Deja

The protection on missiles/nukes should be much much shorter. Like one turn instead of one day.

Greetings all. As best I can tell, the only use for score is to exclusively to set the boundaries for who can declare war on whom based on those nations' abilities to militarize and make war. Based on the current game mechanics, infrastructure does not affect a nation's ability to militarize nor make war. The things that affect that are 1) city count, 2) improvement count, 3) project count. One might point out that improvement count is linked to infrastructure, but it's not. Plenty of nations out there with a full complement of improvements and only 200 infra. Improvements themselves are the enabler for military. In order to reflect the actual warmaking ability of a nation, score should not be inflated by infrastructure, or at the very least, infrastructure's contribution to score should be slashed viciously. Otherwise we end up with absurd, lopsided scenarios like 32 city nations declaring war on 16 city nations.

Agreed on the first part, oppose the second part.

You're not at that big of a disadvantage, first of all. They each have 1,000 planes, you can keep ground control with a troops double buy and match relatively evenly against them. But that's not the point. Those 3 can run roughshod over you and accomplish nothing, still not stopping you from raiding because it costs you maybe a couple hundred thousand in infra, tops. Which is the point. You can cheaply stay at war almost indefinitely with a nearly full military capacity reflecting your full city count against smaller nations. The score system's entire purpose is to prevent this. The fact that bigger nations can "act as raiders" is another way of saying big nations can hit small nations. Again, the score system's entire purpose is to prevent this. I don't know if you're deliberately misleading with statements like these or if you just haven't actually thought it through. Sure, Arrgh is high on the leaderboard for straight infra losses, but all of those losses are lost under 500 infra and cost nothing to rebuild. Once again, that's the point. You can war whoever you want and disregard the counters because they don't cost you anything to lose. Once again, to reiterate, that's the original point of what needs to be fixed. War should be expensive, it breaks things, kills things, expends resources. Revenge, or as the rest of us like to call it, countering, is the whole point of alliances in the first place, which is kind of the point of the game. So again, you're illustrating exactly the thing that needs to be fixed.

I don't think you know the incident I'm referring to. No offense. But yes, some time before that we got in trouble for the VM thing. Separate incident.

I agree that it makes no sense to destroy land. Land doesn't get destroyed. It could get captured, but where would it go when destroyed? This is ridiculous. You just want to be able to be able to war against nations that should be out of your nation score range but aren't because of a loophole. Further, you want to be able to war like high score nation against low score nations without having to risk high prices of war, which defeats the balance of risk and power of war. You've been exploiting a loophole in the game. That loophole should be fixed. It shouldn't be easy to go to war and disregard counters because you can't be hurt because you have nothing to lose.

You let the Polaris bank take a large hit as a direct result of actual player cheating, even giving out an in-game strike for it. Why didn't Polaris get the same consideration Emerald is getting now? Actually Emerald seems to be getting far more consideration, since you're backstopping loans for alliances that didn't have moderation action taken against them.

Like by definition it's not unfair right? Both coalitions have the same options to use the same game mechanics. Be kinda like saying blockades are unfair because Coalition A doesn't bother buying ships.

Why does only Coalition B have this option? I don't see where the game has this limit in place.

I have some suspicions of some people but none of them are these guys. But I'm biased since I'm on your list. ? Also for the record I usually try and keep my trades under 5k so it doesn't ruin the trade market. So double digit millions isn't me. But yes, I'm very active when I work from home.

^This!

He can't pay it. To do that, someone would have to send him money, and that paper trail will result in war.

Title says it all.

Argh was definitely exploiting Fortify so they could attack people who were 2 days inactive without worrying about retaliation costing them anything. I still don't have any problem with updates affecting them more than others.

Seems like making it harder to hide from retaliation when you attack someone is a feature, not a bug. It's difficult to feel bad for you. Argh skates because they can avoid the damage of retaliation by just endlessly fortifying if anyone counters. He's crying because it's going to be harder to attack allied nations without worry about retaliation.

Fair point. I'll see if I can get time this week and make a spreadsheet. That would be interesting to see the breakdown.

Thread title says it. Especially in ground attacks. This needs to be a little more reflective of an "immensely" lopsided battle. As it is having a slight edge can (and often will) result in an immense triumph, so whoever gets it first is essentially ahead the rest of the war. Especially in air force.

I do like this idea, as well.

Yes, but in this game, if you fought two people that are 2/3 your strength, they'd get their asses kicked, even though together they should be able to team up to beat you. But because immense triumphs are so one-sided and don't require a large edge to effectively wipe out forces at a 10:1 ratio, as long as you stay on top of it, you can dominate those two easily.

If you don't get it, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe reread the OP?

Right, equally tall people have equal advantages in business. Just get taller. We're talking about the war system and its fairness.

If it were the same for everyone and were equitable, a 10% advantage in troops would come out to a roughly 10% advantage in the battles. But that isn't so.

The war system is not fair, and holds almost no way of winning if you start even slightly behind as the winningness compounds on itself. This should not be a thing: I don't even care how big of an advantage one side has, that as a regular occurrence is a little ridiculous. I get it if it's a one-off unlikely happening, but that's a typical result when one side has an advantage. Which means if I get attacked and my attacker has a 10% edge on me numerically in forces, he has a MUCH larger than 10% advantage over me in winning the war, especially with the element of surprise (ground attack, immense triumph, wipe out airforce and tanks). This also means one stacked opponent vs two moderately stacked opponents ends up with zero forces in less than a day which is both unfair, uneven, and unrealistic. Somehow making that advantage compound less needs to be built into the way losses are calculated. Perhaps the core problem is that immense triumphs happen WAY too often.

The site is becoming borderline unusable with the captcha trigger rate.

I'd be in favor of this if it came with like a 3% interest rate or something. Or even better, an interest rate somehow tied to the strength of your economy.