Sketchy

Relevance can be judged in a few ways tbh. If the metric is power/ power projection then. 1 - The Syndicate 2 - Rose 3 - The Commonwealth 4- The Immortals 5 - Children of the Light 6 - The Knights Radiant 7 - Camelot 8 - The Ampersand 9 - Grumpy Old Bastards 10 - Schrute Farms

TCW was 100% complicit with everything IQ did and only switched sides at the 11th hour when it was their turn to be screwed by IQ and wanted to save face. Sphinx has since tried his hardest to pretend like he did nothing wrong, hoping his last minute side switch will provide him convenient cover. So sure, TCW can get some forgiveness when they elect a new leader who didn't lick IQ's boots for a year.

Glad to see you back Kastor.

He's not going to undo it lol

No better way to prove you didn't leak then to take part in more leaking.

Thanks.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=130019 You claim its this guy ^ literally in your alliance. Lmfao Again, BIG BRAIN FA MIND

Only Sphinx would, when accused of harboring a leaker who leaked to shifty, proceed to leak to shifty, logs proving hes harboring a leaker. Truly a big brain FA mind.

I retract my previous respect lmfao.

For a micro, this was handled fast. Respect lmfao

As long as alliances exist that don't take any effort to teach their noobs, and just chew them in and spit them out, retention will always be a problem. Only so much can be done on the mechanics side. This game is already fairly niche as a genre.

Awhile ago I posted, in the hopes of making the treaty web a bit more useful for examining FA ties in the game. While I still think that would be considerably more useful, if we can't do that, then I would like to suggest the restriction of "Top 50" be removed from the treaty web, and allow any alliance above 30k score to appear on the web. This is only going to become more of a necessity as the amount of players/alliances continues to grow.

I don't think he was talking about TEst.

You are wrong. And people don't need to see how they respond in real conflicts to see the fairly obvious negative implications of most of the changes.

So we are on the look out for allies with a name starting with a vowel. CKGG doesn't have the same ring to as KETOGG. To apply for this prestigious position, you will need to send Keegoz a private message, preferably when he is asleep, and in 500 words or less, explain why your particular vowel is the best vowel suitable for the position.

Can you repeat that

"A Declaration of Innocence" First paragraph "I came up with the plan of couping t$"

Sheepy pushed an econ update.

Its worth pointing out that it wasn't just NPO/BK/GPWC that deleted. Before the GPWC scandal happened, well over 1000 nations on both sides had already deleted. I posted some stats awhile back, but that war basically set the game back 2 years in terms of player size and count. Prices are going to keep going up for awhile until the market rectifies itself and the new normal is going to be much higher than has been in the past. People are not really adapting to the new prices very well either at the moment which is slowing down the return to normal. It doesn't help that Alex keeps adding in new projects with Raw costs that cause demand to spike amongst whale tier nations. Frankly prices being high probably isn't a bad thing under the current conditions. It'll help noobs grow faster through selling raws and raiding during this extended peace, rebuilding what was lost in the previous war at an expedited rate. A historical market chart for anyone who is interested: You realise besides Akuryo most of us have no idea who you even are or what your deal is right? Your obsession is rather one-sided I'm afraid. Perhaps you should contact Akuryo privately and work out whatever your drama is with him.

Recycling Initiative Project & Green Technologies Project Why would anyone even buy the recycling center initiative if it locks out the ability to buy the green tech project? The green tech project is objectively better. Might as well just scrap the recycling center one altogether. Pirate Economy "Must have at least 50 "Wars Won" and "Wars Lost" combined." Why? This requirement seems arbitrary. Also the cost for this project should be considerably higher given the tactical advantage it provides. Telecommunications This should increase the cap by 1 for stadiums, malls and banks, instead of giving a 2% bonus. Ever since Alex screwed with the slot requirements in the old econ update Commerce has not been very competitive against resources. This is doubly true under the current market. Increasing the cap of these would reduce slot usage which would be a far more valuable boon than a 2% boost for the cost and make the extra 5% cap worth reaching. Change to Raw resource mining maximums Unless you also intend to equalize input and output of refined resources I don't see any purpose to this change other than arbitrarily messing with the market. Which past changes would indicate should be avoided at all costs.

Well this thread went to shit fast lmfao.

So that would be: Soldiers from 7.5 score to 6 score per city. Tanks from 62.5 score to 11.25 score per city. Planes from 45 score to 18 score per city. Ships from 30 score to 11.25 score per city. Full Max from 145 score to 46.5 score per city. I agree with the ratio of unit score, but the reduction of 100 score for max mil just further defines tiering that would already be defined by increasing the city score. Seems like it would be better to go with. Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0006 each (9 per City) Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.014 each (17.5 per city) Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each (27 per city) Ships: 2 -> 1.25 each (18.75 per city) That would bring Full Max from 145 score to 72.25 score. The current range of score per city is 75 - 220 assuming 1k infra. With the military score changes I proposed above alone, that changes to 75 - 147.25 assuming 1k infra. At that point you shouldn't need to increase Score per city by more than 75 score. Which would come out at 100 - 172.25 Your proposal as it stands right now would be 125 - 171.5. which is far too defined for tiering, and would severely hurt peoples ability to defend themselves from attacks below. If you can't counter nations who are updeclaring on you at all you are basically scewed. This makes perfect sense given the current minimum is 0.25, no objections. I don't really see what the point of this is. Nations small enough to benefit from keeping 1m in their nation have beige protection, everyone else 1m is pennies. No....? Christ there is no need to nerf planes. Changing the score formula balance will resolve the primary issue with planes. This game is not rock paper scissors. The units don't need, nor should they be, evenly powerful. The idea is to protect your planes. As I addressed on the other thread, there is no reason to increase rebuy. This is just going to make wars even more about who has the largest stash rather than who fights the best. Ever since you implemented resistance/beige mechanics wars have been a never ending back and forth until one side goes broke or gives up. This is a huge part of why the war system has become so toxic and boring at times. People need to be EASIER to pin not harder. The old system was too easy to pin people, it wasn't perfect, but we've gone way too far in the other direction. Also most definitely DO NOT make dry docks 5 slots per city. Its already a struggle to fit in slots on a low infra build since you made the econ changes all those years ago, stop making it harder for smaller nations to max their military by increasing the amount of slots they need. There isn't even a good reason for this other than uniformity which is a completely superficial reason that isn't worth the trade off. If anything you should be reducing the slots not increasing them.

Using the last war as an example of the meta is inaccurate. IQ spent years forgoing growth to stockpile resources for a perma war conflict. In the end after all that investment they still had to cheat to stay afloat. That being said, all the issues of that war would be worse with the increase to rebuy. Its already way too difficult to effectively "pin" people in war. All this change does is make it even harder, and put even more emphasis on resources as a deciding factor for victory rather than coordination. skill or activity. As for changing score, unless the military units are rebalanced to be more reflective of strength, like I suggested before, I don't see this as a good idea on its own. Score is way too arbitrary as it is to go making it more defined.