Tartarus

Image: Father grappling Tartarus from the masses. Image: Tartarus walking the Marble Halls, after aeons scavenging the plains. Colourised, 2022

The new player bonuses and the VM changes look really good and I think they will work for the better. I’m not sure on the raiding aspect. I agree raiding does need to be altered but I’m not sure… this is the way.

I must've misplaced my invite lol

Jared Leto Appreciation Cult

Also note: It would positively benefit double buying and would make flash attacks deadlier.

How dare you not engage in stupidity

I don't mind the thought of staggered benefits - after all, I hate RNG, and when some prick gets an IT on equally matched planes in a blitz it's frankly stupid. As someone else mentioned, it would more depend on how to achieve the full benefits of superiority. Consecutive IT's? MS & up? But the war system does need a change - it needs a lot more variety & intrigue.

This is something I've looked at for a while - multitudes of micros have numbers but they don't have the drive, experience, perhaps even competence (or is that just derivative from experience? argument to be made there) to successfully run and/or turn a micro alliance into a big player, or even mid sized. Turning an alliance into something half decent is more of a cultural thing and the mentality - 'micro moments' only happen because of a mentality issue.

RON is a bastion of good faith and well thought out discussion. We should begin the total cultural conversion of the forums to RON.

You could've left OC with news server nonsense and still had a valid point

The supposed QoL change to move alliance trades to the global market is silly. It shouldn't need to be integrated in global to become relevant, we in T$ have proven its use and we will continue to do so. 1. Take alliance trades off the global market. 2. Remove the captcha from alliance trade market. Are people really going to bot buy their own alliance resources? 3. If you want to encourage more use, then allow people to toggle alliance as a "preference" when they click on resources on the hotbar or the trade button on the side panel - to automatically redirect to alliance over global.

Live action replay of a solution looking for a problem:

Obligatory still better than moon landing.

In this game, economics is but peacetime war. Naturally, economics should be one of the main leveraging factors of one's military prowess. However, to arbitrarily restrict wars in such a fashion so, would make wars stale and bland. Every war would be based on the side with the bigger pockets. Where is the intrigue? The ploys? There would be no need for them, not when you're guaranteed beige and can just rebuild. Guaranteed protection is a dangerous game. Cycling would take a very different face. It could, theoretically, be possible to organize cycles on counterblitzes wherein one over extends on the offensive and receives one or two counters. I've already stated I understand, and agree, with the baseline objective of transitioning away from the status quo. I just lack the faith the proposed changes are any better. In fact, they seem much worse. Oh, but they are, Roberts. The day moderation significantly impacts the application of war mechanics and the implication it has upon those who play, is the day something needs to either be formalized in regards to the point in question. That day came a long, long time ago for slotfilling. I feel, in part, these changes are being pushed as a way to stop beige baiting on the offensive. I think that's starkly obvious with the significant change to granted beige time. Halted all future updates? But, why jump off the deep end? I merely asked for something which can be done, in realistically a few hours - then let the free markets run its course, Friend! No need for such an extreme measure, not when its possible to take a route in which one can be sure significant beige changes are necessary. Working on a broken surface usually leads to a structural problem from the bottom up. @Marika

I agree that beige cycling is inherently bad for game health and toxicity, however I think the long term implications are that with there being a guaranteed 5 days of beige as long as you are 3/3 slotted, you are not really incentivized to go forth and missile/nuke. Is that another problem to be solved? Wars in this landscape would, in all cases, result in the side with the larger pockets coming victorious (assuming you have two evenly matched sides in tiering). That's the problem guaranteed protection time presents. And I think the implications of a (extremely) stale warfare are greater than the current situation. Obviously, yes, the status quo is not ideal. Far from it, with wars usually being won even before their inception. Far from being opposed to change, I don't have faith in this shaking up the meta and resulting in a brighter reality.

It reads so that the attacker always gets the win upon war expiry.

Not going to lie, these all suck. The closest to some sense of normality from the aforementioned proposed list of changed, is not starting the timer until defensive wars are down and capping it at 5 days (a full mil rebuild). Even then, I truly doubt the effect it would have on the game. You're murdering cycling, and you're rewarding trigger happy stat padders. Offensive wars with 0.5 days beige truly offer nothing spectacular, in an attrition war if one were to fight to low infra counts on both sides of the pond, there would be no point in beige baiting or turreting because the benefit of 0.5 days beige is negligible next to the low damage done. Any alliance with average beige discipline can henceforth easily maintain a cycle on the proposed mechanics. Or to assume that cycling is done for on these proposed changes, there is yet no benefit to even declare offensives if you are guaranteed 6 (5 after the hard-line cap) days of beige. Stick your head in the sand, see you in 5 days! The proposed changes, from a cursory glance, will likely punish (not benefit), the underdog. Is that a bad thing? On its own, no. Combined with the blitz advantage and havoc that ground attacks wreck in this era? Yes. Moderation would be better off clarifying, formalizing, and standardizing the rules for beige baiting/slotfilling before changing the mechanics. Once said moderation issues are dealt with, then perhaps the mechanics can be worked around. Perhaps it will be found that beige doesn't need to be changed, but the way in which military is applied can be? Obligatory reminder of the old army specialization update. If the goal is to fix something that's perceived broken, the worst case scenario is to slap a further broken bandaid upon it. Oh hell, I've just read: This is a horrible proposal. This will unjustly benefit people who overextend, and the people upon whom they declare will be incentivized to beige them asap. Why? What problem does that solve?

Give cities or face my wrath!1!

Edit: I understood this to mean you think Ro$e slotfilled, but you're just refuting HoF hitting both sides (And my previous quote-post reflects my temporary confusion). There is definitely an argument that HoF truly never hit HW, but that's not the point I'm trying to make and I'm not going to contest you on it. That tidbit of my prior post was a pale reflection of the greater implication within it. I'll cut out HW from my previous post to better reflect the point.

HoF blitzed Celestial at time of the war's inception. They did enough damage to both the military and blitzed nations to negate any form of claim that HoF slot filled Celestial. It's both amusing and disappointing this is the point you've decided to hone in on.

UPN delenda est.

This is how realpolitik dies, with thunderous applause

Its sometime before or after they remained in a sphere with a threat of war on the horizon