Prefontaine

My money's on Pubstomper.

I don't give a shit about awards for myself. I just think that it would be more interesting to see peoples opinions when they can simply nominate their alliance/leaders/themselves. Less bias. Not saying every time someone nominates themselves or their alliance it isn't the right selection, just that it's nice to see people looking outside their own circle for a change of pace. That and I would use bold for that over capslock. Get your shit straight.

I think you're missing the point. This isn't about 1v1's. This is largely about multi nation, multi alliance warfare. it won't change 1v1's drastically, though I think it would still improve them some. This way two people can specialize in different units and work together to take a larger person down. City count isn't the end all be all.

Like I said. People shouldn't be able to nominate themselves or their own alliance. Vote, sure. Nominate? !@#$ off.

Time to join puppets and make some posts on their leaders behalf.

And they fared so well focusing their worry about Warchests. Obviously few alliances will go to war with no preparedness. But few alliances will go to war without political reasons, even if that reason is as simple as "I don't like you". You need a political reason to go to war typically.

Serious? So someone with 18 airfields and only planes shouldn't be able to be easily beaten on the ground? Someone with only ground units shouldn't be able to be easily beaten in the air?

How does an alliance customize when each building has a separate cap?

You're right it won't be isolated to a 1v2, it will be much, much more dynamic which is the point. If a simple case is more interesting, larger cases will result in more dynamic wars. Not just max units vs the same max units (with different city caps). Doing 3x the damage with over 3x the troops is something to be expected. But typically someone isn't going to be using just max units. Think about someone with almost no ground units they're open to hits from other participants or even the nation their fighting. A 10 city nation can double buy 360000 units in 1 night. That's a big ground force, and a cheap one. And if you're smart (saved up turns) that could be 4 ground victories, and in 12 hours times that's the other two victories to end the war, unless the nation your fighting wants to drop a bunch of planes and get a big enough ground force within that 12 hours. Cus you're not going to kill many soldiers with air strikes. Anyone who puts all of their eggs into a basket will be steamrolled hard. There are some things this does not fix, like the power of first striking. Being able to pick and choose who fights who based on customized militaries does exacerbate that. Also someone with max ships will likely doing more damage than nukes every 4 turns, granted at a freaking huge cost. You're not going to come up with a single change that magically fixes the whole war module. These changes let things shift to a more customization war system where there isn't 1 strategy: More Cities with max military 5/5/5/3(maybe the 3).

The evidence is there for anyone with a brain to think about it. If they can't see the advantages then they have no creativity. I'm not here with kid gloves on. You can't understand how this addresses the large city advantage? You think that it's the same advantage? Really? Lets look at the 2v1 scenario. I have 10 cities, I'm fighting two players with 8 cities. Name a way that either 8 city nation can max units higher than my 10 city nation in the current system? It is impossible if we're all at max military for either 8 city nation to have more of any military than I do. Now lets use my system. I have a lets say 75% air forces, and 25% ground forces (any percent will really do). The two people I'm fighting go 60% ground and 40% air, and the other lets say 10% ground and 90% air. The guy with 60% ground has more units on the ground than the 10 city nation. The guy at 90% air has basically the same number of planes. Guy with 60% ground rolls through with 2 ground attacks effectively wiping out the 10 city ground units, 10% ground guy rolls in to get ground superiority and then with ground superiority starts wrecking his air force. Two little guys using tactics and coordination can take down a bigger guy with ease. Currently to take down a bigger guy your best bet is hope they're not online at update, declare war just before update, send attacks that will certainly fail, rebuy units, then start the new day moments later, rebuy any units still needed then attack again hoping to claim a superiority. Old system you can never have more of a single unit type than someone with more cities than you. My system allows for you to have an advantage somewhere. My system allows for dynamic coordination and teamwork. My system also more favors coming back after being beaten down because you can restructive a massive ground double buy for your military if you have the resources and are clever enough. So yes, there is a difference. A huge difference. You complain it will cost more resources, technically the cost is the same really. Some people might use less steel, and more aluminum, some might use more steel and less aluminum but the total amount of military improvements is the same. You can simply specialize. You want to go heavy planes? Sell your steel buy aluminum. Want to go heavy ground? Sell your aluminum buy steel. Want to have a balance? Stockpile both at a lesser level than someone who needs to be heavy in one. Complaining about usage of ammo/gas? Both are pretty damn cheap to begin with so increasing their use isn't a bad thing, second off the cost to blow up the infra is effectively the same. 2000 planes will blow up slightly lesser infra amounts as sending 1000 planes twice, and will cost the same amount of resources. The benefit is saving turns. So you blow up slightly less infra total in terms of how much gas and ammo is spent, but you can do it more frequently. So yes, nations can get blown up quicker. So it might take 1 less round of total war to blow someone up more. Ask the nations who were annihilated last war see if it matters to them if they were at 500 average infra in their cities five days sooner. Once you get 0 military'd and have no help to get you out of that situation you're at your enemies mercy for as long as they want. If they want to 0 infra you they will, timeframe on how quickly it happens doesn't really matter. If anything you're costing them more resources to do it now.

