KingGhost

How does declaring new Offensives while having beige accrued work. Im assuming all stored beige will be thrown out?

Many people have already commented about how no1 wants this, but. If you are looking to change city scores please wait till at least we see the military changes in 1 war to determine if the up/down dec ranges even need to be changed with how new combat works AND if you change city scores you need to change some military scores too and up them a little bit because changing just this just means the same problems we had before with this exact change will happen. Not that this should even be changed imo, but if it must be done at least do it right.

If there was plans worked out and agreed upon on a bloc level T$ would have been in the blitz. The fact that T$ isn’t in the blitz means that T$ obviously said no. Cata is not stupid enough to initiate a blitz under the impression that T$ would join without confirming with T$. Cata initiated the blitz knowing T$ Wasn’t joining. The very basis of planning a blitz contradicts your claim because why tf would you ever, in CATA’s shoes, not coordinate (if it was agreed upon) with T$ on targets especially in high tier, just not how bloc warfare planning works.

I don’t really follow FA anymore so correct me if I’m wrong. Cata’s plan was to No CB help TKR in order to get a back room agreement to fight Ouro with TKR after Midgard so they already had troops/burned infra? At the same time pray that Wayward didn’t get countered by another bloc (which would happen) since we would’ve literally no CBed to help TKR. All to get a favor to try to hit 1 of 2(?) blocs not in the war right after (who would probably join the war before we would even be ready to take them on top of Midgard.) This just seems to me like a stupid MA move and FA move (Setting the t$ and tkr sekret treaty bs again) And rn T$ is being blamed for not taking offensive action? Even though an alliance should be a partnership and it seemed that T$ didn’t want to while Cata did, surely T$ isn’t expected to be forced into a no CB war when Cata was already told no to the plan. (Defending Cata from eclipse is basically joining the No CB war/ Attempting to sanction it) Surely a bloc isn’t made so that when there’s a discussion for war, one alliance makes a plan, gets told no, does it anyways, everyone else has to follow suit or be called a “bad ally” EDIT: The only way I could see this working would be Wayward No CB Midgard, Ouros attacks Wayward , and HOGG No CBS Ouros and it’s a moshpit where wayward arguably comes out looking bad since we started this No CB chain and it’s just a bad taste since it looks like 3 blocs secret treatied to roll the opposite blocs

“I'm assuming by the rest of your statement that you had max mil” Since I literally flat out typed it I think I understood. As for your claim that people were vming out of boredom etc. all I have to say to that is literally get good. Also isn’t it a bit contradictory that your next statement is that 100 score cities were the problem but you still know people that are “quitting out of boredom” when we currently have 75 score cities? I think 75 is too low and 100 is too high so 80-90 can be a good testing point. This is anecdotal but I was basically inactive for like, the first 18 days of the war and still did like 3b~ dmg and 1b net so I know it’s complete BS that people can’t do anything, yes the update time sucked for that war but that shouldn’t be in the discussion as balancing the game off lag shouldn’t be a thing. Yes it does affect gameplay and that sucks but that’s more of an Alex plz get better servers than a discussion meant for mechanical changes. My suggestion weighing score more heavily towards a nations actual military buy power since infra really doesn’t represent that while not being as overbearing as 100 city score. This should help with down deccing since I do believe we can reach to far currently as well as help losers guerilla nuke better reaching the high infra targets since normally they sit at 9k+ NS and I can never reach them when I guerilla

Yeah and losing 1.5b in infra literally takes 1-2 rounds in tiers where there is real fighting. There's no "Sacrifice" When I was fighting I literally didnt think "Oh crap I will have to lose infra to declare on this nation, well time to decom infra so i can hit them". If you are fighting a "war" and somehow your infra isn't falling below 1000. I don't really think you are fighting. I am only 8 cities behind you and I remember clearly hitting 2.6k NS targets. I don't think we have 3.4k NS difference in down dec. Anyways my point still stands. I lost infra naturally through the nature of wars, you keep bringing it up, it doesn't matter how much it really costs to me in the middle of a war since regardless of whether or not i want it IT WILL BE LOST. How much infra costs in down deccing should literally be a non factor in looking at war changes because if you care about losing infra/income in the middle of war you are focused on the wrong things as well as the fact that by the time you are thinking about down deccing your infra should be gone. If your infra is not gone by then, paying a decom tax should be fine since it is likely a dogpile war anyways. I'm assuming by the rest of your statement that you had max mil, of course you will have to decom to downdec that I think we can agree is perfectly reasonable that you should not be able to downdec really far without decoming mil. Projects idk, I don't have enough useless projects to even consider that option. Imo instead of making this change tighten up the city scores to 80-90 (instead of 100 or 75). Make Infra weigh less (That way the losing side can still declare on similar city levels they can't reach cause they have literally 3000+ infra) and then make ship/plane scores less (That way 0 plane cities are not rewarded for running only soldiers tanks, but maxed 5553 nations can be reached easier in whale/high tier)

