Princess Seshat

I would like to propose the removal of inactives from the alliance score and member count the same way that vacation members do not count towards it. This would make alliance score more indicative of their actual power, instead of allowing alliances to overinflate their score and member count, and would no longer count those inactives when calculating bank loot. Another benefit is that alliances that are almost completely inactive would no longer show up in the alliance recruitment page since they wouldn't meet the score threshold meaning new players are less likely to attempt to join them only to end up quitting because no one accepts them. Vacation mode members are already treated this way, so I think inactives should be as well since people on vacation mode are more likely to return than them anyways. The term of inactivity I propose for this to take effect is 14 days, the time when you are moved to grey.

Tesla is completely broke, the well ran dry long ago...

^this

I disagree with this completely, no micros means consilidation, stagnation, less wars and less raids. This also makes the game less appealing to large preestablished communities looking to transfer over to this game and many others dont want to be part of an alliance were they are just another cog. What we really need Is for Alex to update the tutorial to stop giving bad advice like building farms too soon and to explain why MFGs should not be produced by new players. As well as explain things like production bonuses & crime better so they will stop building sloppily. And change the starting infra of new cities to 100 instead of 10 so that they can follow the advice of building in 100s without having extra Infra (even if that includes the miniscule price of 10 to 100 infra in the new city cost)

Y'all ain't rising again

How did this make the news?

If you call having 46 greys nations existing then yes. Guy literally has more greys than people on his own color. He just harbors them because If he dropped them he'd go from #47 to #96 and so he can pretend he doesn't run a grey dumpster fire.

Congrazzles to the land of my birth for making peace with Roz Wei and the carribeans! I mean you could still probably do that :3

I thought you got couped from the saviours as well..

Actually resource loot and bank loot many times is worth much more than cash loot and it frees the raider to hit another and force them to surrender. The cash from ground attacks is usually quite negligible in comparison to resource loot especially since if they're active they can (and should) just liquidate the cash if under blockade by dumping it Infra, baseball team, land, etc. And if not blockaded they could just put it in their alliance bank. Another issue with this suggestion is if they decide to send the surrender most likely the alliance bank would be moved to a nation for safekeeping and if not blockaded so would their nation loot. So actually I retract proposed change and oppose the idea entirely. However I will like this post for balance purposes so your reputation isn't low from all the downvotes. Since once negative it usually snowballs from there and gets worse and your ideas aren't necessarily bad it's just that your still pretty new and still learning and I don't want you to be hated for that. Just trust us on this, it seems like a good idea if you don't know better but it's just too easily exploitable even if it required mutual acceptance.

While I like the premise of a surrender option I think it should still have to be accepted by the attacker just like peace. You have to understand that in large scale alliance wars people don't always biege their opponents, they allow it to expire so that more forces can continue the assault and keep them pinned. This would be essentially game breaking if they can biege themselves and rebuild when they otherwise would not be bieged. Another issue is there would be nothing stopping a pirate from building up his infra and improvements then just putting all resources in their bank and just declaring on a bunch of inactives and surrendering to burn the infra away while keeping a large amount of overloaded improvements slots, they would then have a much lower score and could attack nations with much lower city counts than them while maintaining max military improvements. A low infra count trader could also do the same just for the biege shield time so they could put billions in cash & rss into the market without risk of being raided.

I think you should ask alexio

I was gonna go with "ask alexio" but this is kinda funny lol

Another change that should be shown that i forgot about until you mentioned airstrikes is that choosing target units/money should change the max infra destroyed and choosing anything other than dogfight should change max planes destroyed to show the correct values.

Definitely would help keeping double buys in check, could see it beneficial in other scenarios as well.

Currently when you have ground control or air superiority on an opponent, it shows their army combat values as if they are not under these controls, I am proposing that we update this to show their modified combat Value from the space control. Example: the opponent below is currently under ground control, making him able to use only 66.7% of his planes. His army value says 1410 however in reality it should be 939 as only 313 of his aircraft can defend. While we are on the subject of combat screens another change I am proposing is to make your choices such as how many units to send or to not equip soldiers with munitions to update the army value, max loot, max infra stats shown instead of being static to the original values. As you can see above, selecting these values currently shows the same values as before.

Please add a total improvements row near infrastructure so we can see which cities have the most overloaded slots without checking each city individually. Also please make the "Totals/Avg" column show both the total and avg numbers of each improvements (especially military) instead of just total, this would be very useful for alliance staff to make sure members are maintaining any MMR set by their governments.

Please add a column for city counts to the information returned from nation search. This information is very important to those using it for war targets and recruiting to alliances, which is probably the two main usages of nation search. in many ways city count is more important than score itself in deciding both military targets and for recruiting potential alliance members. If implemented please also add it to the search "ordered by" choices.

There has already been three color wars since the trade bloc update, not everyone feels the need to announce everything on the forums Probably because that's what they did

Because black is one of the lowest bonuses, and brown was the highest at the launch of color blocs.

There should be a ban on all topics related to changing war mechanics during global wars by participants in those wars. Also this is just generally a bad idea.

Did Alex get all three of his nations? Because he moved one of them off his unique ID

It can be both...

That's actually where I first noticed it