Soxirella

While this makes sense in theory, in practice most people are going to just ignore the warning and click the button without reading. It's just human nature.

Am I too late to this thread?

The player is free to choose their strategy. Either they can suffer less loss and inflict more damage to their current opponents (by fortifying), or suffer more damage by getting beiged, so they can rebuild better and inflict more damage in the next round.

No. Because VM is putting your nation in a mode that people cannot do any damage and you don't play for two weeks. Switching to beige will initiate beige loot and infra destruction, and at a higher level compared to normal beige. As per my proposal, you can also only switch to beige, if you are in a war where your resistance is below 40. I am open to a different number such as 30 or 25. The idea is to essentially surrender and start rebuilding and avoid being in zero military forever. Instead of considering a single war's resistance, we can also consider average or median defensive resistance, so the aggressors can sort of delay a player switching to beige and to avoid players from running into beige very fast. It'd be a productive discussion, if you share WHY as opposed to making statements without any backing. Perhaps you may have misunderstood the suggestion, but it is essentially a surrender. So I am not sure why you think "Surrender" is better than what was originally proposed.

Pretty sure this is going to be extremely controversial/disliked, but @Alex here is a suggestion to give dogpiled nations some ability to bounce back. Currently: 1) If a player is dogpiled, they loose a third of their planes, or more, and cannot really fight back three wars. 2) While the beige system is there to allow a loosing player to rebuild and comeback, it can be avoided by not beiging or by staggered beiging 3) When a player comes out of beige, there are 100 others waiting to snipe, and they continue to get dogpiled My suggestion is to: 1) Increase number of days in beige, up to a max of eight days 2) Allow players to switch to beige on their own By increasing Beige time, a player gets 2-3 extra days, after a full rebuy, to wait and co-ordinate a counter with two other of his alliance mates. A player can be allowed to switch to beige, if they have a war where they have fewer than 50 or 40 resistance. Doing so would immediately loose all their wars, and they can be made to loose a couple of percentage more in the loot and infra. However, they will not be in a never ending zero military situation, and could possible time their beige with mates who they intend to counter with. Now some people will say, do Politics part of the game right and avoid getting dogpiled. To them I say: 1) Every single alliance has been dogpiled at some point, or will most likely be so in the future. 2) Everyone can agree that it is ridiculously impossible to comeback, when dogpiled. 2) There will still be a 100 players waiting for people to come out of beige and the three opponents countering may only get an extra day's worth of hits in. However, not only do they get to do some co-ordination to make a small impact countering, it also gives hope to the alliance as a whole. It increases the probability of organising an alliance wide, co-ordinated counter.

There also needs to be a way for dogpiled nations to be able to stage a comeback. Right now, whichever alliance declares first, most likely ends up winning the overall war. Once dogpiled, it's near impossible to stage a comeback. Especially when, from round two-three, there are 100 people waiting for 10 to come out of beige.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=332693

🥳

Agreed, but it's still something that the player has to do, instead of the information being readily available.

When we look at a list of wars in the 'Wars' page, we can see how many MAPs our opponents have. In my opinion, this should be privileged information, and should not be visible to the opponents, unless perhaps if they do a Spy attack. Knowing how many points the opponent has may allow the opponent to strategise accordingly and be more alert. Not showing that adds an element of uncertainty.

I had to genuinely be away from the game, without internet, for 10-11 days. Earlier, for such short time, I'd just beef up military and let my nation be as is. However, with the change to reducing number of days to get into inactivity mode, I had to essentially force myself into VM. Now that I am back, and with so many changes to the game while I was away, I genuinely have to wait 3-4 days before I can do anything. Since people running into VM during war can continue to be attacked, and due to the above reasons, I suggest we reduce the minimum time for VM to either seven or ten days, or let us come out sooner, manually.

I was going through our alliance bank transactions and although this is a bit old, it's worth a mention. As seen in the image below, our alliance member beiged two different players from two different alliances, but it has recorded beige loot as being sent from our bank. I believe beige loot entries are only made in the loosing alliance. Our member was always in our alliance during the previous global war, if not since forever. There was also a bank loot on 31-01-2020 18:53:00 against Potetland. This player was an applicant, but I did notice another thread reporting this bug already.

@Alex you already have simulators for individual wars and stuff. Why don't you write a script that simulates a war between two alliances. One with ten 30 city nations and the other with twenty 10 city nations. See how many turns it takes got the latter to annihilated. Then increase the latter's city per nation to 11 and see the difference, and so on. Once you are satisfied with how soon the higher city nations can down declare and destroy others, use ratios to adjust the score. So, if you are happy with the outcome at 14 cities per nation of the 20 nation alliance, the city score to use for nation score would be: 50 * 14/10 = 70. Also, like others have mentioned, it'd be best to do one change at a time to see the effects of that change alone. No more than one game changing changes at the same time.

Ideally, we should have so many projects that a player needs to think about which project they may want to buy. With many players easily having 25-30 cities, they are able to buy pretty much all the useful projects. I propose two suggestions: 1) The more projects a player has, the more expensive the infra requirement should be. Let's make the infra requirement for the first project be 2,000, the second be 4,000, then 6,000, then 7,000, then 8,000 and so on... so the future projects are incrementally more difficult to buy 2) Let's get more projects such as, the ability to hoard a certain amount of resources/money (upgradable based on level), that cannot be raided by an attacker, the ability to reduce military expenses, research facility to improve econ / military / etc., secret nuke facility to prevent spying of a certain number of nukes, etc. Thus not every player will have the same set of projects and there may be more strategic element into the game.

Firstly, if the below proposal is too much, then I have a simple suggestion request to allow players, who have twice, or more, as many defensive wars than offensive, be able to buy back planes at the rate of 100% in three days, instead of six. Things like the inability to rebuy all troops in one go are intended to make the game more realistic, but how realistic is it to be able to attack all the cities of a country in one go, especially where there are 15-20+ cities. Since military destroys infra/improvement of one particular city only, I propose only the military units of those respective cities, or a similar number like troops from three cities, attack each other. So, if the attacker is attacking from a city with 4 air force bases, and attacking a city with 5 air force bases, then it will be a battle of 72 planes v/s 90, and a maximum of 90 planes can get destroyed on either side. We could also set it to troops from any/chosen three cities v/s troops from any/chosen three cities. Right now if three offensive people attack one defensive guy, then the defender looses more than half their air force. With this suggestion, they may have some capability to fight back. Some of their cities may be war torn, but then they may be able to make a come back using their others. The strategies in fighting also increases using this suggestion. Instead of capping military units to 5/3 each, we can put an overall military cap of 18, with an individual unity type cap of 8, so the number of defenders/attackers may differ. We can also introduce changes to turns - Instead of 4 turns per attack and 10/12 resistance lost via air / naval attacks, we can make it 2 turns per attack and 5 / 6 turns lost, so there are more attacks and possible outcomes to the war. We can also make it such that, if you attack from a city then you won't be able to use that city in the next attack, for the same unit type attack. In order to not just make it a numbers game, we can introduce a Research project, where the players can sink more funds into improving the military in each of their cities or overall. One common aversion to this idea I forsee is people saying that people who loose wars should have been more careful and diplomatic, etc., but I am pretty sure most if not all alliances have been on the defensive (outnumbered) side of a war. Once an alliance is outnumbered, it is extremely rare, if not impossible to make a come back. We have all been there and this would benefit everyone. The other suggestion I'd also like to add, but am not particular, is to put a cap on amount raided from individual GAs, lower the alliance loot % slightly, and put a cap on amount and frequency alliance transfers, not deposits, to non-alliance destinations. This should encourage people to keep the amount in their own nation like a proper war chest, and may reduce need for off shore banking.

