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:

In the 300+ wars I've fought, it's very rarely made more sense to Gather Intel rather than do a destructive op in a war. If unlimited gather intel is too op, just raise the cost of the op and/or decrease the odds of success. Or as @BelgiumFury suggested, you could just limit the number of Gather Intel ops to something like 1/day or 2/day if you have the intelligence agency.

Proposed changes: Gather intel op does not consume an offensive spy slot. Gathered intel is automatically shared with the alliance. Alliance intel can be shared with other alliances depending on the treaty. When viewing a nation for which your alliance has intel, show the extra information along with a timestamp for when it was last gathered. When attempting to perform a spy op on a nation, display success percent based on spy counts from the last gather intel op. These changes will help put other alliances on the same playing field as those who have created their own intelligence sharing platform. It will also get rid of the issue of slamming the server to calculate spy estimates. The number of spies a nation has is supposed to be a secret anyway, right? So why do we even show "Greater than 50%" or "Less than 50%" odds at all right now? Basing odds on the last gathered intel makes far more sense and would also make the Gather Intel op more useful.

Darn. Was just coming here to post the same. I was also paying out $25 every 180 days before. Guess it'll just be $4.97 every 180 days instead. Not sure that this credit pricing adjustment will have the intent that you wanted it to...

If you want a game where those who have the luxury to sink hours a day finding targets reign supreme, go play Cyber Nations. Politics and War is unique in that it enables those of us without that kind of time to also thrive in a nation sim game. If there are concerns about some bot abilities taking away from the spirit of the game, bring that up to the API team and they can consider making restrictions. A blanket ban on bots and all this techno phobic ranting is not in the spirit of Politics and War. If they did not want to allow automation, they wouldn't have added an API.

Was getting ready to post this suggestion and found that someone already made it. Resurfacing this feature request.

You would still be bothered with a pop up if you screw up a trade. The ask is to only have the pop up show for screwed up trades.

If I were to create a poll for how many actually read the pop-up that appears when creating a trade, I'm guessing that it's less than 10% of us. It's about as useful as those EULAs that many games make you scroll through and click I Agree. Rather than always showing that pop-up, instead only show it if the PPU for your trade offer is more than 1 standard-deviation from the average ppu. If you don't readily have that calculation available, then just use the same logic that prevents brand new nations from posting trades that are far from market value. Make sure that the pop-up displays as a warning window rather than the informational one that we see now. You could include the color red and large verbage like "WARNING" along with details about why the trade was flagged.

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!