Leaderboard

For the record, I had a huge issue with Thanos bringing this up in Knightfall,. Having people quit the game is not something to celebrate or brag about.

Yeah cn is the only possible reason anyone might not like you. There definitely aren't at least 3 other things in this single post that would make people think you guys are awful. Here's a casual reminder: no one hit you. You were aggressive in this war, based on a fabricated narrative and dated set of logs that just happened to justify you hitting the same people you've been hitting for literal years. That has nothing to do with that other game.

you know they are bigger and have more nations than the alliance you are currently in, which i have also never heard of.

BuT thE pLaNe gAp!!!!

I mean, there are tons of intangibles and meta things that aren't tied to pure statistics. The problem is IQ is losing every one of those vectors too.

I have logs. Anyone want to see them?

It tends to be the case when one side can't figure out basic things like "Maybe we should send in our counters in a coordinated blitz rather than one at a time". But hey look on the bright side. At this rate, all these people running off into VM and deleting, bailing on your alliances, and peacing out, soon you WILL have less nations than we do. Then you can pretend to be the victim again!

*beep beep* Identified malfunction! Ability to develop thoughts 12% Human pretend ability 7% Ability to distinguish when it is harmful to try to defend an ally 0% *beep beep* Critical problem, violation of the first law of roqbotics, high levels of damage to the reputation of the alliance

This idea will remove yet another layer of strategy from this game. The entire war system, in general, is quite flawed. What you are proposing is a lazy way to address an issue that is simply going to make war even more boring. Both in real warfare and in this game, short-term losses/sacrifices are intentionally made to secure long-term victory. Here is what is currently happening in this war: Each alliance that understands how war works due to your mechanics is not at all trying to beige their enemies. They are trying to sit on the enemy and do as much damage as possible without beiging because nobody wants to stack beige and give their enemy full rebuild of their military. Those people that are being sat on and cannot do anything to fight back are then declaring wars on alliances that don't understand how war works in the hopes that they are inexperienced enough to offer them the haven that is beige so that they can rebuild and get back into the fight. So, if you change your beige system to what you are proposing, the actual players that are pinned in their defensive wars and desperately need beige to rebuild will no longer be able to get it. Established alliances know too well that beige is a powerful tool and so, they will deny it to their enemies. Your intent with beige was to allow losing people to have a fighting chance/rebuild/etc. That's not gonna happen when they are the defenders. Against good Milcom, defenders aren't going to get enough time to rebuild unless a mistake was made. Some suggested that in any war, the side with less resistance after expiration gets beige no matter what. That might be the better way of going about overhauling the beige system. But the bigger issue is that the attacker gets a huge advantage over the enemy due to planes. Planes are the most powerful unit in the game that can only be countered by other planes. Meta is that you have a squad of 3 attack an enemy nation and target their planes. 3 v 1 = zero'd planes for the defender very quickly. Once the defender has no planes and the offense has Air Superiority, there isn't anything else the defender can do. Now the offense can use their planes to target all other units. I personally don't even care how many other units the enemy nation has when I assign targets for my alliance members. My major concern is planes. The only threat is planes. The only objective is planes. The only advantage is planes. Blockades barely matter since most established alliances have warchest requirements and/or fund WC for their members. Ground Control doesn't matter if your planes are already zero'd and your enemy has a bunch. Fix this problem before you touch beige. Implement anti-aircraft units or something. War is all about planes and it's very easy to eliminate the enemy's planes in the first round or two. Defenders might actually have a fighting chance if planes weren't so OP. People are trying to get 5-6 days of beige because that's how much time it takes to rebuild your planes to max. Plenty of fighters are only building their planes back up. I'm going a bit off-topic, but what I am trying to say is that beige is not at all the biggest concern regarding the war system. Right now, it's one of the few strategic things the game's mechanics allow us to play with. You need to implement changes that allow room for strategy. You need to do a deep analysis of global wars and then do a thorough analysis of the entire war system in regards to how those wars were won. The war system needs to be looked at holistically so that proper changes can be implemented. Not looking at the whole picture is going to lead to worse gameplay and exploits that you will regret later and have to change again. @Alex

Both Terminal Jest under previous administrations and I personally have a longstanding history of accompanying any declaration of war with an outlined justification. We believe that -whether our counterparts and the community as a whole agree with our reasoning or not-, the provision of a reason beyond just shedding pixels is always preferred above wars for war’ sake. Over the past two weeks, I have received various requests for a presentation of our reason or war. When I posted the Terminal Jest's placeholder declaration of war, I intended to uphold that ideological tenet by eventually circling back to it to properly outline our Casus Belli. Unfortunately, RL circumstances (OOC: I am lazy as frick) led to a lack of time, and a long delay. You have my apologies for that. So… Strap in. Wall of text inbound! 1. Prewar leadup. placeholder 770 words in, it’s finally time to delve into the Casus Belli aspect of this wall of text. To all those who will !@#$ over the length of this post: frick you. You wanted more professonal TJEst announcements, here you go. 2. Why we went to war.

