Simple, really. I think that the tax collections are just simply way too small - specially when fighting a war. I seem to somehow always get bill locked when fighting wars in TE, which is what it was built for. I mean, just to keep myself from being bill locked in a 6v1 war, I can't buy any soldiers, I have to keep paying the taxes and collecting bills.

There's just something so wrong about being bill locked in a war game..

Warchests help a lot. Most people don't look into it though.

A warchest is hard to keep when you are losing all 12 defensive and multiple offensive ground battles. Say you do 12 offensive (I have no clue how one could do that) ground battles and lose all but two, and you lose all 12 defensive ground battles. At an average of $3k loot per loss (if you are lucky), that's $36,000 lost in battle per day in battles alone. Considering during a war I am lucky to collect $50,000 a day and only have $11,000 for taxes, I would only have ~$5,000 at best in spending cash. (Even with a large warchest, this still wouldn't be enough to last an entire week.)

the tax collections are already 50% above SE i believe. I think i read that somewhere

Not enough for wartime, imo.

remember higher tax rate doesn't equal higher collection. You have to take in account of population happiness

True there. So population happiness should increase during the wars. After all, it's based on war, why would the people be unhappy about war?

If you increase income then the expense of all items should rise as well. At this time income and expense is the same for everyone on a relative basis. We all play by the same rules.

Leave cash and expenses as they are, use them as best you can.

Personally, I'd make spys far more expensive again... it should cost your nation growth to invest heavily in spys. 100,000 per spy would produce some relatively weak nations that can spy you real good. And other nations that can kick the crap outta you whilst being spyed. And Alliances that build fire teams with a mix of fighters and spy nations.

Increase the possibilities, don't restrict them. Give us too little money for all the toys available, not enough to buy them all.

There's always winners and losers in wars, personally I have the loser part down solid. And in 2 months I get to try it all again!

I don't care what happens. I would still love it if bill lock was removed from TE. How the hell does being bill locked promote a war game? What's the point of playing if after 3 days I can't even afford to purchase soldiers?

So, you couldn't fight your wars well enough, and want to make it easier?

Even 3-on-1 can be tough, be it SE or TE. It's supposed to be. War isn't fair. There are already accomodations made to make war easier in TE, I don't see the need to take it further. If you're fighting 6-on-1, expect to be beaten into a bloody pulp.

I would like to point out I am fighting a 1 v 3 and doing rather swimmingly... Maybe you just aren't a good enough fighter?

Everything is proportional now, no need to tweak.

A 3v1 war with you as the aggressive with the element of surprise and the ability to build a warchest before attacking gave you an advantage. I was in a 6v1 war with the element of surprise with my enemy who attacked a few days after the beginning of the round. Maybe it's just that we are in two completely different situations?

All I know is that the only way to survive is if you have a warchest currently - which some of us aren't afforded the luxury to build. If it's a game about war, then why do we make it so that after a total of 10 attacks, it becomes one-sided? If anything, the collections should be large enough during wartime to be able to pay taxes and keep building a good-sized army, even in a 6v1.

No, I'm entirely defensive.

Look, it's a war game. If your nation can't support war then avoid it. If you can't avoid it then either you aren't in an alliance suitable to the game, or you are painting too big a target on yourself.

No need to change the game to make it easier to fight.

THE POINT IS TO FIGHT! WHAT. DON'T. YOU. GET?!

Seriously, if the point is to war, why is it that we have a great chance of not being able to fight said war?

It has nothing to do with my alliance. It has nothing to do with how I fight. It has everything to do with bill lock (which is out of my control).

The problem we are facing this round is that the war started before national economies are fully developed, with a couple wonders and most of the economic improvements you can fight a war easily, simple swap factories (which you don't use in war) for GCs and if you want your 5 +1 improvements for either barracks or LC's. I was blitzed 3 on 1 and ended up wrecking them all simply because I was still clearing money over bills in anarchy. The system works, just not when you are only 5 days old. Also, it is essentially impossible to save a warchest before day 10 or even 15, simply because it hurts your growth to the degree where you can not win wars period due to numbers.

Really, you should be sitting at 3 NS for the first week. Then pay bills, buy up infra, tech, and all the goodies. Then collect. Find some n00blets to leach off of (if any are still alive ). Rinse and repeat for the week 2 anniversary. That gets you off to a good start.

Good solid advice for nations shooting for the top 100, Locke.
Heck, you could sit for 20 days at zero infra, then infra jump and collect on the 20th day if ya wanted. Yes you lose the anniversary bonus but you save more in bills.

Or you could buy enough infra for a harbor and 2 GC's, buy 30 tech, max out your military, keep a fat war chest and spend the first 2 weeks raiding anyone you want while back collecting on day 7/14. You might not make it to the top 100 but you will have, dare I say, fun.

There will be no 'fun' in my TE.

I'm pro for this!

The tax collections are pretty high as is. Top nations earn tens of millions of dollars per round. Just backcollect correctly and keep a decent WC.