tl;dr Keeping your awards greater than or equal to your age can be an engaging challenge for newer players. I tapped out at 426 awards.
I'm not the fastest, nor the first but I had fun and I'm proud. In early May, it dawned on me that if I was not more intentional, I would not reach 365 awards before the age of 365. That first goal was not too challenging for me (even with net worth < 2.5B) after taking inventory of the remaining awards and planning out what I could achieve quickly. I started putting target awards on a calendar, moving them around as I reached them ahead or behind schedule.
My next goal was 400 awards and when I passed it, I set my eyes on 420 (fitting for the theme of this game). There were times I didn't think I was going to get another award in time (e.g. 404 and 418) but each time, I found a way. Like others before me have said, I could have squeezed out a few more but I ultimately deemed the cost too great (money and energy).
My next awards goal is 501 by age 700 (one every 3rd day plus ~50 days extra buffer).
As of September 6th 2026, here are folks at or above 426 awards that have age less than their awards.
tl;dr When enlisting, allow the enlister to select a preferred target net score factor (or max duration).
To side step the discussion of whether everyone wants shorter wars all the time (and possible solutions like faster decay, progress checks, etc.), I propose adding another preference option when enlisting similar to selecting a preference for weekday or weekend start for the war.
Target score preference: High, Medium or Low
"High" might equate to the current target score calculation. Dividing the current calculation by 3 might mean "Medium" ends up being 2/3 of normal and "Low" being 1/3. Or perhaps the designer would prefer a floor like 1/5 of current.
After getting matched, if both sides prefer a low target score, then they get a low target score. Both prefer high, then high. Both prefer medium, then medium. When they don't agree, I put a poll below for you to voice your preference of outcome(s) (you may select multiple answers).
While one might want to enter an actual preferred numeric target score using knowledge of the typical target scores for their current rank and size and past war performance, I suggest having just 3 options like high, medium and low (or some other descriptors) will be more accessible for everyone enlisting and give flexibility to the design / dev team.
I'm not opposed to plainly specifying a preference for maximum war duration instead or in addition (which could affect when decay starts and/or how fast decay progresses or something else) but I thought adjusting the target score could have a similar effect, have more support and be easier to implement.
This suggestions is not requesting any rewards change (it's independent) but I won't be surprised if we observe some effect if rewards are calculated exactly the same but all factions prefer lower target scores (and behavior changes).
While some factions might like to negotiate a target score (or max duration or other terms) with their matched opponent (by definition after enlisting and match making), that seems more complex and is not what is being suggested here.
Poll answer clarification:
* Random within range (similar to weekday / weekend preference disagreement):
Given the same perks and approximate starting strength but zeroing out happy (it's fine) and switching to Global Gym with 10e (two trains), yields ~10,504.
It might still be coincidence (holding starting strength constant and varying other inputs you can find other combinations that yield the same number).
Another "issue" is that I would expect sequential job point usages should take into account the strength gain from the previous job point usage. Gaining ~10k strength ought to bump the next strength gain by at least 2 strength and the logs only varied by +-0.15. Is there a cap? Does it use the personal stat daily snapshot? Or does it base it off of your strength during closing hour? What's with the decimal wiggle?
It will be a while before I can join a fitness center and experiment myself but I'm happy to examine data presented by others.
Rank and division are now determined by your rating: line every active faction up from highest-rated to lowest, and your position in that list decides where you sit.
...
The system won't demote you after a win or promote you after a loss, so your division can briefly lag behind your rating.
I just wanted to offer that you may be doing everything right according to the system to stay where you want to be by having 50% win loss ratio and a steady roster. What is not under your control is how well other factions are performing or the movement of battle stats from one faction to another.
As an example, perhaps there were some low performing gold factions terming wins for several weeks and they just got their first losses demoting below you (causing your rank up).
Without seeing the complete list and how your faction fit in (like what might be visible in Diamond), rank changes can be puzzling.
A factions's stat strength is "derived from members' battle stats, using a formula similar to the older Hidden Rank number."
I couldn't find an authoritative link for the following but the hidden rank reportedly was based on the average stat-score of the top 80% of the faction's members.
Note that is says stat score (not raw total battle stats) which suggests the sum of the square roots of individual stats.
This favors more balanced stats (so recruiting a one-stat focused player may help less than you expected).
Cutting or changing your bottom 20% of your roster may not have as much effect as one might otherwise expect.
Peanut gallery thoughts: Removing raiding leaves dirty bombs as the only effective (though expensive) means of removing respect from the game.
Others may have a better suggestion to replace raiding as a respect sink but the initial thought that came to my mind was to give each faction the option to "raid" respect during rank wars and territory wars. A faction could toggle this on or off with the default being off and wars operating like they are today. It would only apply to attacks made by your faction during a war (the other faction does not need to reciprocate destruction and may instead want to gain respect like normal).
tl;dr Keeping your awards greater than or equal to your age can be an engaging challenge for newer players. I tapped out at 426 awards.
I'm not the fastest, nor the first but I had fun and I'm proud. In early May, it dawned on me that if I was not more intentional, I would not reach 365 awards before the age of 365. That first goal was not too challenging for me (even with net worth < 2.5B) after taking inventory of the remaining awards and planning out what I could achieve quickly. I started putting target awards on a calendar, moving them around as I reached them ahead or behind schedule.
My next goal was 400 awards and when I passed it, I set my eyes on 420 (fitting for the theme of this game). There were times I didn't think I was going to get another award in time (e.g. 404 and 418) but each time, I found a way. Like others before me have said, I could have squeezed out a few more but I ultimately deemed the cost too great (money and energy).
My next awards goal is 501 by age 700 (one every 3rd day plus ~50 days extra buffer).
As of September 6th 2026, here are folks at or above 426 awards that have age less than their awards.
