Majima Goro

Been hearing this a lot however let me pull up some numbers here: TLE(46)+TFed(38)+SI(50)+99A(14)+TLL(23)(TLE Training AA) combined(171) do have more nations than Camelot(101). It can be argued however a majority of SI and TLL are out of spy range or have low spies due to being newer nations/inactive/being raid focused Considering this, it is safe to say the number on both sides are almost even here from a spy POV. TLE had a blitz advantage because they hit first en masse meaning they got the first spy kills. Given how spies work, if you win at the beginning, you will keep winning it for the rest of the time as well. Once spies of an alliance are zeroed, even someone a tenth their size can keep spies down of the bigger AA. The argument to be made here is that due to sheer incompetence, Camelot was unable to spy out anti-Cam coalition at the beginning when they still had more spies. Assumptions made: 1) Camelot didn't kill spies of most of TLE when they hit their upper tier 2) TLE had a wonderful opening blitz 3) General competence on part of TLE

Borg and Borg Bot are different things. Borg's bot is used by Space Invaders and 99A who are also in this war against Camelot. All I see is TLE and maybe TFed using it via them.

And he did! Which is why he wants to beef up his own securities even more.

This isn't a joke bro. I actually want to see piracy die. But not by the hands of a pixel-hugger whale like Prefonteen who hasn't played the war side of game in decades. I want to kill it myself so the pixel-hugger whales can't say they were the ones to end piracy.

New Attack Type for Ground Unit: Steal Land Each 1000 tanks used steals 10 unit of land. The land is stolen from the city with the most land in defender country and given to the least land city to aggressor. If the defender has less than 1000 land/city, then only 5 land is stolen. The attack destroys 25% less infrastructure and kills 50% less planes. You have to use at least 75% of your total maximum tank capacity to do this attack. This is the total number of tanks a nation with your city count can have with 5 factories and not the total number of tanks you currently possess. Attacker uses 1.5 times more gasoline and 1.5 times less munitions. Causality is increased by 25%. You do not need to have ground control to use this attack type. However, getting an Immense Triumph while using this attack type will not give you ground control.

The biggest pro of an alliance is possibly the existence of the feature called Alliance Bank. You can use it to store your funds safely and they wont be taken away from you when you are raided. If you have say 100m$ worth of stuff on you, losing the war would mean you lose as much as 20m worth of this stuff. However if you were keeping it all in the alliance bank, you would lose 0$*(Check Note At last) of it. This is the only pro of joining an alliance in my honest opinion. IF you have experience and have a general know-how of how the game works, you can make a one-man alliance to store your bank in and play solo. Other than this, the pro of being in an alliance is when you have no knowledge of how the game works. Most alliances are semi-competent and have a general idea of how the game works. This knowledge can be given to you by alliances. The knowledge levels vary from alliance to alliance and some alliances are known to be superior to others in different fields eg: The $yndicate are great if you want to play the econ aspect of the game while Rose are great when it comes to utilizing Spies. As for taxes, the reason alliances taxes you is to stockpile resources in preparation for wars that happen often. A war between even a very small portion of the game can result in well over 50bn in damages eg: Rose vs Knights Templar(~350 nations): Lasted around 10 days while the damages on both sides worked out to well over 70bn, The Lost Empire(and allies) vs Camelot(~300 nations): Ongoing and the damages is almost at 60bn. If you are a single nation, losses from a war might be too much to repair in say a week or two. However, an alliance working together can get the damage repaired considerably within short amounts of time. Eg: Camelot took around 80bn in damages in the last global but had enough resources and cash on hand to be able to repair everyone in around 3-5 days of the war ending. This money comes from taxes. As for grants and above mentioned rebuild funds, they are kind of like a debt-trap for nations. You see, most alliances use reserve funds to pay for rebuild and grants. Once they are done paying, they are usually depleted of funds and the money from these comes from nation taxes. If you leave, they wont get any taxes off you so they set time periods where you must stay in the alliance after receiving funds. Usually, this is a long time of atleast a month and a half. In this time, you are just a tax-farm to them and you pay off your "debts". The new meta that has recently originated is to get people to raid for money from inactive nations to pay themselves for their first 10 or 15 cities. This is generally seen as a method of training people to get familiar with war mechanics however there is a big elephant in the room no one addresses-if you are going to tax me as well as make me get my own cities, why should I pay taxes? The reason is simple: The taxes go to emergency funds/bank building for the alliance. They will be used later on to fund wars and rebuild for people. So to get to your questions: Can I play solo? Yes, definitely. You would only need some alliance which would serve as your ally and help you hide your bank(see Note at bottom). Then you can either stay in your alliance and pixel-farm(impossible since you will be an easy target) or raid for funds(most profitable course of action). You can play as you want but joining a real alliance(one that mandates discord for communication, is generally competent and has ~70-80% members who are active), you would enjoy the game way more. Tl;dr: Taxation is theft. Note: There is a feature called Alliance Bank Loot where you lose a part of your alliance bank when you lose a war. Generally it is small at around 1-2% in most alliances with a reasonable member count. However in one-man alliances, this percent can shoot as high as 40%.

