Majima Goro

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

Downvoted for not being 69 hour notice

No

No wonder you are in KT then

I'd like to clarify that this isn't going to show you the calculations behind the scene. This will only show the updated max kill only.

Pre I know about this but this is years late now. Either get it done soon enough or just allow us to go the OG way till it is done.

What was Rose's CB for their Quack war? Besides the point is there are less downsides to allowing this than not allowing this. We all want a more dynamic game, not one where doing intelligent things is banned since the rest are too dumb.

Currently, the game rules ban "Treasure Trading", ie, the ability to transfer treasures to a different person or alliance for in-game cash. The way treasures work is that if you hold a treasure and someone defeats you in a war, you forfeit your treasure to the victor. This can work as a treasure transfer mechanic where you can ask someone to declare war on you or declare war on them and lose the war to transfer treasures to them. Earlier, treasure trading wasn't banned and I've talked to people who sold treasures to different alliances for a big chunk of money ranging in the hundreds of millions. Infact, the reason treasure trading was such a big business was because treasures give your alliance a 2% monetary production bonus, ie, if you have a treasure in your alliance , your alliance revenue goes up by 2%. Since a treasure can stay in your nation for upto 60 days since spawn, an alliance like say Error 404 making 250m/day or The $yndicate making 1.6bn/day in cash would make 5m and 32m a day more respectively if they had a treasure in their alliance, translating to upto 300m and 1.9bn over a 60 day period respectively. However, an alliance like Arrgh(12.5m/day) or Knights Templar(-9m/day) won't much benefit from having treasures in their alliance. Instead, these two alliances can make a lot more by selling their treasures to other revenue-based alliances and make some good money off it. I'm not exactly sure why treasure trading was banned but if the objective of the game is to have more smaller wars, treasure trading is the way to do it. Once someone steals your treasure, it can be a a cb for war against them or their alliance. If the treasure is stolen with the purpose of selling it to someone, this can be a cb for war against the buying alliance. Once someone has sold a treasure and has some money on their nation, raiders can come in to steal that money as well. Treasure trading can be a dynamic way to keep treasures moving about in the game even in peace time which I feel is lacking in the game. This also makes piracy a tad more interesting. And the best thing about this change is that it can be done within 10 minutes by Alex without ever needing to touch the coding of the game at all. Just an announcement and maybe a changelog update and that's all we'd need. I understand there is a system currently being developed to trade treasures on the market. However, I've been told it has been in development for a very long time as well. If such a system is hard to implement, this is an easy fix I'd say.

Currently, the pages for war attacks only show the maximum amount of troops/units/infra that can be killed/destroyed with the attack. This data however is fixed to the maximum amount of units you have at your disposal. For example, take a look at the airstrike screen below: Even if I was to change the number of aircrafts to say 3, it won't update the information for Max unit/infra kills. My suggestion is that this should be dynamic. If I change the number of units, I should be able to see how much I can kill with the reduced number of units. This helps people who are new to the game and just spam max units to kill negligible amount of units as well as help people plan better on strategies. Not only this, in case of superiority, it should also show what is the actual army value instead of just max value. Along with this, a new field showing how much gasoline and munition is used in an attack should also be introduced. It will also auto-update with change in number of units selected. This would be a nice QoL to have which could make life easier.