Prefontaine

Shouldn't be a problem to do manually. The only thing that gets left behind are inactive members which aren't a problem to lose. You can already deposit your bank into another alliances bank directly. The problems that could come of this are much greater than what is gained. All that is gained is being able to transplant inactives into a new alliance to tax them. Which is just silly.

Peace time-Econ War time-resource Later game when nations have more money-war

Still, if you do 3-1 one full barracks can pilot 1000 tanks. 1000 tanks is 2 full factories and worth 40000 soldiers. I still think the best option is you can produce military if you don't have the infra to support your buildings. It's like power. So if you have 10/9 buildings, one barracks is offline. Etc.

I've already got a radio show I'm neglecting.

BOOOOOO BOOOO I SAY!

I think a lot of the problem stems from the gap caused by the 1 to 2 city difference. Later on a city doesn't add enough to remove 4 city nations from attacking 3 city nations, but a player with 2 cities can virtually never declare on someone with 1, but the 1 can declare on them. Perhaps making 1 city perma-beige is a solution? Because the 1 to 2 city military difference in capability is a large gap.

Eventually they may learn we're not the targets they're looking for. We will just keep beating them down.

I blame my lack of sleep, but Lucy, would you like some help on how to run an alliance in a manner that will avoid you getting the same thing happening again? One time offer.

Aww, someone's mad they inadvertently helped the alliance that steamrolled him. Don't worry, by the time you'll be eligible to raid him again, he'll likely be out of your range. Nice try though, but please, keep obsessing about my alliance. Makes me smile.

Minister of War who can declare war on virtually no one?! SILLINESS! Congrats TAC! o/

Oh, is the guy we destroyed desperately trying to stay relevant? That's nice. On a bonus, your attack email brought him back to activity, so thanks for reviving our member. Keep up gods work, Lambda.

I know better than anyone how my suggestion was meant to be received. I wrote it. It was intended to be advice, friendly advice. There was no malice in it. Perhaps try re-reading it in a manner in which your assuming I was speaking to you as a friend, and trying to help. Because you obviously read it in a manner to where I was calling your alliance shit. If I was going to call your alliance shit, I would say that. Your hostile reply definitely caught me off guard.

I agree 9/10 shouldn't blow up your buildings. But at a certain point having no infra and all those buildings has to start causing buildings to be destroyed/not work. And your assessment of the problem is correct, your solution is pretty solid as well.

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6169&display=war Inactive, was raided. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5962&display=war Inactive, was raided. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5999&display=war Inactive, IS being raided. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5941&display=war Inactive, was raided. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3575&display=war Inactive, was raided. 5/6 of the first 6 I checked have been raided, one of which is in a current war. 8 Of your inactives are sitting below 10, yes, but why are they there then? Remove them from your alliance. As I stated, when I was a raider, and I looked at which alliances to target those who sat around with a ton of inactives in their alliance were at the top of my to raid list. The reason for that is because when you see all active members you see the likelihood of a counter attack as a greater prospect, someone will notice your attack more quickly, and someone might attack you back. Not that desirable of a situation for a raider. Now looking at an alliance with a smattering of inactives, things appear more disorganized, your raid might go more unnoticed, and being members are inactive the likelihood of a counter is less, and if it does happen will likely be less potent. This is based on appearance, and my experience as a raider in this game. I offered you advice on how to possibly help your problems with raiders, and in return you reply like this? No where did I speak down towards you, try to insult you, nothing. That's what you should expect from an elite alliance. Not a childish response to someone attempting to help.

I made a thread a long while back about how no one ever has the max amount of tanks for their buildings, but you see it with planes, boats, and especially soldiers. I think tank production should be dropped by 50%, 25 per day, 125 in each building.

Simple enough, You can have 10/1 improvements as long as you built them before the infra was destroyed/sold. This will allow a nation to have a large number of buildings and a smaller strength. Thus a nation could max military buildings, sell all infra and troll smaller nations who have no where near the military capacity their attacker has. Make it so that if you don't have the infra to support a building they start being destroyed. Maybe 1 every 24 hours. Should be random too I suppose.

Allow me to offer you some advice, SI. I know most people have been pointing out the faults in HIL, which are obvious and numerous from what I've seen, but SI has it's own issues as well. Inactives. SI as of the time of this post has the following members/applicants activity list: 14 who've not logged in in the last 7 days (Just under 26%) 3 who've last logged in between 3-7 days (5.5%) 6 who've logged in in the last 3 days (11%) Keep your house clean and raiders will be less likely to target you. You'll spend less time dealing with raiders attacking your nations who've stopped playing already. I mean nearly a third of your alliance has not logged in within at least the last 3 days. From my experience as a raider, your alliance would be one of the first targets on my list of who to raid. Do yourself a favor and clean your inactives. It will save you on your headaches. I speak from experience.

1 tank is worth 40-50 soldiers. So 100 tanks 4000-5000 soldiers, 500 tanks 20k-25k. And so on.

Simple: Make it a rule of the game one cannot abuse the applicant system to avoid bank loses. If someone sees it done it can be reported and you can manually drain the alliance bank of a larger % than that would have been lost. It's a fairly obvious thing to notice. It was noticed by many that VoC was kicking members to avoid bank losses in Alpha.

Dismissed them so hard.

If you're going to fabricate stats, at least make them somewhat close to reality. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=18642 Slys war: 237 http://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=18695 my war: 62, just shy of 300 by 1. http://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=18743 and if you'll note the start of this war, you'll see the casualties reflect that attacks were done when no soldiers were around to make the tanks useful, thus allowing virtually free kills. EDIT: You know what? Forget it. Had a much longer post. I've commented in several places about SK's help, but all you've managed to do is make me think less of SK with this and show me you've no clue what you're talking about.

We took on the initial several hundred tanks on the ground. That was the big thing. No one was stopping his tanks. He only had minimal air. Once his tanks dropped below 300 (after the first day) he was in a much easier range for everyone. I was winning ground attacks with only soldiers at that point which made fighting vastly less expensive. Like I said, we didn't do all the work, just that heavy lifting at first.

If you use the alliance bank and aren't careful who has access to it, you're gonna have a bad time.

Confirmation of payment. Know that when redrum offers a bounty, he's a man of his word.

SI it is.