You manipulating it to sound like the c40 has to sell infra. Literally last war I was a c37 that started with 2800 infra. I naturally lost infra down to below 600 easily and declared war on a c21 that wasn't even militarized and won that war. " sacrifice billions of dollars in infra and income to be able to reach? " You are making it sound like the c40 is decomming infra on purpose instead of just losing it naturally through fighting the war. Maybe that's the case if you have infra to sell if it is a dogpile and at that point if you sell infra to hit c20s you are just stupid. Not much of a sacrifice when its literally you doing what you are suppose to be doing in a war. Not that I agree with this shit bandaid change, but your reasoning for not having it felt too bs for me.

I would argue for 6 days of beige time as the cap instead of 5. otherwise, declaring offensives after your alliance gets blitzed is JUST strictly bad. Your alliance is already at a blitz disadvantage might as well AFK take the 3 defensive losses then blitz back round 2. Declaring offensives and getting sat on by your offensive wars is the only way to “beige cycled” with this system. And it’ll create a cycle where the optimal way both sides to play is to literally eat the blitz each time and just wait for next round. And if you somehow you are able to get away with declaring offensives with this new system then it doesn’t matter because it must mean you outnumber/tier/etc the enemy hard enough where you can literally suffer the blitz disadvantage and just stat check your way through the war new system or old. With 6 days, even if your offensives sit on you, you should at least get 4 days of rebuys. I.e. defensives beige as fast as possible (2days), your offensives should have to beige within 3-5 days. Let’s say 5. Worst case. Still gives you 4 or 5 days to rebuild (depends on when the wars were declared. Also assuming you only declared 2 offensives. Also depends on if they eat the expiration beige or beige you.) EDIT: Grammar.

If this goes through please add the change where spies get 1 turn immunities similar to missiles. That way we don’t get the same situation with spies where missiles being instantly spied before they had their 1 turn immunity.

apology accepted @Etat

What? Is that a reply to me? if so did you even read what I posted. Why are you going off about political moves when my post was geared towards military strength levels for the tripolarity. The only thing I compared ro$e and tkr with in my post was there c30+ numbers and now I am being met with does condescending talk of how TKR is the virtue of righteousness of which multiple of the points are just false. I can immediately think of DDR which would prove at least two of your points false and I do not involve myself in FA shenanigans but even I know pretty much every alliance has their own dirty past. So uh, tone down the ego because almost every major old alliance has completed the checklist for everything you listed, Jesus, rereading your post, it’s probably NSFW with how much you’re sucking your own alliance off. Then ending off a line of the equivalent of saying “no offense [insert something offensive]”

Why are people so mad about this lmao. i have not seen the numbers on papers this balanced in a tri/quad polarity in a long time. IMO Clock should just eat some of the other alliances that aren’t in a major sphere yet, a lil bit of Farkistan and Carthago etc, get meat on their bones. (Actually though, Clock was already not on par with HW 1 on 1 so a “Tripolarity” is already hard to achieve if they don’t expand since HW and R$ is fairly balanced on paper even c30+ with h2h in c30+ region HW having 47% (With a higher weight in tiering as they have a high c40 region) and R$ having 53% of c30+ when compared head to head. thats 117 r$ vs 103 HW c30+. Everything below c30+ is honestly really balanced perfectly for all 3 spheres. A pretty perfect Tripolarity in terms of strength is on the horizon but it is much easier for clock to raise its strength a little bit more than for a quadpolarity to come about, especially since it’s not reasonable for HW to lower their strength to clocks in the c35+ Tier unless they start actually kicking members out of the main respective sphere alliances. There’s also not enough people in the game for Clock to upsize to HW in the c35+ tier and for two more spheres to come. Also wtf does this even mean. In a absolutely perfect Tripolarity with all nations participating in each sphere would hold roughly 33% of the power in each tier, two spheres holding 65-70% falls in that range, not to mention you can’t expect it to be a perfect 66.6% power distribution when you combine two spheres, 65-70% is pretty damn close. Of course this circles back to Clock being the problem for simply being too small as I said, also, the two spheres actually have more around 50-55% of the total c30s+, it’s up to clock to gather up like 25% of the total c30-40 and you will be on par and it will be the easiest way and closest Orbis will get to achieving a tripolarity.

