Erland

It's quite easy to make the tables sortable with this library: https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/sorttable/sorttable.js Just import it in the header and then add class="sortable" to the table. <script src="sorttable.js"></script> <table class="sortable"> ... </table>

We made it!

Or you could just post a trade at the current market price, and then use that money to buy whatever other resource you want. Having resource for resource trades creates the hassle of having to calculate if it's a good deal based on the monetary value of those resources.

Each war has two rows, one from the attacker's perspective and one from the defender's perspective. The issue with the stat tracker is that for a lot of the infra values, it shows a very low number and thus a lot of the stats are missing. For example, just choosing a random nation: https://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=132&amp;name=Archiana+Republic&amp;type=nation&amp;date=2018-10-20&amp;submit=Go you can see that it shows the value of infrastructure lost as only $158 which is not reflective at all of the 330.8 relatively high level infrastructure that was actually lost.

How are you calculating the value of infra lost and destroyed? I think the stat tracker is still inaccurate when it comes to infrastructure values. Also are you including alliance bank loot in the stats? I am so that might be why my loot values are slightly higher. Here's my version of the stats (as of yesterday): The infrastructure cost values did seem a bit high at first but I have been manually checking some of the individual wars and it seems to be valid. If anyone would like to check as well I have uploaded the raw data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mqRVWuIKBnlG3sMI8alQTW_nHc1JWnRpXEB1Fv28IhA/edit?usp=sharing

Here are some stats from about 12 hours ago, market prices are: food 110 coal 2300 oil 2600 uranium 3400 lead 2300 iron 2500 bauxite 3075 gasoline 3450 munitions 1850 steel 3800 aluminium 2943

There should be a city manager API so you can get all improvements in a nation without having to do separate API requests for each city, or web scraping the city manager page. Also some other minor suggestions (these might be a bit too specific): include a list of battles in the war api include the score change graph in the nation api

You missed white and yellow.

