namukara

85m? Is that all that was in the bank? Is this guy a very bad bank thief or is there an econ minister who needs a kick up the arse

High taxes may be the way to go on low city counts, then you should switch to a low tax alliance so you can build yourself prior to joining Grumpy. That's what I did anyway.

It hurts me to see that Grumpy is struggling to take our deserved crown as best alliance for new players. Our grant program, in which you grant us some money to be allowed to join and we offer no city grants whatsoever, is a unique concept; similarly our ability to protect the newest of players (nobody is in range but we'll offer moral support) provides a service nobody else can match.

This has happened. Masterbake and Death are good examples I can think of after precisely 3 seconds of thinking about this. There will almost certainly be more.

I thought this was an every year thing so I'm surprised I didn't see it, but maybe I'm just having a blind moment. Biggest alliance decline

I have no idea why I keep proposing this given I've had arguments with every alliance leader I've worked with so would be nowhere near the voting but: Best alliance member (non-gov.)

Out of interest, which country is this? I know that in the UK the samaritans is purely a crisis service.

Update:Vein still has a small pee pee war

I've been volunteering with Samaritans (a charity that assists people who need to talk, be they suicidal, lonely or just going through a difficult time) for years now. Idk if that counts for the draw though because I've been doing it for ages.

Would have to get a loan I would imagine. I wonder how their credit is

I think if we make a good go of it we can own the tier below c20.

The 'for gods sake Rose didn't you learn from the last time listen to your intel people ' war? It doesn't trip off the tongue but I feel it sums it up perfectly.

Anyone who wondered how camelot had managed to jump up the rankings over the last few months need only look at these city building stats.

Christ that's late for anyone in Europe.

Ewwwwww sounds lame. It'll never manage to succeed. Everyone there is big farmer also.

Yeah, what it's doing is just forgetting that you've clicked on notifications. For example, when I clicked on it yesterday I had 8, which I think was correct. A few minutes ago I had 13 (I had 5.)

That makes sense, to a point. Not everything is urban planning/propaganda bureau levels of useful. This however is only a slight step up from being moon landing useful. I get through a ridiculous amount of tanks in wars. My war strategy is awful and has not improved from 'ground and pound, and the tank losses don't matter.' If I warred more I'd likely be the target audience for this project. I have well over the 65m available to buy it, as well as more than enough project slots post rebuild. However, although I buy projects semi-regularly, I only buy projects that have at least a reasonable ROI; given that I don't know if I'll be playing this game in 6 years however I don't see a purpose in buying it. For the vast majority of players, it will cost them far more to purchase this project than they will ever see as a return out of it. It is therefore a near-useless project that will only be bought by a few whales with money to throw around, and thus I do not see the point in its existence in its current form.

I see you out there, threatening good things. Projects are meant to be a trade off in early game, you can't have all of them so you pick the ones which benefit your nation the most. That's the point of them. It's why they're both expensive and limited. I didn't buy AUP because I couldn't afford it at the time; I'm still yet to build space program even though I need spy sat because I can't afford it. 'Straining project slots' is a nonsense, it's the same as 'straining nation bank balances' as a reason to make war damages temporary. People have a limited number of slots and should be expected to choose the projects that are important to them, which evens itself out as, shockingly enough, everybody with a similar city count who doesn't build stupid levels of infra is in the same position. We can argue about what projects should achieve all day, but I'd hope that one thing we can agree they should be is useful. This one isn't.

I'm not sure how it can be described as a slot fill though? I always understood the meaning of slot filling to be declaring wars you have no intention to fight, in order to protect an ally from further attacks, either to give them an advantage in their current wars or to allow them to rebuild. Declaring on people who are clearly not your allies in order to bait beige is not slot filling, at least not in the sense that it was always enforced before now. If that is slot filling, is the method that has often been used by losing sides in wars, i.e. declaring on nations in alliances which have nothing to do with the war, also slot filling? If not then this new interpretation of the rules is a moot point: people baiting beige can just declare on, say, tcw and just sit there waiting for it.

You're only half-right here. Some Col A members were doing that, however GoG were also doing it at the start of the great leak war, to protect the upper tiers of both Acadia and UPN; Fark, Horsemen and WTF were beating the shit out of them at that point.

Since it is 'terrorise civilians,' a compremise with the improvement destruction idea could be that it only destroys what could be considered cevilian improvements. I'm thinking commerce improvements, hospitals, subways; the places that would actually be attacked by terrorists. It makes little sense that a nation is terrorising civilians by attacking a drydock.

Out of curiosity, if a nation in either of these spheres...forgets to demil, I'm free to help ensure treaty compliance right? I wouldn't be countered for helping get rid of their now illegal tanks and soldiers, and in fact should be compensated for my efforts? I'm just trying to see if I'm reading this right.

You made your bed with SOL and FSO, the honourable thing to do would have been to lie in it until the conclusion (you and UU both.) Idk what the deal was with AC, whether it was agreed they'd peace out after round 1 but them also if that wasn't the case. Just...don't be sanctuary. Being sanctuary is bad. Nobody likes people who are sanctuary, probably not even sanctuary.

Oh I know, I reminded him last week. Now I'm doing it again.

Hello, Last month I heard a proposal from some guy called Alex about reducing city score from 100 to 75. I really like this idea and I think we should do it, so I wanted to put it to the top of the page again so whoever makes the decisions sees it.