Says the guy playing a game that runs about 80% off of numbers. Statistics exist for a reason. They're not for the mathematically challenged though.

Who wants to bet on this thread getting locked?

Man... It's almost... As if the info that those leaks had... Wasn't something that VG had been pushing for, for the better part of literally 2 months. It wasn't a secret to TGH/KT that you wanted to try and roll them. If I remember correctly, Buorhann (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) came to us following our joining and said something to the effect of "you know they're trying to roll us right?". I know for the fact I spent 95% of my time in VG explaining why it was literally the dumbest idea which was always met with "no cause we have IQ on our side hurr durr" type stuff. Not only that, there was never a heads up that we may have had a leak before that "leak test" cause spoiler alert, we knew we had one we just weren't sure who it was at the time which if you knew we had a leak and who did it you wouldn't have: 1) Lied and said it was Kev when you knew it was Cynic 2) Actually been competent allies and told us who it was and how you knew, cause you guys never actually produced us the logs of said leak, in fact I was removed from high govt chats for repeatedly asking for those logs (remember this came after my long post that was calling all of your leadership incompetent fools). The leaks that were done that I saw however... First came from Polar, in fact, iirc your name was in the logs talking so... I mean... there is that. Second, Cynic leaked. TGH/KT let us know they had gotten the logs. So we knew something was up however we didn't know it was him at the time as the logs weren't released until after IQ rolled us. Because you guys were too scared to actually come to us about it much less hit us, btw real classy offering a fake NAP then pulling that offer 5 minutes before IQ declares on us. I also heard some rumors but never saw any proof that OWR also leaked (which wouldn't surprise me - I've seen wet bags hold water better). Feel free to prove me wrong on this. I'd expect actual logs and screenshots proving you guys somehow didn't know of these "leak tests" because ironically the things BC was given, was literally the plan that Polaris came up with the month prior. But I know this won't happen and I'll get the typical "bro we didn't know" foolishness and as naive as I was at the time I didn't bother screenshotting your ridiculous plots at the time so when you respond with the "show the logs" you'll think you have a "gotcha" moment. But that's fine with me cause it's actually pretty funny watching Polaris burn right now. And I regret absolutely nothing by leaving VG and then getting hit by IQ. Polar has always and will always be nothing more than snakes in the grass. Also, not that it actually matters, but we voted to leave Vanguard a week before we left, we were just holding out on you guys getting smart and not actually trying to go to war with TGH/KT and rather focus on fixing internal things, like your reliance on IQ for all things economic and your fairly poor milcom (which tbf... What I've seen of you all in this war... Has not changed at all). We decided to give you the results of that vote and announce our intentions to leave when you told us we'd be rolling out on a Friday on them. Which for all the talk of it being a leak test that Polaris knew nothing about... You guys sure seemed on board with it in the high govt channels. As far as Cynic stealing the bank, that was unfortunate indeed, the timing was suspicious but I don't blame IQ for that. However, one could see why that would be the obvious go to when BK accepted the bank and Cynic into their alliance and then got mad salty when they were told to return what was given.

I didn’t state that Cynic was a BK-plant, nor do I believe that he was a BK plant. So...not sure where that came from. i do agree with you that it was a poor decision to put Cynic in gov, and there were consequences for doing such. No arguments on that topic, so no need to put words in my mouth about some random theory regarding BK/Cynic. Beerhoe has stated multiple times on Great Fire and has mentioned in other threads that Polaris was the source of their initial leak. I also heard about the information that was “only given to BC” before Alexio told me about it. Lest we forget, you guys believed their was a leak but didn’t know if it was TUE or BC so you put out two tests with different information. I also heard about both leak tests well before the DoW (I wasn’t convinced they were true until IQ declared, obviously). So obviously you either have wrong information as to who all originally knew about your leak test, or your leadership flaps their jaws more than you are aware...or you’re being disingenuous. Hilarious that you’re giving us “competency tips”. Maybe one day the lightbulb will turn on for you.