Tied now. Which is fitting, I was the first half guy doing fancy things. Now he is.

See, no matter what way you build, there is a counter to your build with the same city count. You go heavier ground, someone with heavier air can take you down. Flip it and the same result. Say you're fighting a larger opponent and you can go massive ground or air to take out that aspect of them while working with an ally to keep him off of having ground or air superiority. There is no 1 build, and every build has a weakness. And to your argument that it will simply cause longer down times for wars, this is a bullshit excuse that has little merit. Wars will happen when they happen. Some alliances may take an extra week to make sure everyone's ready but that really happens in the current system as well. If anything gas/ammo/aluminum are very cheap. Even if I went 5000 planes that's only 15000 aluminum which only costs 22.5M ish, which is less than maxing tanks at the current level but over 10M. Gas and ammo should be more expensive. And as they become more expensive more people will produce them thus keeping the price at reasonable levels. Supply and demand. Now mind you this idea comes from the idea that we remove caps on a type of improvement and simply cap the improvement branch at a number. So you could go really heavy into gas/ammo if you need for a bit. Or make a deal with someone going heavy in a resource while trading with you. Removing caps allows for a better supply/demand curve allowing for a more interesting, accurate market. War caps being removed allows for the same think, a more fluid, interesting dynamic to war. Currently once you get big enough (8 cities or so) the tactic becomes max everything except maybe not ships, and bash into each other with minimal coordination needed. it's all about who has more people with more cities. This system allows for cities to be an advantage, obviously, but not the end all be all. Warchests do not determine when wars happen. Politics and player driven activity determine when wars happen. Edit: Also if you think only tanks and planes will be used, you have no creativity.

Ships did basically the same amount of damage to me as missiles last war by the by.

Says the obvious Robot.

Should make it where you can't nominate yourself or your alliance.

This actually made me laugh.

5 alum per plane was the general consensus in the dev group.

Been kicking this around the private dev group. It's a very, very drastic change to the military system and it came about through talking about fixing steel, oddly enough. It's a big change, but makes things possibly very interesting. Currently we're limited to 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 airfields, and 3 shipyards. Allowing for 15000 soliders, 1250 tanks, 90 planes, and 15 ships per city. Once you become a reasonably established nation (1500 infra per city) which typically happens comfortably between 6-8 cities you can easily max everything improvement-wise (Warchest wise is up to you). From this point on war becomes fairly boring, max everything and bash against each other hopefully with some help from allies and minor coordination and tactics. First meaningful strikes usually win unless there's a big city number advantage somewhere. The new system takes those 18 military improvements and makes that your cap. You can build 18 military improvements per city. So you could build 18 barracks giving you 54000 soldiers in that city, or all factories giving you 4500 tanks in that city, or 18 airfields giving you 324 planes in that city, or 18 shipyards giving you 90 ships in that city. Seems like pretty tall numbers right? But to get those you have to have no other military of any type in that city. Lets say you max planes, well someone with small ground forces and large air force can take you down by gaining ground superiority. Going balls out on one unit type makes you weak in other areas, but you can do it. You can also max out barracks and tanks one night to double buy a huge ground force if you're trying to come back from losing a war. With some coordination and help from allies now you can more easily come back from a losing fight (sure it's expensive though). Someone also going insane airforce at around 10 cities or so, one attack could cost them near 1k ammo/gas. It really makes things interesting and will effect the market. Now you don't need to max your tanks at 1250 per city, you can go around 625 if you want and make up for your lack of steel with more planes since alum is cheaper (though this could make steel cheaper by some while boosting aluminum). It does a lot of things. The war tactic will no longer be max everything and ram yourself against another person while trying to keep max the entire time. You'll have to plan attacks better based on who builds what. It's a bit of a crazy idea, but it could really fix a lot of things me thinks. Commence complaining!

Me for the first 6th months of this round. Partisan/Cynic toss up for the second. Cynics name almost sounds like snake, they're clearly the same person. EDIT: Pfeiffer for mindless dioismballotstuffing.

I know a few other donate players who feel similar to partisan, that and the consistent roll out of changes they didn't like. It's a small few who feel that way but combined with the fact that credits don't offer as much of an in game boost anymore combined with the hacking events and unpopular changes, you're gonna lose some people. That and the guardian pip I donated for long ago was removed. So you're never getting my money again!

Add perks. Make them require credits.

>doesn't want to weigh in>immediately weighs in Your neutrality is slipping!

Warning: Mensa created/invovled poll. All results are irrelevant/biased.

If you insist, I shall get that ball rolling.

Oh look, a lynch mob.