Leaderboard

I was at work today and was having a typical day. My coworkers were all laughing at my witty banter and the women could not stop admiring my muscles as I furiously typed away. I was working hard on making sure The Land of Simple was in tip top shape while my boss was not at his desk. But then one of my colleagues politely asked me “What is that war and politics shit I always see you on?” I eloquently replied “Oh haha… It’s uh… like an online game...” “I think I’ve heard of that,” he said. “No you haven’t,” I assured him. My colleague is a fan of strategy games like Civilization so seeing a chance to bring glory to TKR I suggested he check the game out. He then went and looked up “war and politics” and quickly found the site (great job on the SEO Alex). However, when he saw the main page he simply laughed. This was what the front page looks like: He described it as looking like a “Wikipedia-ass game”. Now, while I think this page is this most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen, I can understand why some may be hesitant to sign up. Alex, recently you made an April Fools joke about updating the game’s UI. Are there any legitimate plans to do this? I believe if the site looked a little less “Wikipedia-ass gameish” the game would be more attractive to potential players. Just an idea. Yours Forever, Smith

While some people may think this is fake, the real PW players know that this is 100% true. After all, what is a more BK move than signing treaties with the alliances most likley to just give up and merge into them?

In b4 “I’ve reset the donation cap for this month.”

Honestly, it was a pretty bad April Fool's joke as the intent comes off as saying you won't make a major change to improve the marketability of the game. The UI and app should super high priority if you want to get more players The whole browser game veterans crutch is something you can't rely on forever. The fact that the article was posted 4 days before April 1st was even worse. So yeah I agree with Smith.

A compromise -- Give alliance leaders the ability to see the embargo list for nations in their alliance. That way they can see if someone isn't following the order to "Embargo Alliance X" and instruct them to do so. Or when an alliance wide embargo is put in place, the member has to click something on a trade or embargo screen to agree to it. "Your alliance wants to embargo alliance X for Y reason(s) do you accept this embargo".

I'm really emotional about pantheon not raiding too.

Not with that attitude they can't!

A couple of things. One, raiding isn’t quite the end all to learning how to war, especially if you’re raiding inactives (which usually is the case). There is a lack of suitable targets around the city 10 range, but sub city 8 or so, you have a fairly decent pool of nations to pick from. The scenarios that play out in low tier raids have only a passing resemblance to how a war plays out. Echo’ing Monkey’s word’s here: test server is pretty great for learning how to war. Burnout happens, sure, but you can get your nation up and running at a decent size and kick off military manoeuvres within two or so days of playing there It’s important to note that raiding can familiarise you with base mechanics, and I highly encourage new players in the lower tier to do so, not simply because it’s a passing of knowledge via experience, but because it gets the lower tier to engage. Ideally, you would be getting members to raid till about city 7/8 or so. Once you’ve provided an initial start up package, prospective members should have the ability to make money via resource selling, raiding, and gaming the market. They don’t need to focus on infra so that isn’t really a concern until later stages. Having said that, I can understand why Kata put a ban on raiding (thinking it would cause more headaches than usual, believing it would draw gov’t attention - limited as it was and still is - to things lower on the priority list, etc.), I don’t quite agree with it. These beliefs aren’t as uncommon as being presented above, but it takes a bit of effort at the start. From there on out, provided that you’ve laid down the rules and given some guidance to people, you can pretty easily galvanise the alliance’s lower tier into something resembling a decent, engaged part of the alliance.

We can blame the UI of the game for one of the reasons people can't get into it however I think we all know that no one plays this game because of Smith.

Sorry, but The Soup is hot on this one.

Damn, you beat me. I went Members, clicked over two pages, picked a new member, and clicked on Mountania under Nation Activity.

Embargoes (shortcut bar is accessible on all pages). One click. Mountania is on the first page. Second click.

You on a whole new level of thinking man.

....Again?

I'm tired of playing a Wikipedia-ass game looking game.

Embargoes are an underutilized aspect of P&W, and could become a much impactful area. The solution to this would be to allow alliances to embargo other alliances/individuals. Just as the United States can control if its citizens can trade with Cuba/NK/Iran, alliance leaders should be able to embargo whole other alliances. This would lead to an interesting dynamic and potentially create conflict that could escalate. This would be a new element to trade and create a new political arena with leaders having to balance cutting their own members off from resources, retaliatory trade wars, and the increased tension. This beats the current decentralized nature of embargoes that lacks any real strength.