Want to find a better argument that doesn't make you look ignorant? Your VM one is tired and intentionally misleading and your planes one is cherrypicking at best. Come back when you have a real argument, thanks.

Currently, if you win a nation vs nation war, you have no dictation over what happens next. Often, the beige timer that your opponent is going to get will leave them better off than if you didn't win the war at all- especially if there's no money to loot. Instead, I would suggest that as part of the act of winning a war, the victor should be able to declare terms. These terms could include all the things that currently happen, and more (and these are just ideas and examples); Loot from the nation, Loot from the alliance bank, Not being able to declare new wars for a period of time, Enforced debt (i.e. a portion of the opponents tax income is taken and handed to the victor until it is paid off), Not being able to buy military units above a certain percentage for some time, Forcible conscription of some opposing surviving military units, Destruction of infrastructure, Destruction of improvements (at random, so we can't forcibly choose hangars or power plants). A beige timer would still exist, but the number of turns spent in beige would depend on the harshness of the terms inflicted. Therefore, if you won the war, and you chose to not attach terms, the beige timer should be relatively short (for example, 6 turns). If you won the war and decided to inflict as many terms as possible, the beige timer would be much longer. The value of the terms inflicted, and thus the length of the beige timer, should be capped at no more than the percentage of resistance you won the war by. If you won by 6 resistance or less, you wouldn't be able to select any terms; if you won by 20, you'd be able to select maybe one thing, if you won by 50, something harsher, etc. These changes are one possible idea, I'm sure there's other better ones to be thought of.

(temp logo until Pika finishes) Introducing the newest addition to the Orbis radio show family, the red headed step child.... KICK THE BABY staring Black knight of Ages, Ivk and myself. Bringing you something that resembles news, political commentary and interviews every Wednesday night on Factory Fresh Media. Next Show: Tonight 9pm EST Discord Link: Click Here Guests: Keshav (NPO) and Vlad (GotG) .... (I may have a TGH/TKR side guest, I keep forgetting to ask people) Topics: NPO entrance to the war, FR/TFP dropping out, forced peace terms on some micros leaving the war and more

With numerous folks falling to inactivity and the remaining remembers wishing to peace out (going as far as conducting FA talks without me to surrender) Shifty has taken back his portion of the Hyperborea bank and noticed that there are no Hyperboreans left. So with this, there is no reason to continue as husk of an AA. Not all players can be me, even my followers. I will not surrender my alliance to anyone. My philosophy has always been to follow through fully with my allies and give nothing to the enemy. Thanks to BK for giving me a shot at an AA. No one else did. There will be no more Shifty alliance projects, I am not SeanAnthony nor Diomedes. Great time with the BK sphere folks and anyone who supported this 6 month alliance. TL:DR Hyperborea has disbanded. Also SNN is over. Also Shifty is done.

Partisan may or may not be the leader I need, but he's almost certainly the leader I deserve.

Some top tier shit posting I must say.

I want to be the most down voted individual in all of Orbis! Make it happen!!! ??????

If the plane gap is just raw planes, and not percentages, and they don't understand that they have more nations, I'm going to have a fricking conniption fit.

This Thread page brought you by:

You lost the rights to use that argument when your side sold down infra to get on an even footing Use something new now

Spinx if you keep this up, how can I make a credible defense to win back to back worst player of the year award?

Whether or not BK knew about the agreement doesn't matter. The fact is you had an agreement to protect BK if they ever got in trouble. You can pretend that this had something to do with secret logs that you refuse to share, but you had already made a commitment to help BK in a situation like this. Any reason you give for entering the war is irrelevant because you had already committed to entering before any of that had happened. Additionally, this agreement you made essentially gave BK free reign to roll whoever they want as no single sphere could stand against them on their own. That means the rest of the game has the option to either: a) Let BK roll them one-by-one like they were planning to already do with Chaos b) Team up to have a chance against them but then that brings NPO in It's a lose-lose for everybody outside your grouping

Oh God. I come home after work, and after some time check the forums. There I see Polaris, of all alliances, talking about competency. Yes Krieg. I am sure we all have much to learn from your two-man blitzes.

I enjoy learning from others. When it comes to running an alliance, I think I’ll take tips from alliances not named Polaris. Thank you all the same.

Just going to touch on this bit since it directly pertains to BK. We did not get “mad salty” about returning a bank. Command economies have the least amount to gain from encouraging bank heists. The only time the bank was “in” BK was a few days was while it was on Cynic’s nation. Once he was convinced to deposit it he was kicked and the bank returned within a day.

