Blackatron

Same here.

They aren't allowed to post

Agreed, need a new discussion for such a long war.

They are about to find their way out of the top 10 though.

Don't ever break character.

It made an amusing thread, so it was for the good of the community in that sense.

Good luck!

Impressive to be KIA in a nation simulator game.

Yay for peace.

Sorry to break this to you, but there is not any scarcity of cat pictures, they are valuable for free in effectively unlimited numbers on the internet all over Reddit, instagram, Twitter, Facebook and Discord. Whilst it might be nice for BK members to have access to this channel, it cannot possibly be said to have any monetary value, and is simply an incentive provided by some members of an alliance to other members of that alliance to remain active. Thus it does not violate either the word or the spirit of the rules. 2/10 for effort on the analogy though.

Honestly this should be a bannable offence. ❤️❤️❤️

I basically agree with this. Everyone has money, everyone wants it kept safe, so it is in the best interests of everyone if nothing in this area is changed. That doesn't mean that it is good for the game as a whole. No resource should be invulnerable. The only issue I see with tying a limit to infra is that as an alliances infra is worn down during war, the cap will also decrease, meaning that they would not be able to keep the entirety of their prewar bank.

I have quit an alliance and received money from an alliance bank within the last 24 hours, but I haven't received an achievement for either.

Yeah, in that scenario I agree I could have been in pretty bad trouble. But that would require good coordination and activity from them, and they would have only been able to pull that off against a few of us anyway. I would definitely welcome DB to try this strat now that it is on the forums though.

Once they had been declared upon we almost all had ground control within a minute, since they didn't have the tanks and troops to win those fights. Fortress prevented us from immediately following up with air post update, but doesn't change the fact that they only have 2/3rds of their aircraft in use at that point, with no way to get ground control back.

Too late for an optimal outcome, sure, but I don't see why that is any reason to not take as much of our first strike advantage from us as possible.

"Kill everyone in the Sanctuary."

Grumpy's net was always going to go down, frankly it would be better to look at ratio rather than net, TKR has a large positive net, but a ratio of about 1.1, with Grumpy around the same. SyndIQ is more around the 1.3 region. TCW is the worst performing major alliance in the war, with a ratio of just over 0.5:

I don't think I understand this, double buying is something that allows someone who is getting beaten to have a chance to rebuild and fight back (assuming opponents have lower city counts). Or do you mean double buying immediately after declaring war either to be a lower NS when declaring or to immediately replenish initial losses? Even if so I don't know that that is what makes the difference.

Frawley recently made a topic where he proposed making attacks do less damage to resistance in order to make wars go on for longer, and in the cases where one/both combatants are unwilling to beige more interesting. I think there was a fairly positive response, but sadly it got quite heavily derailed. So I would like to propose a different change that might have a similar effect. To outline the issues as I see them: Wars when fought "properly" only last about 2 days, when they are supposed to last 5, generally speaking wars should probably last most of the total length to create longer term interest and more tense wars. Wars can never unintentionally end in a draw, there is almost no way that one combatant will not be able to reduce the other person's resistance to 0. In my opinion "winning" a war should be something that requires "effort" if you are evenly matched and not using attacks effectively it should be perfectly possible to not be able to defeat your opponent. The necessity to delay/cease attacks when attempting not to beige should be reduced. To prevent this I suggest that resistance should automatically regenerate for both nations over the course of the war, at a rate of 1 point per turn. The resistance damage of each of the attacks could correspondingly be slightly increased in order to not make wars end too slowly when one side is winning all of their attacks. Benefits of this approach: Chance for longer wars with more attacks. Players must consider how to use their MAPs effectively and which attacks are most likely to succeed much more carefully now, since failing any attack actually has more of a negative effect on the attacker. Even in a losing war it is possible for nations to hold out and avoid a beige if they are willing to invest money and resources in an ongoing fight. Thoughts?

I know you guys probably don't understand peace terms, but here's a hint; when you agree to terms that included admitting defeat to your opponents, you don't then post an announcement that does not admit defeat to said opponents.

My own people have been bless 4 such times in this conflict. Hallelujah!

National Grid Description Allows cities to be powered by infrastructure located elsewhere. Effect: If a city doesn't have sufficient power from its own improvements, it can draw power from other cities. Will only function if other cities have enough spare power capacity to power the city in question, for example if a city has 2k infra and no power, and the sum of all of the excess power in all of the other cities is 1,950, then the city will remain unpowered. If the excess power of the other cities is 2k or above then the city without power is fully powered. If multiple cities are unpowered, then they will be powered in increasing order of infrastructure (lowest infra powered first) and then in decreasing order of age (oldest first) for cities with the same amount of infra. Cost: Probably around 100mil, this project would be quite effective in war time in protecting cities from power plant loss, so the price should reflect that.