Etgfrog

Left is city count, middle is new formula, right is old formula. 30 cities is the cutoff point where the old formula would cost more.

This actually doesn't help new players, it helps old players far more because something like coal or farms you can only reach once you hit very high infrastructure. If you wanted to help new players then it would be the bonus would be distributed between each industry you have active, so if you have lead mines and munitions factories built then each would give 25% bonus. If your some whale with all 8 industries active, then it would be a 6.25% bonus.

Fortify currently restores the same amount of resistance as a ground attack for the same amount of map. During a war you have a total of 66 MAP, so does the opponent. If all 66 points is put into fortify then it adds 220 resistance. 66 points of ground attack will remove 220 resistance. 64 points of navy attack will remove 224 resistance. 64 points of airstrikes will remove 192 resistance. 64 points of missile attacks will remove 200 resistance. 60 points of nukes will remove 125 resistance. My recommendation is fortify will add 3 less resistance for each superiority the enemy has over them. If a simpler option is needed then fortify adding 5 instead will put it at 110 points of resistance added, which allows full navy or ground to beige the target.

This number is a bit skewed since we recently kicked ALOT of inactive nations.

284 if you combine NPO, UPN, Polaris and HBE vs 152 that are on BK. I guess if you count order of the white rose and resplendent it would be 208. There is also the thing of T$ and Mensa finished their opponents and went looking for more. Edit. Forgot about Cornerstone, if you count them it is 261

In real life, if an explosive goes off next to a nuke it will just destroy the nuke, it wont cause it to detonate. Nuclear bombs need to be triggered in a very specific way for it to actually cause the explosion that it does. Its the same video game logic that says cars should explode when lit on fire.

To be honest, I would prefer to see it be a change. Such as 1/((radiation / 300)+1), this will result in 150 rads equaling -33% food reduction, 300 rads equaling -50%, 600 rads equaling -66%, 900 rads equaling -75%. It will give the same effect without hitting the absolute -100%. North America would end up being -87.08% right now, which would be unprofitable but not impossible to produce food.

This now also applies to Europe and soon to be Africa. Both Europe and Africa now.

Heads up, the number still gets shown on radiation tooltip on the revenue page. It lists me having 130.2% reduction in food production.

I think there is, I am fighting someone who has pirate war policy, I have tactitian. That should make it so it either has 45% or 60% chance to destroy an improvement. Instead I've destroyed 2 buildings for 14 navy attacks. I tallied it up properly, 2 out of 8 navy attacks on one of my wars, the ones who don't have pirate seem to have a higher chance of destroying. However this is a very small sample pool.

Its been fixed now. Its kind of funny how often developers underestimate the lengths players will go to break the game.

So the new radiation mechanic can go below -100%. Right now as of this post the North America radiation index is -102.76%, I tested it out and it does indeed make it so that having a farm produce a negative amount of food.

You see, I didn't say they would go into beige when their military hit 0, I suggested they go into beige once the war timed out and they have effectively been crushed, a lack of targets after being late will always be a problem. And no, it wouldn't be delaying the inevitable because if an alliance gets taken out quickly, like for instance VE when BK hit them, all nations who got dropped to 0 military will be out of the war unless their attackers get defeated. This means an ally has to hit the alliance hitting you, which promotes the current treaty web. This system also punishes players who try to play casually, regardless of how smart they play.

Even you said it yourself, nuclear beige was in place because of the fear of how powerful nukes were. That very fact is the reason why you don't see nukes used commonly through an alliance war. What I am proposing will result in a back and forth fight instead of the almost constant curb stomps that happen. Has there been an alliance war that has lasted longer then 10 days before one side had an overwhelming advantage?

I'm aware of how beige works. I wasn't aware of some of the history behind it. My intention of this suggestion is to make it so that vacation mode isn't the only escape from having a defeated military and angry nations after you. Does that apply to me at all? nope. This change would actually end up being detrimental to alliances like BK. Lets take the example that a war broke out between two alliances, one has a high average score(alliance A), one has a low average score(alliance B ). Alliance A would knock down alliance B's top nations, while Alliance A's lower nations would end up being defeated by the more numerous opponents. As it currently is, there will reach a point alliance A will have no targets within range while their lower score nations would be stuck at 0 military, the "whales" wouldn't be able to do anything other then be taken down one at a time or accept defeat. With this change alliance A could send resources to their defeated players after the first 5 days are up to rebuild their military and strike back. So that will cause you to ask why would I make a suggestion like this. To allow for rouge nations to exist and prevent the game from stagnating. After this change, it would be theoretically possible to hold someone at 0 military for 9.9 days then they get 5 days of no attacks. But more then likely it would be a flat 5 days of being attacked then 5 days of beige to rebuild.