Sir Scarfalot

Ultimately, how one plays this game depends on how much one is willing to invest in it in terms of time and effort. I remember back when I first joined, I was a grunt in BoC as part of an effort by the players of Worlds at War to infiltrate P&W. We got into a big war, and despite BoC apparently losing I managed to snag a few kills and ended up profiting more that way than I had in my entire farming career to that point. Then I quit since I figured out a way to break Worlds at War and wasn't having so much fun here. I rejoined the game after a couple years as part of a >Bloc alliance, and realized how powerful fortification could be (this was back when it added resistance). My alliance crumpled like paper after foolishly stealing a major alliances' bank, so I went solo and raided like nuts to buy myself the almighty MLP. Then I went crazy, launching my daily missile at everyone without a care in the world. So much salt was mined, y'all don't even know 🙃 Point is, doing that still took time and effort as well as the mathematical skill to theorize the strat. Fortification bombing went away and turretting took its place, but it still takes time, effort, and math. Politics is no different really, it just takes time, effort, and interpersonal skills. A new player cannot, and should not, be able to get ahead of someone that's invested time, effort, and skill in getting where they are. And they shouldn't be expected to; rather it is on their leadership to provide the opportunities to have fun and excel. Of course, that does mean that we should try and stay away from one-day wars followed by months of game-wide NAPs

Okay, I'm going to have to admit that I'm kind of confused here. Nuck squad is declaring intentions to turret against Legion of Dawn, I get that much, but what's 'destroyed 4bn' mean? And what the heck is 'forcefully returned'; did they !@#$ up the offshoring?

True, but we've all gotten more cities and therefore more potential improvement slots at a lower cost than back when nukes were originally balanced for. I don't think I'd have a problem with rebuilding myself to a self-sufficient manufacturing build and spamming missiles and nukes even at a doubled resource cost. Aluminum and gas are going up, yes, but that's mostly a result of inflation; you'd be producing your own in any realistic turret build, so the cash value of the aluminum and gas doesn't really matter.

I've been thinking about the turret meta, and I realized that nukes haven't actually gotten substantially more expensive for a long time. Back when 'whale' was 25 cities, nukes required a fairly high number of one's improvement slots invested into manufacturing and mining to build, but now that the average city count has gone up, one can self-sufficiently build nukes and missiles off a relatively low amount of infra. Therefore, I propose the resource cost (not cash) of nukes and missiles be doubled. They would therefore still be usable by turrets, but turrets would need to rebuild more often in order to maintain a steady stream of nukes and missiles. Thoughts? Downvotes ?

Navy do need to be more stronk.

Relax, it won't be extended a second time. You can quote me on that.

Having fought Sawh a good 3 times so far, I've found that starting off with taking superiorities and blockading then tossing nukes is an alright way of doing appreciable damage to a turret. Superiorities to prevent them from double-buying and suiciding tanks, blockade for obvious benefits, and nuking in order to tear down improvements will *eventually* force them to rebuild infra to maintain turreting. Meanwhile, nukes are so slow to deal resistance damage that I can easily use naval or ground battles to beige if I'm ever in danger of actually getting beiged myself. I should probably be using missiles to eliminate their manufacturing instead of the indiscriminate damage from a nuke, but I don't have the guiding satellite project yet so I'm going for the more efficient improvement destruction.

Congrats ~

Noot noot

Gib dosh. Nao.

I agree, nuke turreting is fine. And I'm saying this as someone that's been on both sides of the issue. Counter-nuking and raid counters are good ways to counterplay against turrets, while not being so powerful as to invalidate a playstyle that is vitally important for the long-term health of the game. Without the possibility of turreting, there's no incentive for the winners of wars to stop holding down their rivals. That leaves open the possibility of IQ-style shenanigans, and I shouldn't need to elaborate on why we need to avoid that.

wat

You didn't? Well, now you know, because that's exactly where they are fought.

Log drop~ Log drop~ gib us the log drop~ For reals, great to see some drama, there wasn't any for way too long

For reference to new friends, there was once a hilarious glitch that put everyone in Rose for some reason. It was quite a while ago though

Yeah, spy deaths are way out of proportion to their build speed, that's needed an adjustment for a long time.

Ah, you have a point about the decomming thing. I've never heard of an alliance caring about the maintenance cost of units though.

Sigh.

Well, usually you want to have as much military as you can get, so there's no particular point in buying less than you can. If you want less, just build less military improvements and fill the unused infra slots with economic improvements.

The credit option is weak because this game is not supposed to be pay-to-win. I for one like games that make sure the deep pockets don't have a competitive advantage over regular people.

Welcome back~

I remember we did this before, fun times~

Peace? Booooo! Limited nuke use? Double booooooooo! Newbies should be raiding, not farming, that’s just a fact. 😛

A what?

Like I say on my nation description: beige is no defeat