Lord Tyrion

Just to clarify, there would be no beige in what I'm proposing. It would be completely voluntary to surrender to then have a period of reconstruction (don't want to not be able to do anything for a few days, don't click that option and lose your war w/o beige time). As long as there is a mechanic to allow people to recover, and having motivation to finish wars, that's the key. Think of it in the context of one of the last globals. Rose got caught unmilitarized and never could recover. What if their entire group got an opportunity to fully rebuild? Granted, in my proposal they'd not have been able to all declare offensive wars right away, but round 2 would have been a lot harder for HW and there would have been an opportunity for a comeback with the Rose nations all with full military - rather than down without ever having a chance to recover.

I mentioned this over a year ago when the beige mechanic was being looked at last time. At the end of the day, you want to encourage winning the wars but need a mechanism for people to be able to recover. So the mechanic that was introduced to take away beige was good - start with that, it eliminates any incentive to not win wars then. Now that doesn't address the ability to rebuild though, so here was my proposal: Just think about in real war, a nation surrenders then has a period of reconstruction - so this mechanic would be a "SURRENDER" option. A player can select this, and when they do so, any military they have left is destroyed/removed (sold effectively) and the wars they have currently they automatically lose (meaning loot/4% infra destroyed - i'd push the infra destroyed to be a bit higher w/ this). They cannot declare any new wars during this reconstruction period and they earn no income and produce no resources outside of their daily login bonus, no trades, nothing. You do want to make it punitive for using this, so not used to avoid big losses - but they'll always have an option to do this if they want to rebuild. There should be a minimum time of "reconstruction", say 3-5 days where the nation can't do ANYTHING. Then, after day 3-5, they have full control again to rebuild their military/nation. However, wars still can't come - either offensive or defensive. Then, when the period of reconstruction is over, say, 5 days later - they are eligible for DEFENSIVE wars, but no offensive wars for 1 or 2 more days. The reason being, you don't want an alliance to have everybody go into reconstruction the same time, fully rebuild military and all come out and strike immediately, that would game the system. As part of their surrender they lose the ability to declare an offensive war for 1 or 2 days when they're back on the market. So yes, nations can be built back up, but it is punitive as it should be and doesn't screw over the side that's winning the war. This makes it a lot harder to keep big nations/alliances down though compared to the old cycle beige tactics - meaning wars would be a lot more expensive if people were to fully rebuild their military. May consider lowering the resources needed for war or up production as a counter to that. Anyway, just an alternative thought to consider to address the issue.

City defenses as build options. (AA guns, etc)

Nice move guys!

Do you have to actually be mining these things in 5 cities, or just have the capability to, due to geography? In 5 cities do I need one mine of each of those three to get that max bonus or do I get them by simply having the project?

Good luck guys, looks like a nice bloc!

Show us on this doll where the bad man touched you.

No, we told them we were leaving a couple weeks before they'd posted that. Happy to clarify!

I've yet to see anybody not involved in Hollywood come out and say "oh cool, this is good for the game". It's basically the entire rest of the game that feels the same way about this. How you all want to justify 6 of the top 12 alliances together and put your blinders on about the politics of that, that's on you. I don't need to craft a narrative, they have already firmly established it through action.

I explained my position in my original post. Do I need to write the same thing out to you again? And I never used the word hegemony, that was your own projecting.

I don't recall you being in our discussions with Camelot and that being our plan the entire time, which we let the other spheres know about day one. Next time speak up when you're in those chats with us.

To state this once - there was no treaty with Rose. We entered because we feel it is in our best interest and security to join. We have been working towards multispheres for a very long time in TI/TFP. We left Swamp to downsize, we spun off Delta to downsize, we spun off Mystery Inc to downsize - and led to the creation of a game with many more blocs, which adds more dynamic and fun gameplay. The moves were all made towards a future of multispheres and most of the game seemed on board with that and following suit. We've invested a lot of time and effort into getting to this point. The creation of a sphere that has 6 of the top 12 alliances (50%), including the largest and strongest alliances, is a direct contradiction to what we've been working to accomplish. HM just finished wiping Delta, TKR just got done wiping Swamp - and they together are now wanting to wipe Rose. We're not going to wait and hope they don't decide we're next. We are standing up to what we believe the game needs to be. Those that want to point at Oasis numbers/members are being disingenuous, as half of our members are sub C12. This sphere of 50% of the game's top alliances is appalling and was completely unnecessary.

