Dabawss

what would Jebus do? lol

This was my 1st war, and quite the learning experience. I thank all who i attacked and who attacked me for their contribution to my education. To those i attacked: You fought hard and well and who knows who would have come out victorious in the end before counters started good luck in your rebuilding and future endeavors. To those who countered: Dang you all to heck for wrecking my nation LOL (just joking). You too also taught me a valuable lesson on how the game's "declare and defend" nation score range can totally change the whole ball game Wish you all well in the future and no hard feelings. It was fun, but I am looking forward to this white peace and the long road ahead of rebuilding

What do you mean, again? Since it has been proven NUMEROUS times by NUMEROUS sources that the 1st gas attack that led the US to get involved in the Syrian civil war was not done by Assad but by the rebel factions (many sources claim that it was the US trained and supplied "moderate Rebels" that did the attack), there is NO again... As for this gas attack; I have several questions: [1] - Why did Trump illegally order the missile strike without 1st seeking the REQUIRED approval for such an attack from Congress [2] - Why is the US, her allies and mainstream media still claiming it was Sarin gas that was used when numerous experts on chemical warfare agents have come forward stating it is impossible, and that it was more likely Phosgene that was used [3] - Over the last several days there have been NUMEROUS images by NUMEROUS agencies from the areas in and around the US attacked airfield that showed NO chemical weapons storage units, and then all of a sudden, out of NOWHERE, there is a pic circulating showing chemical weapons storage units. Until that pic was released there was no "proof" and NO ONE made any references to finding them [4] - Since the UN observers and inspectors have already certified that Assad had NO chemical weapons, how could he have them all of a sudden [5] - Where is the outcry against the US for violating international law in conducting the missile strike before an investigation into the gas use was even started, let alone completed and a guilty party named?

So basically, TEst entrusted someone with some of their dosh, all that person had to do was take advantage of the fortify exploit and the money would be safe.... the person they entrusted failed to do their job. In my eyes, that makes that nation responsible not anyone in SK. I know that TEst did this with numerous people, and for the most part, all their hidden banks have done their jobs admirably, letting their nations get decimated for the glory of protecting TEst dosh... personally, I am glad to see one fall....

You SERIOUSLY think this guy https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21389jhas ANY intention of spending 300 million + to rebuild his infra? no. he is what I call a "dummy alliance" member... his sole purpose is to sacrifice his nation to protect the assets of another alliance who's holdings are in his alliance bank.

That rule should apply to EVERY job. the most qualified candidates get the jobs, the lazy slackers don't... nothing is a better motivator than hunger... cut off the welfare and use that money for education and skills training, so that the "minorities" have no one to blame but themselves if they lose jobs to more qualified people.

I am quite sure you are down to losing 1.5k or more per city just to protect your pittance of a wc, since it will cost you at least that much if nort more to return your nation to where it was before the attack.... being unbeatable rocks, who cares what it cost you so long as you can go to bed at night with the satisfaction that never again will your nation color change to beige. ummm no, it isnt

Other than returning things to the way they used to be befoire this whole messed up new war system in general? Well several things COULD be done to "plug the holes" (exploits) any one or combination thereof of the solutions below could easily remedy the situation (though there are probably many more ways I had not yet considered): [1] limit fortifications to once per day [2] require a military force to fortify (there are some who are 0 across the board) [3] Tie "fortify" to a specific military type (soldiers, tanks, planes or ships - not missiles or nukes) OR to a specific target type (infra, cash, military) [4] have "fortify degrade (and the increased resistances as well at 2-4 ticks per turn making it hard to beige a nation but NOT impossible or raise the values of military attacks to ONLY fortified nations by 1.5 times (15 for ground, 19.5 for air, 21 for naval attack etc) [5] *ducks* get rid of resistance AND fortify altogether **edit** [6] (this just came to me an hour after posting this)... make "fortify" a cross defense thing... a shared single fortify where each nation attacking them reduces the same single fortify, so Nation K is losing 1 of his 3 defensive wars, they choose "fortify" as their strategy for that 1 nation, and all nations attacking them have to deal with that fortification.

Says who?

Since Alex locked the tread in tech support "because it is not a bug" and instructed us to post elsewhere if we wish to discuss this, here I am presenting my case on why I think that the person who came up with this idea is so disconnected from reality that they shouldnt be allowed to walk around without having a straightjacket on "for their own safety" [1] - Fortifications are military constructions or buildings designed for the defense of territories in warfare, and also used to solidify rule in a region during peace time. Humans have constructed defensive works for many thousands of years, in a variety of increasingly complex designs. The term is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make"). If you have no military you have nothing to make strong, [2] Further, if you have no money you don't have the means to build fortifications, since "fortifications" are military constructions or buildings, if you have no money, you can't fortify. [3] Fortifications "beef up" a nation's defense... if you have no defenders, you have nothing to beef up, let alone make impregnable - which the current state of fortify does. Fortify implies strengthening, not a "shield" in a childlike sense where fortification, in its current state is like a little child saying "I have a shield you cant hurt me" [4] Fortification should not only require MAPs, but also a military force, since it requires 3 MILITARY ACTION POINTS to use. [5] Tieing it to "MILITARY ACTION points" implies it is a military action, which it clearly isnt since it has no check to see if the person using it has any military to use action points with... It isn't an economic action either since it neither checks nor requires an economy to "fortify". It isn't a political action since it does nothing "politically" to help or harm a nation. It is an easily exploitable mechanic that isn't tied to ANY aspect of the game. [6] a nation should NEVER be able to indefinitely hold off attackers no matter if you go at it with the philosophy of "if they are willing to take damage to not lose a war or raid" or not. [7] at NO cost to a nation, using fortifications allows a nation to remain unbeatable. a free permanent "get out of jail free" card that gives nations the ability to never again lose a conflict at no cost to them. you may say that there is the cost to infrastructure, but no, there isnt, really. nations exploiting the hell out of this VERY flawed mechanic are NEVER going to rebuild their infrastructure, ever. They have one purpose and one purpose only, to protect alliance bank or treasures at all cost, and, thanks to Alex letting users exploit the multiple accounts with a simple claim they are on a shared lan or a shared computer, this allows people to have a "bank nation" that is indestructible, and a nation that they can play as well

