Dryad

my perfect clock, its just the best.

I just had a thought on this. Given two strong spheres A and B as well as an extremely weak sphere C, how would A approach an attack on B? With this proposed mechanic there is a really funny idea of A first hitting and completely stomping C to farm wins and then using the unit production buff to blitz B 2 days after the blitz on C.

I honestly really like this. This one I would like to be changed to something like this: "If a nation leaves beige early while having more than 12 turns of beige, their units are 10% less effective in offensive wars for 12 turns." I think that would make guerilla warfare more fun, while not providing much of a timeframe for a whole coalition to organize a blitz without most people getting the debuff.

I have only ever used baseball for nuking or unit buying purposes under blockade, but with the addition of rewarded ads there has been no need to play baseball anymore. I'd honestly just remove baseball entirely, both baseball and rewarded ads are an utter waste of time, but the latter at least does something for the game while also being less prone to botting. If people really wanna waste more time on this kind of activity i'd just compensate the removal of baseball with a cap increase for money that can be earned with ads.

berserk theme

@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein@Vein lmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmaolmao

You make a lot of good points and I especially agree that damage to improvements should scale with city count. I think a similar argument can be made for infra damage dealt: that perhaps attacks should damage the infra of more than one city at higher city count, but I guess that's a different discussion. Why do you think increased improvement-loss is a change the game needs? I definitely agree that the current state is silly, certainly not logical that a burnt down city would function normally. However, I actually like it the way it is. You wrote that "players will intentionally keep their infra damaged after a war, so their score remains low", but that's very much not the meta atm. Right now wars end and everyone rebuilds. I would love to see more cases of people choosing not to rebuild after wars and instead use the opportunity for instance to go raid. I also think that increased improvement-loss would make getting rolled much more devastating, which imo isn't something the game needs. So I'd argue this is an aspect of the game mechanics that, albeit silly, is actually good for the game. Then some of your numbers are funny. A nuke does around 1800 infra damage usually which would be 51 destroyed improvements with your proposed 1 improvement destroyed for every 35 infra damage dealt. That's close to just a full removal of all improvements in the attacked city and I would say that might be a bit much given there is no defense against nukes and missiles other than praying that VDS / Iron Dome block the shots. That being said, I'm actually not opposed to making loser weapons overpowered.

I mean, sounds like something that with some tweaks could perhaps be an interesting addition to the current system? It's not a full substitute in any case. Cause like I said: what is someone that is outnumbered 10:1 going to do? Rebuilding their military isn't going to do them any good since they will just get rolled again with no chance of fighting back, so they simply won't use your system and then you have effectively just removed the current beige system in this scenario.

@hidude45454 Join dev-team pls. @Justinian the Great You have to burn this concept of trapping people on beige. Your solution must work for any imaginable scenario that a loser can be in. Sometimes the two sides in wars are fairly even, other times one side is outnumbered 10:1 by the other and rebuilding military isn't even an option on the table. When it isn't an option people will need to fire missiles/nukes and do raiding type stuff with soldiers only; you cant make this impossible by trapping people on beige for a week, especially not with all this punitive stuff I see in @Lord Tyrions post, "where the nation can't do ANYTHING" while trapped on beige. rofl

I agree with all of the arguments above. Now as for this part: first of all you misquoted me. What I said was that Grumpy is "way more warmongerish than Eclipse" and that's not because Grumpy are warmongers, but because Eclipse prior to this war had been doing absolutely nothing in 10 months warring-wise. "Pixelhugging" was a big reason KT hit Eclipse although it was actually less important than other factors such as your complacency with staying in tS's shadow and just not caring about things like autonomy. Not gonna rehash Horsecocks DoW, but either way you deserved it. Now as for Grumpy: dogpiling is their sin (and they are pixelhuggers too but not nearly as bad as Eclipse was). This is something they not only deserve the karma for of getting rolled in the same fashion but SHOULD get rolled for. However this does not apply to Grumpy alone, the blame is shared among all those who participated in those dogpiles. When Horsecock decided KT needs to get out of Hedge it was actually Cotl who we mainly blamed for the dogpiling stuff for the FA work they did. What I never understood with you, Pascal, is why you are making Grumpy out to be THE big bad evil in this game. Let me get this straight: every alliance should aim to become as powerful as they possibly can (the same doesn't apply to spheres). It is ridiculous to blame Grumpy for having all those whales, being a successful alliance and actually insult them because of this like you did in your post. Likewise it is completely reasonable for them to want short wars in which they don't take much damage, though don't take this as an argument for dogpiling. It is up to the rest of the game to do something about them. So feel free to treat Grumpy as the entity that most urgently needs to be addressed for the sake of game balance, poach all whales away from Grumpy and roll Grumpy into the dirt. Huge respect to Theo for making tC and attempting the former, and thank you very much for doing the latter right now. However, all of this can be done without actually developing a personal hatred towards them just over them having lots of whales (dislike them for dogpiling, I don't care). Anyway, I hope this will be all from me in this thread, I got mentioned so I felt like doing one post kek. Y'all have fun debating and enjoy the war.