This trend will actually continue endlessly because as the top players get towards all being c40, then this suggestion will be brought again. The solution should be to create another end game form of progression rather than just building more cities. it’s perfectly fine for city growth to stagnant in the c30-40 range. Otherwise, in a year or two, we will all be c40-50 and asking for another city discount because our only form of progression is bigger city number and the cost becomes unviable to purchase without more discounts. Are we eventually just going to have cities be 50% off or more above x city level from all the stacking discounts? At that point just make cities above x city cheaper than they are now and spend time making projects which actually add some content. Also I please don’t base the decision off the poll as it is trivial for this suggestion, is the goal to make the game more balanced or see what the people want? You could make a poll asking if every player wants a free city and the majority will vote yes. tldr: City discounts are a bandaid on a bleeding wound that is, we have no other end game progression besides bigger city number.

BRAVE WARRIORS CHARGE

First

This struck me as weird since you basically should already wait till the enemy is 30% or less planes than you with the current formula to not take a bunch of plane damage on bombing runs. We've had multiple nerfs to the efficiency of airstriking tanks already as well with them costing also half as much as before. It seems like this feels unnecessary and may cause players to need an extra AS to keep their Air healthy. This means 1 less airstrike for ground. Meaning wars will progress to feeling like a slog fest if the fight is even with people just not being able to kill enough units. Currently I feel like defending planes are fairly strong on bombing runs as they can often deal equal damage to enemy planes who have even half as many planes they do (Go look at for example 2000 planes vs 1000 planes bombing run sims.) Seems like an unnecessary change.

Ahahahaha Sorry, did you just somehow imply that t$ milcom is somehow worse than TI milcom. Though, I’m not sure how that really makes sense since both hidude and babai have said the same things as I have and aren’t from some obviously bad alliance like t$! On top of it all, considering our head of milcom has not “spent their entire existence” inside of t$ I’m sure he could handle something as basic as up declaring. That being said, Milcom who come from t$ can as well. Oh and if you are going to compare alliances. P.s it’s rich having an alliance widely regarded as incompetent talk to an alliance who has been regarded as competent on how to be competent

Yeah, I've determined that its actually impossible for you to learn how to milcom and I'm wasting my time trying to correct you so that TI Members stop getting screwed. Keep doing what you are doing and ignore everyone else ig. Honestly, its against my self interest to even help you so I won't anymore. Gonna Quote hidude here

You seem to not understand that basing your reason for not cycling to be because it will " increase the time it takes for their income can no longer support them . " is incredibly stupid since that income will matter very little for whether they will sustain the war since any decent alliance will make them build a WC and their daily income is inconsequential compared to making sure they don't have any breathing room to recover mil. Rofl. I see now. You somehow believe "Neutering a player" is making them run out of resources. Yeah yikes, It refers to literally making a player stay at 0 Mil as any attempts to make anything meaningful should be airstriked down by his defensives. This line of thinking is why your coalition line slowly got pushed down btw. Like its actually a horrible milcom take since you are somehow assuming that after days of beige letting the enemies get max mil again, somehow, players in your coalition will predict when the enemies come out of beige for a blitz and instantly catch them. By the time you catch them coming out of beige with a coordinated squad for blitzing, their blitz is done, they've done their dogfights and have probably free'd up multilple players' defensive wars so they can help their coalition mates as well. (T$ Literally did this type of fighting during Gw16 when we were given days of beige time to do damage, and it works wow! Its like its almost as if stacking beiges is bad) 1. If you don't cycle like you were saying, this would happen as as a whole your coalition would not nearly have enough targets, if you guys even have a decent amount of extra targets like that you would either be losing extremely hard so cycling would never be an action taken, or you are literally fighting against afk players. 2. This was for conceptual purposes so you could understand why not beige cycling is bad. In a real scenario, if you have enough leeway to be missing buys due to max mil, yes you would be declaring on other nations. You can also declare on other nations without beiging your original offensives. - So my point still stands where you are overall denying their buys, the moment they double buy aircraft, You dogfight, you keep him down and useless. I made the original scenario simple so you could understand the concept I was putting through, but well. 3. You are milcom, your whole job is to press buttons for other players basically.