So, put aside for a sec whether or not what sphinx did should count as rule breaking under current statutes. Do you really not see the difference in circumstances? One strategy is to attack enemy coalition nations in the hopes they will perform poorly and beige you, when they have every incentive and order not to. Often while also launching missiles or trying to get in damage on your way down, with any units you might have an edge in. The other is to attack an alliance in your sphere - the protectorate of your direct ally - and offering to pay them to deliberately assist you with beiges. There is a world of difference between relying on enemies to frick up, and paying friendly third parties to assist you in circumventing your enemies. It's flabbergasting to see people try and justify such obviously sketchy behavior. Sphinx has fricked up repeatedly now, be it for your side in by leaking your intel, trying to skirt the game rules by paying people to beige him, and continuing to spew stuff to Akuryo as if he were Nixon thinking himself untouchable by his own recordings. When Gandalf was being Gandalf I admitted he fricked up and we deserved all the shit we were getting. When the AC leaks happened we didn't try to justify it (aside from Blake explaining why he thought it prudent to speak with Boki), nor pretend we didn't frick up yet again. This particularly sketchiness with beigeing - which sphinx tacitly admitted by feeling the need to leave TCW to cover it up - didn't need to reflect back on anybody but him. By defending him you chose to make his actions your own.

Make the war indicators for when a nation has ground, air or sea control, show up in all war overviews. Its pretty annoying having to open 5 links to find out who has ground control or who has someone blockaided So basically Would also show https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=877&display=war https://politicsandwar.com/world/conflicts/ https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=33898&display=war

Except that the beige mechanic is already broken. Players just blockade cycle or just plain let the wars expire before throwing more planes at the target. The intent of the beige mechanic is to prevent players from entering situations where they're better off just going to VM because they aren't being allowed to play anymore. Offensive beige time allows capable players a workaround for this so they can continue to fight. Removing offensive beige requires fixing the brokenness of the beige system altogether.

From what I've seen from years in these nation sims is that NPO has, ever since coming from CN, tried to pull CN's gameplay style into PW. Contrary to how some people argued/stated every bit of display over time has proven this to be true. NPO isn't alone in this cause either. They're just a larger component of it. Months long wars in a game that moves at 3x the pace of CN is atrocious and ruins this game. You can try to spin your words anyway you want, but actions all point to the fact that this game has become extremely boring due to the community. You can bash on the relatively large issues the game still has, but many of these issues are still exploited by those that can, instead of having even and ounce of integrity. These forums are equally dismal. Too much trolling and not enough actual playing. This game can only be fixed by the players. Good luck!

Ironically given their fixation with her being the mastermind, she was the first one to forcefully argue that N$O was not connected to BK and weren't our enemies. For some context, this is right after t$ declaration on Guardian and Grumpy. Most of us were caught by surprised and a bit shellshocked frankly,. Goldy is sharing some common concerns that it represents the first phase of N$O entering the war, taunting us to either let two coalition AAs die, or counter and get clapped by their sphere. Adrienne argued (correctly) that t$ was just using the timing to hit the whales unprotected and weren't working together. Clearly she was just playing 12D chess as part of her 32 point plan to convince the rest of us IQ was still alive and activate her 'plan' with thrax. Sphinx was an inside job people, wake up!

NPO can't produce a single piece of evidence of us pushing to move fronts and engage them other than "we were told by a trusted friend" and some random log with a blocked out name which means we can't even challenge its credibility. Standard bullshit excuses to engage aggressively and bailout BK. And in fact, we can produce several logs of us actively working to stop any idea of hitting NPO. But that's not what really matters. The people at NPO are not idiots; they are in fact very intelligent in terms of continually playing their victimhood mentality card in order to gain advantages. For the past 3 years, they've whined and !@#$ed and moaned about how everyone was out to get them, so much so that they literally ate the minds of people who felt bad for them and bought into their narrative. Until finally, they have reached the top and can now move aggressively with impunity. The real story is that NPO needed to bail out BK because they need them to meatshield for them. Its very simple.

Personally, I don't care much for the hit on FR but this was fairly amusing. It's his CB-talk from Knightfall fitted for this situation, and it would've taken maybe half an hour to make this.

How many times. KETOG and Chaos were literally at war just prior to this coalition, and did not have enough time to replace spies or full militarization. What part of that indicates "long-term cooperation"?