@Alex Regarding the latest changes to the game, doing the math to round off the decimals may take a few extra seconds, at least for me. Rather it is the process of going into each city's page, buying infra, and then doing bulk import that takes a lot more time. Why can't you just edit the Bulk Import of JSON code as below? You can just use your @Target feature, and instead of using an user input, just use the target infra required for the improvements. //change function importJSONToCity() { if (infra sufficient) { buyImprovements(); } else { throwError(); } } //to function importJSONToCity() { if (!infra sufficient) { buyInfra(); } buyImprovements(); }

Here's an idea that is not just cosmetic, but functional and will save players a lot of time. Similar to the feature where we can bulk import a set of improvements into all cities at the same time, give us a box where we put target infra and the game buys infra up to that level in all cities. It will be especially helpful post war, where we have to do math to round off our infra purchases. A better suggestion, instead of adding a new box, would be to make the bulk city importer buy the required infra as mentioned in the JSON, instead of throwing an error. You can put another check box to warn players about that. Whoever clicks the second checkbox, the game will buy the required amount of infra (not sell), before buying improvements.

I think this idea itself should suffice. Instead of programming two aspects of the game and changing the city building code, just create a new project to reduce city building cost. So all resources that would go into buying a city will also go into buying money cost reduction of new cities. You can reduce the impact percentage. In other words, if you implemented both suggestions and made every million resource reduce 1% of the city cost, now make it reduce only 0.9%, in lieu of resources not being spent on buying new cities. This suggestion would be much simpler and faster to roll out.

@Alex My point was, the fact you decided to interfere in the game itself was wrong - whether anyone benefited or not, or whether you did so intentionally or random is irrelevant. Also, please try to spend whatever little time you do updating this game into the game mechanics, and fix the issue long term, rather than spending it on cosmetic changes. For starters, you can create a new game suggestion thread requesting ideas on how to remove resources from the market. One suggestion to kick us off, although it may not be ideal or liked by all, would be to make a city get destroyed, if it is at zero infra for more than three days. Or it could just stop producing for 30 days, if the infra goes down to zero. That way, supply would reduce. Another idea would be to introduce accelerated decay on production. In other words, if you have less than 10 cities, and if you can produce three tons of coal per day, having 11 cities will reduce that to 2.95, 15 would reduce it to 2.5, 20 cities would reduce it to 2, or something similar.

@Alex People don't, bots do. Besides, you could have taken five minutes, or even more, to buy stuff, to ensure you were not buying mostly from the same alliance/sphere. And even if you did, you interfered with the game and gave certain players advantage over others, small or big. I don't see how you cannot acknowledge that was a mistake, and if you really want to be fair to everyone, it's something that needs to be fixed.

Either that or certain unknown reasons could have influenced people to post trades magically in response to higher than usual buying activity, while Alex may think he was making a fair random purchase.

While you may not feel what you did is unfair, that doesn't necessarily make it right. By buying those resources at their asking price, essentially you have compensated the sellers more than they might actually get, as someone else may have put more stuff on the market at a lower price, had you not bought it. Only players should have had an effect on the market and the LIVE game is not your place to have fun and experiment. In addition, certain alliances have benefited significantly more than others. You made a mistake, own up, and fix it instead of stopping just because "everyone knows about it". The way to fix it would be either to: 1) Reverse the purchases that you made 2) Put the resources you bought back on the market The first proposal reverses the benefit the sellers may have had, although they got to enjoy some excess spending cash for some time. The second, while not affecting the people who benefited will put the market essentially in the condition it would have been, had you not interfered. Let the market and war-build cycles drive the market, and work on some game mechanics to fix the market long term, as opposed to cosmetic changes to maps and graphs.

The naming needs some thought, but basically this is a project to double the production limit of any one military unit type, to be chosen when building the project. So if you can build a max of 10,000 troops per day, then this will increase to 20,000. Or if you choose nuke, then two nukes a day, or six spies a day, etc.

@Apeman There are also almost no one to fight you back when someone is so low in the rank to find that many inactives to raid. Sure, forfeit of beige when you go beyond three wars could be a solution, but given that there is a three defensive wars limit, essentially three people can block all the targets in the game.

That may be true, but now the climate is different. People hesitate to declare on others and the time between wars are getting longer. You can't force anyone to do anything. If you want more wars via game mechanics, you need to give incentives for war, not penalties or forced actions. Forced wars won't heal wounds.