All Activity

When deciding on a name, my members wanted King (King or Emperor, I thought King was maybe better.). Anarch kind of would work, but also my Discord name.

Not sure if "King" is the appropriate term for someone in charge of an anarchist clique, unless you're harking back to the Greek city-state theme

We have most of our nations in that tier, so should be able to fight well there. Also our gov doesn't consist of just me. King Cloud/546581 ☁️ The King's Council Taleggio/615744 🧀 He's 3 cities, but good fighter & not in a rush to go higher. So should be a strong tier for us. Attacking my members unprovoked is more likely to cause my wrath than attacking me even; where can ignore them.

There are two current projects that server as counterplays for nukes and missiles, which are Vital Defense System and Iron Dome. However, these two projects have constantly been buffed and nerfed throughout the span of this game and have not addressed the issues regarding counterplays to nuke turreting. Buffing both projects will only make the "nuke meta" worse rather than improve it. Now for the OP's two points, For point #1, Airplanes are mainly utilized for obtaining Air Superiority rather than for destroying the opponent's cash. For point #2, Yes there should be a counter nuke turrets. However, there should also be ways to fight back in losing conflicts while nuke/missile turreting. To start off, I would like to bring up the often overlooked concept of war policies. These war policies are currently among the most underutilized ones and can absolutely use an update to match with current war strategies. We're both on the same page on the topic about changes to Guardian and Tactician war policies. You want to damage an opponent's improvements? Then, you're switching to Tactician. Well, what about destroying infrastructure? You're switching to Attrition. Tactician war policy could use a buff to increase the odds of destroying an improvement through conventional attacks. Likewise, for Guardian war policy can be utilized as a complement against Tactician to safeguard your improvements. Combined with naval blockades and ground battles, you can destroy a nuke turret's economy by cutting off their sources of income. I would also like to add, given the recently released Guiding Satellite project, which increases infrastructure damage dealt by Missiles and Nuclear Weapons by 20% as well as destroy an additional improvement, Attrition war policy can be used to buff nuke turreting. The issue is that currently the policy does not take into account nukes or missiles, only conventional attacks. Conversely, Turtle war policy can be used to counteract the effects from Attrition policy but by also taking nukes and missiles launches into account. To end off, given that Fallout Shelter decreases damage from nukes by 10%, I believe there is a missed opportunity on using the project as a viable counterplay from nukes/missile launches but can also be made viable by buffing Turtle policy.

I think having a problem with nuke turretting is as silly as being anti-raiding. It’s part of the gameplay. Sure, it sucks when you’re the one getting hit. But like Hatebi said, there’s some ways to deter and defend. The only “issue” I see is missiles and nukes are extremely cheap relative to the potential destruction they can cause when used in the nuke turretting — more than previously. It would be fair to increase the cost to produce them slightly. From a logical standpoint, requiring missile project to be able to get Nuke project makes sense in military development too. But at the end of the day, nothing in the game will ever be perfect. With every situation someone will develop a strategy to exploit or counter it. And that’s not a bad thing.

Could maybe drive up Uranium price doubling how much of that it uses, but already people risk wasting 7m if their nuke gets blocked and 12 MAP. So it's not OP. (As Oily mentioned, those who do it for fun won't be stopped by price increases.) I think whether VDS should be improved is maybe only thing worth debating. Should it prevent more improvements from getting blocked or higher odds? Really realistically, blocking a nuke shouldn't be harder than a missile Since a nuke is a missile. (Why I found it kind of odd can't build space station straight from nukes, but missiles are worth also having anyways.)

VDS already is the in-game counter, so I agree. It's not broken. People who don't invest in that and wonder what the counter is, it's VDS. Nuke Turret nations are also highly limited in how much damage they can do, but can get a lot off if someone has bloated infra I guess. (People shouldn't be secure in their infra being indestructible if they buy a ton, regardless of how much protection they think they have.) Would imbalance the game also if making it harder. Arrgh nuke turrets because they felt the need to adapt in dealing with alliances which band together. Game would be boring if everyone was just NAP & impossible for nations to survive without joining the hegemony. I raid to make money, nuke turreting is just more backup defensive against forces where I'm out matched conventionally. Gives a way to fight back. As mentioned by previous guy, unless stocked up limited to one per day. If more they can be spy oped. (With 25% chance of that failing if someone makes their nation to be able to defend against nukes.) So plenty of counters exist for those who use them. I think whether the odds on VDS are as good as they should be is maybe debatable, but definitely better than nothing. Nations should be able to specialize into different roles, rather than one cookie cutter way to fight.

