Phiney

Sheepy has just changed everything over to https so I'd guess that's whats causing the issues.

I think we've just missed a turn both the past 2 days

Just FYI, the top nations are actually making more than that. Between 300 and 400k is more accurate (players that make less might make resources n sell them and end up making that much regardless). Either way, the donation options sound about right

I've never played a game this style that is any faster paced. I actually think this game is more complex than many and allows you to get more involved and spend longer per day on your nation than some others

If he loads up the page in the video it'll fix that issue under

However there is a soft limit in the fact that the price goes up faster than your income can so it becomes much more economical to buy more infra. And then it all becomes crazy expensive eventually.

No to both

Oh I don't know, try universally hated and shunned by all top 10 alliances

then why arn't they limited by population like soldiers.

from 2 months ago. "The Score formula has been updated! Cities are now worth 25 score points instead of 10, and national projects are worth 10 points now. If you're wondering what's whacky and why your score increased, that's why. This is simply to keep players with lots of cities more out of the range of players with no so many cities."

If you just bought infra, that is submitting a form. If you then hit f5 that reloads the page and resubmits the form. I know on chrome you get a warning telling you about it but might not on other browsers.

What grillick said. Most likely a popup appeared that said are you sure you want to resubmit the form. You clicked yes.

The reverse was done as a change, doubt sheepy is going to go back on that change without a lot of people agreeing with you. For the record, I don't.

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1931-introducing-pawes/

I think it should be in both. The extra politics caused by allowing alliance leaders to embargo other alliances is the potential disagreement with the decision from the alliance members. You also didn't comment on my suggested compromise?

brilliant you can take my point and make it sound rediculous, well done. You want a compromise, how about a "suggested" embargo that an alliance leader can impose. The trade shows up red but you still can do it if you want.

Sorry sheepy but the term leader is there for a reason. If you don't trust your alliance leader to make the right decisions just change alliances or make your own. There should never be a case of the game making an alliance leader having too much power over their members, since the tools to have more power are optional. It allows an extra avenue of politics surrounding this power

So if they !@#$ up again does that now reflect badly on pre? This is great.

For someone who claims others are clueless you arnt half calling the kettle black. Theres more options than either pixel stacking or solely existing as a nation to annoy others. Since you clearly know nothing about me or my alliance I'll leave the conversation here.

Christ. Tax money isn't everything. I'd love to see you try to lead an actual alliance of people with reasonable scores instead of just staying low and accomplishing nothing. If a user is inactive it means they can't participate in alliance discussions, help other alliance members with trades, engage in alliance wars or grow with the rest of the alliance. All vital to an alliances success. Not just providing your bank with money that you can take all for yourself (and still manage not to grow at all)

"He declared on Guardian's last inactive 5 minutes before I kicked him :P" This was written by pre just after he kicked the guy. You had nothing to do with it.

Don't think they should be tied to soldier count, but to population like soldiers

In a large war, everyone buys Max barracks. Therefore the only way to beat someone units wise that has the same amount of cities as you is to buy more tanks

Put it this way, 20k soldiers and 500 tanks beats 40k soldiers

Also, to stop the 'alliance making all members applicants' thing, A. Have applicants not show up in the alliance members list. It would then be harder to track them and the alliance would dramatically drop in the rankings e.t.c. B. Have banks only able to send money to alliance members or other alliances. C. I presume This is already a part of the game but is still a reason not to do this, alliance applicants don't get taxed.