Hello everyone. I am here to tell you all that the United Armies is pulling out of the war. We hereby agree upon the terms given to us by Count Adam#8583 (discord tag). The terms of our withdrawal are: 1.) No aiding Coalition B and/or future entries 2.) No further aggression Please cease all attacks on us for the time being until the war has ended. Regards, Sir Carlo Leader of the United Armies

Sorry, posting this all from my phone. Frontier Records has spoken with the forces of Ketog/Chaos, and Frontier Records, along with The Fighting Pacifists, Kazoku, and Code of Honor hereby withdrawal from the ongoing conflict. FR, TFP, Kazoku, and CoH, will remain neutral for the remainder of the conflict. We wish our friends and allies the best of luck, and a speedy end to the conflict.

If you increase the base nation loot take I wouldn't really be opposed to this. Its incredibly difficult to have your bank looted as it is.

Emperor Jonas is a role model to us all! a fine upstanding individual in our Orbis society...

Why are you shitting on us? I thought we were frenemies man

Pretty sure the first moment was during NPO’s First Time war where NPO hid their bank on a newly created account. Should be in the Game Reports still. IIRC, Alex just returned the bank with a strike on the new nation. Then adjusted the ruling of bank hiding to include newly created accounts back then. In regards to Sphinx, the evidence was gathered that he left his position as a leader and declared on some nations, then later returned to his position. While there is grey area to argue over, the intent was very clear. What is surprising is how hard you folks are trying to sweep it away. If we want to go abuse beige mechanics like that during a war, we’ll have no issue on arranging our own methods of beiging. And I’m fairly sure we’ll be much more coordinated than you folks to pull it off.

Thanks for the help, guys. All things considered, you've done pretty damn well. We're pretty chuffed that you guys threw yourself into the war to fight with us, despite still being a new alliance. Best of luck for the rebuild o7

Wasn’t in fine writing but hiding banks in protected nations has been kind of outlawed. And aside from it being against the rules, it’s also desperate, unethical and just plain wrong. You guys can try and spin it however you want but it is what it is lol.

Anti-Memesphere: How dare sphinx use our tactics and attack nations to bait beige, let's report this to sheepy! Sheepy: Okay, well I think I have just the change to solve this issue permanently Anti-Memesphere: Wait no

You forgot about Smith.

In my opinion, the lack of new, major political actors (as in, alliances) is not so much so a function of, "Enough people don't want to lead" or "Too many people want to lead" but a product of too few players being competent and being willing to lead an alliance that doesn't already have most of its foundations figured out. It's fair to chalk things up to competency, but I'd say the amount of time you're willing to invest, the energy/drive you have, and the vision you have are all necessary components of good leadership too. It's easier, in most cases, for one to assume leadership in an existing alliance and exert political influence of their own than it is to create a brand spanking new one, and lead for long enough/competently enough that something comes out of it. There are a few alliances that have succeeded in that regard, but they are not the norm. As for the OP: Identity (what're you here for? If you're just here to exist, then you're not going to go anywhere); Activity (self explanatory, but this covers day-to-day activity in Discord/slack channels, forums - if you have them); Community (this is more than just people talking shit in your private channels; how much does your average member actually care for the alliance and those who he plays the game with? How much do your leaders care?); A proper governing system (none of that democratic bullshit unless you can pull it off; even then, it's better to just not go that route. You end up with oligarchies); Leadership's investment into the game (you'll have 'active' leadership - as in they'll be around - but they won't care about the game/actually leading, which is just a big no-no); Military and Econ awareness (both of these can't be stressed enough. Knowing how to run a military is related to understanding game mechanics, but its important enough for me to highlight the difference. Similarly, if your Econ sucks - as in, isn't doing its best to maximize profit while still remaining in tune to how war works in the game - you're fricked when war time comes around); Keep your FA fluid. Be willing to work with people. Know your way around the joint. Some random shit: Having an alliance/theme gimmick. This is just 'fluff' but I've found having these things can attract more people to your grouping (...or turn them off massively. Their choice), Connections with other leaders/alliances. Be friendly to randoms. Cultivate ties (not necessarily political in nature) with people you wouldn't think you'd side with first thing next morning, Teach your kids how to play the game. Don't frick up and let new players run around free with no idea about how they'd actually progress. You do that, you'll end up with a shitton of new players who you invested a ton of money into that are worthless in war. Just don't. Praise Dio. There's honestly a lot more that can be said, but I guess at the end things come down to a few things: be willing to learn from your mistakes. Work towards a healthy balance of politics and fun. Try your best, and don't be disheartened when things don't go your way. Many of the serious - as in, major, not "serious" - political players today had a ton of shit not going their way in the past, but perseverance is a god-like quality to have. (Not to be confused with stubbornness or a lack of desire to change)