Talus

Those who truthfully admit their faults and wish to atone often rise up to become pillars of the community. Having chatted with Anna a few times over Discord, she seemed like a great person. I hope that she can find an alliance where she can use her community building skills for the betterment of Orbis. Welcome back Anna

This would only increase the recruitment cap. You’d still need to put up the cash and resources to buy units.

Ah right. Will update to say that this can only be done once a day. The idea was that they could bounce back with only one type of military. If someone suddenly had full ships but was zeroed everywhere else, then you just airstrike their ships.

Two months is a bit much. Maybe reduce it to 2 - 4 weeks. Rather than choosing the opposing nation's government / religion type, it should match the government / religion of the victorious nation. If the defender wins, then the attacker should adopt the defender's government / religion. Could also have the loser take the victor's flag and national anthem. Rick-roll-pocalypse go!

Problem: A nation's spies can be taken from max to 0 in just 24 hours. Rebuilding these spies would take 15 uninterrupted days with projects. Solution: Emergency Recruitment Redeem a credit to increase the recruitment cap for one type of military to 50% of max for one day. May only redeem once a day. Cost: 1 Credit Complications: What's the point of reducing a nation to zero spies if they can just spend 2 credits to be at max again? Well, you can just destroy their spies again with three successful assassinate ops; I've seen many take out 18 spies per op. If successful, you've just made them burn through ~$50M in cash and credits. Why open this to all military types and not just spies? Spies are the only ones that are a problem, right? Getting zeroed in any type of military is frustrating. This gives players a way to come back in one area. Besides, it doesn't speed up recruitment that much for other military areas. You can get to max for most in three days anyway. This just speeds that up to two days. Isn't this just catering to the pay-to-win whales? You'll still be capped to redeeming 10 credits/month and anybody can buy credits with in-game currency.

I don’t know why you’d want to set that up as your default, but sure... that’d work too. It’s up to each alliance to set up the order of notes.

Let this be an opt-in feature at the alliance level. [ ] Do not require transaction notes [ ] Require transaction notes [X] Require one of the following standard transaction notes [_________________] (default) [_________________] ... [_________________]

I'm not suggesting a modification to missiles, but the addition of a new type of attack called rockets. Think of it like insurgents blindly firing rockets over a border as opposed to guided missiles.

Problems: Zeroed nations have nothing to do other than fortify and fire missiles periodically. If at 8+ MAP overnight, it is easy to waste MAP accrued while sleeping. If wanting to coordinate an attack, your only options are to let the MAPs go to waste or make a 3 MAP attack and delay the coordination. Solution: Add a rocket attack which only consumes munitions and costs 1 MAP. Since rockets have no guidance, you could add a large amount of success variability. They would also only inflict 1/4 of the damage typically done by missiles. Opting for 1/4 instead of 1/8 due to the RNG that would already reduce the effectiveness of rockets.

Customizing images is fun, but they're only visible on a nation's front page. Could we also show our custom images on internal pages? Ex:

Previous strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them. That new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted. New strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them or the war is going to expire. The new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted.

Environment: Browser: Chrome 83.0.4103.97 OS: Windows 10 Window Width: 1080 Description: When mousing over trades, the buy/sell buttons bounce around. When my browser window is wider, this is not a problem. However, I keep my browser in a rotated monitor whose width in that orientation can be at most 1080. Having the buy/sell buttons bounce around like this makes me frequently misclick and is clearly not desired behavior. This appears to happen with the two smallest Bootstrap window sizes. Repro Steps: Open a resource trade window Horizontally shrink window until at one of the two smallest layouts Mouse over the trade amount for each trade row Observe that the trade row bounces around Trade _ Politics & War - Google Chrome 2020-06-15 16-19-45.mp4

The cost of radiation cleanup increases as the number of cities increases. So (ballpark) the cost of a smaller nation to restore their city might be equivalent to $1M while the cleanup cost of a large nation might be equivalent to $10M. Meanwhile, the cost of building the nuke might be equivalent to $10M. Would need to tweak the numbers, but the idea would be that nuking a small nation would be a net loss for the attacker. That would match the current design which makes nuking low infra cities a waste of resources. It seems that many people dislike the idea of disabling cities. I think that's an interesting mechanic which actually helps larger nations deal with being nuked. The biggest factor to improving nukes is getting rid of improvements, so if you wanted a lighter change, then Gideon's suggestion of destroying improvements equivalent to the amount of infra destroyed would be a good compromise. Sure, that would be a valid strategy just like the previous war strategy was to do mass air-strikes to establish air superiority. So how would you counter someone who wants to nuke you 4 times? The attacker is already at a net loss since they spent the resources to buy 4 nukes. You could nuke back to get even or you could stay conventional and rebuild to 800 infra/city. Anyway, if you all want to leave nukes as super missiles, that's fine. This suggestion was based on commentary in the latest PNW radio show with Alex where people complained about the impotence of nukes, the no-beige meta, and a desire to delete/destroy cities. I think this would be an interesting way to address all three issues, but it's clear that the community would prefer that nukes remain a loser's weapon. Whatever Orbis. Might as well take nukes out of the game.

I do wonder about whether the cost and damage associated with nuking allies would be enough to justify these wars. I do see how an initial flurry of nukes would encourage whales into delaying the rebuild of their disabled cities so that they can fight in the trenches again. Imagine a 32 city nation getting nuked 12 times which grants the option to fight the rest of the war down in the 20 city range again. Their cities aren't deleted, so they could rebuild once the alliance war is over. The new nukes primary impact is shifting city tiers. Drag down the enemy alliance's whales into the grinder. The enemy can opt to stay and fight in the grinder or spend resources trying to climb away.

Even now, nuke turrets is still something that happens occasionally. Some people like to just sit at depleted NS levels and lob super missiles to harass their opponents. The current game meta is, "Nukes are for losers and defeating a nation is bad." That's just silly. This would be a step toward fixing that. As for making them a better strategy than conventional war, that would be true if you had unlimited funds. Remember though, that even if a nation gets nuked, they're down but not out. Their remaining cities are still very much capable of waging war. The nuked nation will just be dropped down to fight a lower city tier of enemies.