Majima Goro

There were two phases of the counter offensive. The more damaging phase was when their mil had been wiped out. You can say it was the third round where people who couldn't be hit in the second round were being hit. I also noticed something weird about UU. They had people with infra going back and forth between themselves and CTO.

UU exited at the start of second round, ie, not a lot of their nations bore the burnt of the counter-offensive

Now say that in uwu language.

I can take care of that

Forgot to put "Protected by Backroom"

If Camelot rebuild their upper tier now, they can definitely cause enough damage and take probably absolute control of c20+ region in this war just by sheer numbers. Question is, will Camelot do it?

I'll be honest, I was disappointed with the new Dark Theme given how Alex paid for a dark theme. If possible, I would want a dark mode that looks like this: I would post more pics in the official discord server

Actually, there is a problem with this. Using bots to spy ingame is not allowed. They are not allowed to conduct ingame espionages. Moreover, unlimited intel ops would mean you would have 2 ops always remaining as long as you do Intel ops only. From what I understand, people would just do the intel op 10mins before DC. If they see you have spies, they will assassinate them. Else they would just move to a different target.

GDP minus costs "calculated" from city builds and military gives GNI. Then use the ingame GNI, check the difference and then divide the difference with upkeep for spy. This gives a highly accurate count. Do note that GNI has been problematic and apparently is broken for a lot of people. But it works for a vast majority.

Extremely easy to loot 2bn these days. 5bn might be more of a goal. This is a rewarded project.

There are ways to calculate spy count without knowing the odds now....Besides, the cost to spy check an entire sphere of 1500 nations would be as low as 29m.

GO JOHNSONS! GO!

Beige cycling does need a blockade usually. Blockades are very hard to break out of when you are getting cycled as well because the enemy has near max and you have atmost 45% with a double-buy.

If I'm not mistaken, ships are the only units which give a superiority that works across wars by preventing trading. And given how they take a long time to make, even someone with max ships and no planes attacking someone with no ships would still need atleast 1.5-2 days to break the war in a 1v1. If ships are ever buffed, it would need careful consideration before the plan goes live.

I might be wrong here but I feel the extreme emphasis on "All wars end in beige" is sabotaging this proposed mechanics change. While beige cycling definitely is the biggest problem in globals, it is a valid strategy and requires coordination to pull off. I definitely do not want to remove the entire concept of beige cycling here. However, the means to achieve it should be made very difficult. Currently, if your opening blitz went well, you'd be able to attack zeroed or lightly militarized opponents in round 2, get Air Superiority(12 resistance, 4 MAPs), get a Naval Blockade(14 resistance, 4 MAPs) and Ground Control(10 resistance, 3 MAPs) and sit on the opponent with 70-80% military on your nation. All in all, it took you 36 resistance and 11 MAPs(5 turns) to completely annihilate and block off any sort of recovery of an opponent. Since there are usually 3 people hitting a single target, you could even have the other two people not do the naval blockade and keep the enemy at 14 resistances higher. Since the enemy is zeroed, you don't need to do any more attacks. Any military they buy can be grounded down with one or two ground attacks and/or airstrikes. And then one of you can beige and the rest expire their wars. You have achieved beige cycling in just 5 turns of into a war! The entire problem lies in how fast it is possible to block off recovery for a zeroed nation. While the proposed changes do infact help a nation to rebuild completely, complete rebuilds aren't really the golden solution to this problem. As SRD and Vemek have pointed out, the biggest problems that would arise out of this would be power accumulation and warchest accumulation. On the political side, spheres would try to fill their ranks with as many people as possible, leading to a bipolar world, a concept I'm very much against and which I believe a lot of people are against as well. If you have huge numbers, no matter how much you rebuild, you'll be able to keep curbstomping the enemy every time. Take for example the KT-Swamp war. Even if KT was able to completely rebuild, at best, they'd be able to do tons of damage before being suppressed by numbers. This would go on an on till one side ran out of resources, Swamp in this case being the bigger one, being able to outproduce KT. While this is an extreme example, even a 1.75:1 situation would result in similar results. Not only this, newer alliances who don't have much capital would not be able to keep up with older alliances with huge resources in their banks. No, this is not the solution to the last point I made! This should never ever be a solution except in the most extreme of cases. Anyway, here is my counter proposal for the mechanics change: #1) All* wars end in beige. Upon expiration of defensive wars, if defender has less resistance, he is beiged. Offensive wars do not result in beige for aggressor upon expiration if aggressor has less resistance. If both have same resistance, neither loses the war and none is beiged. #2) If a particular attack does not happen in 12 turns, any superiority gained from the specific attack earlier expires. #3) Beige Time from expired wars is reduced to 18 turns rather than 24. 3 defensive wars expiring would hence give at most 54(4.5 days) turns of beige rather than 72(6 days). No change will be made to beige time from losing wars conventionally. #4) Beige timers run the way they do. However, beige should not stack past 8 days in any circumstance. 8 days should be enough to rebuild and would not reward declaring offensive wars for the sole purpose of stacking beige past a point. In addition to these, expired war beige doesn't let you loot the opponent or destroy their infrastructure. The proposed changes here are meant to keep cycling a thing while at the same time making it much much harder to cycle. Incentives must be given to beige wars conventionally. Here, the no additional damage vs less beige time question makes for an interesting choice whether to beige or to expire a war. Moreover, sitting is disincentivized by expiring superiorities periodically. Unless you keep doing attacks, the enemy might be able to turn the tides of war when your superiority on him expires. While I might have people yelling at me for the suggestion that offensive wars don't result in beige from expire defeat for aggressor, I would like to clarify that I myself don't think it would be a good change but I've added it so it can be debated on.

