Soxirella

My replies in bold...

There's two primary point of difference that this idea brings compared to the status quo. 1) It will be a lot more tedious for alliances to circumvent bank hiding, especially in alliances with many members, everyone needs to regularly send trades to transfer their personal savings at zero % alliance tax. Dates will inevitably get missed, kind of like missing sending tech in CN tech deals. You will also not be able to transfer when blockaded, which is not the same as currently being able to have 100% alliance tax and then transferred to someone in beige. 2) It is also technically more risky, let's say aargh or any other alliance co-ordinates and gets a person to attack every single person in an opposing alliance, then doing a simple GA will easily identify the banker(s). In other words, on day 1, not everyone is on beige, and whereas in the current system the bank is looted only on the last zero resistance, here it can potentially be looted 10-29 times. It will also take some relatively simple guess work, or spying, to narrow down the banker, instead of attacking everyone. Now given those points tell me with a straight face that hiding the bank in this suggestion is as simple as what people can do currently. Once again, I am not sure why your last point is relevant to the current suggestion. Currently, let's say 30-40% of a player's revenue goes to the bank as tax. They may never see that money again, unless an officer in the alliance withdraws it back to the player as a city loan, or rebuild aid, or something. So, all this suggestion is to make the office extend a credit limit (as in a real bank) as opposed to withdrawing from the bank.

The first point don't matter since during war time, where most of the hiding happens, that fund is open to beige loot. You can also limit inter-alliance personal trades to 130% of current market index value to prevent $100mn for 1 food kind of trades. Regarding your last point, not sure how this idea goes against teaching good gameplay. Currently officers and above are given the ability to withdraw for war spending and other spending, so essentially the limited rolling spending / day point does pretty much that. Regarding big amounts for city purchases of all / regular members, I kind of feel it is the same effort for an officer to sanction an amount or to withdraw that amount to the player. In fact the earlier suggestion safeguards against surprise attacks. You can let Alex worry about this idea being a hassle for him to code or not. For those that downvoted, if you did so because you want to protect your precious alliance bank amount, man up. If you are OK with it and felt something is bad with the suggestion, then say it and I'll try to reply accordingly.

So I know this is something that Alex wants to limit as well, so here goes. First we list the main reasons why people choose to deposit (including via tax) into the alliance bank. Mostly this would be for war chest, rebuild aid, and city building. So for these main expenses we implement a feature whereby the alliance leader can earmark a certain amount to players in their alliance, from the alliance bank. Hence, when the player spends, it uses the funds from the bank directly as opposed to having to withdraw first. Example: 1) Player A needs 320mn to buy a new city 2) Player A requests their alliance leader 3) Alliance leader allocates/sets in the alliance bank that for all expenses borne by player A, 300mn can be used from the alliance bank 4) Player A clicks on Buy City 5) The games checks Player A's credit limit 6) It nullifies the 300mn credit limit and deducts that from the bank, and deducts another 20mn from the player's personal funds During war time, the alliance leader can temporarily set a slightly different credit limit. All players, or players in certain tax bracket can spend up to X amount per day. So let's say the alliance leader wants everyone to buy a nuke everyday, then they can set a 2mn / day limit for every player. So how does this limit alliance bank hiding? Considering funds from the alliance bank can be used as sanctioned, we can implement a 30% tax on withdrawals and a withdrawal limit of twice a month or something.

Why do you say that? What aspect of losing only 6% of your total military, or fewer, or none, which may also be almost the same number that you can already lose from an existing espionage operation.

Unfortunately, the different resistance loss per turn for different types of attack does make this suggestion difficult to implement, unless we make the resistance loss be the same across, irrespective of the turns.

It doesn't bother me much, except being a bit confusing initially (I look at multiple charts everyday, so my brain is used to seeing standard colours), but it'd make the game a bit more polished. If you can set Alphabetic sorting, that may help, else leave it as is.

Hmm... you got a good point there. Basically, I was trying to see whether we could do something to make the military units not be a simple numbers game and add more strategy. Perhaps, we could set the limit to max 8 of barracks/factory/hangar and max 5 to ship, but 18 improvements in total. That way, even if you get blockaded on the first turn by a person with full 5 improvements of ships, they are vulnerable to GA and Air attacks, and can easily get their ships destroyed by air. Then due to inefficiencies of more than 3 dry docks would be only able to replenish fewer than otherwise. So you need to see what would happen in the long run, not on the first turn. Basically, the intent is to vary the nation build. Right now, everyone, other than arrgh, races to buy a new city/project, works towards the same economy oriented production and commerce, then goes 5/5/5/3 during war time. We could also consider splitting ships into Battleships, Destroyers and Submarines for example. So, a player can focus either on destroying infra, possibly killing troops using battleships, blockading with subs, or breaking a blockage with Destroyers, etc.

