All Activity

Currently when there is not enough Power in a City, it outright disables everything. A relatively simple change would be to instead have it keep Improvements working on a priority list with it only disabling improvements once it reaches the limit. The priority list being for example, Military -> Commerce -> Civil -> Manufacturing. This would allow for cities to still partially function when Power Plants are destroyed or when you don't build enough.

So currently, when we enlist military units, they're created out of thin air and when we discharge them, they disappear. The amount we can buy is based on a nation's population, but that is all. What I propose is that military units become a part of the population (with Tanks, Aircraft and Ships being worth x population). When you lose military units in a war, your maximum population is temporarily reduced. This would then reduce a nation's income and also reduce the amount of military you can enlist (as you have less citizens to draw from). The nation's population would then be slowly restored over x turns or days (and potentially be a good way to integrate Approval Rating). If you're at war, this would be further reduced (as there would be less migration to a country at war). I would also assign x population to relevant Improvements and if you enlist too many military units, this potentially means they are pulled from your "workforce" and Improvements are disabled (much like they are now, if you don't have enough Power) or run at a reduced capacity. When you discharge military units, they are then restored to the population and either the next turn or the next day, they are then restored back to any Improvements. Discharging military units (if it doesn't already), should also reduce your Approval Rating.

Welcome~

This is not a problem at the core of PnW. This is an antisocial problem at the core of you. Right, because one has to learn to cooperate with all the other monkeys of Orbis or you are driven out of the troop. That's like... Sociology 101. You also have 50 cities and take for granted the tribalism of your alliances that allowed you to even build that many cities. Now you spit in their faces. Humans have to make allies for survival. If you can't advance then build stronger relationships. Leaders and followers come and go but cooperation is at the core of human existence and success. It seems like you have a fundamental problem with that nature of reality. Ideal for whom exactly? Antisocial people? The alliances that have grown in power and influence do so because of their commitment to each other. Ever since I joined the game, all the top 20 alliance have been both friend and foe with each other. We have fought against each other and for each other. This IS the correction to the power imbalance you claim doesn't exist. War is basically my group of monkeys are better than your group of monkeys but there is a reason why wars end in peace because even after all our wars, at the end of the day, we are still apart of the Orbis monkey club. "Politics" in this context means make friends and allies. Alliances aren't merely 'homes for the homeless', they are social communities. Your analogy is false. It's more like saying, "don't be friendless, make friends". This is why I think you approach this from a fundamentally antisocial perspective when you are only in the city count position you are in because of the alliances you were in. Oh, great... another debate bro. Ah yes, some vague appeal to individuality. How convenient for you to benefit from all the "major alliances" you've been in to grow your city count into the top .01% of the game to then turn around and do a, "well actually, the major alliances are the problem... actually." Why don't you delete and reroll for the 4th time and shows the rest of us your commitment for rugged individualism? Oh wait, that's right, you're a victim of social interaction because of that diagram you drew. And this is the crux of it- How about... don't pick fights with a larger group of people? Seems like in reality that doesn't work so why should it here? You should lose. And especially, when youre picking the fight with a larger group of people. Go start a fight with eight guys on the street and let us know how it turns out for you. In fact, that lesson should be reinforced in the game instead of allowing griefer loser weapons to get ego victories. At the end of the day, a politics (cooperate) or war game should reflect social structures and teach lessons on how the real world operates: antisocial and uncooperative people lose in the end. You claim there is some power imbalance but all I see is a baby monkey, flinging his poopies and beating his chest. When in the real world of human/monkey/society/culture, your displays of aggression would be put down and corrected by the tribe. Social correction is the essence of humanity and this game doesn't allow brats to be corrected like they would in nature. That's the REAL power imbalance at the core of this game. Your ideas of "equality" boils down to some entitled version of no collective consequences now that you have achieved an "individually" higher city count and 'SUPERIOR' military capability over most 'individuals' of the game. An accomplishment owed to the alliances that you now deride. As far as I can tell, the game already favors antisocial griefer behavior and that's a real shame. If this were out in the wild, all of us monkeys of orbis would sit on you and smack your little belly red until you were ready to play nice again.

Ah yes, let's make antisocial griefer behaviors even more of a viable option than it already is in an online, community building game. Quite the antithesis of how humans operate in reality.

Make the military page (https://politicsandwar.com/nation/military/) have the same pictures than the military VIP personalized pictures .

While I think this is an interesting idea that could be accompanied with a change to what Military Salvage does, I don't expect it would be adopted since the Design Team is currently exploring ways to reduce the amount of resources in the game and this would give another way for resources to be made. 😕

Welcome to Orbis, Reese.

Hello! I am Reese Raine, leader of Kepos. I am completely new to the world of Orbis and do hope to make a good impression on all here. That is all for now.

I think manus can be left untouched for now, only food needs fixing and reducing the bonus production somewhat does that, we can tweak that further with more changes sure but manus are directly connected to wars, instead of reducing their production which may have bigger unexpected effects on wars, we should rather have changes that encourage wars and increase consumption of manus that way and we can take some time with that since only food needs any urgent change.

Some good favorites of mine are eggnog+ by Madgarden, dwarf fortress, and caves of Qud. Any favorites you like?

THIS!!!! Every resource decays at a certain flat % rate. This basically increases consumption costs regardless of the dam Pixel-Hugging Farmer Bourgeoisie that runs the Game. Ex: X% of your food spoils every turn. No matter how much food u have or where it's stored in bank or in nation. This will make it so that regardless if your food is sorted all in the aa bank or divided among nations it will all get spoiled. Decay rates get lower depending on the resource, Uranium being longest lasting. This should help since resources that never get used except in war (Munitions) will decay with time, and stockpiles will be worn out regardless of how long u try to pixel hug and farm.

First, when you have a production of ressource you need to have a sink behind. If production is out of control you need to pump up the sink too. For example, make the production boost to having more than 1 improvement, 50% less effective. Second, if nuclear power is too powerfull, you just make his uranium consuption goes 2 times up, without touching the others -> it will make a bigger sink to uranium. You can augment also the consumption of food, so with only half the bonus of production it will balance it.

Oh no... Not Methman...

^

"Not using all of your available military decreases your XP gains by 50% (but the minimum amount of XP you can gain from a battle is 1)." This was recently added. It could be tweaked further to scale w/ how % of your current military you use, since that seems like a better idea.

Looking at this I see a couple of issues. Original Proposal - This would end raiding. Raiders will declare multiple wars and will vulnerable to significant counters. If the goal is to encourage new smaller players sticking around and forming new smaller alliances then we need to disincentivice large alliances and blocs. They should still have their place as vibrant communities within the game, but giving smaller alliances some benefit could make them more viable than they are now. Counter Proposal. -1 defensive slots for alliance-less players. +1 defensive slots if your alliance is over X members (80 for example) +1 defensive slots if your alliance has over X ODP or higher treaties (5 for example) Would mean larger alliances would have 4 defensives, smaller alliances would have the standard 3. And splitting your alliance into "training" alliances too much to get around the 80 member limit keeps you at 4 anyways. Also large alliances in a dominating bloc gets 5 defensives. Larger alliances still have the players where 5 defensives can still be worked with. It'll also give some alliances more options tactically in where they assign their offensive slots. New players are somewhat protected with only having to field 2 defensives. I do forsee an issue with paperless alliances, that happen outside of the game and keeping alliances around the defined boundaries in regards to treaties and members.

I would say around 75% radiation

I'm sorry but I don't want to pay up a million dollars just for you to be on the same color as me

They lower the minimum infrastructure I lower the coolant in the nuclear reactor.