Can we put together a server like the old alliance game with 60(60) in alliance was back in e2025. Call it throwback server or original alliance server.

Why?

The problem I see with alliance stems from game mechanics and bot function. It is what creates the narrow minded approach to strategy that dictates the markets and skews the game so much in favour of bascally 2-3 strategy/govt-combinations.

The solution would be to do something about the bots to add more of the main income techs to the market.
4 things come to mind:
1. All bots(or the non-techer bots only) can have a priority added to buy the cheapest tech on the market with a portion of their cash.
2. Make a stronger function for techer bots to favour the highest priced/highest volume techs and/or to completely ignore teching the techs selling at a price lower than x% of the average tech price on the market. X could be as high as 80%.
3. The tech buying bots start reselling tech(perhaps also based on the tech prices), after a certain tech level threshhold, in order to create liqiudity and stability in the tech markets of the major techs while also draining their cash through commissions/underuts preventing them from drying out the major income techs.
4. Increase the ratio of techer bots. Maybe this won't be necessary with the other changes.

These steps will improve the casher strategy more than anything but also farmers and indies.

Then some small nerf to the game mechanic regarding the oil destock which will keep it viable but less dominant. Maybe keep the cost of building destruction constant after dropping acres, and put a price on dropping land? Or make changes to switching costs perhaps? Maybe also a small nerf to the tyranny govt like 15% higher military losses will make theo techer viable for netting and tyranny less dominant for warfare.

This may make for a more interesting game without the need for a new server.

Again on the destruction costs, you know how much it cost to build all those acres in the first place, true MBR's stay low acres so don't have to spend upwards of 40b on buildings alone so to keep the cost of destruction the same then so should be cost to construct regardless of size.

But I mean a 100k acre TTR to MBR doesnt spend 40B on buildings even if he switches at 100k acres.

The destruction cost is up to a few % of the total stock so if it is doubled or trippled it is not going to make the switch pointless, it is only going to make the ending NW a few % lower and increase the amount of stock needed for it to be worth it. There is a balance there and I have not done the math on it as it depends on several factors including bpt, govt, acreage, NW and oil/bushel prices. I'm just suggesting to nudge the balance point ever so sligthly.

i wouldn't say 20-22k acres mbr as low land (of course its low land when compared to fasc farmers which have 100k-1m acres).

Great Idea