Talus

Team: Gardening Grandmas

This war was about as fun as the super bowl.

It might work for some people. There are already those who have taken the delete-leap and others who would but can't stand the thought of all their work being lost. And as far as players embezzling alliance funds etc., these people are often driven to become the best. Since you've played games with a prestige mechanic, you know that the only way to truly become the best is to prestige strategically. Once nations get to C40+, there's very minimal to be gained from adding cities (from a resource generation POV.) On the other hand, selling off their nation in exchange for a permanent 4% income boost and a permanent project? I'd do it in a heartbeat and suspect others would too.

Problem: The pace of the game becomes very slow at high city levels. Building new cities is expensive and the ROI takes years. Sure, the projects are fun and let you put up some great numbers, but wars just devolve into turreting and we just lob or receive nukes until both sides get bored. Some nations opt to delete and reroll their nations to get back in the trenches and enjoy conventional warfare. This is incredibly wasteful of the time and resources spent building up that nation. Proposal: Some games have the concept of "prestiging" where they will reroll their character in exchange for some persistent benefit. This benefit is proportional to how high the character got in that run. If we allowed nations to do something similar, it could breathe some new life into the game where grumpy old bastards can become spunky young rapscallions again. The benefits would need to be carefully tuned, but something like getting a 0.1% income/resource boost per city sacrificed could be interesting. Maybe allow them to make 1 project a permanent one as well. These would carry on with successive prestiges as well. To prevent too much churn and gaming of the system, you could make prestige available only once a nation hits 20 cities.

As mentioned, turreting is boring for BOTH sides. Yes, complaining about turrets while on the receiving end would have felt very self-serving. Now on the other end of it, I equally find turreting to be pointless and boring. At the end, this is just a web based nation sim so only so much entertainment can be expected. If I wanted a more rich nation sim experience I'd go play Civ or EU:IV. It's just a shame that a long running game like this has become so incredibly dull. Maybe it's something unique to dolphin/whale tier nations though... I'll create another suggestion thread that may help with that.

Yeah okay loser. Must suck to lose all the time right cuz? That's okay, come visit my nation and I'll send some nuclear chili dogs up your wazoo. Anyway, enjoy playing your crappy game with broken mechanics. To hell with anyone who dares to suggest changing the status quo.

Yes, there is looting but a percentage of next to nothing is still next to nothing. When nations are beat down, their resources on hand are minimal. The biggest difference would be aid used to buy more projectiles / fuel up for the next suicide turret declarations. As for beige lock forcing boredom, turreting is already boring for both sides. This would discourage offensive turreting since when they lose their wars, they'll be forced to just sit out while the rest of their alliance fights. And meanwhile any aid they receive to rebuild would be partially siphoned off in reparations to the nation(s) that defeated it from turret offensives.

Right now wars are mutually assured destruction. IRL that deterrent is helpful since war is a terrible thing, but not in a game where war is expected. The most frustrating mechanic is how the losing side will declare wars that they fully expect to lose just so they can lob projectiles. Even if the nation is beiged, they can immediately go declare again. I see that there are military changes planned to help beiged nations rebuild their military more quickly. That might give an alternative to turreting, but I suspect zeroed nations will continue to declare wars against fully milled nations just so they can lob projectiles. The cost of losing a war for these infra depleted turrets is negligible. There are a few mechanics that could discourage this behavior: beige locks and reparations. Beige lock - if a nation loses a war that it declared, then it may not exit beige until its beige timer naturally expires. Reparations - if a nation loses a war that it declared, a percentage of resources it receives will be sent to the victor over some period of time. This would include money and resources it generates, trades on the market, and alliance aid.

If a coalition gets the upper hand, then the loser will just turret until both sides get bored. Is this actually fun to you all? Even as the "winning" coalition, you just hope RNG is on your side every 24 hours to avoid getting hit with a nuke.

If you do this, let us refund the now double edged sword projects that increase offensive war slots.

Here's a pumpkin themed flag I made for Rose using Rose's color scheme, vines, and a couple of roses.

Unccl oveguqnl AJ!

Note: This does not address any specific problem, but is a potentially new game mechanic influenced by the gas price & farming crisis happening in many parts of the real world. Proposal: Farm output is increased by some percent by consuming gasoline. If a nation runs out of gasoline, then farm output will be reduced to some minimal level. Impact: * Gasoline is not used during peace time and this would make the resource important through war/peace cycles. * Depending on how much gas farms would consume and the cost of gas, producing food could potentially become less profitable unless the price of food increases. As for tuning the mechanic, we could either have base farm output remain at current levels with gasoline giving some productivity boost or if we don't want to increase the availability of food then we could reduce farm output unless farms are supported with gasoline.

Alex actually asked about this in Discord back when I floated the idea - https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/32131-only-show-trade-pop-up-if-posting-more-than-1-stdev-from-average-ppu/ . People panicked and insisted on keeping the alert. In case the idea gets shot down again, here's a simple script that reverts back to before the trade confirmation nag pop up was put in place. https://gist.github.com/trs4ece/737bc841db0a50faf62c6b457c3474a6

Proposed changes: 1. If the amount of a resource sent is zero, then do not include that resource in the message. 2. Include the note/reason that the resources were sent. So if Alex were to send me $5, instead of the long message above, it would look like: