Corvidae

Upvoted because you posted on the forums but terrible news tbh. I hate hearing people retiring completely out of the game. Hope everything is okay for him irl. SIN is seeing some monumental gov shift-arounds and big FA policy changes so I just want to take a moment to say even as a sometimes-critic: I appreciate y'all's role in this game.

There comes along people who burn bright but brief, who change the game around them and break norms. Hatebi didn’t care about loot in the traditional sense, didn’t chase the cash looted leaderboard spot, she just wanted to see infra burn and enjoy the community. Truly will go down as one of the greats. O7 Hatebi

Super simple suggestion to give a rework and flavor, with minimal coding effort (so maybe there's a chance) while balancing out econ a bit better. Laws and Policies Overview: The general idea is to customize the current feel of your nation. Like real life, laws are not permanent and static. They can change with need and the best part is that this suggestion is a Foundation suggestion, meaning it can be built upon in future updates to provide even more content. Broad Categories Citizenship Full citizenship for any who desire it: +10% population per city, +5% crime per city Naturalization process, earned after requirements are met: +5% population per city, +5% commerce per city Restricted Citizenship: -10% population per city, -5% crime per city Economics Laissez Faire: +10% commerce, +5% pollution, +2% crime Mixed Economy: +5% commerce, +2% pollution, +1% crime Command Economy: -5% commerce, -5% pollution, -2% crime Manufacturing Regulation Deregulate Industry: +10% output of Manufacturing improvements, +5% pollution Light restrictions: +5% output of Manu, +3% pollution Heavy restriction: -10% manu output, -5% pollution Environmental Protections Exploit the Earth: +10% raw improvement output (includes farms), +5% pollution, +2% disease Mixed regulation: +5% raw improvement output, +3% pollution, +1% disease Treehugger: -10% raw output, -5% pollution, -2% disease Military readiness Si pacem, para Bellum: -10% military recruitment cost and upkeep, -10% commerce, -10% resource output, +5% battle effectiveness of all units Prepare but don't panic: -5% military cost and upkeep, -5% commerce, -5% output, +2.5% battle effectiveness of all units Trust in Diplomacy: +10% military recruitment cost and upkeep, +10% commerce and resource output, -5% battle effectiveness of units Pretty straight forward, no new feature per se just buttons that give modifiers. Mixable and matchable for various builds of producers, raiders, farmers, war-time bonuses, etc. Just adds a layer of thought to put into the game.

In my opinion, the FA hierarchy has obsessed over NAPs for far too long as the perfect tool to ensure their 400 IQ 4D chess plans go perfectly. In most instances, with the only exception being Eclipse, NAPs have been bad for almost every alliance in the game since 2020 (NPOLT) either negatively impacting activity to a point of internal collapse (Rose from almost 2 years of peace at one point) or just outright being a poor political move that saw them lose successive wars (Grumpy, TKR, T$, etc.) The benefit they provide already exists via the end of the war, most sane groups don't sacrifice rebuild or member interest to hash out the same fight right after ending it. NAPs should not only stop being a "norm", this move should be cheered as something different rather than the world police sticking their nose up Epi's metaphorical behind about it. I definitely appreciate Shwin's walls of text and effort to make this into a political issue as I found it interesting and has motivated a lot of posts... but it's really a Camelot vs. TFP issue, and Camelot's allies have already cut ties as a result. TFP's allies should wake up and react if it's a further problem from there (As the Rose coalition was the party with whom the NAP was signed). I guarantee that if any major violated a NAP, the "punishment" would only be the result of political convenience or no punishment would happen at all. Camelot's only in danger of "punishment" due to their relative isolation and weak FA position -- which they've had for awhile now. Aside from my anti-NAP rhetoric in general: Sketchy and Vexz have been the loudest voices against Epi during this whole debate in RON, and to that I say: Enforce the norm if you believe it so strongly. It was your (Rose's) NAP that got violated anyway. I wouldn't fault Rose for defending an ally or defending their peace terms if they truly believe the NAP was violated. I wouldn't fault Singularity for defending their ideological stances. Asking the community to perma-roll Camelot together is definitely overkill though. End of day: You won't see meaningful politics for the sake of politics without meaningful changes to the economic system. Any given alliance has to save up for ever-more percentages of the year just to stay or become relevant. Cities need a hard-cap just as a short-term solution, then a new system needs to be rolled out. The game isn't dying or collapsing due to some unseen force of entropy, we're just ten years into a game that didn't have an end-game designed.

Update: They did not

Shwin made his case on RON for some reason instead of the proper medium. I'm just reposting it here.

Yeah that's my understanding as well.

Stay in touch piggy. ❤️

Honestly I did not expect such a solid argument from your side Epi, and I'll be honest I'm leaning towards agreeing the NAP was nullified by Rose's proxy actions. Do NAP-breaking things, expect NAP-breaking surprises I guess. I understand TFP was the target of Arrgh and I don't begrudge you wanting to go raiding if you're broke but I do echo other's wondering why you hit TFP instead of Rose? It seems like all your frustration is directed at them and TFP is more of a supporting actor.

This has got to be one of the best things on the forums, if not the best, since probably 2020 or earlier. Love the whole thing.

Why so far out? I'm down though.

For team First Contact

"I will pay you to play AoE4 with me"

Not to deride a peace agreement but referencing the posting here, you guys fought for exactly 30 days and signed into a Non-Aggression pact for four months. Locking up 1/4th of the [active] game into a NAP for a third of the year from less-than-a-month of fighting is cowardly and frankly plays more into Rose's hands than the alleged victor's. I know people rarely care, especially gov who are ditching the game anyway, but it's sad to see careless peace deals like these. NAPs set the stage for stagnant politics by removing potential coalitions or partnerships within specific windows, it takes the dynamism out of the game and creates an environment where your incentive to fight a war is not in an interesting CB but rather in the end result of guaranteed safe growth for X months. Here's the kicker though: Safely growing in perpetuity is killing this game, the same way the lack of updates coming from the dev team are. Congrats on an interesting war bookended by a poorly-thought peace deal.

