Leaderboard

Alright here's a few QoL improvements I thought I'd suggest, others feel free to add their own small changes. Nothing suggested should change major mechanics of the game. 1: Get rid of decimals from infra. Makes rebuilding a pain in the butt. Either just round up or down from infra damages. 2: Get rid of decimals from resources. Keep everything to even numbers just makes it easier to deal with. 3: Remove VM nations from alliance stats. Makes the alliance stats a more realistic representation of the alliance as it currently is. 4: Bulk Buy infra to a certain level

I'd argue long periods of peace have a lot less to do with war chests and much more to do with politcal maneuvering. It's actually relatively easy to build a war chest if you know what you're doing. And while it certainly takes a bit of time, it just can't be the main factor by itself. Two points: 1.) I think it's fair to say most alliance leaders actively avoid wars, particularly ones that don't have easy odds. There are certainly more antagonistic sorts, and plenty of movers and shakers who are admirable. BUT if you polled every gov member in this game i bet you find most would agree to two key tenets "It is my job to look after my members' best interests" and "long term economic gains tend to do more for an alliance than a successful war" (especially so in about 2/3 of every triumvirate). 2.) Building a successful coalition of alliances is difficult even when you have everything going for you - and most successful coalitions begin disagreeing almost immediately after they've all agreed to declare war. Establishing all the necessary contacts and trust is definitely the most time consuming aspect of a prolonged peace and after war is declared getting everyone to agree on terms is certainly the most time consuming aspect of war. This is why I prefer IA. Combine both of those points and you end up in a situation where there is no particular incentive to antagonize the game any more than one has to, so they can build political relations and prepare their alliance for war AND no incentive for the victorious coalition to peace out promptly as an adversary that is pinned down is preferrable to one that's free to maneuver both financially and politically, for the most part. Especially if that enemy is voluntarily re-throwing themselves on the sword which is basically what happens every time somewhere after round three or four when all the good whaling opportunities have dried up. Realistically, if you want a more fluid and fast paced game - you'd need to reduce the potential costs of taking (and failing) risks + a much larger and diverse range of alliances and players + more balanced and competitive mechanics (particularly ones that are actively re-worked to keep things on an even tier). This game offers none of those things. If you want to succeed at a persistent nation sim, the first step is creating a nation and the second step is simply persisting long enough for every other player in the game to get bored and delete. Frankly, I'm surprised this game has remained as interesting as it currently is, and a lot of that credit goes to competent alliance leaders who are actively stirring the pot. The problem is this game is mechanically biased against stirring the pot, no matter how competent you think you are.

I propose that we introduce the ability to declare “friendly” wars between alliance members. These friendly wars will not do any real damage to either parties (military units won’t die, no loss of infra etc.), instead the program will show you what damage you would’ve done. Besides from no damage, these wars will behave just like normal wars, with MAP production, wins and losses, and resistance loss. It would be a good tool to help alliances train new members about how to properly war.

Many mistrades are to buy food for 2k+ PPU from clicking on the Create Offer page and then forgetting to change the resource type. An easy fix to this would be to set the Create Offer default resource type to match the resource of the originating page. ie. if a player clicks Create Offer from a screen that was filtering on iron, then the default resource should be iron instead of food. If the originating page isn't filtering on a resource type, then just leave the default resource type to food. I think this would be as simple as appending something like "&defaultResource=iron" to the Create Offer button and updating the Create Offer page to consume that parameter. If this is too much work, then a simpler change would be to just unset the default resource type. Leave it blank, thus requiring players to select their desired resource.

Funny, that's how most people view you. What do you think these show exactly? This is basically you guys shrugging them off and being like "figure it out yourselves". A deal could have been worked out long before that point but none of your coalition seemed at all interested in working towards finding any solution to letting protectorates out because you didn't want to give up slots, from what I was told. When I tried to talk to your side about it, you guys jerked me around and wouldn't give a straight answer for nearly two weeks. Once you guys did, the answer was "we won't allow you to talk on their behalf, they have to ask us themselves" and then you specifically jerked them around for about another week before finally saying no. Your side's protectorates, some of whom surrendered, disbanded, or were asking us weekly for peace towards the end of this conflict could have left months earlier if you weren't so vested in a handful of extra slots. Did you explain that to them?