Now join Roasis Inc

Not sure why you are dissing your own allies

1 spy and 60 spy both can kill the same number of tanks I think. More spies just make it harder to detect and the operation is more likely to succeed. The kill rate is determined by how many tanks you have. If you have 10k tanks, you'll lose like 1k whether I use 1 spy or 60 spies

Every alliance is a tax farm Taxation is theft.

Kick them if you don't want them to unembargo people. Unless you are a tax-farm, it shouldn't matter you kicking people.

Would you still say the same about treasures not dramatically impacting the game? Quick! Activate the secret treaties! Can't have your secret allies fight in a 2 v 1. You absolutely need the fight to be a 10v1 for it to be deemed fair!

It is overpowered because of the ways you can use it. It does kill less infra, it uses 50% more munitions and 50% less gas(overall reducing cost), you do lose more units if the opposition has some ships. But bombardment is just a punishment for raiders. I speak from a raider POV but this will also have real bad effects on alliance wars. Not all alliances have the resources to rebuild on day 1 of peace. They might depend on the profits from commerce and resource buildings left over in the previous war to gain some money before they start rebuilding as well. With bombardment, this is basically a dead thing. Plus, even during wars, if the alliance keeps making some resources, the losing party can drag a war to get fairer terms. Now the winning side will just bombard them for ~10 days and poof all their resources are gone. Many would say this is extremely unlikely to happen but the chances are never zero. This has happened earlier and such an update just makes it even easier to be done.

Contrary to popular beliefs, pirates dont always hit inactive nations or nations with low ships. If you are doing a calculation, lets assume the worst case scenario of 8 wars with max ship people. At 7 bombardments per war, it is 56 bombardments total 56 bombardments at <1k infra will take away about 112 improvements. Assume the person is a c10 and had 2k infra which with 5553+1 translates to 19 improvements that can't be destroyed and 21 that can be destroyed per city. This gives us 210 improvements that can be destroyed in bombardment. From the calculations above, in just 1 round, the person lost 112 improvements and only now is their infrastructure down to sub 1000. Since the infrastructure is down to sub 1000, they will be forced to buy upto 1000 infra again without civil improvements to boost population. But lets take the scenario they dont. Now bombardment would kill only 56 improvements per round. To lose the remaining ~100 improvements, it would take 2 rounds more. Assuming each round last for 3 days, that's around 9 days to lose out all civil and resource and commerce improvements. Now normal low ship attacks can kill military improvements if the counters/targets go tactician and the pirate is obviously pirate policy.

Police Stations are a non-power, non-military improvement that is absolutely essential to get the population needed to keep recruiting max soldiers and substantially increase ship buys. Hospitals is another such improvement however they have way less impact. If these two improvements keep getting killed each time someone bombards my cities, I have three options: Build them back(buy infra), Buy more infra to offset the population lost(buy infra) or Just do with a less buy which could get your c20 the same buys as a c15. Builds for top 10 of these are(in order per city(unless specified)): 1) 2 nuke plants, 3 uranium mines, 20 farms, 5552, 1 police station. 2) 1 nuke plant, 1 police station, 1 hospital, 5553 3) 2 nuke plants, 20 farms, 12 aluminum refineries(in total), 1 police, 1 hospital, 1 subway, 5552, 0541 commerce 4) 2 nuke plants, 10 baux mines, 5 aluminum refineries, 1 police, 3 hospitals, 3 recycle. 5002 5) (Retired) 6) 1 nuke plant, 1101 civil, 5553 7) 2 nukes, 10 oil, 5 ura, 8 iron, 7 farms, 5 oil, 5002. 8 ) 1 nuke, 1 police, 1 hospital, 3 shopping malls, 2 stadiums, 5553 9) 1 nuke, 1 police, 3 stadiums, 5553 10) (I missed someone but I dont want to recheck it) What it shows? Half the top pirates in the game currently have passive income. Some even have commerce to possibly offset negative income probably. Mostly everyone has police stations as well. Also please do not forget that while bombardment kills non-power, non-military targets, normal ship attacks will still kill military improvements. The best strategy with ships then would be as an improvement killer way cheaper than nukes. First bombard to kill their normal improvements, switch to tactician and do 1 ships to kill their military improvements with a high chance.

