Alveron

The server is shitting the bed almost as bad as Curu is.

So, the server definitely can't handle that starts of large wars. But it can't even handle new days when large wars are ongoing. The day starts, you go to your military tab, you click "Go" to recruit tanks and it goes through (if you're lucky). So you click on planes, and then click "Go" and it gives you an error message despite showing that you are capable of a full day of production. Okay, no worries, shit happens. So you refresh. And then you click "Go" again. And again. And again. And again. It's now six minutes after, it finally goes through, and then you find out your opponent got lucky and managed to build tanks, planes, and launch an attack in the time it took the server to quit dicking around with you. Considering just general updates are apparently too taxing on the server while there is a large war going on, give it some time to process. Having a five minute berth where new attacks cannot be launched would prevent the glitchiness from !@#$ing up wars overly much.

Cucks be cucking

Too many people causing the server to crash when it was supposed to update which causes it to skip the update?

my entire logic is: wow these guys are really easy to b8.

p sure that i said we have a treaty with Zodiac, who is at war with Mensa, and Zodiac treaty > Mensa treaty. BESTFRIENDS FOREVER!!!! helping Mensa would hurt Zodiac.

But we do with Zodiac, who is at war with Mensa. Defending Mensa would necessarily harm Zodiac. Zodiac = BFF. Mensa = Not BFF. I was asked to keep enlightening you all

thank you. yes, i could have used this pic as well, but I prefer the pic I included. I'll add this one though

TKR are cucks. I was surprised to learn that tbh we are honoring our most important treaty. if two treaties conflict, you go with the more important one i kno. thx bby ily

^ this is u Let me put this in terms you might understand. MDP = Acquaintances. MDoAP = Friends. Bloc = BFFs. BFFs come before Friends, Friends come before Acquaintances. Our BFF is at war with our Acquaintance. It doesn't matter who else it at war with them, because our BFF is fighting the Acquaintance, BK is not going to defend the Acquaintance as doing so would inherently make the Acquaintance better able to fight our BFF.

*Looks at Mensa's wars* Hmm. Yep, at war with Zodiac. *Looks at BK's alliance page* Yep, still in a bloc with Zodiac. Bloc > MDP. Ergo, BK should not defend the enemy of an alliance within BK's Bloc.

You should probably learn to read. I never said endless fortifying couldn't be a strategy, I said it shouldn't be. It makes the game even more dull and wars even more pointless. >Just buying time for a little bit and having a complete mechanic for it is really a waste of a mechanic. Sure, it might help you rarely, but that's about it. It would give you six more turns for your alliance to help you or to buy troops. Twelve hours is a fair amount of time to have friends why out the opponents' military. >People are all sad right now that they aren't being able to get the loots, news for them, they wouldn't anyway. People would just transfer resources/cash outside their nation and go away from the game for a few days after losing. Hard to do that when you're blockaded.

Buying time until you can double buy or your alliance members can come in to aid you. Endlessly fortifying shouldn't be a strategy. Fortifying should be a tactic.

I would help fill those slots up but your score is too low.

We could infra-bomb before resistance was implemented. Now, we have no choice, except now we have little to no chance of beiging someone that is active. I like the idea of consecutive fortifying decreasing the amount of resistance added with each fortify. One other option would be to prevent consecutive fortifying. Have it so that you can only fortify once, until you are attacked. Then you can fortify once more. Attacked again? Fortify again. This way beiging could actually happen, as the attacker could save up until 12 MAPs, launch three Naval Attacks, and then the defender could only fortify once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 2,500 km.

I... what? Please tell me you're joking. You're comparing a short range missile made in the 70s with a long range missile made in 2000. The RIM-174, made in 2009, has a range of up to 460km.

Except they have the money. If you follow their bank transfers you can see that. What they do not have, is a fleet of bulldozers and trucks to get rid of all this salt

Wonderful ad hominem with nothing added. Really helps support your point. First: Not beiging them defeats the purpose of getting loot. Second: Hard to blockade someone that is beiged. Third: You only get cash when you win ground battles. And you often steal all of it but the minimum $100k through attacking. But you get no actual resources without beiging. And when your opponent has 0 military because they need to lrn2war, it's a little challenging to receive less than an immense triumph for the purposes of getting cash. Reading this as sarcastically as it was intended, I'll respond to the first part. If you suck at both the politics and the war side of the game then yeah you should get rekt. Your only option to avoid getting rekt should be to "get good". This would prevent anyone, winners or losers from hiding their banks in beiged nations. As noted above, people get beiged on both sides, so the effective players on the losing side would still stand to gain.

If anything this supports my argument. You lost some loot? Go win it back! If fact, it would incentivize weaker alliances to attack stronger ones. The weaker ones have less to lose and more to gain.

No, reps are primarily to repair damage the war caused and replace depleted resources. You probably aren't going to profit from reps, they just cut losses a bit. Also, if the politics side of the game worked so well when reps are involved, this war would have already been ended. But you're right. Not everything needs to be easy. Like keeping your alliance bank as full as possible when you declare war but suck at war. That should be really difficult!

When people find this happening, they report it. For example: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=730&display=bank and https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=28502&display=bank Sheepy looks, and if there is a violation he docks 25% of their cash and resources, and then transfers the remainder back to the alliance bank. They do it again during the same war? 50%. Ideally the loot would go to the alliance's victorious opponents, but if that is *too effort*, just delete the loot.

The ability to hide your alliance's bank in beiged nations lessens the incentive for people to be good at war. When alliances are getting rekt and decide to store their bank in beiged nations, it lessens the incentive to be good at war. Those alliances have less to lose, and attacking alliances have less to gain. What's really annoying is when the alliances that started the war do it, because they started the war without enough preparation and ended up getting rekt. Don't start wars if you aren't prepared to lose your bank. Don't give people reason to declare on you if you aren't prepared to lose your bank.