Radoje

It really makes the long term players dedicated to your game feel appreciated when you say they're rigging your game and holding it hostage. Here I thought I was engaging in your in-game mechanics and creating a community. My bad, I guess.

^ This. Also, looking at your graph here, the short term buyback costs would be around 2.5mil resources, which I hate saying but, is basically jack shit in the grand scheme of things lol. If anything, I'm also really for the infra idea over cities.

I'm not sure, it might have something to do with the api and how the rest of the formulas are calculated such as population. Prob a good question for Alex though

^ True. You could just go to an offshore, but an option where you can exempt some members would be very nice.

I'm okay with this as long as it stays limited to a few bil and doesn't spiral out to where there are tens of billions being injected into the economy Good intentions, mediocre results. It's the man's game. Experiments are worth it.

feelsbadman

I agree with Sphinx. For the alliances that have already built up a large high tier playerbase before the change, this'll basically ensure nobody can reach them for a considerable amount of time. This is just a bandaid fix. It's the production of resources that's broken right now, not the way to spend them. If you reduce the bonus, after the next global the state of the game will be where it once was. That being said, I'd love to see some new additions like projects or even completely new mechanics. Basically anything we can do every day to keep us occupied. I'm a big fan of mechanics that force you to login once a day and perform X task to get X of something. It's a bit flash-gamey, but at least it's something to do

But at which point, if your goal was to (for example) also take down the opponents tanks with your air, you would have to kill their air first, meaning you have no threat of them buying aircraft again to take you down. You'd first take down all of their aircraft and than proceed to airstrike their tanks, which wouldn't make it any different.

The proposal I made only impacts airstrikes on units other than aircraft. In which scenario, it wouldn't make updeclaring any different. When you're updeclaring on an opponent, the objective of the updeclare is to take down their aircraft, in which case, you'll be airstriking aircraft. In that case, you wouldn't take any extra casualties on your air, and only would if you were airstriking their tanks/ships afterwards. It wouldn't change updeclaring at all. In fact, in my opinion, larger nations are far stronger in the current meta, where they can freely downdeclare with 0 tanks and 0 navy and just crush everything in front of them, while taking almost no aircraft damage themselves. If they lost aircraft while airstriking soldiers/tank/navy, it would nerf them and make the smaller nations have a better chance at countering.

No, I heavily disagree. The point of a war is not to reduce the other side's infra levels. That's the point of a war if you're heavily favored to win or drawing out the conflict as a loser. The immediate goals of your blitz and the subsequent rounds after it is to reduce your opponent's units to 0. Infra levels are largely irrelevant to your war effort. If infra levels were more important than units, than you'd beige every opponent no matter what instead of expiring them to keep killing their units, which is obviously not the strategy everyone uses.

You'll take some infra damage, but it's not significant in the long run and you won't get looted if you simply store your cash away. But when you're running only aircraft, you won't lose any navy/tanks and even if you take aircraft casualties, it doesn't matter because you'll take all of your opponents air down and kill all of their tanks and navy without taking any of those casualties yourself. You can neutralize all of the opposing units (4) with only 1, and take very miniscule casualties yourself. How is that balanced? I also addressed a fix to being beiged even when you win a war with aircraft, simply reduce naval attack resistance damage from 14 to 12 and that problem is solved.