Have you heard of this wonderful improvement called Police Station? Or better still, have you heard of pirates having passive income for when they aren't raiding/trying to spend time in beige? And then we realize how simple it is to fix treasure trading by just making treasure transfers via declaring war on someone legal again.

you move them out, use them and then yes, they die. and no, it isn't a 2 day stretch. You can keep building spies in reserve and have 60 spies in reserve, take them out and do 4 ops before they die. the enemy can do that as well. Not at all The player can manually remove the embargo on another alliance by their alliance. This actually makes embargoes more interesting.

Say you are fighting someone of equal size in numbers(lol) Now they attacked first and took all your spies out. Given spies take 3 weeks to max out for the average poor person who only can afford an IA, it is impossible to reach past 6 spies. The other side keeps spy-wiping everyone every third or fourth day and your side never has a chance to gain back spies at all. What the reserve system does it that any spies you buy get sent into a sleeping force that cannot be assassinated at all. You can keep building spies in the reserve section and then when your coalition is ready, have them come out of the reserve and launch a spy attack on the other coalition to take their spies out, turning the spy war in your favour(till the opposition does the same things as you did) Tl;Dr: This is like beige for spies.

Also, can I once again voice my absolute opposition to bombardment?

There should a time limit on how long spies can be in Reserve Status say around 10 days. Gives people: 1) Without IA a safe-spy cap of 20. 2) With IA a safe-spy cap of 30 3) With IA+that other new project a safe spy-cap of 40 This would mean spies can still be killed without people maxing them all the time while at the same time giving you something to fight the spy war with. With the way spies work, 20 spies can still kind of kill enemy spies if you coordinate hard enough while at the same time can be zeroed out extremely fast. There can also be a hard cap on how many spies can be in Reserve Status to say 50% capacity for that nation or any pre-defined numbers like 40-45.

Can we know how many votes were cast for each?

Correct, there were two fronts - One where the war was under control and the second was where it wasn't. There was a shifting front in the middle which was the contested front. Only tier that neo-IQ had less members in was possibly the c40+ tier. C30-C40 had almost same number on both sides. C30 and below, neo-IQ effectively always had a 3 v 1 advantage at the least. What are you talking about? No one, not even the biggest whale is totally self-sufficient. Game mechanics blocks self-sufficiency. And beige cycling is never about not letting people get resources as it is always having someone on a nation to stop them from building military. I'd personally not want anyone to blockade someone while having them beige-cycled just so they can keep importing resources from the bank to be looted by the people cycling. Only time I'd want to blockade someone is when they have too much loot on them and we are cycling him. You understand "beiging" is what you are not supposed to do in a war right? Well guess what, your coalition actually did blanket beige people below c25 and lost the war in c20 tiers with a 3v1 advantage. And no, anything above c25 didn't need to overextend solely because you still outnumbered the enemy in the c25-c30 region and had almost similar numbers above that. About having more wars, this is because Immortals, Fighting Pacifists are lower tier alliances who enjoyed massively big advantages in their tier and were able to slot up people in that tier all the time and keep them slotted with orders like "Find people in range and declare". You didn't need to have proper coordination at all to do that. For the c20+ space, you did again enjoy advantages but the problem here is the people there were zeroed out and being well cycled/suppressed. The tiers where no coordination was needed was won, the tier where coordination was extremely needed was unfought, uncontested and unclaimed with no effort to change that anytime. Also I'd just like to say that winning wars isn't the goal of alliance wars-it's suppressing the enemy's military. What did I infer from your rant? 1) You have no war experience at all and this might have been your first war. 2) Seeing as you are supposedly milcom, you have no idea how to micromanage. Maybe fight in a "war" which isn't a dogpile for once so you can understand how literal shit the strategy you explained here was.

Tl;dr for anyone not wanting to read a WoT Reasons why neo-IQ sucked: 1) Communication breakdown 2) Trash Milcom and members 3) Giving up and not knowing what to do Reasons why neo-EMC sucked: 1) Grumpy GoB Pixel-Huggers(the usual reason)

ya know i once made a database using the cities api turns out it sends out the entire data as fricking strings....

Link No