Sketchy

Fortify should be removed. Using rock paper scissors as the example: Soldiers Beat Ships (Soldiers should be able to execute a "boarding", killing some ships, and if an immense triumph, giving a penalty to navy effectiveness.) Ships Beat Planes (Reduced infrastructure damage, instead have naval attacks shell air bases killing some planes) Planes Beat Tanks (Air Superiority) Tanks Beat Soldiers (Normal Ground Attack) Tanks Beat Planes (Ground Superiority) Soldiers Beat Planes (Ground Superiority) Planes Beat infra. (lol) Additionally, ships should have a "Naval Raid" option, that costs 4 maps, and loots similar to ground attacks and a higher rate, but does no infrastructure damage.

You'll never be able to prevent bank hiding, not completely, unless you outlaw it completely. The issue is bank looting as a concept in itself. Wasn't bank looting added as a way to stop people from hiding their shit in an alliance bank? Now people just hide the entire bank. Easiest solution would to be to scrap looting, scrap bank looting, and instead, have won wars result in stealing a % of a persons income before tax. Only way that could be exploited, is if said person intentionally reduced their own income out of spite, but that would just hurt them too.

Seems fine to me. The main concern would be this helping pre-existing established alliances more than new ones, as they have the capital to build their members up faster as a result. Despite this, there needs to be a way for people to catch up to the existing playerbase, the advantages outweigh the negatives imo.

I don't think locking out banks for alliances under 5 members permanently is a fair solution. Just make it so they can only use the bank after say, the first 10 days after their alliance is created, or when they reach X members. The biege idea is just terrible, when an alliance is bieged, that is when bank access is most important, so they can provide resources required to rebuild and fight back. DO NOT implement that.

Why not lock out bank usage for a certain time period after an alliance is created, or unless they reach X amount of members. Seems fairer that way.

I call bs.

Man, this thread is salty af. Half the salt isn't even directed at the OP now, just random third parties arguing amongst eachother. The forums are a magical place.

I call durmij a !@#$ all the time. Post the entire chat log, context buddy boi.

Lolwut. I've had nothing but bad things to say about Lordaeron since it was made ayy.

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18018-very-simple-war-screen-addition/

Add a !@#$ing TLDR you shit.

Under you told me you'd be the leader soon. Hurry it up.

Just get the moderators to move it to the Free Trade Market board

All the people against this suggestion won't give a shit when its actually added. So just ignore them and do it.

Do you use standard deviation for the tier cohesion or what? What is the formula?

Okay let me clarify my position better. I'm not looking to make unit scores closer to their importance. I proposed that ground, air and navy all have equal effect on score, with tanks and soldiers sharing a portion of the ground score. The reason I suggested this is because scaling unit score by importance removes the strategy involved in the variety of the units, whilst evening them allows for more flexibility. The second portion of my argument was integrating ships into the score formula to reflect the current meta, which means increase their score to match the others. In the old system, Max tanks, planes and soldiers = 110 score per city, in my proposed system, tanks, planes, soldiers and ships are 120 score per city. Ships are now an important part of the meta, so former downdeclare ranges which were already larger, are now larger. "The point is that trying to change the score formula to make things more "fair" without fixing the underlying problems creates more problems than just leaving it alone." The war system is riddled with underlying problems from its very core. And sheepy isn't interested in scrapping and restarting, so the best we can hope for is more balance within the current system. I disagree that attempting to increase balance makes things worse.

In regards to soldiers not having the staying power that tanks to, that is a fair point, so I suppose the argument could be for 10 score for soldiers 30 for tanks, or 5/35. As for the city score argument, that is part of a different problem in regards to how war score ranges are %. The issue with your argument is that the higher the base city score, the more clearly defined and separated the tiers become, as everyone increased. Tightening the war score range a bit might be a suitable solution. And you didn't address any of my points about the new meta for ships or planes or the arbitrary distribution of score. I think the idea behind this is nations that are beaten down are pushed down lower in score and if they have enough infra destroyed, they can't be re hit by the same large people. I disagree with this assessment. Although creative strategy is a portion of it (which isn't eliminated just nerfed to more reasonable amounts) in my proposal, another circumstance is the fact it literally protects inactive/incompetent people who don't militarize. Since in order to hit those people, you need to decom your own army and increase your own risk just to hit them because they are too incompetent to build up. I think opposite arguments can be made for both points of view, the issue is the spread is too wide. In the current system, a 20 city nation can hit a 10 city nation rather comfortably if that 10 city nation is maxed. That is too wide. This issue might not have been as big in the old system when navy was optional, but with it becoming an important part of the new meta, the values need to be adjusted. All the strategies you mentioned will still work, just not as well, and that isn't a bad thing, its makes the game less unfair. Nerfing the ship score is just a weaksauce temperorary fix, at that point you might as well reconsider and readjust the entire system. Also your compromise, "10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy" actually does more to harm the inventive strategies t$ employed than mine does.

