Menace

I think the bombardment would be better if you could do it after getting a blockade, like how you can kill planes after getting ground control. Seems kinda out of place to have a minimum ship requirement for it, unlike really any other mechanic. Plus the losing side will rarely be able to use it with that high requirement percentage of ships.

Well you guys did have a head start

How does safety level factor into those odds? What if the some blockading nations have certain war policies affecting spying odds? The spy operation does not use up defensive spy slots in the attacked nations either, opening it up to abuse. Additionally, the amount of spies that the defender has compared to the attacker will no longer be a factor in determining the odds, when it should. Instead, the spy attack should be done on an opponent, lifting the blockades done by that nation. I would advocate again a simpler attack where odds are determined by the usual formula for amount of attacking vs defending spies and safety level, then divided by a certain number for the new type of spy attack. This would incorporate all of the current components involved in spying, including the defensive spying limit. Perhaps increase the number dividing the odds by a certain amount for the number of blockades that the defending nation has. This would use the current system of spying to create a new spy attack, instead of a new, more complicated system just for this type of attack.

Maybe make it more difficult based on the number of blockades like you suggested originally. So the odds could be like the current system, but instead of dividing the odds by the type of attack only, it could be divided by the amount of blockades that could be broken also. So something like odds divided by 3 for 1 blockade, adding 0.5 for each additional blockade after to divide the odds of success. If this is too easy or hard, just change the amount dividing the odds.

Yes, but the attack would also break all the blockades done by the attacked nation. So if you are blockaded by 2 nations, you need to do a successful attack on each one to trade again. If the attacked nation has 2 blockades on opponents, both of his blockades get broken when a successful attack is done.

The amount of spies and espionage caution should effect the odds of breaking the blockade, like other espionage attacks. It would be easier if it just got rid of the blockade until another naval attack is done.

Lets take two people with all the spy projects, with the greatest amount of spy building and killing. I've found that people with the projects often kill around 20 spies per attack. In the initial attack, say 1 is ineffective or fails or perhaps the other nation rebuilds. That means that it will require about 3-5 attacks to zero a nations spies . After that point, around a spy attack about every two days will be enough to hold down their spies. For these nations, that is about 25% of their spy attacks. If you look at 3 days, maybe only one spy attack can be used to attack another military unit. If you look at it in 5 days most attacks will be required to keep their spies down, perhaps 75-80% as you said. However, alliances do not fight wars against each other for 5 days. For a longer period of time, the amount of spy vs spy attacks compared to spy vs other military unit will decrease approaching nearer to 25%. Even under the current system, the first few initial 3-4 spy attacks are usually against spies. In the first two days of fighting, 100% of spy attacks are used to eliminate spies. Spies must be useless... Yes, it will be more difficult to win and keep spy supremacy as you called it, that is the entire point of this suggestion.

Can you explain why it would make spies useless? I can see how it would make it more difficult organizing to hold an opponents spies down, rather than wiping out spies at the start of a conflict and then not worrying about it for a while. However, a day to wipe out spies and 6 days to rebuild with the associated projects is not unreasonable. This is a slower rebuild time than every unit in the game, giving multiple days to spy military while an opponent rebuilds spies.

Same thing happens to me when trying to send to some people, but not others

I agree that spy kills need to be reduced, but not by the amount you are suggesting. I think that increasing the rate at which spies can be built will help more in solving this problem, while making spy vs spy attacks remain cost effective. For example, nations by default can build 5 spies each day instead of 2, with intelligence agency 8 spies a day, and with spy satellite 10 spies a day.

I like the idea of having some projects exclude others from being built, as this will lead to more interesting specialization. Perhaps this should be extended to making other types of satellite projects that are excluded by having another. I think some of these have too many prerequisites that would make it difficult for smaller nations to get some of these projects, even if they have additional slots. For example, the prerequisites for the city planning projects do not seem necessary and will only provide a greater hurdle to small nations. Instead of more prerequisites, there should be more projects that exclude one another. This way big nations will not simply get all of them and will have to make decisions on which projects are best.

Make planes take casualties when air striking someone without air and make air striking units other than aircraft more difficult

Tanks, ships, infrastructure, and soldiers get a certain defensive value when they are targeted in airstrikes. Also, gaining ground or naval control increases the defensive value of their respective units by a certain percentage. For example, when targeting ships in an airstrike, each defending ship gets the value of 1 plane in the calculations for the battle. If naval control is established by the defender, each defending ship has the value of 2 planes in the battle.

Different recruitment rates for different units makes the game more interesting, instead of them all being the same. I believe most of the people that want a higher recruitment rate are frustrated at the ability to be pinned down. Instead maybe increase the recruitment rate for 2.1 days when a nation is in beige or when a defensive war has expired. This would give the ability for nations to rebuild their military.

What do you expect from a shrek themed thread?

Since Alex removed keno and the other side games for having too much of an effect by generating money, stopping baseball from generating money is the next logical step. The suggestion of keeping the game, but having the money created through baseball only be used for baseball upgrades and baseball team customization is a good compromise. Player that enjoy baseball can continue to play, while keeping the balance of the game at large.

@Frawley when i click on TFP for coalition B or Kertog it gives the same personal statistics, from our first entry in the war. At one point, I believe it gave different statistics.

Can I have a link to the new site please?

The stat page just shows TFP stats when fighting Kertog. Is there a way to see our stats now that we are fighting IQ?

Instead of saying sucks for them, we could try to make the system more fair and efficient by using verification after suspicion of having multiple nations.

Well, your criteria makes it hard for you to distinguish between relatives. You have to admit, many relatives share devices and have similar emails. Wouldn't it be easier to use verification in cases like these? A sort of post verification that at least gives people a chance to prove their innocence. I never quite got the idea of preemptive verification, since many nations are on the same network, are not verified, and do not seem to get in trouble. It just seems like more work for everyone involved to verify preemptively and many do not do it.

I think it would be more interesting if events happened on a global or continental scale instead of at the nation level. You could have different themes of the same events, perhaps "dustbowl" wipes out food production in North America, "sandstorm" for Africa, "emus" for Australia. Many small events would just get annoying. I would rather have the odds be something like 3 continental events and 1 global event a year, with effects longer than a just a few days or turns.

I agree that beige is in place to give nations time to recover from wars. However, there are some incentives that can be given to increase the amount people want to beige, without reducing the opposing nations ability to recover units. Presently winning a war destroys a small amount of infrastructure and steals some loot, not really harming a nations ability to recover, as it should. I propose having an option after winning a war to get added benefits, much like war policies are now. For example, "looting" option could steal an additional 40%, like pirate. "Scorched earth", increases infra destroyed by 10%. Perhaps something mimicking blitzkreig, "insurgency" for 24 hours after leaving beige the nation receives 10% more casualties. "Double agent", for X hours after leaving beige the enemy nation is 15% more susceptible to spy operations. These last two suggestions should probably be limited to one per beige (so if one allied nation puts insurgency on the nation another cannot) because stacking could get crazy. When you win a war you get to pick one of these options, making more people want to defeat an opponent. Add a little icon on the war history page next to defeat to show the type of loss and allow for planning. This would add a layer of strategy and I like the idea of things in threes; a war policy before the war, a war type when declaring, and a victory type. Beige is a necessity to recover, but people should not want to lose wars either.

Maybe make beige time dependent on how long the war lasted. Quicker war, shorter beige and longer war, longer beige. If wars expire, then whoever has lower resistance gets beige. Or alternatively make beige more damaging so people want to win more often.

Bringing order to chaos