Majima Goro

Guys um we need a new hegemony.

You need to have coal or oil in your nation to power your cities. This means if you have 0 oil you wont be powered, even if you are making more oil than you are using, since the oil that is needed to power the city is needed now but the oil you are making will be produced next turn. Hopefully this makes sense.

I had used 3 ships vs 1 ship So this comes out to 3*0.4=1.2 vs 1*1=1 in the worst case scenario for me Result was still a moderate success.

Interesting idea there. But with a fixed cap on military and your opponent having a maxed 5553 build, it still would mean min-maxing wont work the way you intend it to. Plus, this has an obvious downside in the way you can go 18/0/0/0 to max out soldiers in first buy, then go 5/0/0/13 to get a lot of ships in the second buy, essentially letting you buy a lot of military, much like a double buy

War Battle Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=933193 War Attack ID: 10610698 Attack Type: Naval Success Type: Moderate Success According to the war mechanics, any attack done by a force 2.5 times larger than a defending force will ALWAYS result in an Immense Triumph(IT). However, recently, possibly after the new mechanics got pushed live, this hasn't been the case, with armies 2.5 times larger getting Moderate Success(MS) or Pyrrhic Victory(PV) at times. For the given war linked above, I used 5 ships to hit the person with 2 ship(2.5x army value vs opponent)(Victory type=IT), followed by two naval hits with 3 ships on 1(3x army value vs opponent). The first of the 3 ship hit resulted in Victory type=IT while the second one resulted in a moderate success. I had enough munitions and gas to run the 3 ships(look below for the API data for that war-attack). Hence, I should have gotten an Immense Triumph. But that was not the case. And this isn't a one-time thing as well. I've seen this happen multiple times with people trying to use the minimum troops or just above minimum troops required to get ITs against opponents. And this isn't only for ships. This has happened for ground units as well. I'd like @Alex to look into this and if it isn't a mechanics issue, tell us if the numbers to get a guaranteed IT has been twerked around. JSON from the war-attacks api for the above attack: { "war_attack_id":"10610698", "date":"2021-05-16 06:02:18", "war_id":"933193", "attacker_nation_id":"262298", "defender_nation_id":"270929", "attack_type":"naval", "victor":"262298", "success":"2", "attcas1":"0", "attcas2":"0", "defcas1":"0", "defcas2":"0", "city_id":"540187", "infra_destroyed":"0.93", "improvements_destroyed":"0", "money_looted":"0.00", "note":"11", "city_infra_before":"1185.00", "infra_destroyed_value":"7701.52", "att_gas_used":"6.00", "att_mun_used":"9.00", "def_gas_used":"1.80", "def_mun_used":"2.70", "aircraft_killed_by_tanks":0 } PS: How do I show things as spoilers

Johnathon can invade my space anytime 😏

Hey when this GW ends, can we have a post saying "Its all Ogre now" for peace thing.

Please tell me WHO!

Im once again asking WHO?

Might be rude but who?

99 per attack Take it or leave it

It has come to my notice Rose might be my mom.

You expect too much from brainded sphere, kind sir

Tfw sphinx makes it to another leak GG @Sphinx

The biggest reason the game is going stagnant is the tier-locking introduced by cities contributing a very large amount of score compared to military units. What this does is lock people with similar city counts into each others range regardless of whether one of them has maxed out military or zero military. What this does is effectively let everyone stay at maxed out or near maxed out military without having to worry about down-declares as much. Or in other words encourage maxing out everything as the way to "win" the game and tier everyone to a certain city count while hoarding numbers to maintain control in that tier. Extremely low causality rates is also an extremely big factor since it takes ages to kill off someone else's military. However the downside to increasing causality would be that you can zero someone out with minimum usage of MAPs and letting people sit on others with extreme ease. It is an extremely tough situation which would need reworking the usage of MAPs for attacks, Resistance lost per attack as well as making casualty rates higher. Decreasing costs isn't the answer here. Especially since lower cost to fight would mean longer, more dragged out wars. Even with current costs, some of the old alliances can drag wars out indefinitely. You can argue that lower costs will benefit smaller alliances however the obvious downside to it is the tier-locking by virtue of which no matter how much a smaller alliance struggles, it is bound to fail to a larger alliance. As for reducing infra costs, nope, that is actually not going to work. Pixel-huggers would pixel-hug no matter how low their pixels cost. Similarly, land being capped is another crap idea since people with the most land are usually pirates or ex-pirates. Plus high infra already has its disadvantages like higher crime rates. Here is an alternate method I suggest: 1) Redoing score so that military gives more score than cities. The higher your Military, the more your score. This encourages people to be smart and keep lower, more strategic militaries. Cities should be kept as the secondary option for score. So I'm talking about cities giving around 50 score while max military gives around 150 score. 2) Heavily increasing causality rates especially for tanks, planes and ships. The rate at which tanks are killed in both ground battles and airstrikes should be doubled. Planes killed in air strikes need to be increased as well even when the target isn't planes. Ship vs Ship should have their causality rates at least doubled. 3) Resistance lost from ground battles should be upped to 15, for airstrikes to 18 and naval battles to 20. Missiles can be upped to 24 and nukes to 30. This with the higher kill rates would make it difficult to sit on the target but won't prevent zeroing out. 4) All wars to expire in beige for person with lower resistance. Beige earned from expiry will not result in loot and infrastructure destruction but would give 25 turns of beige like normal defeats. Basically what I'm trying to do here is break locked tiers for people with zero military so people with loads of military and similar city counts won't be able to declare, making going to wars with alliances having great teiring more feasible. Zeroing people in wars would be possible and probably faster however sitting on them will be extremely difficult. These two would make going to war against bigger sides possible(meaning a 2 on 1 or a 3 on 1 might be more winnable for the smaller side), leading to lesser blobs like Quack or Oasis being formed to maintain number superiority since numbers would not be that important now.

I want a pet penguin He'll be my cuddle buddy

2018 PnW > 2016 PnW

Post a list here so we know you completed your objective.

@Prefontaine @Alex dunno if you've seen this thread but this has quiet a good support. Would love to have it in the next update.

Buy BABAI INSURANCE

TITFAP now has all the bloated micros in game. I move the official motion to rename TITFAP to Bloat Sphere.

Denied

FA is GAY

What about cun* Templars?

Cumalot > Camelot Change my mind