This is Shifty reporting in on the paranormal extraterrestrial phenomena known as ayy lmaos Could this be a message of friendship or a warning? Tune in next time on Shifty's Unexplained Mysteries segment of SNN.

at least call me out for the dumb things i actually do... like play this game with yall ;3 or have a modicum of hope ? rawr

Thats horribly inefficient and makes embargoes basically unenforceable trying to check 150 peoples embargoes. Members already have sovereignty by being able to vote with their feet, if they dont like the alliance policies they can leave. This is no different than being able to set an alliance tax rate. If thats your solution no one will ever do it and Embargoes will remain a pointless function of the game. Governments already control FA, and embargoes are an extension of FA. This is no different than how it would work in real life. The basis of this games are the alliance not the individual nations. They are citizens of an alliance and the alliance should be able to set "laws" so to speak. In game mechanical enforcement makes life easier and more engaging for the game.

Just wanted to drop by and say hello to all the leaders in Politics and War! As you may be able to guess, I’ve only just formed my nation recently, so I hope I can become a positive part of this community!

It's no particular hardship to defend Kata's decisions to a group of people who are essentially expressing their vehement disappointment that they're going to have to wait a little longer than they'd hoped to stomp on her current alliance of residence.

You're assuming people competent enough will run lmfao, I'm ex-pantheon and the biggest struggle of the alliance was finding active people who knew what they were doing/willing to listen to advice who want to help out in government/in the alliance. People sit in pantheon and do nothing, majority of the alliance. The majority of the remaining have absolutely no idea how to play the game, the only half competent ones are currently in government. Fist did more than just choose the new leader wrong. He streamlined somebody into his high government econ who's making policies that don't benefit the alliance (i.e. fully stepping away from raiding no matter the city count) and then he chooses this new leader who is unknown, at 5 cities at the time of leader transfer. Who then proceeds to use alliance funds to boost himself to 10 cities and being granted further. The second oldest government member at the time (slightly younger than fist) leaves because he was the workhorse of the alliance, officially the FA high gov but did a lot more than that. Fists choices forced out FA and milcom high gov, IA low gov gets promoted to milcom high gov, ia high gov coups then fails (lmao) and the IA low gov remains as milcom highgov. Does that sound like a stable government that is familiar with their roles? No, and meanwhile the new econ person (after the other econ person who lost their promotion to this new person resigns) is forced through and becomes and 2nd in command without any discussion from the other high gov members. The nail in the coffin is that this is the best option for pantheon unless others step up

At least you won't have the excuse of not having time to put in effort to fall back on if your changes are rubbish. I look forward to seeing what 40 hours of week of effort from you looks like. I hope you succeed.

I honestly don't see this keeping them as an ally for the next 30 days thing as a big deal. If it's the price to pay for breaking up the sphere-ish gridlock, that's a low cost in my opinion. I've not seen anything indicating that there's plans to keep a secret tie to them in the future which separates this from the recent similar thing with TKR. It's a long standing treaty, while they likely knew the break was coming before the new ties were announced, they still might want some time to get some new allies as the dust settle. A month isn't going to impact anything meaningful unless a major war was to break out. With such a large shake-up across spheres I doubt anyone is going to rush into a war because they're getting their ducks in a row, and rushing to attack a new sphere might just push people back towards old ties for quick support (which would be bad). I think a month hold over on the ties removal is a good thing, honestly. It's like an amicable breakup. If secret ties, and/or this is being used as a smoke screen to launch a war 1 day or so before the 30 day mark, well then that's a little less honorable. But hey, at least it could make things interesting. At least it's not a 6 month NAP

It gives Pantheon enough time to get couped at least 2 more times.

❤️ OK, nvm, I changed my mind. Nobody is allowed to ever downvote me again. *stern glare at @everyone*

Submarines don't do that; they're meant to engage other ships and/or carry long-range strategic ordinance. They sure as heck can't go up rivers lmao

it is a sign of the dissolution of IQ Before that NG demanded to be the only IQ authorized to write funny posts

Now that Partisan is gone, I'm pretty sure you take the cake as the new OWF wall of text-er. Unless he returns and posts a flex wall. (not nudging or anything)

BK is signing tFP and Pantheon. Time to drop BK. ?