I agree with the points raised by Hatebi and I just want to highlight the disincentives at play. There are two ways to nuke turret; with a nuke stockpile and without a nuke stockpile. When we nuked TKR we had stockpiled nukes for over 3 months. Many of us had over 100 nukes and missiles. The cost of purchasing and maintaining all these nukes was very high. We spent over half of the would-be alliance-wide income on nuke and missile upkeep. Not to mention the cost of the weapons themselves. All of this, just to have 3 nukes spied away every day. We were still able to launch at least 5 nukes daily, but it's not great with regards to the ratio of money spent and damage dealt. Nuking without a stockpile can be a lot more economically viable, as it can be performed without months of paying billions in upkeep. You will, however, not be able to do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time. There is also the need to manage your resource stockpile such that you can afford a nuke (or two now that we have new projects) every day. This requires more effort and planning from individual members than mindlessly throwing 5 nukes every day, and will consequently be harder for an entire alliance to keep up for longer than a month or two.

No, I am not saying RandomNewbie#99054 deserves a chance against Rose I am saying he deserves a chance against RandomNewbie#99055 who just happens to be in Rose there is a difference, this is what I am calling being at mercy of established players. My problem is that RandomNewbie#99054 has no chance in the game even in same tier unless he joins Rose or an alliance protected by another similar sized alliance by any extension where he loses any sovereignty he could've had. If he doesn't he risks being raided to death early or ending up in a perpetual micro later that also chose not go to Rose for prot or was rejected because its founder didn't start playing in 2015. Yeah except no not really, at best he could join the rival sphere (which again forces him to comply with sphere requirements) and hope for the best lol Edit1: At this point I should clarify I say Rose whenever I want to say "an old/major successful alliance", nothing specific about them, just for my own convenience.

