Viselli

So for example that would cap Camelot at between $20,340,000,000 to $33,900,000,000 cash in their bank. Or is that total not per city?

That is true, what is your recommended amount of cash and resources it should be capped at per city? I know the stuff Alex originally proposed was way too small.

Doesnt stop the fact you can currently get your nation to 0 score. Have a few "friends" be at 0 score and you can hide your bank in them. In addition to a cap Alex still needs to make it so you cant zero yourself

The loophole is storing your bank in a nation with 0 score without creating an alliance.

I like this suggestion but will add on I and some others suggested in Alex's original thread. You should have to unlock the alliance bank based off the score of the alliance. 5k - 10k score should be enough to not hinder legitimate micros from starting but is enough to guarantee that an offshore has large enough members for the average player to raid.

I think he is sending us a message

He didnt put in any work. A player did and Alex let him play the joke on the rest of the player base

I'm sorry are you declaring war before you raid? Is that a thing now?

What if you leave alliance banks as they are, they just dont become "unlocked" until the alliance is at 8k-10k score? That would force offshores to have members in the range of raiders?

I agree there should be as kind of risk. If perks ever come out you could even have one that negates the negative effects of mercenary units.

The more the merrier. I Iike having crazy goals and the more options one has the more diverse nations we will see among those that don't have enough infra for all projects. Right now we have cookie cutter nation builds and I'd like to see more diversity.

Building up. Right now we are limited in how many units we can make per day. If we make units to our limit and then buy the rest from the market you can build from 0 to max military in only one day.

Roicht Sasana is, I believe, the first alliance in the history of Orbis who was asked to surrender and then surrendered without ever actually fighting a single war

This is already a thing Alex was planning on implementing years ago as I discussed in my topic Here is the image of the proposed "black market" as it was called, where players could sell their tanks, planes, etc to eachother to get around the daily limit.

Didnt he say hed leave, or at lest not start alliances again, before?

Disabling a project (random or targeted attacks) - only one project can ever be disabled at a time. No more then 24 hours. A random attack had a chance to disable a project for up to 24 hours, while a targeted spy attack does not. A minimum disabled time of 2 hours (1 turn). This works just like any other spy attack, you can succeed and the target does not know who you are, you can succeed and be known etc. In addition to this if I disable your ITC, only you and I get a message stating that specific project is disabled for "X" turns. No indication is reflected on the nation page to show that your have been effected by this and which project is disabled. Any other nation who attempts this action will be met with a message stating you can't do this or something along those lines. Meaning If I spy attack you with this and win, only I get a message stating what is shut down (besides the defending nation that is). It is not publicly shown that projects are disabled. If this is implemented then it would make spy attacks more useful in times of war, with the ability to disarm defensive projects such as the iron dome or vital defense system to open up a window of attack. This could also be used to shut down nuclear weapon or missile production for a short time. By allowing spy attacks to be more meaningful during war it gives us more options then just attacking with conventional weaponry like planes. In addition to the war implications shutting down international trade center or one of the other economic projects let alliances attack each other economically, a coordinated "economic strike" could be used to hinder market rivals or act as an alternative to the ineffective embargo system. Credit for the idea goes to Dreadnought but he "don’t do forms, lol."

o7 I will miss the gambling and the vc as well. But mostly the gambling

I'm not saying this justifies what pooball did at all, he should stay banned. But if it was reported back then it might be possible to track down others. For example I know that TKR had a member beiged twice by the same person, meaning they looted the bank twice for one war, back during Knightfall.

Is there proof Pooball reported this to Alex back during knightfall and nothing was done? I'd like to see screenshots of that EDIT: There is a screenshot of Poo reporting it to Alex regarding nuking someone twice by clicking on two laptops at the same time in the RON discord, Poo claims it was the same exploit he used to spawn the money

Nova and Former Nova members had a few general threats but I know of at least 1 person who was threatened with revealing information publicly (doxing). The threat seemed empty and that discord member has been reported and has since been deleted.

Just commenting to hear Moderate CitrusK read it

It is hard when Pantheon is down to 3 people over 2k score...

I dont think a bloc bank or anything would be necessary, just a label to go along with the treaty. For example it might say MDoAP IQ or MDoAP Chaos

The only way I see this as valuable is if you could not target a specific improvement but have the game roll for you. However on the list power plants should be included on things that could be destroyed. At 2000 infra like in your example that is a roughly 5% (with 5/5/5/3 military there would be 22 improvement slots left for non military) chance of getting a nuclear power plant which gives an incentive to use this spy attack but keeps it a gamble.