BelgiumFury

I dont think any of these will solve the issue that you are getting at. Point one just seems like a way for normal alliances to be less hurt if a war or coordinated raid breaks out (KT looking at you) and potentially lower MMR because the risk is lower. Land does't need to be capped because as you said tis already very expensive for what you are actually getting. The price functions as a soft cap of sorts. Decreasing unit usage costs might make it so people have smaller warchest, or it might make it that wars last longer because people really like hoarding stuff. Feel hard to predict. But if Naps stay as long as they are people will just have more stuff to use during war. I do like your initial vs rebuild cost but we have to be carefull with how we implement it. Last up I dont think it takes very long to deal decent damage, a war of a month is fine, nearly no wars last longer for infrastructure reasons. If a war lasts longer its often because of politically motivated reasons by either or both sides. Both in Knightfall and Duck Hunt 90% of the damage was done in the first month. In NPO's last time it was a bit more compelex because people joining and switchign sides and cheating. In Duck Hunt 1 Trillion damage was done after 10 days. And yet the war had to last another 30+ days for 400 Billion. This isnt a mechanics issue this is a political issue. An issue that got reinforced the the ridicolous nap that took 6 months afterwards. If naps would shorter people wouldnt dare to rebuild to 2500 or 3000 infra (except a very specific niche group) because the risk would be too big. I have no idea who thought a 6 month nap was a good idea after a 1.5 month war, but if that weird logic got removed from the world the staleness of this game would be a lot lower 😛. After NPOLT I could get behind the idea of a 6 month nap because that war was genuinly so exhausting, but it feels to me like the current staleness is caused by our political leaders. There is too much predictibility, I as a rose member know that if I build 2500 infra and I remain active that there is a near 0% chance that more than 10% of that infra gets destroyed during the nap. You as a member of another respected alliance must have the exact same expierience. --- The best way to make this less stale in my opinion (from a non political but mechanics standpoint) is to boost rogues, pirates, raiders, and people who destroy infra for fun during NAPS. They mostly only build up to 800 infra so I doubt these would help them a lot. I would be thinking about a modifier on how much you can raid. Depending on how much money you actually raided in the last lets say 30 days and how many raid wars you declared and won/lost (so not peaced out or other exploitative shit). If you raid a lot you will get a bigger modifier to steal more stuff. This won't immediatly boost how much infra they can destroy but it would make funding a pirate alliance a lot easier. Next up I would make a similar boost for unit buying. If you go to war (any type of war) a lot and you either win or lose (so not peaced out or other exploitative shit) you will get a boost in what percentage of your max units you can actually recruit per day. This will make alliance that does a lot of this stuff stronger. If you want to be really bold you can also make them do more unit damage if they wage more wars. --- To balance this raid war bonus the other types of wars would need a proper bonus too but that isnt the essence of what I am saying here. There will probably be other good suggestions in this thread but this is my 50 cents.

😪 i'll miss you guys ❤️

So what exactly is the game suggestion?

lmao lmao x 2

Yeah, we have been doing great. Should do an anual event ngl.

Why would this problem not exist by nation to nation trades? Huge trades happen already, its very rarehuge trades get raided (succesfully). They already often use alliance Banks.

As an addition, i think the same should apply to selling resources.

I was just making a joke about the nature of this thread ^^ But I would indeed hope we would be fine

You know, this thread has shown me one thing. If we ever went to get a beer at a bar with all PnW players, at the end of the evening there would be no more bar.

I personally would only grant untill city 3, and give them the funds for c4 as a free gift (without building it), let them build a city themselves though. The other ideas for "forcing" alliances sounds absolutly gorgeous though mate.

I am not sure if a trivia quiz would be the right quiz, but everything is better than the button spam.

Well it would not circumvent upkeep cost, it would only move them. This is hwoever a good reason to remove protection for traded nukes (being able to be insta destroyed) You would not be able to do the last example you listed, because people would be incentivised to blockade you. Someone really does not like being nuked Yeah i did not remember this post. It is interesting, I am not sure how good it would work for every type of unit, but it is interesting.