Overview This will be a market similar to the trade section where nations will be able to issue and buy bonds. The bond issuer will receive a lump sum in cash and in return have repayments deducted from their net income per turn. The value of 1 bond is $1000 per turn ($12000 per day) for a number of turns specified by the bond issuing nation (no greater than 90 days). They can only issue bonds up to a maximum of 50-80% or so of their net income. Each turn the holder of the bond gets the money paid from the issuer (principle + interest), and the value of the bond remaining decreases. The motivation for this suggestion is to introduce a credit market with ingame mechanics so nations will be able to more easily secure loans and have repayments and interest deducted automatically. It would add more depth of gameplay by formalizing the current private loan system which allows nations not part of major alliances to secure loans, and allowing large nations to invest savings more easily. The previous two suggestions for loan mechanics essentially made it risk-free, but with this proposal the risk is placed squarely on the shoulders of the investor. If the debtor defaults on the loan, the investor loses their money. Private banks would still exist under this proposal: they would essentially act like investment companies, buying bonds they presume to be high quality investments (through credit checks, etc.) and then refinancing through issuing bonds with a lower interest rate, but which would be considered a much safer investment, as the risk is shared across a diversified portfolio. Borrowers would also benefit from seeking out private banks if they needed a loan quickly, since competing on the open market might be time consuming, hard to get yourself noticed and potentially more expensive if you already have a good credit history with a bank. Operation of the market When players go to the bond market, they can create a trade which specifies how much they want to borrow, at what interest rate (monthly), and how long the bond will last in days. The current average market interest rate can be displayed for them. This will give an estimate of how many bonds are required as shown below. The actual amount they want to borrow will be rounded up to reflect a whole number of bonds. #bonds = amount * (1 + interestRate * lifetime/30) / (lifetime * 12000) #bonds is rounded up to the nearest whole number In addition to the amount of bonds, total amount to be repaid (face value) should also be displayed. The way offers on the market will be displayed can be sorted by price (interest rate), total remaining value (face value), or days remaining. interest rate = (((revenue per turn * remaining turns / offer given) - 1) * 360 / remaining turns) total remaining value (per bond) = revenue per turn * remaining turns Here revenue per turn is 1000, since that's how much money 1 bond provides per turn, and the offer given is per bond. Similarly to resource trades, bonds could also be privately traded between nations, or between alliances with market sharing. Partially repaid bonds and secondary markets Each nation should be able to view a list of the bond packages they currently hold and have issued. When bonds change hands through resale, there might be multiple new bond holders, potentially creating multiple entries when a bond package is split up. For example a table with fields below, where each row is a bond package: date, issuer, holder, #bonds, remaining turns, purchase price, remaining value, interest rate, [action] The last column, [action] has a button allowing holders to resell the bonds, or issuers to repay the amount partially or in full, which yields a discount. This repayment must be in a whole amount divisible by 1000*#bonds since the number of remaining turns is an integer. discount rate for immediate repayment = the amount of the repayment value, less interest cash paid (discount rate) = value repaid / (1 + interest rate) new remaining turns = remaining turns - value repaid/(1000 * #bonds) If the bond package is repaid fully, it is terminated. When a holder decides to resell a bond or bond package, they can choose a new interest rate by specifying the amount they want to sell it for, and if they want to sell it publicly or privately. Note that this doesn't affect the amount the issuer pays, it only affects the lump some amount that the holder receives when they resell it. For example, if a holder thinks the investment has an increased level of risk, they might try and resell the bond at a higher interest rate (lower monetary cost), meaning they receive less cash for the bond, and could end up making a loss if this is lower than what they paid minus repayments. Insufficient funds for repayment If a nation who has issued a bond has negative income and runs out of stored money, the holder will stop receiving repayments. This should freeze the bond and prevent the holder from reselling it. If a nation gets money or positive income, repayments will continue to be deducted again. When a bond is frozen and the debtor can't pay, there will only be an option for the bond holder to forgive debt and forfeit the remainder of the bond value. The bond holder can also forgive debt while the bond is active by selling the bond back to the bond issuer at a reduced rate, terminating it. Bond repayment deduction before or after alliance taxes There are reasons both for before and after: Before alliance taxes: 1. Alliances generally provide loans that are below the market interest rate, which means that it makes sense to pay off the bond which has a higher interest rate first. 2. Alliances won't be able to freeze bond repayments by setting the tax rate very high like 100% - This isn't an issue however if the nation keeps cash reserves which it can use to pay the bond repayments, for example from selling resources, and if it has no reserves, it will lose power in all cities anyway. This should limit potential abuse. After alliance taxes: 1. Prevents nations evading alliance taxes by issuing bonds to make use of taxed income they otherwise wouldn't have access to. 2. The total amount a nation can borrow would be dependent on their net income after taxes, so it makes sense that bond repayments are deducted from this after tax income. 3. Bond holders shouldn't have to pay taxes on bond payments received since it's essentially money they have already paid tax on which they are investing. They should only be liable for taxes on the interest portion of each repayment, not the principle. Considering these points I think bond repayments should be deducted after alliance taxes. Wars and Blockades There's also the question of whether a nation should continue to receive and pay bond repayments through a blockade. Of course, nations under blockade would not be able to sell or buy bonds, or contribute/receive additional amounts to pay off bonds. If nations don't receive bond payments while under blockade, then a nation holding bonds has their investment completely secure and it can't be raided, however they also can't use the money to help them in the war effort. On the other hand, nations who have issued bonds won't have to pay bond repayments and can therefore they get an income boost to help them in the war. If nations can receive/send bond payments during a blockade, the reverse is true. I'm leaning towards they do receive/pay installments since nations that have to pay repayments shouldn't gain the benefit of extra income from a blockade, similarly to why alliance taxes are still taken even through a blockade. It might also be useful to have a way to voluntarily freeze bond payments during wars: the bond issuer can request a freeze (debt relief) and the bond holder can either accept or reject it. Either party can unfreeze the bond again. This way, bond holders can give their debtor a fighting chance in the war so they can hopefully continue to make repayments in the future.

I'd support this change but there needs to be some way to compensate older nations who had to work hard to build up their cities and paid the much higher cost. How about, if this change was implemented, existing nations would get say a 2.5% gross income bonus per city for each existing city they have. That way it'll be much more fair and the nations with lots of cities would recoup the $4bil difference in cost over the next year or so. This should help retention of older players and not make it seem like all the hard work they put into building their cities was a waste.

While I was compiling the final war stats, I noticed that these stats actually had a mistake. These stats didn't take into account the cost of infrastructure destroyed in beige (% to each city). That's why the infrastructure cost shown in my stats was so much less than the one shown in Frawley's. For the following final stats, I've made sure to take this into account. The following stats also calculate infrastructure damage differently, as I described in my previous post. This should give it more accuracy when calculating damage done with nukes and also in instances where lots of damage has been done in a short period of time. I've also removed the cost of missiles and nukes from military damage since there is a single cost associated with their use, and the equivalent single cost for conventional attacks (gasoline and munitions) isn't included. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r-J36mxxj68T7XerTqk9arR5rAxeVs0HdSOfch19wDo/edit?usp=sharing

I have to agree with these points. Initially I couldn't find a way to include gasoline and munitions from each attack since the units used aren't listed, but then I realised that the stat tracker records this, so I'll work on including it. As for the infrastructure damage, I'm thinking of a better way of calculating it that should remove those inaccuracies. It'll work like this: average infrastructure per city will only be calculated once at the beginning and stored for each city. For each subsequent attack, the amount of the damage will be reduced on the city with the highest infrastructure. If at the end of each twelve hour period there is a mismatch between the damage done and the reduced total infrastructure in the nation score chart, then the value is added progressively to lower infrastructure cities until it's balanced (re-bought infrastructure), or if the difference is negative, then it's progressively reduced from higher infrastructure cities (unaccounted attacks). For #3, decommissioning doesn't affect the numbers because it only counts units lost in wars. I also didn't count the money and 25% resources lost for decommissioned units since it would be pretty hard to track. The same goes for spy actions, the loss of spied away nukes (according to Radoje's value) plus decommissioning losses probably offsets most if not all of the cost of resources used in each attack.

Here is my version of the complete war stats, including the final war stats for Nuke bloc vs. TKR/Guardian/TC/GoB. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CUQB4ffrWnCEQWcKz5lewRzsRK4HRfFwyjkt_eTfh9U/edit?usp=sharing The market prices used are: food=110, coal=3638, oil=3328, uranium=2995, lead=3641, iron=3765, bauxite=3075, gasoline=3720, munitions=2125, steel=4598, aluminium=2943 based on average market prices for the past 45 days. Infrastructure damage value is calculated similar to Frawley's but should take into account the rebuying of infrastructure as well. The way it works is like this: for each attack in each war, the time is recorded, as well as who the attacker and defender are for that particular attack. According to the score graph breakdown on the defender's nation page, the infrastructure level for the latest date and time before the attack is calculated, and divided by the amount of cities at that time (also from the score chart) to find the average infrastructure per city. The cost of the infrastructure is calculated using the same method as in the infrastructure cost calculator with the starting infrastructure given as the maximum of (average infra per city - infrastructure destroyed in the attack) or 0, and the ending infrastructure as the maximum of either infrastructure destroyed, or the average infra per city. Military unit values are calculated at cost, including missile and nuclear weapon costs. Loot values include victory and alliance bank loots. I haven't organised the data for each individual nation like Leo did in his thread, but the sheet with all the raw data is available so you can filter by your nation ID to find that out. The alliance ID of alliances not listed on the final page (that go in the 'other' category) is also available in the raw data. It includes references to each war by the war ID so you can also check to make sure it's correct. I've done some random manual checks to make sure all the data is valid for each war, but if you find any errors please let me know, or let me know if some wars are missing. The only wars that shouldn't have been included are ones against nations that have deleted, the alliance no longer exists or against someone not in an alliance. EDIT: These stats do not include the cost of infrastructure destroyed in beige (% of each city). See the final stats here which do, and also don't include missile and nuke costs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r-J36mxxj68T7XerTqk9arR5rAxeVs0HdSOfch19wDo/edit?usp=sharing

I did some debugging and you're right, thanks so much for catching this! I knew I was bound to make a mistake somewhere. I mistakenly counted the money lost for a player in a finished war as loot for that player when it really should've been for the other side. Here are the updated stats:

Yes, I got all the war timeline pages for completed wars that ended in victory/defeat and bank transaction pages, in total it was 6181 html pages (994 bank transaction pages, 5187 war pages). I made sure to cache them for future use. Then for active wars and wars which ended in truce or expiry I used the API to get the monetary loot since there isn't any resource loot or alliance bank loot for those wars. One area where there is an inaccuracy that could be potentially improved upon in the future is that when you do airstrikes to target money, this counts as a monetary loss for the opponent but isn't actually loot.

Here are some loot stats I compiled, it assumes the following market prices: Food=$150, coal=$3000, oil=$3000, uranium=$3000, lead=$3000, iron=$3000, bauxite=$3500, gasoline=$3500, munitions=$2000, steel=$5000, aluminium=$3000. The 'Other' alliance represents alliances not listed here (eg. Arrgh), for wars between them and the listed alliances. Net damage is taken from Frawley's most recent stats.

Starvation should really only temporarily increase the incidence of disease and decrease the population that way, which is in effect what currently already happens with the 33% gross income penalty. Maybe to make it more realistic, instead of the income penalty when a nation is starving, it accumulates disease in each city that reduces the population by a third and gradually reduces once the nation acquires food.

It's good to see changes being made to reduce the damage done in wars, the last war update was completely ridiculous in how much it increased infrastructure damage. 10% from each city was way too much, 4% is much more reasonable. The war types are also another very positive addition to the game.

