Corvidae

Arrgh!

It's so hard not to join in the arguments but at the same time it's so fun to just watch.

I almost asked about several names on the list before I remembered we're in the meme thread.

Unrelated war stat but was NPO the first to break 400k score in PnW?

I think it will be colloquially called "Surf's Up" regardless of the poll so I voted for that. Not sure what that actually refers to, but oh well. "That's Bait" is my personal favorite though.

Congrats to all parties on a good fight and a good peace.

I understand the line of logic you're applying here and I'm not necessarily disagreeing if its a repeated pattern. Just in practice though, coalitions forming is the natural way a healthy multi-polar political system works. So for comparison, if fighting in the same war on the same side becomes a de facto treaty... Does signing a treaty mean you become de facto the same alliance? I've honestly made the argument before that M-level treaties are effectively signing over your alliance's sovereignty so the argument is there to be made. You just also have to acknowledge that it's situational. If Chaos and KETOG form repeated coalitions then yes they can be considered de facto allied. If not then no, they're merely participants in a global war.

The 2:00 mark got me lmao

Lovin it, thank you.

It's been awhile since we had a 20+ page thread. Nice.

In a perfect world, yes. I can only utilize the stats collected though.

Nice. Thank you. I'll do it manually when I'm bored for the majors... So as of right now here's my rough formula for "Weighted performance". Alliance: [{(Net Damage / average city count)+((attacks made/number of nations)*10,000,000)}/ 10,000,000] = Weighted performance index. KT: 122.94 Grumpy: 73.01 TGH: 70.00 Guardian: 66.36 Rose: 54.57 Arrgh: 44.16 TKR: 43.72 T$: -1.49 BK: -23.58 Acadia: -36.02 tCW: -83.80 So you kind of roughly get the idea. Average city count being accounted for when factoring net damage, as well as a flat bonus for war contribution, all divided by 10m to make the index legible. I played with the formula a bit but I think this is probably the best happy medium to get a true "feel" for how each alliance is truly contributing to the war.

Frawley do you think you could add some "weighted" categories so we can better see alliance performance? The larger alliances taking huge raw numerical damage are always going to be topping off stats. So say add a category that divides net damage by number of nations and call that weighted net damage. Etc. You could get more complicated but just an example that would be neat to add to your stats. Edit: You could also use Net damage divided by alliance city count as perhaps an even more accurate "gauge".

Less than 500 people on your site right now. Load time is crazy per page. Pls sheepy.

I like this solely for the fact that Micro announcements won't get downvoted to hell.

No... no, I’m pretty sure this beats that. Interesting moves guys! My popcorn machine is making bank.

Arrgh!

Hello again! I was waiting for the market to mildly calm down before I did this, but then war were declared and I got impatient waiting for food prices to normalize. So today I'm going to be walking you through the math of the new city planning projects and their value. Resource heavy projects like these are always going to be fluctuating in price, so I thought it might be fun to give some calculations on how much they could/would/should cost. So firstly let's establish some baselines. Firstly, that nations seek to grow the fastest and most efficient way possible because seeing numbers grow is intoxicating. Secondly, that alliances want to grow their members as quickly and efficiently as possible so they can maximize their use during war. And lastly, the cost of the projects. - City Planning costs the following: >10,000 coal, oil, munitions, and gas >20,000 aluminum >1,000,000 food - Advanced City Planning costs the following: >10,000 uranium >20,000 Steel and munitions >40,000 aluminum >2,500,000 food So if we take the current market index for all these resources, we're looking at a cash value for both projects to be $275,950,000 and $591,350,000 respectively. City planning reduces city costs by $50m per purchase, currently paying itself off in 6 cities. Slightly less than optimal because you'd want to buy ACP before City Planning is paid off in full. Advanced city planning reduces city costs by $100m per city and also pays itself off in 6 cities currently. Now you're probably thinking it's still a good idea to buy these projects as soon as they're available. If we're using our baselines that all we care about is growing as fast as possible then sure. However, let's look at RoI. Firstly, purchasing all the cities that are required to immediately pay back the projects costs/two city planning projects/commerce project will take at least 250 days. (23 cities + 3 projects - your first city) Almost a full year of pumping a nation full of money with no real time to collect any true return. We're already at $912,300,000 with just the three projects. When you factor in the cities as well, we're looking at a cost of $3,619,950,000. So let's say this nation has 2k infra per city. You're looking at a rough income of $15m per day. If you tax this nation at 100% and they don't buy anything else, it will take 242 days to recoup your investment. Food for thought.

Haha oops, I actually caught and corrected this mistake the first time and adjusted my math but forgot to edit the formula. I used 20 for the divisor I think? Edited it in. Either way though, I’m just throwing out an idea of what a changed formula could look like.

Since we're grave digging this, I've had another thought: Tying some score into military improvements as well. This way a part of your military score is also tied into your ability to produce units, not just the units you have. Just an idea. Anyways, some actual formulas to pitch here. Recognizing score as the game's way of deciding war declaration range, the considerations for changing it should be focused entirely on how to make war ranges fairer. Here's the current formula: Nation Score = (City Count - 1) *50 + (Nation Infra Total/40) + (Project Count *20) + ((Soldiers * 0.0005) + (Tanks * 0.05) + (Aircraft * 0.5) + (Ships * 2) + (Missiles * 5) + (Nuclear Weapons * 15)) Here's a proposed tweak: Nation Score = (City Count - 1) *40 + (Nation Infra Total/20) + (Project Count *20) + ((Soldiers * 0.0010) + (Tanks * 0.05) + (Aircraft * 0.7) + (Ships * 2) + (Missiles * 2.5) + (Nuclear Weapons * 5)) So using a 10 city nation with 1000 infra each as an example here. The original formula would score a fully militarized (maxed military improvements with max military) nation of this size as: 2,390 Without military as: 740 The proposed formula would score it as: 2,805 when militarized Without military: 900 score This proposed formula, using Fraggle again as an example, would reduce his nation from 13k score (current) to 5,022.5 score. Still far above what a 14 city nation should be at with no other military but at least gives some recognition of the several hundred missiles and nuclear weapons. This is just an example of a tweak. I increased the value of aircraft because they should be valued as more score than tanks. I increased the value of soldiers because they didn't account for anything, but tbh that could be thrown out and kept as-is I think. I halved missile score value and cut Nukes down to 5 score per nuke. I also lowered the city multiplier to 40 from 50 - which honestly could be lowered more. Cities are devalued, infra is increased in value. The proposed formula accomplishes three main things: 1. It addresses how utterly inflated nuclear weapons and missiles are in the current score formula. 2. It widens the gap between militarized and de-militarized score so nations can better fall out of range when they are losing, or conversely they can reach higher by militarizing. 3. It reduces city value and inflates infra value in score. This allows the players to better control their score, and allows more infrastructure damage to be done in wars.

Congrats, you just summarized how Arrgh plays the game Hegemony implies continued control. It wasn't that long ago that TKR was called the hegemony because of their inflated score. Para-Cov was called a hegemony at one point because of their nation count. Syndisphere was called the hegemony because of their collective wins and activity. IQ was the hegemony because of their collective score. A hegemony is something that an alliance or group imposes upon the world that seems like it'll never be broken. Not whoever is currently the highest score or most treaties.

Why are all your PPU's the peak war prices? That would be more than half the money in the game if liquidated though, so that's nuts.

Looking like the pointless nature of the war might create a grudge, no? Sometimes you have to stir the pot before you can eat your soup... hot.