Leaderboard

Sorry but players should be able to play the game in any way they want, this is a terrible idea

Great, another knight themed AA Hyperborea hereby renames itself White Knights

So, now that the war has reached 70 days in length and become the longest in history, some things need to change. As we all know, the skill and warfighting potential of an alliance is determined by the length of the wars they fight. Basically, I'm the best now, and we need to recognize that. @Buorhann It's time man, I'll be awaiting the transfer.

Be honest...you say you don’t care but do you really not? If so, you’re putting a lot of effort into something you don’t care. Its obvious you want some kind of compensation for all your downvotes.

>implying Blackstone legion was anything but an enclosed habitat for 50-70 inactives and 10-20 or so care takers who only just now realized all the zoo animals were carcasses Condolences to UH.

Join an alliance that can teach you how to do better.

I like this idea it could be really war efficient for battle like knightfall. Also, I was at 1,700 score and since Knightfall i went down to 503.22 score and I need money but I am a poor nation. So Alex can you make something for the poor nations to get to become rich or just so that they can get better?

You missed the gems in this thread, though

This is a solid suggestion. I think allowing players to customize how they fight is good for the game. Also planes shouldn’t be nerfed, but their score should reflect their power. Same w every other unit. Another good project would be Spy Satellites. IMO, spies are merely an accessory unit and have little to no empact on who wins the war. IRL, intelligence war is king. If you have the project you go from killing 1-5% of enemy units during sabotage to something like 5-10%. You could also just boast it to 5-10% w/o the project, or add it to Intelligence Agency

Did this Acadia nation go into VM mode to get out of me kicking his ass for the 7th time? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12832

Shitpost or not, it can be easily argued that canceling on KT is justifiable both ethically and legally.

It's no more a joke than you are

And then you'll know for sure it's time for you to go.

1. Logs were shared elsewhere of the poaching attempt. 2. BK stated in the logs above that they were entering because of any action taken against GS which entered despite having no tie to the conflict. Also note, BK is on the side of the global conflict trying to force Grumpy to sign paper because it enters wars due to "friendship" the likes of which were justified here.

Only 4 more to go.

I wonder if BK would have won so many awards if you weren't allowed to vote for your own alliance... Edit: They still would have, because NPO would vote for BK and BK would vote for NPO.

I find this statement rich coming from you. Not only are you guys talking about stacking the chips in favor of people who already have an advantage, but you've got one of the worst offenders of Protectorate spam saying it's necessary? Komando is a dead alliance by the looks of it, Defcon 1 might as well be dead for all it's existence matters to anyone, same with Yakuza, goon squad is a wannabe Oblivion with none of the reputation or utility. Solar Knights is rank 16 and clearly doesn't need your protection, and Animation Domination thinks itself strong enough to protect others and also clearly doesn't need you. Your Allies are just as bad and the other top alliances aren't any better. You know what's even worse than the number of shitty micros? The number of them that are being protected either by you or by people you're still protecting despite them being organized and strong enough to protect others. Start by doing your part. There's good reason to drop every single alliance I named. If they die from that, oh well. If everyone else gets a clue and follows suit just send them to me, I'd love more targets down here to burn to the ground without worrying about NPO coming after me for burning some backwater nobody's down. I'd love to cleanup the micros for you but you all protect them one way or another, and now you want to deny me the manpower to even do it lol

I don’t think it would require automatic trading for someone to jump on an offer like this quickly though, if it notifies them & provides a link like the war notification bots, it wouldn’t really function very differently. If someone is just refreshing the trade screen; they could also potentially take advantage of trade offers like these quickly as well. It’s not automatic if they need to actively be waiting for a trade offer to show up & click to purchase it. Automatic trading would be if someone can be sleeping & the bot automatically does trades without them doing anything. So their bot would fall outside definition of banned bots in the rule posted & require a change in the definition of what bots are banned.

I still think the desire to "nerf" planes is unfounded. If all units are "equal" then its literally just a game of rock paper scissors. Either way, locking up something as crucial as this in a project seems heavily unbalanced imo.

Why is it an awful idea? People have been complaining to me for years that ships should be able to shoot back at aircraft, and that it doesn't make sense for them to just be helpless as soon as your air force is gone. I think this project gives you an option, where if you feel that way, you can equip your ships with AA to defend themselves when they're targeted.

As described, I would qualify this as a nice to have project, something to pick up after you get all the actually useful projects.

Tank based anti-air platforms have existed since World War II. As a matter of fact, Germany CONVERTED obsolete tank hulls into this role (look at the Flakpanzer I, for example). Not only tanks, but even lighter vehicles (such as trucks and half-tracks) were mounted with AA weaponry for AA purposes. American M16 Multi Gun Motor Carriage, mounted with quad .50's. German Sd.Kfz 7/2, with a 37mm FlaK cannon mounted on it. Nowadays they usually just slap SAM's into them, rather than guns, as is the case with the Avenger: As for the idea itself for the fleet, while good in theory, the problem with it is that it can easily be circumvented by simply zero'ing or largely destroying the opponent's air first (which is common procedure anyway), and you'd be left in a case where the 300 planes spawned by the CV (plus whatever the target still has left, let's say 200) would ultimately still get curbstomped by the 1000+ aircraft the other person has (ships usually only get targetted once ground and air have been secured, since having ground helps secure air and the other way around, while the naval aspect is a bit isolated from that dynamic). Perhaps assigning an AA % value to the ships themselves would result in a more meaningful cost for the attacker to consider before launching an air strike.

Further evidence to this point: