Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/30/19 in all areas

  1. 27 points
    Dear Orbis, Some of you may not know me, many of you do. I'm one of the crotchety old-timers who wanders the halls of browser based nation-sims. Now that I have removed myself from the political arena and become that which I once hunted (to near extinction), I have time to reflect on the past, the present, and the future. I like writing these long diatribes from time to time, even though I doubt many people actually read them. Anyway, lets get into the meat of things. I've often talked about how it's important for the leaders of alliances to take responsibility for the health of this game. There's a symbiotic relationship between the game staff/creators and the big players. I'll avoid talking about Alex, I've done that enough in the past, but often as players we're to afraid to take risks. Considering my current position in the game you might find that sort of statement hypocritical, however I'd say I've done enough to create game content. Two names that come up a lot when talking about major events in the past are Partisan and Prefontaine. Neither of which are around to create those anymore. There are others past and present, yes. But it's hard to rally major events in the current (and the past year or two) political environment. IQ has a strangle hold on the mid tier. TKR-sphere has an strong grasp on the upper tier. When the rest of the game needs to unite to stand a chance at taking out a tier, that's bad. This last war was an attempt to break that up. I want to lift the curtain on some of what was planned, and how it failed. The premise of the war was two fold in the original plans, to take the long running leaders of the game for a loss and to shake up the political world to allow for the creation of new spheres. The first part was a success, but the second was a failure. The original plan was to end IQ post war. Part of IQ was in on this plan. Partisan was going to take Syndicate and ally to NPO. Syndicate was going to keep Rose or House Stark as an ally and drop the rest. NPO was going to keep BC or Polaris as an ally and drop the rest. During this period CoS and TEst were going to give them post war protection for 2 months to avoid their upper tier getting steam rolled while they established a new sphere and allowed the game to shuffle up. The war dragged on, Partisan left, and thus the plan died. Thus BK/NPO stayed tied. NPO and Syndicate have a ton of treaties (protectorates largely, sure, but lets be honest about how protectorates go here). Had the war ended earlier, the plan still might not have worked, but both sides are at fault for the peace talks. Just because this failed, doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. I understand feeling like there's too much to risk being a large alliance in making big moves, but this is a game. If you try something and lose, at least you played a hand. You're dealt a new hand soon enough. Lots of times moves come from smaller alliances, support those. Take TGH for example. They have active leadership, experienced fighters, seemingly motivated. We need more of that, and we need more of it in alliances that can make large swings. Imagine what would happen to the political landscape if NPO left BK, allied TGH who teamed up with CoS to then hit someone. IQ's core broken up and possibilities arise. Or TKR/Guardian leave tCW and roll them along side TGH. People often get too held up in the mentality of keeping allies for far too long, or only allying friends. Take a risk. Befriend an enemy to accomplish something together. Then when you're done one of you might backstab the other. These sort of moves MAKE the politics here. Looking at the treaty web and knowing how every war is going to play out is boring. One of the big surprise moves of the last war? CoS declaring on Guardian. TKR-sphere believed CoS would fall on their side of the war if at all. tl;dr Your allies don't have to be your friends only. Your foes don't have to be enemies. Hold your leadership to make things happen, or if you're leadership take a chance. We hold onto political grudges too long. Grudges make the game, but like treaties you should keep the same ones for too long. Back to my cave.
  2. 10 points
    TGH specifically made the moves it did to do something different. No Protectorates - You either sink or swim. We had several offers to protect us when we first started up, but we turned them all down. If we couldn't protect ourselves or handle our own economy, we didn't deserve to exist. We hold that view on every other alliance. No Treaties into the Treaty Web - Treaty chaining sucks. We like our corner of space. You guys can go backstab each other with your fake MDP/Intel clauses all you want. Fluid Politics - We like the ability to assist or fight whoever we want. If more "mini spheres" developed like ours, it'd most likely make the game fun for awhile before it inevitably turns back into a 2 sphere dominance gig again. Good post, @Prefontaine.
  3. 8 points
    When three individuals responsible for the direction of their alliance make a deal where only they know of what move is required to be made, and then one of them vanishes, the deal is over. Also trying to cite that "I should do more", I've done enough, came back for one last hurrah. Since you're in TKR you're having a very biased post, I stated both sides are at fault for the peace talks. I stated that NPO leaving BK would be a move that you might classify as dynamic, but again that's your TKR-sided opinion showing it's head. As you said, you don't know Orbis well. Your post shows as much so don't take this as insulting, I'm just trying to show you the errors in your assessment from your lack of experience/knowledge. TKR spent well over a year being the largest problem for political stagnation. Now BK/NPO have the potential to be that problem as well. It's only been a short time since the end of the war that "put them on top" so to speak. Whether they become the problem they complained TKR was, will show itself over the next several months or not. This is an issue that is everyone's responsibility on the top parts of the alliance listing, not just everyone who's not in your side of the treaty web. Take of the TKR glasses and look at the problems with fresh eyes.
  4. 6 points
    Oh bugger off with that, TKR signed a bunch of secret treaties to protect themselves and lied about it so they could pretend they were being "dynamic", then they steamrolled all of the smaller AA spheres who they had a significant advantage, pushing them in the hands of the major rival sphere, then were shocked when those people turned around and dicked them. Then after being rolled for that shit, they still have the nerve to keep a secret treaty with TCW, You want a medal for making a new sphere when the only reason its happening is you just got the shit kicked out of you for being full of it, and you can't even commit 100% to it and drop TCW? Sorry buddy, your leaders are lying to you.
  5. 5 points
    My takeaway and something I've felt since the EoS war on TAC - you don't need the strongest casus belli to start a war. There is nothing shameful in aggression, and it makes the game more competitive. An increase in fighting will serve to increase the value of your pixels far faster than waiting for your next city ever will. Hail to fighting.
  6. 4 points
    Looks like just a aesthetic change. Boring. We need a economic and military overhaul.
  7. 3 points
    (Had written it on mobile first, then passed it onto my laptop for better structuring and other stuff. Hence the white text). Pretending that the guns are the (sole, at least) problem, and therefore banning them would get rid of the problem is nonsense. Criminals would simply source from the black market, homemake, or resort to knives or other cold weapons, the latter which is a pattern among the countries the U.S. is compared to. People who're feeling really suicidal are just going to take the pills, leave the car running in a closed environment, meet the noose or go take a bath with the toaster. Taking the guns will just stop a few; actually caring for them will save a many more. (Before you bring it up, I have no issue in comparing Argentina and the U.S. in this regard, because it's about gun control in general. Furthermore, those pushing for it themselves tend to ignore the significant differences that exist between the U.S. and the countries it's often compared to [European nations in general, and Japan in particular]. Comparing the U.S. and Argentina because it's the countries whose gun legislation I know the best of, and it's easier for me to find info on either).Just as a reference point, in Argentina, we have pretty hefty control (need not only a permit [and training], but also a copy of either your salary's receipt, or net commerce earnings [so no, jobless folk or criminals don't have easy if any access to them]. No self-loading rifles outside of .22LR's and fixed mags [basically only M1 Garands; SKS's got banned by name]. Technically two different licenses [one allows for .22's and .25 ACP, plus I believe 16 gauge. The other allows for the rest outside of .50's and whatnot]), and we have 6 deaths to firearms per 100k people, while the U.S. has 12 per 100k. It sounds great, until you realize that Argentina has a fraction of guns per 100 people that the U.S. has (10 vs 112, likely bigger gap nowadays since it's a 2007 report), and that Argentina's homicides with firearms ranked at 44,5% versus the U.S.' 37.3% (in 2016. Different dates because this is what I could source). And you have to consider that 32,2% of the gun-related deaths in Argentina are unknown in motivation (means that the actual homicide rate, albeit unknown, is higher). (Suicides not covered due to a lack of reliable sources that set apart which for who. The best I could find is that hanging is the most common for both sexes, and then it's guns for men and poisoning for women for 2nd favorite).So, what's the reason for the higher firearm homicide rate in Argentina than the U.S., in spite of the gun control and far less guns in circulation, both in totals and per 100 people, you may ask?Socioeconomic factors (we undeniably have it plenty worse off than the U.S., to be fair), too soft of a penal code to dissuade criminals from committing crime, gun control itself (unlike as claimed here, guns have a far bigger role in self-defence than as stated. Elaborated further below), plus legislation, hampering law-abiding citizens from being able to properly defend themselves, powerless police force due to how the laws are set up (between both, ALWAYS pick the one the U.S. has without a second doubt) etc, are why.I could continue on the comparisons, but I've made my point clear. Gun grabbing doesn't translate into direct drops in gun violence. You need actual, long term solutions to fix violence, be it gun based or of any sort. For the U.S. in particular, those would be to work on the mental health and the socioeconomic gap that exists there, at least for a start. Gun control is, at best, a cheap band-aid. Addressing health, education and economy is what will truly make a dent on those homicide and violence rates.Also, something that most people tend to forget when arguing about the subject; the role of firearms in defensive situations and thwarting crime. Contrary to the negative feels some may have in that regard, it is a statistical fact (study here), that even on the low ball counts, the general agreement is that they stop as many crime attempts as they are used for crime. Higher figures suggest that they are used twice or thrice more often for self-defence than crime. Another page which sources directly to govt reports: It is frankly dishonest to pretend that these don't matter, when it is a mere fact that guns have a sizable role in allowing civilians to fend off criminals and defend themselves. Arguing about gun control without factoring in the instances where they are being used to do good would be akin to arguing about cannabis regulation/ban without factoring in the medical benefits it has going for it. Correct. More people remember about Columbine than the Boston bombing. In one hand, yeah Columbine netted more deaths. However, it happened nearly 20 years ago, while Boston only happened 6 years ago, and Boston did amount to three figure injured, a number who also lost their limb/s. Not to mention that it was done in the middle of a pretty well broadcast marathon. Columbine also symbolizes the fruitlessness of the AWB, on that note.
  8. 3 points
    That was very well written, enjoyed the read. Wise words though, I agree with everything you've said.
  9. 3 points
    BoC, just wreck AK. Stop being scared.
  10. 2 points
    Politicians like to use gun control as a platform since they don’t need to address the real underlying problem. Although if police and private security have guns then they are still in circulation for the population and obtainable to criminals for a price. People can 3D Print guns as well & make them other ways. So trying to ban them is a pointless sacrifice in liberty for security.
  11. 2 points
    You play this game more retired than most current leaders do playing. (Just be clear, I'm insulting both you and them. :D)
  12. 2 points
    Nice post. Sadly, the big alliances and those its directed at will look at it and be like
  13. 2 points
    A turd in nice packaging is still a turd.
  14. 2 points
    I agree roll AK. Cam got ur back
  15. 2 points
    I mean if Sean was "OK" with being attacked and then asked for help you realize he's just baiting both of you right.
  16. 1 point
    Many active with us on our discord have already seen the news, but for those of you that may have missed it. ORB Gaming has put together everything you need to know about Alex's new gaming Overhaul, bringing us PWv2. You can check it out here.
  17. 1 point
    The time has come! To join a new reich! Join and enjoy Reichspakt. We had our struggles before, but thats no reich to stand down, because our hearts are made of Iron! (Referring to our theme, Hearts of Iron 4 - Kaisserreich mod) We are here and we are growing We will grow until we are Kings of Orbis! We offer: • Grants • Military Assistance, and Counters. • Guidance and Help with Cities, and economy. • Active discord community. • Low Taxes! • Safety, and assistance. Alliance https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=5362 Join our discord as well! https://discord.gg/weDSAAY
  18. 1 point
    It would help if people make an active attempt at actually making enemies too. If you already don't have a positive opinion of an alliance, douse the flames a bit. Everyone too busy tryna finesse everyone who isn't their biggest threat so they can tally up more people in their column come time to fight.
  19. 1 point
    My standing is that if you're going to hit someone because they "asked for it" or "deserved it", you better go all in and follow through. Sure, you can talk it out and hopefully keep it limited, but 9 out of 10 times - that's not going to work. Might as well get your damage in while you can before you're countered and dropped (But do keep fighting, some people give up too early).
  20. 1 point
    BoC acted rationally against irrational diplomacy.
  21. 1 point
    If AK grows a pair and tells daddy BK to stand aside they could possibly do it.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Tell me your stories of your best meal ever.
  24. 1 point
    Congratulations Zevfer and the rest of your new administration! It's been great working with you these past few months. It is an honor to be able to transition the alliance to someone like you. Keep it up! As Durmij would say, I'll be smiling down from my retirement home. Also, thanks Rose and Orbis for a great term. I enjoyed getting to know each of you on here and working with you in various capacities. Here's to the future!
  25. 1 point
    @Alex Rose has been couped, would you be able to add me in as leader so I can fix this situation? Edit: Congrats tho Zevfer, have fun!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.