So I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but with the new war meta, I think we should revisit nation score values. Currently: Soldiers are worth 7.5 score per maxed city. Tanks are worth 62.5 score per maxed city. Planes are worth 45 score per maxed city. Ships are worth 30 score per maxed city. Cities are worth 50 score each. 1000 Infra is worth 25 score per city. 1000 infra is the minimum amount required to fit 5-5-5-3 military improvements + power. So the minimum score per city, is 75, and the maximum is 220 at 1k infra, 245 at 2k infra, and 270 at 3k infra. What is wrong with the system: Thanks to the recent war changes, ships are now a part of the war meta, and will have a much larger impact on score ranges and down/updeclaring as a result. Frankly, the numbers for military seem a bit arbitrary, planes are the dominant unit, even in the new system, and yet ground forces are 25 score more in total. Additionally, soldiers are worth only 10% of the score of ground forces, despite being around 35% of the power (with munitions). What should be changed: Military Score should be split into ground, air and navy. And evened out equally. Soldiers should be worth 15 score maxed per city, or 0.001 score each. Tanks should be worth 25 score maxed per city, or 0.02 score each. Planes should be worth 40 score maxed per city each, or 0.444444444(Would require rounding) each. Ships should be worth 40 score maxed per city each, or 2.66666666667 score each. City score should be increased to 80 per city. This would make the minimum score per city 105, and the maximum 225 at 1k infra, 250 at 2k infra. This would tighten score ranges, compensating for the change in the meta to make ships more prominent in war, and would create a more equal divide in troop scoring, as right now the scoring of troops doesn't really reflect their value. Additionally, project score should either be removed, or reduced to a smaller amount like 5 score per project. The primary reasoning behind this is that not all projects effect war, and that projects are a choice between military strength or economic dominance, and people should not be handicapped for that choice. Using that line of logic, land might as well have nation score attached to it also.

So now, if a person raids an applicant, the bank of the alliance that person has applied to is now raided. I'm not sure if this is an intended feature or not, but if it is. ITS REALLY !@#$ing STUPID. HOW TO RAID ANY ALLIANCE BANK STEP ONE: Join an alliance STEP TWO: Have your friend raid you whilst you are in applicant SHEEPY, FIX THIS SHIT.

The irony is a portion of the members you are referring to left because they didn't like the direction Rose was going (higher activity standards, higher communication standards, proactive economic policy to improve our fighting capabilities). Maybe I'm a dick, But I consider the "core" members not to be the ones who have been around for ages, but the ones who are active, engaged with the community, and willing to contribute to the success of the alliance. Not sure who shat in your cereal but you have no idea what you are talking about since you aren't in Rose and have no idea how we are doing internally. But ayy, keep bein salty bro.

Bullshit, I'll give you the fact that most of the opposing alliances are unable to "put together a FA plan" (GotSphere) but saying that the current spheres aren't killing the games politics (killing the game is a bit excessive) is ridiculous. Also it isn't really possible to build a second, third or fourth sphere. The power is all centered in one place, and the ONLY way to break it is to attempt to poach allies from that sphere. And of course, naturally and completely fairly, you aren't going to let people do that. As for the stuff about the same fights over and over, that is on the fault of both sides. Yep pretty much agree with all of this. Paperless is stupid, basically anti-social for anti-socials sake. Elitist alliances are bound to stagnate and fall eventually simply because they don't make any new members. Syndi-sphere is not entirely to blame. Blame can be attributed all around, especially with all these alliances signing tonnes of treaties. I do think this is an extremely ignorant pov though. "Oh just make a new sphere, we totally won't do anything about the potential threat to our dominance". Give me a break. Do I blame Syndi-OO for wanting to eliminate potential threats? No, not really. But at the same time, you can't then come out and say"oh just make a new sphere we are totally okay with that". Truth is, Syndi-oo has complete and undeniable control and it can't be challenged from the outside. Even if all the alliances not currently tied to t$-oo banded together (and they shouldn't have to) and tried to build a coalition, they wouldn't stand any real chance. The other issue, and the part you are correct in, is that the most of the non t$-OO alliances are just frankly, really shit. So the remaining alliances that aren't shit have to deal with shit alliances. NPO is a prime example, even if most of t$-oo refuses to admit it, they are a pretty strong, solid alliance with a decent amount of potential. What would you propose they do exactly? Magically make all their allies not shit? This is such a narrow view of the situation and as others have pointed out, is basically just another "git gud" thread. The alliances that are already good aren't to blame for the pixel hugger refuges scattered in the leftovers of paracov+GoT.

I don't know about that, he made you bite the bait pretty hard.

I'll never understand why they put you in charge of FA of all things.

This is not a bandwagon. TEst did not deserve this. I am not a liar.