Instead of limiting players to five each of each military buildings, allow players to build any number of barracks, factory, hangar, dry docks, and their resulting unit count, as long as the total number of military improvements do not exceed 20. This may add some more dynamics to warfare. You may continue to do 5/5/5/5, or perhaps do fewer in some aspects leaving you vulnerable to that form of attacks. Now, all players may build 20 hangars, since planes destroy everything, but they are vulnerable to being beiged sooner, with planes having the least resistance reduced to turns ratio. So, we can either leave it as is and do nothing, or introduce a penalty for having more than five. Example: For air, instead of 3 aircraft per hangar, we can have 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, etc per hangar depending on how many more hangars they have over five. Similarly, instead of 1000 soldiers trained per barrack, it can be reduced to 900, 800, 700. I feel this suggestion will be pretty dynamic, since the combination of troops you build will be dependent on how much resources you have and how your opponent is structured. We may also find an equilibrium, where all players may calculate and feel that a certain troop ratio is best, and that is OK too, since a war will break that equilibrium.

Umm... how about not quoting the post right before you, especially considering its length Thanks for agreeing with my last point that you'd rather irrationally downvote/upvote posts in this nuclear related thread based on your feelings, as opposed to rationally finding merit or demerit in the suggestion and debating it on content without any in-game political influence. Cause diplomacy and other game related role-plays have other places in the forum.

Is the game you refer to CyberNations? Go ahead and say it, CyberNations!! If this game can have a CN related award given, then why not mention it by name. Anyway, I feel you but I bet before I have finished my reply, someone else will probably point out to you the "Political" aspect of the game. In reality, this game is all about one group trying to grossly outnumber another, so essentially it is "Mostly Politics" and "A little bit war", cause war outcomes are usually decided before the first attack, and comeback is only in theory and never in practice. Nukes are probably a painful way for the other to get a victory, but your best bet is to amass 50-100 nukes before the start of a war, to really be credible. I do agree that Nukes are not damaging enough, compared to what a conventional gang banging can do and I'd rather make Nukes be barely available and used as a tool to shift the tide and go conventional from nuking. See: At least you can take it as a positive point that this game is not like Travian, another game where alliances resort to gang banging as well, but there, you can loose your cities/villages. You can lick your wounds and try to come back another day.

In the View Nations page, there is an area chart and a pie chart titled, "Nation Score Over Time" and "Score Component Breakdown", respectively. The legend colour for the 'Cities' and 'Projects' have been switched. Ideally they should be the same colour similar to how Infrastructure and Military are coloured.

FFS, read the OP about nerfing nukes. Also, in terms of "skill", how difficult can it be to follow the steps below: 1) Buy troops before war 2) Find opponents with zero or outnumbered troops 3) Check if opponent has nukes 4) If Yes, choose Ordinary, else choose Attrition 5) Login once or twice a day and do GA / Air Attack / Naval Sure, the Political part of the game where you are able to amass enough players to considerably increase your odds of winning takes skill and diplomacy, but that is usually done by a few people at the top, and not the entire membership. This suggestion does not take anything away from that. BTW, compare that to: 1) Buy a nuke everyday, and some spies as needed 2) Buy or plan resources to keep up that purchase 3) Still go ahead and buy troops before war 4) Try to fight conventional if not grossly outnumbered 5) Find opponents with really high infra 6) Wait for 12th turn 7) Nuke 8) If on negative revenue, login on the 11th turn and nuke on the 12th 9) If out of nukes, do conventional steps above without choose Ordinary Oh boy, did you really register on the forums (welcome) just to down play my suggestion, followed by two up-votes on your first post, which has just one purpose?!!! Considering so many quick replies and all the downvotes / upvotes, is TKR really that desperate to downplay anything remotely connected to nuking? It's really sad! I must hit a nerve, haha!! In reality, from history, we see that the use of nuclear weapons brought a conventional war to end, and not just turn the tide. Nevertheless, this suggestion barely turns the tide, considering only 6-7% of unit loss. It is also a problem I feel how these games implement nuclear bombing. Technically a nation can loose any entire city worth of population one day and get it the next, just by rebuying all the infra in one day. Alex implemented the 1/3rd rebuy feature to make military be realistic, but is it really realistic to expect a nuclear bomb to differentiate between a civilian and a military unit while killing, or is it really realistic to expect civilians to move back into cities overnight, among the radiation? If I were the developer, I'd have made nuclear bombs be barely accessible and difficult to develop, and practically be used once or twice per month, but make it allow the user to shift the tide of the war a bit, by affecting the ability of the person nuked to re-populate his city for a few days and hence not use it for building troops. All these are valid points raised by me, but instead of replying to those, you continue to try to downplay this suggestion with points already addressed in the OP. Good job TKR!!

