AwesomeNova

No, once it expires, you have to get it again

How would this address the problem? This will just make the most boring part of the game mandatory in order to be competitive (I know wars are technically not mandatory with the suggestion, but a penalty is large enough that the technicality doesn't matter).

There's a trend towards that, but the suggestion would be the final nail in the coffin for any organic politics this game would have, aside from "special cases" like Epi.

What assumption do you disagree with? It seems like you're dismissing my post over small details, rather than actually responding to it at large. The larger point that I'm making is your second suggestion solves the "no wants to do wars" by killing the politics that lead to wars. It kills the politics because the only reason most alliances would go to war is to remove an "stagnation" penalty. You said it yourself, no one wants to go to war right now. Alex not wanting a rework on mechanics is really telling. He seems to much rather have the game slowly die than put any more effort needed to maintain his bottom line.

And you're saving one half of the game by what, making war contrived through a game mechanic? Like another poster has said, this would make the politics leading up to war more towards pointless theater to hide the true reason, that being "I need my econ penalty gone, man." The organic, emergent politics surrounding war is what makes war interesting, not war itself or the game mechanics, because the war mechanics are too shallow on their own to be engaging (unless you're raiding, I guess). I know this isn't within the scope of these suggestion, but the game needs its war mechanics to be reworked to be more engaging and, y'know, fun. Heck, there isn't much depth to any of the game mechanics, either. New players bounce because their contributions to the wider politics is constrained to war and micro AA politics, which doesn't have much impact on the rest of the game, and the old guard has a tight grip on power. On top of that, it takes months of city growth and projects to even be considered impactful in war. Without anywhere to meaningfully participate in P&W's politics, the fun part, they end up copying optimized builds until they get big enough or quit, and most just quit. I'm not asking for a silver bullet, just a step in the right direction, but I doubt a "stagnation" mechanic would do that.

I forgot about the "bigger number better" part of war that has been an issue for years. I agree with the rest, too. The fundamental game mechanics hasn't change all of the time I have been playing P&W, just more tweaks bolted onto it.

Wow, people would literally do anything but make the actual war mechanics engaging and fun. As is, you just play a slightly complicated version of rock paper scissors (and superior numbers) against a stranger because of some events outside of your control. In short, wars are boring. Winning them is boring, losing them is boring, and the only exciting part of war is the first 15-minutes after day change. The foundation that half of this game is built on top of is broken and rotting from the inside, and the design team can't provide anything but bandaid solutions and half-measures. If you want more wars, make them worth waging in the first place, not contrive it with a soft timer.

From what I'm gathering, the debate isn't happening because Epi wanted exclusive streaming rights to said debate on a PRIVATE server. There's no point in having a debate in the first place if one side has full control on how people view it. Also, I do not care about what Epi has to say about this. No reasonable person would want a debate with the terms outlined by him, and I'm against any debate like that on principle. Either everyone can view it from any source or no one can, no in between.

Team Gardening Grandmas

At risk of acting like a jerk, this sounds like a weaker form of spying. In warfare, spies are primarily used to destroy military units without having to be at war with other nations. Merely disabling improvements is not an appealing option when you can just kill large chunks of someone's military or, if you're at war with them, just lob a nuke or missile to destroy their improvements.

It's already humiliating to them to not even muster 60 votes last round. They're sore losers who are mad at Rose being voted out of the first round, and their boasts about their net damage in the early stages of war shows that they have no endgame other than throwing a tantrum. And to any Cam members who downvoted this reply, you just proved my point. Edit: grammar

Military is the thing you need for net, but whatever makes you sleep at night

That's a lot of words for someone that's losing a blitz your alliance started

This event single-handedly brought me back to the forums. What a clever event to host

Damn, it really is like an election Edit: grammar error