Instead of removing decimals from infra I suggest to change how to buy infra from "add X number of infra" to "reach X level of infra" so if you have to buy from 524.16 to 1000 you don't have to put 475.84 but you just have to put 1000

I'm sorry, but, I'm truly confused. Can we call their art demands stupid while also viciously defending the joke terms of this war as inconsequential and utterly non-punitive?

1) Add the "Back a Page" and "Forward a Page" arrows that are already at the top of all list pages to bottom of all list pages as well (nations, alliances, trades, etc.) 2) Remove alliance descriptions from all alliances pages except Information (e.g. don't load custom images or text for alliance control panels, banks, member lists, etc.) 3) Remove fields from alliance info pages that aren't changed from their default values (e.g. if an alliance's forum link points to https://politicsandwar.com/forums/ ) 4) Add a PW wiki page field to alliance info pages 5) Turn the current color bloc names in the Color Trade Bloc Leaderboard into links to each color bloc voting page 6) Turn the number of nations column in the Color Trade Bloc Leaderboard into a series of links to all nations on each color (e.g. the number of nations on olive should link here)

When doing battle sims the options should stay the same and not refresh each time.making the options the same if your trying to find an average over a big sample is aids sometimes. In wars after you do a certain type of attack there should be a button to go Back and have the same type of attack and same options being able to select cities to bulk import, default should select all but let’s say half you cities have 30 slots the other half is 29 due to war or something. If you bulk import the 30 slot build it won’t change the 29s if you bulk import 29 you have to manually add one to each 30 slot.

I get the intention - Military drills. This is already possible for those who REALLY want to experience and try out the war feature - Join the test server and wage war without consequences! To learn proper warfare though, you need more than a few friendly wars. The actual blitz, the stress of coordination along with other vital aspects in PvP wars. If you just want to try out the war mechanics, and learn the very basics, find a shitty micro and run it over - There are LOTS of them!

I haven't deleted my nation. ? It looks like I still had the old link to a nation I had for a short time a long time ago. I have now updated it to avoid any confusion in the future.

Every day of war was another day of Akuryo being butthurt so it was worth I appreciate what Arrgh did, if you are a pirate you join war to do damage, get the loot and drink rum, you have no mercy and you don't want any mercy, Arrgh doesn't know politics and the word peace, therefore doesn't sit at a peace meeting

Hopefully not in the top 10 of VMers. ?

I mean mechanics might be one thing that may inhibit war but I think that is a fairly large cop out. The treaty whoring that we've seen is by far the largest cause for wars to not happen for extended amount of time. Hypothetically let's say t$ wanted to hit NPO. NPO is tied to quite a few alliances, who themselves are tied to even more alliances. Very quickly t$ would have to fight 20+ alliances to hit NPO. So the logical answer is to therefore get enough alliances on board on their side to be able to compete. Most alliances have their own plans so convincing them can be hard, there also usually is tussling over when everyone can/wants to do it. Now multiply that by the fact they need to now coordinate with 20+ alliances and you work out quite quickly why wars and organising them take an agonisingly long time. Spam treaties more and the longer wars will take to happen.

If anything, what you just said proves Adrienne’s point. Not only are you clearly ignorant of your prot’s actions, but you have yet to realize that the actions of your prots are a direct reflection of you. While you can attempt to put the blame on Robert Gero for your shortcomings of judgement & communication in this particular situation, blame/ridicule should still be directed to Pantheon and its leader. Best wishes on improving Pantheon’s brand ?

I was looking at war mechanics and was thinking how blockades could matter during a war and I was looking at food specifically. I did some research and only saw it only reduced gross income by 33% and nothing else, I assumed this must be a typo or something I’d assume that soldiers would be reduced if your nation completely runs out of food since logically as the only unit that actually consumes food there’s a good reasoning that it should be reduced if they don’t get food. Asking on discord #Game help I also saw people also thought that if soldiers use food and you run out they should get a reduction, but it doesn’t seem like it. From the wiki the only effect of running out of food is a reduction of gross income of 33%. I’ll assume this is the truth since I think they fact check on the wiki. im proposing on top of the 33% reduction in gross income you should only be able to use 2/3rd of soldiers if your nation is on 0 food after a turn. The reasoning is as the only unit that consumes food it should also have a weakness if your out of food. Similar to how if you don’t have munis and gas you can’t use the other 3.

