Esentia

It seems obvious the reason NPO was so obviously "cheating" is they did not think they were. Being super cheesy? Sure. But there is a huge set of bizarre things in this game which people take advantage off. The one good thing in all this is you produced and posted a report with your logic. However flawed it might be you at least made it public. I played in a game several years ago where I was Banned without any explanation. Emails to Support just came back with a "We do not discuss or explain the reasons for a Ban".

There have been some suggestions recently, so I thought I would toss this one out... It seems a little silly for tiny attacks (say with 1 Ship) which generate an Immense Triumph to reduce Resistance by the same amount as a large one which does the same. How abut tying the Resistance Loss to how close you are to having your maximum number of that unit type? Or perhaps the maximum number of your opponents. Could be Maximum (based on current BFHS) or Maximum Potential (based on Cities * 5 BFHS). The most frequent case I see of this is when Nation A is smashing away at Nation B with Air and Ground, but has no Ships. Nation B has no Infantry, Tanks, or Planes, but does have a handful of Ships. Too few for Nation A to bother bombing since even if they do Nation B can just build 1 Ship to do a NA with and generate -14 Resistance. The other effects of an Attack all scale with the number of Units used... only Resistance is fixed. Another possibility would be to have an Immense Triumph increase your own Resistance. Just a couple of thoughts to keep Wars from ending so fast.

Military Improvements counting towards Score would only work if they could no longer be torn down prior to a Declare and then instantly rebuilt after. Compressing score is fine, but you should not be able to instantly re-inflate...

It would likely have all kinds of horrible unintended side effects, but increasing the power of Nukes would make them more interesting At the moment they are just a big missile. I have eaten a dozen or so and launched a couple... they are not memorable. As it seems like they should be. It would be kind of interesting if Nukes were something people were hesitant to use at the risk of them being used back. What if a Nuke took a city to 0 Infra and destroyed all improvements in it? Someone also made a suggestion about having a special improvement to house Nukes. Heck... would just be a new Military Building in many ways. This would allow for a "First Strike" type action. If you have three Nukes and only three silos then your Nukes are at risk just like having a Hanger blown up when at full aircraft. So you would want to have more Silos than Nukes. Just a thought. At the moment tossing a Nuke off it pretty meaningless in many situations. Back when an opponent had 3000+ Infra it could be pretty satisfying, but even then it was hardly devastating. I think it might be interesting overall if there were an "Oh Shit. Things just went Nuclear" moment when someone in a given conflict launched the first Nuke.

Was not a trying to slam you or call you a War Dodger since that is so clearly not the case in the time I have been playing . It was just weird to see the Count so low since your Nation was so old. Bizarre for Alex not to have a stat to track "Wars Expired". I am guessing at the time he thought it would be a rare occurrence. You make a good point about the specific 10 day City Timer becoming irrelevant fairly soon. I think it was even upped from the 5 it used to be. Even so though, if an Alliance decided it want to build up a new Nation to 30 cities there is a minimum amount of time to do so even with "infinite resources" thrown at it. And do not get me wrong, IMHO this is a good thing. The increasing cost of cities also definitely makes it way harder to build more so it is not like it is an "Old Boys" club no one else can join. What I had been talking about with regards to the Timer was more that Cities and Projects are the things you cannot get rid of and then instantly rebuild. Does not look like you even CAN destroy a City like you can a Project. What I was talking about was what your "Core Score" is. And I was making the assumption (wrongly it seems) that players would not Destroy a Project to compress score. Even doing so though they cannot them immediately rebuild it. Calling you "His Sweetness" was meant as a nod to the joke I presumed you were making with all the extra e's in your name. If you are sensitive about that then I apologize,

*snork* !!! I seem to remember being in a War with you last time or the time before. Your rebuy is daunting. Kind of like China birthing a Canada each year. I do have a question for His Sweetness.... did the War Count reset at some point or have you truly been involved in <100 Wars in almost 5 years? Founded: 08/05/2014 (1,806 Days Old) Wars Won: 60 Wars Lost: 35 If those numbers are right then that is an Achievement in and of itself!

Wow.... sounds like the Raeiska Alliance (or North Point?) has been getting pasted and you are just a little unhappy about that. We all are playing under the same Rules. As a Rose Protectorate you cannot claim not to have had experienced mentorship. If you are getting steamrollered then I would look in the mirror. Oh. Sorry. I should use the proper term... "roflstomped" I believe it was?

How about some real fun... a City Taken to 0 Infra is Destroyed and must be Rebuilt. Less brutal would be to apply the same type rule to destroyed infra as exists when selling infra. If an attack takes your Allowed Improvements below you Current Improvements then random ones are destroyed until Current = Allowed. No more almost fully combat effective nations with 300 Infra cities. Crazy idea... Wars might actually END meaningfully.

Hmmm... what you are talking about is a Fantasy of your own creation... I have 18 Cities... my Declarations during this conflict have all been up... 20, 25, 22, 29, 22, 20, 20, etc... city nations. I have been attacked by some smaller city count Nations, but that is hardly under my control. So I do not know what you are smoking. On the other hand... if what you said were true than it would support my contention about the value of Cities increasing not decreasing as he Count goes up. Torson

You sum it up quite succinctly. Dropping Infra from the Score Calc completely would likely be better than a sliding scale for City Score.