Well hello there. Marginal Micro Co-Leader Raoul Duke here. Now, I’m no expert on strategery and what-not. I just log in for that sweet 300K once per day and I give Felandia or The Weyland-Yutani Corporation most of my income in exchange for bullets (all you need is bullets right? Those seem to be important.) So I was wondering if everyone had the “Declare war” button like I do? (I seldom touch the thing as it makes my infrastructure go away.) I’m guessing that most people don’t as I constantly see nation leaders shaming other nation leaders for playing it safe and doing nothing in the game except buying bullets and collecting bonuses like I do. Surely if these no Declare War button having- nation leaders were equipped with the Declare War button like I am, they could just declare war whenever they felt like it. Wouldn’t that be something? Maybe if they were in an alliance (like a few of us are), they could talk to their buddies and maybe those buddies might find they had a Declare War button as well. Chaos might ensue! I guess we will either have to talk to Alex and see if we can get these bugs corrected or maybe the people who want conflict, don’t really want to conflict, they just like talking about conflict (I like talking about conflict too, specifically the first Barbary war from 1801 to 1805. Good times!). In the meantime, can someone tell me if I need 4 nuclear power plants or 5 to support 1800 infra?

Most of The Syndicate that Pantheon first became friends with have moved on, too. That's just what online communities do over 4 years.

Accurate.

Soup is hot

The Original:

That was fantastic. Now you need to get @Kevanovia to join you and do the Rado Twerk song live.

Get that damn positivity outta here, we're talking about pantheon

Now Pantheon and TCW should hook up and make a bloc together. 30 Day Bloc.

uhhh hello?

@TheNG shortly after hearing the news

What's amusing is the amount of people giving Kastor attention. That's all he wants.

Exterminate the furries

Today is a sad day in The Gloden Horde We are unfortunately dropping our treaty with T$ We know this treaty was only signed yesterday But we must move on we did love T$ as they were a very good ally We wish them luck in the future (tbh T$ sucked) The Great Khan: Buorhann The Beklare-Bek: Sketchy Khan of War: Shiho Nishizumi Khan of Finance: Sketchy Khan of Diplomacy: Hodor Khan of Discipline: Partisan

Can moral be represented in combat, ext(maybe); ( score / population*50 - AVG density*(some konstant) ), "Present Soldier's Dossing"? Where you roll a Dice with that number as a maximum before military action. If cities all had their own "terrain", changeable every 5th day(real time) to account for real-planning. This changeable terrain would determine the moral change. For Example, If the player's "Real-World" Soldiers Will fight on VAST Plains, aren't moral included in determinant-factors ish? How does the system treat engagement? Rather Sayed, what if city size strengthened the terrain bonus(penalty)`? Where defending Soldiers, tanks, airplanes even ships if right terrain would disperse on all your cities depending on factors such as.... *-* still computing *-* still.... (ideas?) Isn't one of the online browser genre's Beauty that it can be an ###l of a complex #######? (not meant to offend or harm anyone) Speaking righthfully though - Do they just wander around for Days, months til engaging in what is a turn? And even the more so... "creative", complex ish :sad: Days passed in a turn was the amount of (actions used / the amount of countries online for that turn)*30(some konstant). And we have to Think, if say 1 general assault(if so) req 3 actions, and actions gained per turn is 1 therefore 1/3 of successfull organisation (regular operation), that the more is happening, the faster time will go. This to simulate war accuracy as nothing is gained from war, only lost deemed in time. In opposite, if no wars are happening, then wouldn't production for that turn, in slower day(s) be observed as higher, rather Sayed everyone, not the players, are affected by the player's "sa#istic" decison as a ruler to force them suffering, etc.

I don't spend much time in this subforum, so my apologies if this has been suggested before. I wanted to suggest an increase in the number of alliance government tiers (Leader, Heir, Officer) from three to five, as well as the ability to enable/disable bank access to individual gov members. If five isn't sufficient for some alliances, maybe the ability to add additional fields up to a certain amount with custom titles? I just feel it would make gov organization a lot easier and less restricted.

Uploading the image as an attachment and inserting it into the sig worked for me as well.

I'm a simple girl. I see ass, I click like.