Have you ever had to deal with these pesky battles where you don't stand a chance to god and your opponent is going to roll over you like they are steamroller and you are a road needing to be steamrolled? Well fear not this might be the project for you. The Project Cost (Mine Research & Production Facility) 3000 Aluminum 1000 Munitions 500 Lead 20,000,000 Cash The Mines (Cost) Originally I imagined three different types of mines, although the core of this remains, producing three different types is making things too complex, hence the production will be merged into one category with one cost. 100 Munitions 50 Aluminum 50 Steel 50 Lead Mining Operations. Once you produced mines you will be able to place them for 3 Maps. You will be able to preform three operations: Place Anti-Tank Mines, Place Anti Personnel Mines, Place Naval Mines. All Mines will work similarly, but with somewhat different numbers. Anti tank mines will kill 7.5% of attacking tanks. Anti Personnel Mines will kill 15% of attacking soldiers Naval mines will kill 7.5% of attacking ships And at least 1 ship. When mines are placed they will damage enemy units before the actual battle calculation, this will be able to be used as a type of defense. Opponents will be able to see that you placed mines, but not which type of mines were placed. (later more on this) The Removal and Destruction of mines. When someone attacks your mines they'll see that the area was a minefield. So if your opponent just mined the ground it might be smarter to send smaller forces, but that might risk them building up.. Something else that happens when you attack a mined space is that the effect of mines will halve, and halve again (repeat over and over) this is to simulate the fact that mines get destroyed. Once again you will be able to send smaller forces, but, that is a risk of maybe losing the battle. If the defender (who placed) the mines attacks they will also be completely removed. The only way to get mine effectiveness up to 100% again is to lay new mines (and use maps + resources) The Fortification Synergy Fortification will improve the mine casualties by 25% (so 7.5 = 9.375), the combination of all these resources (mines + fortification) can turn a losing battle in a winning one, or, at least a costly one. Mine Intel Spy Op This spy op will show where a nation has put mines (in all wars). Planes? If this idea does get trough, there probably should be something similar for planes too. For balance reasons. ~~BelgiumFury (written in own name) PS: the numbers probably need some tweaking, I'm sorry, feel free to suggest.

(Don't mind the pun) The idea is simple enough, allow nations to buy or sell nukes. A nation can buy nukes from any other nations if they themselves have the nuclear project (and the other nation obviously does too). The price would be dictated by the market. You might wonder why; the answer to that is war time trade. Nations would be able to buy nukes or sell nukes as long as they are not blockaded and have the projects. This might give an incentive to blockade more people, for the winners in a war to buy up a lot of the nukes (as to not let themselves be nuked), and similar; it could also be a way for pirates to generate some revenue when a big world war is going on. As a last example it could be used by people who stock nukes to distribute them to their alliance mates as to not lose them all to spies. I am not sure if nukes bought should have a protection timer. But I am open for suggestions on this (or anything else i brought up). I think it could add an interesting dynamic both in world wars (as mentioned) and in raids, with raiders able to retaliate harder against high infra counters. I also thought about doing the same for missiles but i'm not sure if this would work as well. ~~BelgiumFury (written in own name)

I think it would be a good idea to allow everyone who is currently playing to have 2 free resets. (or just choose or two starting resources) We wont have the chance new nations get to fix it quickly.

!@#$ I forgot this lmao

This looks like a completly diffrent suggestion, maybe you should make a new post?

I tought it was instantly get them. Seems we are on the same line then.

1: I agree, but I would cap it out maybe? 2: I don't know what the escrow thing is, but I think its more fair to get all your bounties stacked up, and you recieve them all when you aren't blockaded anymore.

Well there are multiple things You could do wars won (which would boos raiders for example) and might make not beiging wars alluring. But i'd prefer to go for x things killed as a metric. If you killed at least 10K tanks in the last (real life) year for example you get Y bonus. Not all of them have to be timed ofcourse, but this does seem interresting. You could do a healthy mix between Wars won, Damage done.. Some of these bonusses could be based on hard stats (eg Having 5 Nuclear Powerplants destroyed in the last 2 months gives you x bonus) Some of them could be based on chance modification (eg every nuclear powerplant you destroyed gives you a higher chance to bonus for 2 months) You can really spice it up as much as you'd like, if you want to go more crazy you can also do that every battle (it can even be not linked to the result, or only modified but not hard determined by the result of the battle) has a chance to create a great officer. This officer would give significant bonusses, maybe even some unique mechanics. But would only live for a short time (because game time goes very fast) and would thus encourage people to use them wisely. I am just throwing around some ideas right now, and if I had more certainty that this would be a thing that had a significant chance of being implemented i could be more detailed with more concrete examples, but i think this explains my ideas pretty well.

If I may add. I think militarization / war succes should give bonuses. Not like you can buy them, but if you have more militairy (per city) you have a higher chance to generate officers.

It's all about the game and how you play it. All about control and if you can take it. All about your debt and if you can pay it. It's all about pain and who's gonna make it. 😉 goodluck

Thanks for the great work Alex! I get that removing them entirly is hard with how things are currently balanced but this is a nice (beginning :p). Maybe a quick suggestion though, can we have them centered / with more space inbetween? Reading from right to left is not that common in western languages 😛 ~Belgium

A friend of mine came to me, and brought up this issue that expired ads apperantly can not be deleted (as seen in the screenshot below). Now my suggestion is simply that old adds are able to be deleted from this screen. That's all folks. ~Belgium

I like in the fantasy land about not worrying too much about a game, its a nice place. Im sure Alex however has a good reason for it, because if it was perfect without any mistakes and without anyone opposing a simple code copy would do