Dude what. Sorry, this reasoning is just so bad. You even acknowledge that no one actually really uses daily income to support themselves in a war in the same post because they would just get resources from the bank if they were to be beiged, since you know, that’s literally the whole point of a war chest so there’s 0 reason that you have given for just blanket beiging. the whole point of cycling is to neuter the enemy, while they are cycled their buys aren’t effective meaning every day they are being cycled you are gaining one or half a buy on them till you are full, then you keep going to make sure they don’t recover. You give them excessive beige time not only do they get time to be get to 100% strength you also allow them to get a blitz adv when leaving beige. You also are making less use of buys in total (i.e. you (and friends) are at 90% planes, you give someone 6 days of beige, after a day you are at 100% and the enemies don’t get out for 5 days till they are 100% planes. You’ve effectively missed 5 buys, given the enemy blitz advantage. For what? Lowering their income??) Also @hidude45454 quacks odds were worse, Quack didn’t have a major alliance be barely militarized. Also Rose countered within the same update which was huge. HM alone rivaled Quacks whale tier. HW obviously was able to go through Rose like paper mache and had an advantage in the whale tier. Also the counter blitz was very lack luster from Oasis. if Rose didn’t immediately counter I could maybe see an argument that the odds were close but HM recovered from the blitz fairly easily because of it.

I’d suggest increasing turn timers then. War mechanics are like, actually some of the only mechanics that matter. For something like this I believe that a majority of the player base would agree that waiting 1 extra minute would not matter if it comes down to making rebuys fair. I checked 3/26 - 5/01 it pretty consistently was resetting at 12:01 with 1 or 2 outliers. We are now getting 12:02 and 12:03 pretty consistently. you don’t even need to increase all turn timers. Only day change turn timers for this change.

Increase Naval to Naval Casualties currently even if you have 2x the ships in a naval battle the pros and cons compared to an Airstrike ships are Pros: -You kill more infra than an Airstrike infra. - 2 more resistance damage (This can be a con depending on your goals). Cons: -Still kill less ships than an Airstrike -Uses 2x the amount of resources -Lose ships from defender killing -Doesn’t kill planes on top of ships Imo ship casualties should be upped to be equal or near equal to Airstrike amount. Can’t really justify a 2x cost when NB is the worst superiority and killing infra is pointless in an actual fight. Increasing casualties wouldn’t cause navals to even come close to replacing planes when it comes to killing ships but at least it would make the numbers reasonable whenever you are using them.

I mean this is pretty misleading. You’re saying a “grand total of 12 nations” to make it seem insignificant but what really matters is the ratio. Sure 100 to 112 doesn’t matter. 29 to 17? Not to mention “35+” doesn’t give context for the fact that grumpyguard + other Hollywood* has basically 20~ C35+s which are near, at or above c40 while Rose’s C35+ are relatively closer to c35 than c40 29 to 17 is a 1.7 to 1 ratio which when translated into daily plane rebuy and having blitz adv is huge too, with scores too the c35+ will translate down to c31-34 tiers as well, I would definitely not call your odds vs Rose initially a “slight advantage” it’s a pretty decent one tiering wise on paper. in the actual setting with Rose not being max milled and getting blitzed even with Oasis joining in you guys should be able to hold upper tier, especially since the consensus on Oasis’ milcom isn’t the best. You guys have the blitz, tempo on buys and numbers to hold down top tier and cascade the advantage down in high tier at least. This is of course provided that you guys literally just cycle them correctly.