I think the biggest problem with the whole "fortify" option is that it is militarily independent. as someone else pointed out fortification is a digging in of existing forces making it harder for them to kill. The simplest solution would be to redo the fortify option so that attacks on the defender reduced defender casualties by some equitible amount but NOT reduce damage to infra... as an example, attacker attacks a nation that has 100k soldiers, 5k tanks, 400 planes and 40 ships. Attacker attacks with 150k soldiers, 7k tanks, 600 planes and 60 ships. after the initial immense triumph by the attacker, the defender lost say 15% of whatever the attack was directed at in military forces. for simplicity we will go with planes. so the defender now only has 340 planes. stay with me on this... defender fortifies (while I was writing this I had a brainstorm that ties into this whole fortify re-write - make fortify specific to a TYPE of military unit) and decided to fortify his planes. that means he takes say 10% less damage to JUST his planes if they are attacked and has NO bearing on any other military unit. Also to fortify planes defender would have to use 4 maps, same with ships... fortification based on the normal cost of using that unit to attack, 8 for missiles and nukes, 3 for soldiers and tanks. This allows the defender to reduce the same that type of unit takes, while ensuring that if you attack (just an example) someone who only has 150 planes with 400 planes, yes, he takes 10% less damage to his planes but your sheer numbers obliterate a lot of planes anyhow. This would be an extremely complex re-write but would ensure that no nation could ever be beigeproof, and would base fortifications on actual military ability, not nation or city size.

Nope. all the fortifying defender has to do is employ the same fortify strategy. currently this can be done indefinitely, across numerous raids and numerous repetitions so as long as the defender chooses to fortify to infinity in each raid against them, they can never be beiged.

wars are showing some nonsense data such as "winning 7/6"

will the looted alliances get their looted money and resources back when this is fixed?

Alex, this was just brought to my attention too. someone had ongoing raids against a nation when that nation then applied to become a member to my alliance. They are still an applicant and my alliance's bank show payouts to the people who beiged him. I reinterate, the applicant had raids ongoing on them BEFORE they applied to become an member... the applicant is still just an applicant

Ok, just ended my 1st post change raid. my enemy fortified only once, and in the end, between the cash i looted off him, the cost of rebuilding the infra i destroyed, and the cost of units and mats to rebuild the military I destroyed came to over $26 million. and i really didnt do a crap ton of damage either. if you consider 2 other raiders in a cycle doing about the same damage to the poor sap who got raided you are looking at a loss per raid cycle of around $79 million... now maybe some of the biggest nations can take that kind of ding, but i cant see how ANYONE would be happy about it, and if you are not one of the top say 100 largest nations, then ya... you might as well just reroll. How is this new system "better"? how will the extra time in beige be of any use? I mean, seriously... wtf who thought of this new REALLY messed up system? I feel so sorry for just THAT guy that i don't think I will ever raid another nation again because... TBH, I wouldnt want that kind of loss on my nation gameplay just got REAL boring

to anyone who has a MODICUM of intelligence, fortify just nullified 1/2 of the name of this game. who wants to waste all that time in a raid/war that in the end gives them no benefit. the EASIEST fix to solve this is to allow the fortify option so that a weaker nation has some chance of holding out against a stronger one... but limit the fortify stacks to 3 and have them reset to 0 again every military reset so the defending nation has to start over again - Granting immunity from loss to ANY nation is just -- well, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever no matter HOW you try to justify it.. and the whole "impossible to test accurately on the test server" argument is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. I have been on there. those pople LOOK foir crap like this and exploit the HELL out of it.... if this had been put into the test server I guarantee you that most everyone within a day or so would find this FLAW and exploited the hell out of it

being a new nation, this is a concern for me. I am waiting to see how things play out but right now i am 2 days old, my current food is rapidly diminishing and I am finding myself more and more diverting build cash into buying food in the trade window so i don't drop TOO low. I aint saying it makes the game unplayable for us clueless noobs but it does indeed throw in an additional mechanic that makes the game more.... challenging. I have also been raiding inactive nations not in any alliance atm for extra cash while fighting one nation raiding me

he lost some improvements then sacrificed some of his infra. there are many ways to downsize without huge reductions in military

actually it makes perfect sense... when you look at what happens when you have a farm, you grow food then you store it in silos until you are ready to take it to wherever its final destination is... a negative figure would have just indicated that not only is the ground so irradiated that nothing will grow on it, but the fod in your silos is also deteriorating as well

New alliance led by someone new to the game looking for more people like myself to join my alliance

I know recruitment in a good high end alliance will be tough right now - looking at all the war declarations and all, so I will just throw this out there and see if the dog drags something back home to me What I am looking for: an alliance with a reasonable (below 20% ) tax rate, one that offers grant programs to assist newer nations and reasonable loan programs for more journeyed nations; one that will permit me to reasonably raid as i grow, and one that isnt 1/2 full of retards who cant understand game mechanics when they are explained to them ya, that's a lot lol