Change the objectives tab to "casino" once all the objectives have been completed? Ability to sort Alliance Member list by "Last Online"? Ability to sort Alliance Applicant list by "Last Online"?

This is a very scary and messy place

Why should a new player be able to catch up with a player that has played for... how old is the game now? 4-5 years? But sure this is great if you want to alienate all your upper tier nations.

Improving the war screen as well. Don't want the discussion on this to die.

Previously I suggested something quite similar, however that suggestion was for sorting through the applicant list. This (no doubt more useful) idea would help alliance leaders. When it comes to cleaning your alliance, one of the things you must do is kick inactives. Sure, you might wanna tax em for a while, but too many inactives causes clutter. I suggest that we add "Last Online" to the list of things you can sort your alliance members by. A simple change, but no doubt a loved one.

Nah it seems we're a regular visitor of that list sadly......

Longer periods of war lead to longer periods of peace as people feel the need to build bigger warchests.

I think that's a terrific idea. Upvoted, comrade.

So if most people think something, it makes it a valid claim then? How does it feel to to lead the the Worst Military of The Year and also the Most Inactive Large Alliance of the year? I assume you don't agree with the popular vote then, you guys sure had them removed from your alliance page awfully quick. Hypocrisy. This is what a lack of principal looks like, a double standard that favors oneself.(And given the awards you 'won', I would guess your thoughts are not inline with the majority of the games) I of course don't agree with those awards(Though the pumpkin was funny), please do better Nizam, what I said was harsh but true. You where caught red handed beyond all doubt in a lie, and then you say something middleschoolish like this, fail to understand the obvious, and then dodge. Let's now get failure to understand the obvious: They show... us keeping sirius in the loop with piece talks, and the reason why they contacted you. It proves your statement about them coming to you because we didn't tell them anything as a lie. We had a big dialogue with them for the entirety of the war actually Do you actually read my posts? Now to the dodge: 1) The Dodge: This is not what I was calling you out on, this is just some semi relative stuff you think will make you look good? Where is this coming from? 2) Bonus Lie: This is also another lie. "When I tried to talk to your side about it, you jerked me around and wouldn't give a straight answer for nearly two weeks" You never once talked to me about it, I just checked our history. Jesus christ 3) Failure to comprehend words: I did explain that I did not want to spend capital to peace out with NR after their behavior. People in our coalition did want to keep slots though, but the way you are talking about it with: "you weren't so vested in a handful of extra slots. Did you explain that to them?" Makes it seem like Pantheon was the one calling for the shots for our coalition, the largest coalition the game has ever seen I think... To get things moved in that thing, one has to do a vote, talk to people, ect ect. Pantheon was not the leading power int hat coalition, and with how NR acted, spending capital on them did not seem right This is becoming a lot like our DMs where... =/ EDIT: I really did say what I said with the sole intent of helping you become more self aware, not get into something like... this... I suppose this convo has run it's course then, at least for me. I really do want to see this community be more sane, we're at the point where people are fine with a micro getting tricked and couped, this is really really bad I based that comment off of my time inside TKR, when I was last there BK and IQ was getting shit talked pretty much daily ha

Why are we arguing over a war being too long? Didn't everyone say how much they love war and want more of it?

I'm happy to have entertained you.

Yes yes yes, clearly our unwillingness to budge from your sides refusals was clearly the reason it dragged out ?. As I said had the terms reached been proposed by your side early on the war would have been done long ago. We didn't have a need to peace out, due to all the winning. Virtually all the talk I saw in our channels was "We're fine letting this go as long as it needs to". No needed a peace, was there even a want? Not really. It was a more apathy towards peace. If it happens it happens, if not, that's okay too. The fact that you think the terms were ridiculous just further solidifies the fact of how little you actually understand about these games. The fact that you think the side who supplied the original terms had to make counter offers is hilarious. As someone who actually does contractual negotiations, when coming from the position of power (see: winning side) and you go "we want X", and the side coming from no power (see: losing side) goes "no". The onus doesn't fall on us to find a compromise when there's no reason to. You guys need to come up with something we find acceptable. The fact that you don't understand that sort of thing.. I mean.. SRD my man. I'm at a loss for words. Going to go back to ignoring you, consider your overwhelming ignorance a victory.

Automated Trading The use of any script, bot, macro, or other form of automated trading is strictly prohibited in Politics & War. These programs give players who use them an unfair advantage over normal players, and use of them is punishable by banishment. --------- 01/12 06:44 am BlackAsLight of Native Australians accepted your trade offer. BlackAsLight received $15,727,422.00 and in exchange you received 7,782 food. 01/12 06:44 am Talus of Golgotha accepted your trade offer. Talus received $4,482,578.00 and in exchange you received 2,218 food. I mistakenly put a buy offer in for food at 06:43/06:44 and before I could cancel it the above happened. As we all know TKR will never return those as they do not believe in sportsmanship and fair play. My suggestion to ensure going forward that levels the playing field is and to stop automated bots, and therefore TKR members, having an unfair advantage over normal players: to minimise the amount of times an automated bot can ping the API for data rather than having a dropdown menu for selecting resources, use a checkbox instead have a minimum length of time that the API updates and before anyone says the bot isn't automated, the only thing that isn't automated is someone has to click a link, everything else is automated.

My post was in reference to your reply of Adrienne. Based on the information that you provided, I was able to present my thoughts in the manner that I did. No agenda needed. What narrative am I trying to push? That Pantheon is terrible? I don’t feel the need to push that narrative as you’re doing a stand-up job of pushing that narrative yourself.

Good, strong, professional alliances fight long wars. Weak alliances can't. We've reached a stage of the game where a lot of the fat has been boiled off and a few bad rounds aren't that intimidating.

What: Ban @Noctis from positing on the forums indefinitely Why: Derailing almost any thread he steps foot into and constant complaining. ...... We must protect the "down vote hippo" at all costs (Hippo part is a joke, the rest is legit) So today i ask all sides of Orbis from TKR to BK to sign this to tell Alex we have had enough! Lets make the forums a better place to hate, lets keep the toxicity a acceptable level! We need to protect our wildlife and keep people from poaching our Hippos

As a general reminder about how term 1 of the peace accords affects Grumpy, people seem to be under the impression that grumpy's name is supposed to be changed to grumpy. This however is false, as grumpy refers only to grumpy, but not grumpy, as grumpy is the acronym of grumpy, and the term only affected the acronym. As such, to say that grumpy is grumpy is wrong, and to demand that grumpy change grumpy to grumpy on top of changing grumpy to grumpy falls outside of the scope of the treaties signed by grumpy in order to end the war between grumpy and Coalition A. Grumpy's name is not grumpy, and though below grumpy on grumpy's alliance page says grumpy in accordance to the treaty that demands that grumpy changes grumpy to grumpy, this still does not mean that grumpy is grumpy. All it is is that grumpy's acronym grumpy has been changed to grumpy in accordance to the treaty signed by grumpy ending grumpy's war with Coalition A, and has no bearing up grumpy having been changed to grumpy alongside grumpy being changed to grumpy. I hope this clarifies things up to everyone @Ockey5.

The rivalry that shaped this game the most was Paracov vs Syndsphere.

Hola! My fellow blood sucking tyrants/rulers/(ahem!) angels - I hope you are having fun. Playing this game for a few days and am liking it so far.Now is the time to join an alliance since might stick around and be a pain in the <<edited by admin>> for some time. Looking for an alliance which gives certain degree of freedom(in farming) but can have rules which are practical.Also if the tax is non-existent or super low that would help.If there are grants and free loans for a new player that would help also for the many cities+army I need. Also is there any guide which can point me to nation score and suggested army information? Thanks. ciao. -KN

You can calm down there. You may not like it when people bring up what you done to regain control of Pantheon in a negative light. We get it that in your eyes you rode in as a white knight to save an alliance making death noises. That is your perspective. Others have the view that you took advantage, done the alliance dirty, no different than what you are claiming DustyDart done. So instead of coming out here beating your chest, trying to climb the podium of higher morality over the cesspool, you can reflect how your alliance can be a better protector and train your little minions. Let's be honest you have obligation to ensure their success which you failed. OOC: Many of those people you view as toxic have been extremely helpful with the micro I belong too. You might forget that we are all playing characters in this game. Some people are villains while others are heroes. If people are choosing to walk away from the game because they cannot understand this than they were truly never playing the game. Like it or not the game is called politics & war. Not arts & crafts. So being able to have various opinions and drama is good for the game overall. If you and others wise to take a moral position than we need players to take the immoral stance. It's already a boring game where nothing happens so grab your crew and I'll grab mine so we can have a good old politic drama fight in public. Let's make PnW great again.