Normally I'm more of a "short and snappy tweet-style" poster, but I've been seeing quite a few people talking about the state of nukes and the possibility of a "nuke turret meta" and wanted to get all of my thoughts on the subject down in one place. As someone who's been turreting for over 2.5 years straight now, the discourse surrounding turreting has been the equivalent of watching someone repeatedly trying to mash a square peg into a round hole. There's two main concerns I hear people bring up whenever there's turret-related discourse. The first, and less seen, point is the fear of a "nuke turret alliance" that rolls around and rogues people during peace time. As cool as that'd be to witness, it's not something I expect to see on that large of a scale. There's numerous disincentives, most alliances aren't all that interested in condemning themselves to effectively fight a losing war, on their own, while everyone else is farming and growing, for an abnormally long period of time. Historically, people who have gone on nuke crusades, like HoF and CoA, have only done so for 3 to 7 weeks respectively. Go much longer and you start facing heavy member attrition. What fearmongers often forget is that vanishingly few people want to run off and throw nukes for half a year, especially outside of war season. I feel like this one's a little obvious, but it's something I keep seeing brought up. The main point I've seen people make is that turreting has no counters. While I personally love it when people have this mindset and make no attempts whatsoever to impede me, it's sadly not the case. Numerous forms of counter play exists for all forms of turreting, alliances just can't be asked to put in the slightest amount of effort above what they know works against traditional raiders. If you really want to focus on damaging a nuke build, you've got multiple ways to go about it. The tried and true method still works, slot the turret in question with 3 raids and go to work. All you've got to do is switch your counters (and preferably whoever's been hit) over to Tactician. It takes virtually 0 effort on your part and costs essentially nothing to do, as a turret is not going to want to waste their bombs in raid type wars over the attrition types they've got active. Will you get the same instant gratification and visible damage of dragging a milled up high city raider down into the pits of Hades? No, but if you want to deal with someone who deals low, consistent damage, you're going to have to be okay with doing the same. But maybe you do want something a little more flashy? Something that'll hit a little heavier? Luckily for you, there's a second option that's been staring you in the face the entire time. While nukes are the main weapon of a turret, they're also it's biggest weakness. Now, most people will hear the idea of throwing nukes at someone with 500 infra and think you're either crazy or incompetent. The thing is, you're not nuking their infra, you're nuking their improvements. People have talked about the buffs nukes have received a lot, but a certain change seems to always slip by unnoticed: the buffed improvement destruction. A base nuke destroys 4 random improvements, while a guidance sat boosted nuke will level 5 of them. If you send in 3 counters in raid type wars, they'll be able to launch a total of 12 nukes while receiving minimal damage themselves. How many improvements is that in total? With guidance sat, 48 to 60 improvements in just one round of wars, depending on if the target has VDS or not. Even in the worst case scenario where none of your guys has guidance sat and the turret has VDS, you're still able to hit up to 36 improvements in a single round. People who are sitting at 0 infra and have absolutely nothing to destroy are even easier. They're not producing anything at all and have to run off of a stockpile. This means they're permanently on a timer, both in their individual wars since they're only going to be carrying so much on them at a time and in the long run since they likely aren't replenishing very many of their resources by throwing nukes. Slot them with raid type wars on the Pirate policy and you can sap considerably amounts of their loot on-hand. Their lack of a nuke build makes them vulnerable to perma blockades, letting you completely shut them down if you can pull one off for long enough. Some people might say that slotting a turret and trying to spam nukes or get them in a perma blockade is too much effort. This is a totally fair opinion to have. As an alliance, it's your choice on how you want to deal with turrets. If your chosen method is "doing nothing in-game while complaining to everyone who'll listen and begging for them to be nerfed", so be it. I just think that's a little lame. Want to cap this off with a callout to @Buorhann specifically since he's been one of the main proponents of what I'm talking about. I tried to level with you in DMs, but you've been talking about this "nuke meta" constantly for weeks now. If you really think an alliance of nuke turrets running around and rogueing people left and right would be game breaking, why not show us? I think you know just as well as I do that you'd fracture your community and lose most of your guys after a few months all to do less damage than you could have done in a traditional war. If you believe in this so passionately, I'd love to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Rose has existed since 2014/15. The investment that alliance has put into the game and all of a sudden you want RandomNewbie#99054 to compete with right at the start? What the community I did once we started in the game? We immediately reached out to various AAs to learn the politics. UPN helped us with some resources, we rolled some Commie themed alliance that talked shit (and learned how stupidly easy one mechanic of warfare was - the Airstrikes, back when you only beiged players with 5 Ground or using a Nuke), hooked up with Guardian/SK then Syndicate later, etc. People know that history, I hope. Basically what I’m saying is that no matter the game or the state of it - you must invest time to figure out the layout and learn the current mechanics. No one is stopping RandomNewbie#99054 from competing with an age old AA that has existed through numerous game changes, but they certainly need to take the time on learning how to do so. This game is inherently a social one.

Yes you (we) started when the tiering didn't span between 1 and 55, that's where this "somewhere" is and it is very important to note. You say it is my white knighting to ask for fairness and I say it is your ignorance not to see that leaving new players entirely on the mercy of whales is a terrible design and makes the game not fun. Sure a new individual nation does not need to compete with Rose for example but it absolutely deserves a fair chance in a war against someone in same tier in Rose, but as the game and war mechanics currently stand, any nation has backing from about 600 other nation from their alliance and by extension the sphere so I am not asking for the game to be changed so this new guy can beat the 600 nations, I am asking for a game where he doesn't have to, because then nukes are all he has left to use. This same thing extends to smaller alliances that are not part of a bigger sphere, they can never do anything to even a similar sized alliance that are part of a bigger sphere because then again. they're fighting 600 nations so they too fall back to nukes. Your ignorance lies in the fact that "playing" for you is making coalitions and plotting grand schemes but you fail to see that most people don't have that luxury and "playing" for them happens on a far smaller scale (unless they again become part of larger spheres at mercy of whales) but the game has been designed and developed almost exclusively around your idea of "playing".