Infrastructure can be destroyed and instantly rebuilt. Or not. Since you only need Infra to build improvements not operate them there should be little expectation of Infra being meaningful to Score during a protracted War. Things could be done to change this, but all would be even more significant shifts to game. Military cannot be instantly rebuilt, but pretty close. At most it takes 6 days to go from nothing to Max. This is why when looking at a Nations "Core Score", by which I mean what cannot be easily and quickly manipulated up or down, the only components which are relevant are Cities and Projects. I just picked one of the proposed lines. It was to illustrate the example. My point is that if a change is going to be made it would seem to be healthier for The Game to have it advantage Nations with <10 Cities and disadvantage those with 20+ rather than the other way around. Why handicap the weaker player. Again... overall I am in favor of just leaving it the linear way it is now... but if it is going to get curved then I feel the proposal from the OP goes the wrong way.

Really the only point of Score I can see is it limits who can a Player can Declare on. Perhaps there is another reason for it, but if so I am not seeing it... Cities and to a much lesser degree Projects are the only things which represent true static power. Everything else can be destroyed to compress score and then (other than military units) almost instantly rebuilt. Your potential Military Capability is limited only by your number of cities. So at a minimum Score should increase linearly with the number of cities. Better would be the opposite of what you are suggesting. A player with a large number of cities has a tremendous advantage in their rebuild. So unless you make a bunch of other even more fundamental changes what you propose would simply be a gift to players 25+ range. Current: A 15 and 30 City player (A & B respectively) have a base score of 750 and a 1500. The 30 City player (B) can have no Military... declare on the 15 City player (A) just before the update and do a 2x build. The 2x build of B can give them 147% of A's MAX Infantry, 88% of their MAX Tanks/Ships, 73% of their MAX Planes since the Propaganda Project increases daily build but not Max build. Proposed: As above, but more extreme since the 30 City player (B) will only have a score of 800. Half of that is 400 which would be an 8 City Player (A). In this case the 2x build of Player B is just silly compared to the MAX units of Player A... 275% of Infantry, 165% of Tanks/Ships, and 138% of Planes. Or they could still go after a 15 City Player, but without having to sell off all of their Military first. In conclusion this is a potentially interesting idea if applied in reverse, but a terrible one if applied as suggested. Unless the goal is to just directly benefit the high City Count nations. So the "old" at the expense of the "new". Exacerbated by Cities/Projects being the only thing which has a Timer so it is truly ties to how long a nation has existed. I say just keep it the way it is, but if you do make a change why would you do it in such a way as to give a further advantage to those who are already powerful? Torson

Saw this and though it was odd someone in TKR was listed since they are all pretty well wrecked by now... Of course when I looked it turns out they ARE completely wrecked. No infra left and not a single powered city. They still have some Oil Money coming in though and with just 250 (10 minimum per city) people the "per Capita" is high. Sheepy might want to tweak his calculations a little. LMAO https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=51334

I say let the War rage... well... sputter... on. There are plenty of folks in BK who are Slot Starved and would be happy to keep on grinding.

For the losing side it seems pretty simple: One way or another every City in all your Nations needs to be reduced, one way or another, to <=1000 Infra. It really does not seem so complex.

I just want to make sure folks know this War has not been easy on those of us in BK (and I am guessing the rest of our side as well) either. No one who is not suffering through it with us will ever truly appreciate how hard it is to find an Open Slot. You need to be seriously On The Bounce to be able to get a spot. The moment someone TKR, GOB, etc... comes out of Beige there are bunches of folks eager to take a bite. So sad there is only room for three at a time.

Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but it is worth referencing: https://politicsandwar.com/account/vacation/ Specifically: Vacation Mode is not intended as a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". So while IQ/BK might not "Punish" for using it this way... perhaps Sheepy should consider whether many of those who went into Vacation Mode during the latest Alliance War were abusing the VM Mechanic and take appropriate action.

Do not minimize my Pain! The 500 or so net Infrastructure cost me over $1M to fix. And I all I did in return was destroy a measly ~8500 net Steel. Sadly if War comes again it will almost certainly be a similarly lopsided damage ratio. I weep for my poor stats and inadequate performance.

Regardless of how you want to calculate your stats at the end of the day I know which side of this War and the last I am happy to have been on. I am middle of the pack when it comes to "power level" in BK and I sure as heck did way more damage to my opponents than I took. Pretty much all of them were left with burning cities and no military and my Brothers and I just keep Rolling On. There may be a way to somehow sift the numbers to show BK "losing", but from a practical perspective we have broken or are breaking every Alliance who has come against us. So stop arguing about "stats" and just look at who is still fighting. Or lay there in the dirt and clutch your "stats" for comfort if they make you feel better. I am nothing special in BK. Just a 10 City Nation less than 100 days old. Nothing compared to the 1100+ day awesomeness of Vanaheim and yet... The Golden Horde .... So Much Winning!!! Or should it be Wining? Same thing in this case I suppose...

That was odd. Fixed it thouigh.

In general anything which reduces the importance of the Day Tick is likely to be a good idea. The concerns about not being able to recover without a double buy are valid, but does not change the double buy being a game artifact. Perhaps allow "crash recruitment" of twice as many units bit at a substantially increased cost?

The specific violation seen here is from this section: Multiple Nations on the Same Network Each player is allowed to have one account and nation. Having multiple nations is a bannable violation. There is no limit on the number of nations that can play per network, so long as each nation is owned and controlled by a separate individual. Some restrictions will be imposed automatically on nations on the same network to prevent cheating. Using Alliance Banks to evade trade restrictions imposed on nations on the same network is a bannable offense. Two nations on the same network are allowed to be in the same alliance, but they are not allowed to declare war on the same nation. Failure to follow this rule will result in a nation strike the first time, and a ban the second time.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=94538 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=91922 Same flags... on about the same time... acting in concert with each other... Seen here declaring on the same nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=98456 Could be completely valid, but worth a look.

Applied to the Black Knights a couple of days ago and so far it has been great. Excellent support and information.