Hey so I saw you used this image, unfortunately it is under copyright protection by Kyu and you will be executed for this transgression. Congrats on forming and good luck.

Finally, a good f**king theme

This post is my personal try-hard roadmap if I were Alex: It's time to re-analyze the design philosophy of the team. By the end of April, devs need to agree on a few things: 1. Wars will no longer prevent rollouts. If that looks like rolling out mid-war, so be it. If that looks like a global forced period of peace, so be it. If you can find another solution, great. The development cycle should not lean on player wars as an excuse. Ideally this would mean establishing a release date for updates so the players can plan around it. 2. Establish and stick to a pipeline: Pick an idea, work on it, send it on the coders, test it, implement it. Get a pipeline flowing. Every quarter should have an update which includes bug fixes, UI improvements, and new content for players both old and new. It doesn't have to be a massive World-of-Warcraft-esque expansion pack, but every quarter should have those three things as a minimum and never miss a release. Reliability and accountability are key pieces to growing your game instead of watching it wither away. Thirdly, utilize your resources on-hand: The QoL improvements threads is still pinned to the top of the suggestions subforum. Start going through and picking some for each quarter. Fourth, even though the numbers are controversial, the city cost change was long coming. It modernizes and future-proofs the game in a way that we haven't yet seen with any other mechanic. Take that philosophy forward with the bones of the game. Referral bonuses on a sliding scale, credit redemption amount on a sliding scale, get the foundations of the game all on the same page. Now after that work is done, start skimming for new content ideas. Someone complained in Discord that suggestions aren't detailed enough anymore. Here are a handful of examples just from me in the past few months that got ignored. You don't need to pull them directly but perhaps they could give some inspiration: There are a lot more in the suggestions subforum, you just have to skim through titles and see what strikes your fancy. Again: I don't care what we do next. What we need is a reliable development cycle that can generate interest in the game, like every other modern multiplayer game does.

As the old adage goes: Pride cometh before the fall. Congrats on peace, I doubt anyone learned anything.

You do realize that EVH got hit right? This argument isn't in the hypothetical vacuum of "well maybe TGH will hit us if we don't do this." This is the head of TGH FA/current leader telling EVH leadership that he will cover for them if they get into a conflict and then in the same message paints TI as a perfect target. The gun definitely existed and it was fired multiple times, to continue with your metaphor.

Better than Buo shifting the blame of the CB onto Rose... his ally who also got hit for it💀

Sketchy told me this was an unjust war

Brand new expansion for Civilization 6 PnW: 1. Boom and bust cycles: Nations can experience income and population modifiers in cycles. Booms give you more income and population (2%), busts give you the inverse(-2%). Typically these cycles last 30 days each but can be impacted by various things such as: Winning or losing a war: Winning a war can shorten your bust cycle or extend your boom cycle by 12 turns. Losing can do the inverse. This also adds some interesting war implications. Login bonus: Each consecutive login after the 1st day will extend your boom or shorten your bust by 1 turn. Trading with another nation or on the market: This can only be done once per cycle but it will extend booms or shorten busts by 12 turns. Being on your correct alliance color will lessen the impact of bust cycles Running out of food on your nation will increase the length of bust cycles by 12 turns Running out of money on your nation will increase the length of bust cycles by 12 turns 2. World Congress: (to be fleshed out over time I hope, but keeping it simple enough to have a 1% chance of actually being coded rn) Once per thirty days, the entire game gets to vote on one alliance to receive a 5% income boost, and one alliance to receive a 5% income decrease. The increase target can only be selected from ranks 16 and lower. The decrease target must be selected from the top 10. Whoever "wins" each vote is ineligible for the following month's vote of the same category. 3. Disasters: Once every 120 days (randomly rolled somewhere in there) your nation will suffer a disaster from the following list: Nuclear meltdown: Basically a nuke goes off in your city. Losing large amounts of infra (like a nuke would) and applying radiation to the city and the game. Severe Drought: Farm outputs across the nation are reduced by 20% for 5 days Hurricane: Three random cities lose 500 infra each. Tornado: Three random cities lose 500 infra each. Forest Fire: Pollution is increased across your nation by 60 points for 5 days Aliens!: A random city has its infra reduced by 1000 Sheep Stampede: Lose a random improvement in each city I will accept my invitation back onto the dev team I think any of these would be cool to see, simple to add. All three would be a pretty major update and add quite a bit of content that doesn't unbalance the game.

Grumpy are good allies, take care of them or else ❤️

I again will voice that I think these threads need time to cook before pushing to the test server and acting like they're polished. I hope you guys re-examine a lot of these changes and take a better game-design approach to things. Doubling the aluminum cost of planes isn't a good game design choice, maybe try increasing it by 10-20% first instead of doubling it. Ships removing superiority looks unbalanced as heck, but I agree it would be neat for ships to be battlefield control units: Maybe instead of removing superiorities they could provide buffs/maluses to offenses/defenses like a better version of Fortify. Military research looks interesting and the beige buff looks interesting.

Erm, for clarification is this the ship system currently on the test server preparing to go live? If it is, I think the total lack of feedback here is an indication that we may need to slow the roll and actually... get feedback. At a glance these two options alone will have sweeping impact on the war system. Rather than taking an axe to the problem, we could take a scalpel: Have ships provide bonuses or maluses to attacks/defenses so they can be battlefield control/support units.