I think this is a great idea. Instead of making a subforum where people can request loans, it should be done ingame in the trading section. Nations can sell bonds of a particular interest rate (price) in order to raise money, and lenders with cash can buy them, and also resell those bonds on the same market. This would allow multiple nations to contribute to funding and creditors would be able to get their money back immediately by reselling the bonds, or nations who want to make lump sum payment on their loan could buy back the bonds they issued, or bonds from other nations. Nations can create 1 bond at a cost of $1000 per turn for n turns, and each turn the holder of the bond gets the money paid from the issuer, and the value of the bond remaining decreases. The value will be calculated by the revenue per turn * remaining turns. On the market, the remaining bond value and turns remaining will be shown, as well as the interest rate. For example, someone who wants a loan of $1m repaid over 30 days would issue 3 bonds @ 360 turns (3 * 1000 * 360 = 1080000) then sell them on the market for a total of $1m, or 333,333 each. This represents an interest rate of 8% over 30 days. The monthly interest rate used for sorting the trade price could be (((revenue per turn * remaining turns / offer given) - 1)*360/remaining turns)*100. If someone else puts an offer of 3 bonds (360 turns) for 990k (330k per bond), this would be a lower price and represent a higher interest rate of 9.09%. Say someone has bonds with only 300 turns remaining, each one is now only worth 300k so to get an equivalent interest rate of 8% per month, the bonds could be sold for 281.25k each. To prevent abuse by new players this system could also work by ensuring that upon the initial sale of the bonds, funds immediately go towards the player's next city/project/infrastructure/land payment, instead of receiving cash. As for nations who can't make the payments, there should be a display on each nation page to show how many bonds they have outstanding and a check to make sure they can't issue more bonds than they can pay back. If a nation defaults, the bond holder will lose their money and the issuer could be given a bad credit rating. Nations could get a good credit rating for making repayments over time and also based on the percentage of their income that is going towards repayments.

Racecar driver in racecar number 8 sponsored by Shell.

The major resource update reduced everyone's income a lot, slowing the speed of the game down, as well as making war much more costly by increasing resource prices. Those who complained back when resource prices were low and suggested lowering incomes, don't complain now when the game is stagnating and wars are few and far between. War and rebuilding is now more costly than ever so no wonder everyone's avoiding it. The proper solution to fixing the deflationary resource market should have been to increase monetary incomes (or decrease monetary expenses), which would have balanced the resource and money supply without slowing down the game and causing stagnation.

The 10% infrastructure damage from each city is very excessive and completely unnecessary, especially in raids where the objective is to loot instead of completely destroy an enemy. If someone is fighting 6 wars and loses all of them, they might end up losing approximately 30% infrastructure from attacks, then another 50% gets added on top of that? The fact that almost the entirety of someone's infrastructure can be destroyed in the space of only 3 days is very disconcerting, since it takes months to build up. At least with the current system it takes at least a few weeks to completely destroy. It's also way too punishing for larger nations who are already punished more from exponential infrastructure rebuild costs and larger infrastructure damage. In this regard I believe the current system is much more fair and realistic in terms of losses. The number and size of attacks should dictate losses, not the number and size of the opponent's cities. If you want to shorten wars to 3 days but retain the damage that would be done over 5 days, increase damage values per attack, that way it will be spread out over some amount of cities based on damage and not a fixed amount per city regardless of how many cities there are. Furthermore, with this new system, there's no point in further incentivising victory with more losses because it will be a forced condition of depleting an enemy's resistance points during attacks anyway, and the loot gained is a good enough incentive to fight wars on its own. I also think the minimum war time should be kept at 24 hours and not increased to 48 hours, since this will just inconvenience raids against inactives. Another idea is to have resistance points transferred instead of depleted, so for example an attack transfers points from the defender to the attacker, and the war is won whenever the resistance difference between the two players reaches a certain amount (for example, if this amount is 100, a war would end when one side transfers 50 resistance points for a total of 150 and the other remains with 50, effectively halfing the minimum war time if one side doesn't fight back as is the case with inactives). By having resistance points transferred, close wars between two players will last longer perhaps up until the usual expiration time of 5 days at which point a stalemate is declared if no one can break through and win. With the proposed system, close wars will still either end in a win or loss with the subsequent damage and looting not really indicative of how close the war actually was. At least with the current system to win requires 6 consecutive immense triumph ground victories which clearly shows a decisive victory for one side. With the new system, someone with a very low resistance could still defeat an opponent simply by winning the race to 0 despite their opponent almost beating them. To me, having to sustain such heavy losses as you've proposed after such a close fight is a major flaw of this new system. Loot and damage should be based on the degree to which someone is winning, namely through successful attacks, not a binary win/loss scenario. Changing the way wars are won with the new resistance points system is fine, but the current mechanics for damages and loot should remain the same.