Credit limits going up to 20 a month would mean 400m a month from P2W. Not only this, you could in theory cash 400 credits on 20 people, have them send you 8bn(totally legal infact encouraged)and get to c30+ in a single month. 400 credits = 1600$ btw The timers are there for a reason as well - to stop old alliances with multiple billions from tiering people to high city counts too fast while smaller or newer ones struggle to grant past 10 cities. Timers should never be lifted. This is a game of patience and should be treated as such.

The idea is to have an easier/faster captcha than the normal pic based one since you'll always get a captcha. There can be a subsystem installed to monitor people who regularly fail to fill them as well. This should help to find botters in theory as well. Abnormally high fails could easily be treated as signs of being a bot/script.

Anything that could heavily nerf a botter can be used in reality.

Why not have a captcha on every baseball game? Not the one we currently use but something where you need to solve a math problem type captcha. If the issue is botting, such a step can help. It would make baseball more time consuming but the fix is there!

On avg, it takes around 15s for a game to be played and to get the next game going. A game gives you around 15k. To make 15m, you'd need to play 1000 games, waste 15000s = 4.2 hours. Maybe more, maybe less but 4 hours a day on avg spent of a browser game(not on discord, mind you) really makes me question their mental health more than it would make me question their daily earnings. Edit: Note that earnings fall off after reaching 2.5m or so to 1/10th. You'd need to give way more hours to this than 4.

I want to vote no to hard cap. If someone has no life and can play baseball all day, that's on them honestly.

The problem with such a project really is that it would have to be insanely costly to make sense. Space projects, the two(and possible third) UP and some other projects themselves cost multiple billions in total. While a 5% reduction in their prices won't count as much(5m discount on 100m project), the sheer number of projects and the the ones that would be added make the ROI on a project like this too good. In essence the UP and AUP are similar but due to their fixed reduction, the % goes down with more cities. A fixed reduction however for projects would be messy since some projects need very low resource inputs while some need very high. Reducing 500 food from 2m for AUP wouldn't make much of a difference but removing 500 steel from some project needing 100 steel would be a lot. I'll not discourage such a project but I think it would be a bad project overall which would be either too OP or to useless.

City Planning costs around 500m. And this is the list of how much money people have made raiding in the last 10 days What this list tells us is that the cost of Urban planning is not a lot. Infact, it can be easily obtained by raiding for 20-30 days. What I'm trying to say is that maybe the approach you are taking to buy the CP is wrong and a better approach exists.

We should implement NFTs into the game as well!