One of the main terms in Knightfall is getting rid of a trade bot to prevent people from screwing up a trade offer and not having enough time to fix it before someone pounces on it. This proposal all but ensures that if someone enters their trade offer wrong they will get screwed over. I know from personal experience I have screwed an offer up, say click sell instead of buy or vice versa but was able to quickly take the offer down before losing it. This would eliminate any possibility of being able to quickly fix your mistake.

Well this got sirius.

I strongly agree with Alex about the trade bots and automatic offers. One of the things I like about this game is for someone who is especially motivated and active, they can make extra money day trading, posting lots of offers buying and reselling resources and profiting off the difference. I really like the dynamic of having a choice of whether or not to just accept an offer and get what you want immediately at a less favorable price, or post something at a more favorable price at the cost of having to wait on it to be accepted and with the risk that it will not be accepted at all. More active players who are willing to wait and keep posting offers will get better deals. And it's fun to come up with strategies to post offers in a way that are more likely to be accepted and outcompete other traders. It's also favorable to newer players and smaller nations because smaller trade offers are more likely to be accepted quickly and less likely to be undercut. There are diminishing returns to how much you can earn day trading. Speaking personally, when my nation was much smaller and my income was in the 5-15 mill a day range, I often earned somewhere around a million a day trading resources. And even when I wasn't day trading, I still made a lot of effort to get the best prices that I could when buying or selling resources for my nation. As I got bigger, it became a smaller percentage of my income and stopped being worth the real-life effort to optimize. Now I do more of a mix of posting or accepting offers depending on how big the spread is, how much I'm trying to buy or sell, and how pressing my need is to make the exchange. I'll even say that it's taught me some things that can apply to real life economics. In particular, the idea that you can get better prices for yourself if you have more time and keep money and/or resources sitting around available to be traded. Having to balance getting better prices vs the opportunity cost of keeping aside cash and resources for trading.

So let me guess Sean was secretly leading the alliance.

Did Sirius not think their name through before they chose it? Siriusly? It's like they wanted the name jokes.

I think 1, 3, and 5 as well as the bugfixes are what you can realistically expect sometime in the future. I don't have any desire to set up automatic trade fulfillment or allow trade bots in the game, however. You said it yourself - the market is one of the best parts about the game. Automating it into something meaningless would, I think, quite effectively destroy one of the best parts of the game. Opportunities for arbitrage make the game far more interesting in my opinion. Communication about trades, speculation on prices, etc. all add to the important of in-game coordination and activity. Letting algorithms decide all the buying and selling would remove a huge driver of activity in-game.

I call upon thee @Radoje

Damn... And I thought I had it tough. xD

Hey I did that once and TGH made a meme out of me. EDIT: Found it, I wanted to click timeline... >_> @Hodor https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/23445-propaganda-time/&amp;do=findComment&amp;comment=373448

So with this war wrapping up, and looking back at the wars this past year, we've gotten into a cycle of the aggressors winning again, but the wars being stretched out for long lengths of time by the defenders, who refuse peace until damage is equal. For example, the 2 longest wars to date were back to back, so obviously the trend we're going with is defenders forgoing long-term growth plans/patterns for short term damage to the alliances their fighting, even if its more detrimental to them in the long run. Do you think the longer wars/less growth is going to be the norm going forward?