Did you even read my OP properly?! I clearly said we should nerf some aspect of the current nuking system, perhaps infra damage, in lieu of this suggestion. And no one is talking about destroying projects. And it certainly won't kill a lot of units. It doesn't make sense Nuking below 1,200-1,500 infra per city, let's say the average person worth nuking has 15 cities. They'd then have 5 * 3000 * 15 = 225,000 soldiers. If nuked, they'd loose 5 * 3000 = 15,000 soldiers or 6.67%, which is also just 20% of their daily rebuy limit. Now tell me how does a Nuke kill civilians, but magically spares soldiers.

Yes, I know. I was talking about also killing an equivalent number of units that the military improvements in a city hold, whether or not a military improvement is destroyed. See second paragraph for example.

It's a miracle how the military units within city improvements don't die, while all the poor innocent civilians die. I don't care how you compensate this additional damage, perhaps nerfing the infra damage a bit or something, but I feel it is realistic and strategic to make all the units within a city die. So there can be 100,000 soldiers in total for our enemy, and then city nuked may have five barracks. Then 15,000 soldiers should also die, but you can buy back 5,000 everyday or how much ever is allowed by your regular 1/3rd. This can be useful in combo attacks where one person can nuke and weaken troops and the other can try to do GA in combo. For nations with 10-20 or more cities, this may not be a considerable loss of soldiers, so, we can also consider implementing a modifier. In other words, during the turn a player was nuked, his troop efficiency is 50% or something.

With the exception of two wars, in all other cases, even where opponents triple gang banged me, my opponents chose Ordinary war type. Now, I can understand their fear when I had many nukes, but not when I have none. May be they meant it, may be they didn't, but the only way we can be sure is to not make the 'Ordinary' war mode as the default, and make the player choose. It could be a mistake or ignorance and this suggestion should promote awareness. I'd also rename Ordinary to 'Nerfed' or 'Minimal', cause essentially, that's what it is.

I messaged Alex, and he said: I won't do one resistance scale because then it means when you know you're going to lose your best bet is to sit back and do nothing, no attacks, and just let the other guy beat the piss out of you because otherwise when you fight back you add resistance and it just means that they get to do more attacks on you. That's not fun for the loser at all. So, I have alternatives with and without changing the scale: I) If keeping the existing scale, the war should only end (beiging), if the difference in resistance is greater than 19 or some other smaller number, to avoid close encounters, which was the original intent. 2) In single scale mode, the current status quo can also be maintained by starting off the single scale on 100 each, and doubling resistance loss from the 45th turn. Currently, straight Immense Triumph Naval Battles can almost deplete your resistance in 44 turns, keeping in mind the starting 6. Or, keep the original simple single scale resistance but keep the war going for a minimum of 45 turns.

Do you think I am FOR reduction in nuke prices or AGAINST?!! Also, considering you can only build one nuke a day and have three destroyed everyday, starting from the fifth day (four days to kill 60 spies at 15 / day, at worst), pretty sure it still cost more for the person building a nuclear arsenal and maintaining it.

A 50 / B 50 Let's say A does Naval only and B does Nukes only After 12 turns, the resistance will be 67 / 33 After 8 more turns... 95 / 5 After 3 more turns, A can do a GA and beige. So starting at 50 each will mean B can only get in one nuke attack. If 60... 95 / 5 - 8 turns At 12th turn... 109 / 11 - A Naval 84 / 36 - B Nuke After 11 more turns, A can beige with two Naval and one GA

Fairly sure that most of you haven't taken into consideration that it is easy to destroy nukes and missiles only work 50% of the time.

They shouldn't be much different to what it is now. If you read the original post, I mentioned that starting on 50 would mean there can be only one nuke per war, starting on 60 can perhaps make it two.

The easiest solution would just be to start off new nations with 10,000 food. Should be enough to last them a while and not be bothered about buying food or farming. A little more intelligent would be to inversely tie the free food to global radiation index.

I agree with everything you said. It really comes down to how a player wants to play. They may choose to essentially surrender and not fight back, and then attack another player lower down the order with relatively more military and perhaps co-ordinated. You'd also need to be strong comprehensively and can't just concentrate on one aspect of military, which is unrealistic. Players can also man up and give hell to the other as long as they can.

I can get behind that suggestion.