This idea is so revoltingly bad that it got me, Nepleslia - the guy who never browses the forums and who hasn’t logged into said forums more then once or twice in his entire PnW career - to go searching for his password, find it, and make a forum post. Please stop trying to nerf the game’s war aspect (this is Politics and War, remember?) just because you apparently don’t know how to construct a VDS. As others have stated, nukes (and missiles) are vital tools for those on the losing end of a war, and making them even harder to obtain will just make things even more lopsided for those on the receiving end of a dogpile. I daresay, in fact, that this suggestion would have never been made had you been the losing end of a war, Ivan, because I once thought as you did, that nuke turreting was stupid and overpowered. Then - in the previous large-scale war whose name I can’t be bothered to remember - I got slotted and zeroed… and discovered that nukes and missiles were all I had when it came to inflicting damage on my vastly superior opponents. This is why you don’t make suggestions when you’re new, because you don’t know both sides of the story yet. TL;DR: Stop complaining and build a VDS. Edit: Apologies for the weird formatting - typed this up on my phone while at work.

Your logic is out of whack here. Literally every single one of us started somewhere. All those “veterans” were either regular members or, a few, were low gov players (Aside from Shiho and Sketchy). These were players I’ve met during my stint with past AAs, as a regular member from most of my time. A new player has to learn the game and the scene. It’s how you get ahead. It’s how you reach whatever goals you have. Trying to white knight some random new player to compete right out of the gate becomes one of the core problems. Look at all the micros. They’re micros for a reason. THEY DON’T LEARN THE GAME This has been consistent throughout the existence of the game. There are quite a few AAs now that are small and led by “veterans”. They’re going to stay small. Why? Either by choice or the fact they don’t have an idea or a goal to pursue. Either they’re lazy or they don’t care. You cannot ask the game design team to help them when literally there’s enough out there for them to do more with.

https://imgur.com/a/vyk3vAk

The massive circle jerk you call politicking? what does it have for a new guy if you'd care to explain? and wasn't your 13 man alliance made up exclusively of veterans? I can't imagine your struggle of having to DM your old friends and calling in those favours and having to engage in FA with people who already recognize and trust you, must have been painful. Your ignorance in calling the game easy for people using nukes is what's wrong with the high gov of major alliances and is ruining the game. Do you really think people prefer doing that over something more engaging and fun? (except maybe Hatebi) The majors that started small managed to do it because they were small by today's standards but they were the biggest in their time even if it meant having 30 members around 1k-2k score, there was no one to kill them. You can see every 'technically' new alliance in top 20 is just a merger or splinter of already established alliances or founded by veterans, there's only a couple odd exceptions even if you extend to top 50. In current meta the only option a new small alliance has is to get prot by a major and become part of the 2 or 3 spheres and thus surrender their FA rights to this sphere for a couple years and see if they survive this 'hatching' phase before they can handle on their own. So players don't care to talk politics because it doesn't lead anywhere if in the end they are bound by the will of the sphere and they have to be bound by it for their own protection. Most choose this, those who don't, get stomped to death and are forced to rely on, surprise surprise, nukes!

What an odd fellow. Edit: Oh, nevermind - it's Noctis...lol

wish your luck with new ship and adventure.. at least don't pick fight like back days.

At 3 cities I had nukes and an absurd amount of infra to fit all the projects i wanted, but never was attached to the infra. Hard to die in the lower tier. If suppressing your city count, edging out infra for projects is a thing. If Aposis did have a micro tier, we have more nations there. Currently only me in range of them.

3K+ infra at c3 This will go well. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=611736

lol, was thinking about maybe just reforming Vikings of Anarchy to fight Aposis however I want. However things fell together like magic for alliance & people joining me, without trying.

Oh yay. Anarchy man is back. How lovely for us all

Well that we could agree on. This here too is a valid point. However it really isnt an issue at the moment, is it? (And in the past in never really was). Its always just a few tiny groups at most who do that... Here though, firstly the additional daily income and color bonus isnt really an issue, before it was an update people just used to watch rewarded ads or smth and it was perfectly enough for 1 nuke and 2 missiles daily.... and if you nerf nukes to an extent where it is impossible in terms of money to get a nuke on a daily basis, i don't really see how nuking more than once would really be possible for people who are not a part of active gw. This will practically just make the nukes pointless 9/10 times. Updeclare range could be changed, but i mean the downdeclare range is even more absurd. u can practically hit <c20 in ur c40s if you burn infra enough. this imo is a bigger issue still.

No. Just no.