So, I would not be surprised if this has already been stated, or even uttered word for word as I'm about to put it. But, going through to that would be quite the pain, and since there has been nothing spoke about it, I doubt it had passed. So.... let's talk about Alliance Wars... yay? 1. Declarations of War This is going to be the base of the rest of my suggestions. But, basically, it allows the leadership of an alliance (heirs and leaders,) to declare war on an alliance. However, neither side will be able to attack for two turns (not one, because if it's one, we're going to get war declarations a minute before a turn, and that would defeat the purpose.) Doing this will cause each alliance to be at war. During which, each side is allowed to send a peace offer, but to be accepted, it has to be accepted by every member of the leadership (heirs and leaders). Any larger (by score) protectorate with the defending alliance will be dragged into the war, any alliance with an MDP with the defending alliance will be dragged into the war. Any alliances with an MDP, ODOAP, or MDOAP with the attacking side, will be sent a popup notification on the alliance control panel. Any member of leadership will be allowed to accept the invitation, and only one will be required. Side note, if an alliance gets declared on by one alliance (and their allies), no other alliance will be allowed to declare on them for at least six turns (half of a day). Also, while the declaration is being drafted up (the two turn wait), neither side can be declared on, nor declare wars. No offensive wars towards any nations involved with the upcoming, nor any wars with an external alliance, for those two turns. 2. Effects of Declaring War By declaring war the proper way, you have declared war and voila, you get an advantage over your enemy. By going through with the declaration, the aggressors get +1 MAP starting off, and for the first day of alliance combat, the aggressors get +10% infrastructure and causalities and +5% success rate on espionage missions. 3. No declaration of War? This will only be activate if a third or more of the members of an alliance declare war on members of another alliance. The MDP's and protectorates of the defending alliance will, of course, be involved immediately. However, the allies of the aggressive side, MDP or no, will not be able to join the war until one of the those allies starts declaring war. Also, if the an alliance gets declared on, no alliance can start drafting against them, until six turns after the thirty-three percent member count was reached (of course, the alliance that is hitting them may declare as many wars as they want on them). (E.X. So, imagine TGH and Empyrea have an MDP. Empyrea starts an aggressive war without the declaration stage. TGH will have to declare on the targets of Empy, as they will be unable to attack without it. They will also have to wait six turns before they can hit the target. 4. Effects of not declaring in advance. By not declaring war, you get a wee bit of a punishment. The attackers get 5% increase in infrastructure destroyed. But, the attackers will take 10% more casualties. Once the one-third requirement is met, the defending alliance gets +2 MAPS. No change will occur to espionage missions. 5. Blockades If 50% of an alliance is blockaded, their bank gets "closed off." What I mean about this, it basically means that they will be unable to send money from their alliance bank to any outsider, and they will only be able to withdrawal money to alliance members. However, they will still be able to receive resources from the greater world. Furthering that thought process, I was thinking about disallowing any alliance member in war, to send out more than 5% of what they had six turns ago, to the outside world. They will only be able to send a trade for a resource every six turns (they could have a trade for every resource out, but they wouldn't be able to send out another trade for any specific resource until after six turns after their most recent sale/buy), however, they will still be able to send all of their money and resources to their alliance bank if required. 6. Peace offers. As previously mentioned, both sides will be able to send peace. I was thinking about making it a required, 100% of leadership, to accept peace. However, that number could change to fifty percent, or seventy five. However, I was thinking of a thirty-six hour time to respond to a peace offer, before the peace offer vanishes. If war ends to an NAP for a certain month, neither alliance will be able to dispel the NAP, and the NAP goes to each member of the people in the war. Also, one alliance will not be able to hit the protectorate of one of the alliances they were in a war with. The peace offers could be a "page," or really a selection, like a bank transfer. It would allow an alliance to demand a certain amount of (enter resource here)*. Also, a peace deal could force an alliance down to a certain amount of players for a set amount of time. However, the timer runs out, when half of the NAP has passed (for example, if an alliance lost and were promised 6 months NAP, three months later, they would be able to go back to getting players). * So, a thought of mine, I will admit, I doubt this was actually mine, I think Joshua Keller has some amount of influence on this idea, but it would be cool for an alliance to be able to tax an alliance for resources. For example, if they owed ... alliance 25000 Munitions, every Munition they received or was put into the bank, would immediately go straight to ...'s alliance bank. So, that's all I want to type down, it's already taken enough time as it is. If you have any comments on this idea, please feel free to tell me. If you see any errors, feel free to tell me, if you think there's an error, or if my words don't make sense, feel free to tell me, I'll try to clarify any issues. Thank you in advance, and thank you for reading this.