^ Here you have mentioned a calibration script that calculates how many MAPs a war should have. My exact theory was that this calibration script misses it when people have sat on their 12 MAPs and incorrectly adds them back. I'm fairly certain that the bug can only occur to wars in which a player has wasted their MAPs as I have never seen it occur otherwise. If this is the case then the number of MAPs never actually surpasses 12 but the effect is the same.

tfw the game has been plagued so hard by NAPs recently that newer players think you can only have peace with a NAP

Why is the cost $1? edit: oh you have urban planning, interesting.

I am hacker

The formation of KECC at the beginning of this year was like a little dream come true for me. As a raider I had always been kinda fighting everybody and I did so just for myself not for anybody else, so I never developed some kind of allegiance to any of the spheres in this game. Even when I was fighting for KT against TCW in GW15, I didn't really care who would win. I mean sure I was fighting for KT, but I didnt TRULY care about the victory of hedge, they were just kinda the people we happened to join when we stopped raiding and looked for a place to go. My feelings towards KECC were entirely different. I knew the core of Eclipse from back when we played together in Mythic and I had kept touch with them ever since. Meanwhile Vein, who I consider my greatest friend in this game, joined The Company led by none other than Theodosius who I knew has a long history with Horsecock. I truly thought that KECC was a perfect match and I was determined to fully dedicate myself towards it. I imagined it to become OUR VERY OWN small but strong little bloc, the place where we belong and truly feel free. But a dream it would stay. You should know what KT stands for. First and foremost it is our insatiable thirst for war. That is what KT is and what you should expect from it. However, minds are rigged to only conceive the things we deem possible and when KT shatters all expectations and does the impossible during "no-raids"-season, perhaps that's when the pixelhugger mind is caught by surprise and starts to wonder "wut, is KT going to get KECC rolled?". And so the quacking voices became toned with anxiety as they realised this didn't quite go as they imagined. Words were said, quacks were quacked and it became clear our ways were entirely irreconcilable. And thus KT once again shreds all of its paper, returning to what has proven to be the freest way of burning pixels in this game.

RAID GOOD, FARM BAD

Well, I'm sure no player on any losing side ever will appreciate your concern for them as long as your solution to free them from suffering is to make the losing war a more devastating experience, leaving them no choice but to surrender more quickly in utter annihilation. I really shouldn't speak for them but if you talk to anyone who was on the side fighting NPO in GW14 and participated in that war from the beginning, they will tell you that it was the most devastating experience they have had with the game, yet they never surrendered until the very end. My point is: not only is the proposal to make wars more one sided garbage for obvious reasons, but it would probably not even cause shorter wars either, because people don't just surrender whenever they are losing. Instead you can push ideas that will make a winning side wanna end a war more quickly and have them potentially demand less ridiculous terms to push a fast surrender. Having them eat a lot of missiles sounds like something that would contribute towards that. I do however agree that it would be cool if the side getting dogpiled had more ways of using conventional military, because only firing missiles and nukes is as a matter of fact not very interesting.

I see absolutely no issue with missiles doing guaranteed resistance damage. Anything that makes it harder to sit on people is a positive in my book, just fantastic if people have to beige their opponents in order to not get beiged by missiles themselfes.

imagine paying people to burn blackbirds infra when u can just manipulate him into selling his infra instead, worked for me.

Player of the Year: Theodosius Most Influential Player: Keegoz Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Ducc Zucc Best Alliance Leader: Denison Worst Alliance Leader: Vein Best Government Member (not a leader): Yang Best General Member: Hari Most Missed Player: Horsecock Best IC Poster: Partisan Poster You Most Love to Hate: Deulos Best Villain: SRD Largest E-Peen: DtC Justice Best Fighter: Horsecock Best Raider: 🙂 Most Controversial Player: Lord Tyrion Best Nation Theme: Hughes Best Nation Page Design: Blackbird

Soldiers killing 1k tanks in a suicide attack isn't even an issue though. 1k tanks cost 500 steel which at a price of like 4k ppu per steel equals a cost of $2m. With 3 ground battles that would be a damage of $6m, but instead of doing that you could also fire a missile and probably deal more damage. That's also like the only thing soldiers even do against someone with max ground, if they didn't deal some damage somewhere then the losing side wouldn't even need to have them. Something that's not accounted for in damage stats of a war is revenue. In this last war you had quacks infra getting shaved pretty quickly while their opponents still had a lot of infra left at the end of it, hell we even had like Tyrion rebuilding to 3k infra per city mid-war. When some people on the winning side are still making $50m every day then I think it's pretty fair that the losers are given some kind of way to deal damage to at least balance that out and I don't think the soldier suicides are a problem. Also, that's making it sound like losers are typically doing better on the war part which is not even the case, beige discipline was thrown out of the window last war because it wasn't needed and a common sight was the losing side getting raided and their opponents enjoying that. In the end quack didn't surrender because they felt spamming soldiers was winning them the war, they surrendered because they felt that was not the case, and I think just that alone makes it seem pretty silly to criticize the few things that gave them any way at all of putting up a fight.