Simple balance suggestion

[Sir Scarfalot]

Currently, your money can be looted down to but not below your last $100k. There is no equivalent minimum for resources.

My suggestion is simply that your resources can be looted, down to but not below your last 1000 of any given resource.

[Dio Brando]

There is an argument to be made about the way resources are looted, and how that method affects the minimum $100k threshold.

Money can go below $100k through indirect looting (i.e., beige):

If you have anything below $111,111.11 when you're beige'd (while opponent does not have pirate), your cash will go below $100k. If you have anything below $116,279.07 when beige'd (while opponent has pirate), your cash will go below $100k. 

That said, I'd like to see what the community thinks about this proposed change.

[Buorhann]

Not a terrible suggestion, but 1k would be a bit much imo.

[Simpleton]

I would suggest a new type of improvement called safehouse or something to protect your resources. So, as your number of cities grow, you will have more safehouses and in return your safekeep will increase according to your nation size. A safehouse may protect 50 to 100 (value is up for discussion) units of each resources and you can only have 1 safehouse per city.

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Simpleton said:

I would suggest a new type of improvement called safehouse or something to protect your resources. So, as your number of cities grow, you will have more safehouses and in return your safekeep will increase according to your nation size. A safehouse may protect 50 to 100 (value is up for discussion) units of each resources and you can only have 1 safehouse per city.

Well, if safehouses can be destroyed, then you're still restricted by improvement space. If each city itself protected an amount of resources and cash, that'd work though.

We might also consider changing the moneybags policy so that it improves the safe resources limit, as well

[Doughnuts]

With the changes of Fort, you will get resources if you win the war, I think less cash and no resources should be obtained when doing ground battles, if anything you should be able to steal land, the way to really make it worth while is to win the war.

Rewarding people for winning a ground battle (this is the only way you can obtain cash right now) should be in the value of land, everything else should only be obtained when you win the war.

[Sir Scarfalot]

10 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

With the changes of Fort, you will get resources if you win the war, I think less cash and no resources should be obtained when doing ground battles, if anything you should be able to steal land, the way to really make it worth while is to win the war.

Rewarding people for winning a ground battle (this is the only way you can obtain cash right now) should be in the value of land, everything else should only be obtained when you win the war.

Well, land has always been a 'safe' investment that couldn't be lost, also and perhaps more importantly, land gets quadratically more expensive as you gain more of it. If it were possible to gain more land through war, then we'd see players selling or outright giving away their land in order to artificially boost up their farming ? whales ? to unintended proportions. I've seen that pattern in various forms enough times to be sure that won't end well. If nothing else, the price of food would crash so hard that we'd be in a post-scarcity environment, food wise.

If you really want land losses to be something that happens in war, we might consider farmland being 'damaged' by all the bombs, fire, wreckage, unexploded ordinance, fallout, fuel leaks etc. and implement a fixed cleanup cost to get land back to arable status. This could be as simple as having all attacks, even failed ones, increase the temporary pollution levels of the defending nation slightly, and/or having farms lose effectiveness based on pollution. (Actually I'm going to suggest farms having a penalty due to pollution separately.)

[Sir Scarfalot]

Bump, please consider the OP carefully; without some mechanic that allows players to escape permawar, the game will absolutely die.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Alex]

1,000 per resource seems a little high, IMO. I'd be okay with starting at 500 per resource (maybe 1000 for Food) and bumping cash to $500,000 or $1,000,000.

I'd like to see some more feedback either way before going much further, though.

EDIT: Scaling per city would make sense, too. 100/city for regular resources, 250/city for food, and $100k/city seem like reasonably good spitballed numbers to me.

[Pewdiepie]

Well anyway the new update should make it a lot harder to save loot as there is new war strategies. The raid strategy should make it a lot easier for people who are constatantly attacking to keep gaining loot in the game.

[Sir Scarfalot]

I am bumping this in order to respond to

to show that yes, I have indeed suggested a way to help losing nations come back from war.

Also, I'd really like for people to consider this suggestion now that they've got a bit more contemporary wartime experience. The value should be more apparent at this point.