I feel like because soldiers are so cheap and expendable that there's no point to not slaughtering them at your opponents tanks because they cost close to nothing and you can build 1/3 of your max every update. I think a more pressing change is how absolutely broken aircraft currently is. I've actually been thinking of a change that would be helpful with nerfing aircraft, without it being significant or damaging to the rest of the war system. I've talked to quite a few people about it and they all seem to agree. So when you airstrike units other than aircraft, it would be balanced to take aircraft casualties, for the sake of this example, a random number between 1-5%. So if for example, you have 1,000 aircraft, you might lose 10-50 in your airstrike against tanks/ships. The reason this number is generally pretty good is because it means airstrikes are still very much viable, but when you're blitzing 2-3 targets, you might withstand 50-150 aircraft casualties which means you're far easier to counter, and massive walls of nations with nothing but aircraft become less viable, hence ground/navy becomes semi-viable again where you can expect your attacker to take casualties while taking your tanks down. Currently, in most cases you have no reason to build tanks other than to get a GC, and than as soon as you get rid of the opponents aircraft you can just delete your tanks and never use them again. Their use is very limited and they act as a support to aircraft, which is not realistic (if that even matters), but more importantly it just means you have a useless unit. But, a problem arises with Navy. Spamming max navy means that your opponent will have to sacrifice a lot of aircraft taking down your ships, and because ships cause more resistance damage than aircraft, you can still beige them with your ships. To balance this issue out, you could simply reduce Naval resistance damage from 14 to 12, meaning they'd be even with aircraft. So now your attacker takes aircraft damage while trying to take your ships down meaning it's easier for your alliance mates to counter, and you still do a shitload of infra damage and can beige him with your ships if you're faster than him. That's pretty balanced if you ask me.

The same way we have bulk import improvements to cities, we should have a "build all cities to X infra/land" button, because when you fight any war with anyone, many or all cities will get hit and than you have to tediously go through every single one and write in dumb numbers like 165.34 or something for all of your cities, in my case 20. It's just quality of life and would be very convenient.

I am not saying you cannot make profit with small sums, I am saying it's not worth your time. If you're making 50mil of profit a week, you're still making profit, but it's simply not a sum that's worth your time. If you're not capable of attracting large investors and pushing up your scale quickly, you'll find yourself with months of time invested and no feasible return, because you cannot compete with larger banks. Sure, you can still go ahead and strike out on your own as a tiny banker, but I simply don't recommend it.

Block him

bump

If you can't raise 5bil in a week, quit. Banking just isn't worth it these days unless you can provide alliance loans. Over 50% of all clients are alliances, which need money for growth, warchests or rebuilds. Only a handful of players still lend money, because they can get interest free loans from their alliance. Another tip is not giving loans under 500mil, which basically means, don't lend to low tier nations. If you start with a really tiny bank, you'll simply waste your time as the profit you'll make will be miniscule. Scale is everything. Something else important to remember is not starting a bank unless you have at least some FA experience. If you find it weird to message random strangers on discord, you'll have a really hard time. 99% of your work is going to be people oriented. The whole image of an accountant sitting behind a desk is basically bullshit. If you can't network and develop strong connections, you'll flop within weeks. The last and most important essential you need is a great staff of directors. And I'm not talking about people that will run your books or operate your server. You need people that are just as good as you or even better. People that can add something to your team and support you in the things you're lacking. For example, in Orion, Sphinx manages most of the books these days, handles share holders, pays out dividends and keeps track of share trading. Benfro is a secondary offshore and helps me collect cash when I'm tied up in a war or need to juggle funds. Gatorcock runs Orion's trade department and handles the official Orion offshore alliance. Seb is the chief whale that rubs his hands together and makes tens of billions appear. Notice how Sphinx is the leader of TCW, Benfro the High Gov of TKR, Gator an absolutely talented accountant and Seb the largest nation in the game that also ran Emerald Bank. If your team is comprised of Jeff, Billy and Terry that are sitting in a micro alliance, your bank will suck. You're only as good as your team. With all above said, I don't suggest you start a bank. It's just not worth it. If you want to make money, invest in Horizon Bank or Orion Bank and let them cook your money. The amount of time required to run a bank is just simply not worth it.

Nah guys you're just being foolish, what we're looking at here is BK's superior organization, we should've just competed in the low tier.

LOL We need to frame this on our alliance page

He's in TFP so idk

They haven't changed anything, they just keep trying to frame themselves as different spheres even though they've held the same treaties forever.

Hey guys, here's a flag design we've never seen before