It's been fun guys! Best of luck on your new adventure.

Nice war everyone. As an outsider, it seemed non-toxic, good length and good fun.

It was nice working with you all in the short time we were allies. Best of luck in your new endeavors!

Nice job to all involved. You all had an amazing run together and handled everything with class. Looking forward to watching the next chapter unfold.

Good luck to all involved!

She's one of the good ones.

Yeah, had I known there was an official vote, I'd have encouraged most of TI to vote no change and that'd have won easily I imagine. Most players don't check the forums, I don't think it's really representative of the entire game, hence why there was only 150 votes or whatever. And you said the people who vote on no change would unite in favour of reducing it by the smallest amount possible. YES. Why shouldn't they have a say in the change then? If you vote for a candidate who isn't a choice in a runoff election, those people get to still vote in the runoff. The option for the second question should NOT have had a "I voted for no change" option. It should have had just percentages and again, I think 45% would have won pretty comfortably. So any additional vote or arbitrary selection beyond that is somebody picking what they wanted anyway and hoping they could justify it with some measure of support. I like how your proposed runoff wouldn't include a 45% option, because you know very well that would be the most popular choice by quite a bit and don't want that to be an option to give it a chance to win.

I'm guessing you mean loser and not looser. But anyway, almost all attacks to launch nukes and missiles are when you have no other military left and are defeated, so yes, they are loser weapons. I'm not saying it's not the right move either, if I was getting my ass handed to me in war, I'd be launching them too - but again, generally only if I'm losing. And just because one has pixels to be burned, doesn't make them a pixel hugger. Plenty of nations with pixels love war and are happy to enter war, the pixels can be replaced.

The vote that got the most was no change. Not sure the outcome of the vote wasn't what I wanted, it's that the conclusion of the vote was interpreted pretty oddly. No change outnumbered 25%, 30% and 35% combined. Additionally, if folks had known this was a vote that would have an actual bearing on anything vs a "temperature check" there would have been a lot more votes. It would be like, hey should we elect a new mayor? 50 people vote yes, 49 people vote to keep the old mayor. But then the vote goes: John = 15 votes Steve = 20 votes Dave = 10 votes Mike = 5 votes So somebody then arbitrarily decides Steve is the new mayor even though 49 people thought the old mayor should still be mayor by quite a large margin over Steve. To circle back on this vote, the 77 people that voted "no change" if they HAD to pick a new percentage option of those only choices listed, they'd have voted for 45% and that would have won by quite a bit. See the point?

Yeah when votes are this close, a poll like this shouldn't dictate anything. You can basically cherry pick whatever result you wanted anyway. First of all, 158 votes is hardly a statistical sample given the thousands of people who play. One AA could have told their members to vote a certain way to influence things pretty heavily. Secondly, the vote to change or not change was separated by SIX votes - hardly something that screams a problem needing to be addressed. Furthermore, only 71 people voted that the percentage should be 25%-35%, whereas 77 people voted no change. How does 30% win out? If anything, you'd say 87 people voted 40% or higher (considering the no-change people remain at 50%). And at that point, 40% isn't significant enough to warrant a change really. Missiles need to be seriously nerfed given the amount of damage they do, resistance they take and how cheap they are, and without any proposed changes to how they function in war, making missiles stronger and making a project effectively worthless isn't the way to go. The vote doesn't even really support a change to 30%, unless you want to try to cherry pick it a certain way to make it seem like it had community support.

I think these are good changes overall. Some of this will help newer players catch up faster (shorter timer resets) which is good since more and more of the game is city 30+. The war mechanic changes look good too. My only critique would be the missiles and nukes getting stronger, even if they do less resistance damage (that just means you eat more sitting on somebody). I personally feel like they are already overpowered, if not for being able to block some of them.

I'm in favor of nerfing all loser weapons (nukes/missles/soldier suicides).

There's a big difference between asking for peace and offering peace. We're perfectly content continuing, just thought half a billion in damages per KT member was enough of a point and offered an out to ya. I don't know what getting completely zeroed does for you, but as you wish, carry on.