply shouldn't have infra so it can't be nuked? Mate, you can't claim that turretting is underpowered when by your own arguments it demonstrably isn't. I'm not saying it's OP, but you're certainly making a good case that it is.

If you can do a day's worth of income in damage twice per day, you do see how much that actually is, right? If each nuke does a full day’s worth of damage, then a turret alliance can shut down the growth of an alliance that’s twice their size. That’s no small amount of damage.

Well, what would you suggest? That people not lose against a higher number of opponents? How would that happen under literally any mechanics? Like some kind of inverse ninja law bonus that causes plane damage to scale with how many wars you've declared? ...actually... You either win or you don't, and if you don't you toss nukes and missiles. This is not a bad thing, but it hasn't been re-balanced to account for the higher number of cities players have built in the years since NPOLT, so all we really need is a few adjustments to the numbers. That's the way I see it.