Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/21/19 in all areas

  1. Rain, rain, go away Come again another day Dusty wants to play Rain, rain go away Rain, rain, go away Come again another day Doran wants to play Rain, rain, go away Rain, rain, go away Come again another day Viktor wants to play Rain, rain, go away Rain, rain, go away Come again another day Linda wants to play Rain, rain, go away Rain, Rain, go away Come again another day All the Cloudwalkers want to play Rain, rain, go away tl;dr Brotherhood of the Clouds surrenders to the Alphabet Coalition No Re-entry or assistance will be sent/given to either coalition, no new wars will be declared Good luck to both sides, was a pleasure working with so many of you, especially as a new leader. o7
    23 points
  2. A logical consequence of this implementation is that alliances will try to recruit inactive players with no wealth to boost their bank capacity. As someone who leads a micro alliance with no inactive, that seeks out quality of members over quantity, I think it would be absolutely lame to see alliances with 300 inactives.
    9 points
  3. Side effects: - No incentive to kick people out of the alliance, instead increased incentive to keep inactives and randoms in to boost bank caps. - While caps will force more stuff onto nations, everyone will just shuffle stuff to allies and it will be horribly confusing. - No bank looting means incompetent bank handling becomes irrelevant. - Further raiding nerf without any compensating measure to raiding gameplay aspect of the game, which is crucial for its health. However, I know your mind is set on removing this game mechanic, and we can't really do anything about it. So along with my criticism and imploring you one last time not to do this, I will also offer fixes for the problems these imminent changes to the game will cause, and try to remedy them. Fixes: - Keeping inactives/small nations in the alliance to boost cap: Make purple and VM nations not count for the cap. Bigger city counts should bring more bank size than smaller ones. - Shuffling banks and resources: Aside from making bigger city counts bring more banking size, introduce to the cap formula of every resource an adjusting measure that is tied to the total amount of that resource in the game. As the game grows, so should the bank caps. - No fix for this one. This suggestion can simply not punish incompetent bank handling. (see the edit below) - Raid nerf and no bank looting: Only thing that comes to my mind is increasing nation loot gained from beiges. If I recall correctly, cash loot used to be 25% before the last nerfing update. Bring back cash loot to what it was, and boost the resource loot by a few percentages. EDIT: - Another problem is what happens to taxes once the cap is reached, or cap goes down due to kicking/losing members. I suggest those funds should be automatically sent to the leader of the alliance that reached its cap/fell under the cap. Should make an interesting, opportunistic game mechanic (hello blockade rush) and makes incompetent bank handling punishable by player action, and yet also easy to fix (sending bank funds away when you know the cap will go down, etc).
    8 points
  4. Those numbers are so low that the alliance bank itself would be useless.
    7 points
  5. Solution: count it as the same as hiding in a new beige nation because it basically is. Solution 2: get actual game moderation staff who will codify the rules in a less vague manner and then enforce them since you hate it. Edit: the numbers would have to be tweaked ALOT. Even a 10x increase limits me to 1.1b, which is about 2 weeks of income, and limits me to 1 week of manu production and almost no raws to fuel it. This ignores that I am known to take alliance loans numbering as much as 3x that storage amount. Your plan also doesn't take into consideration how rich some alliances are. How exactly would you advise NPO or BK to spread their bank on nation's? Or even TCW, a low tax alliance which is easily on their level of wealth. Members have their safekeepings but these aren't their safekeepings. It's not merely trying to avoid hurting raiding you're basically forcing people to draw a target on their back. Edit 2: the raiders you're trying to help btw also store all their gains in offshores. You're helping no one with this, ultimately. Also making your life easier, get someone else to make the tough mod decisions.
    5 points
  6. A bit late but better late than never
    5 points
  7. Hello everyone, This is a big announcement that I have to make regarding a duplication glitch that has occurred. There was a bug where it was possible to duplicate withdrawals from alliance banks, and in doing so, duplicate money and resources. A few players had reported this issue to me some time ago, off the top of my head, around the beginning of this month. I tried a few different fixes, and I also wrote a query that allowed me to check the game regularly for duplicate transactions. A couple of weeks ago, a couple of "new" nations were created, duplicated about $1,000,000,000 worth of cash, and then stashed it in one-man alliances and then put their nations in Vacation Mode for a year. At the time, I removed the money from the game, and kept and eye on the nations to see if I could figure out who they really were later. But, it was a very isolated incident (no one spread the duplicated money anywhere, it was all contained in these Vacation Mode nations) so removing it effectively prevented anything bad from happening in the game while I worked on a proper fix for the bug. I've been monitoring things regularly since then, and aside from what appeared to be a couple of "accidental" instances of the bug (with small amounts of money/rss) there weren't any issues. Today, however, I checked in and saw that there was a quite systematic abuse of the glitch. Fortunately, it was relatively easy for me to trace all of the nations and alliances involved in the duplication of money/rss (most of which were created and then deleted immediately after duplication.) Tracing through approximately 20 nations and 10 or so one-man alliances, I was able to track down a few notable nations involved and ban them. The most notable nation, in my opinion, was "Aradesh" of "The New California Republic" (ID 170958). This nation seemed to be the primary culprit behind the duplication effort. I recognized them as a re-roll of a previous nation that was in the alliance Afrika Korps and was banned for Nazism (and made a big fuss about it.) Other notable nations involved were: Arianne of Rijk (ID 102334) Bran of 3eyedRaven (ID 149736) 12514518 of 3152114201825 (ID 81440) (EDIT: After further review, I do not believe this nation was involved in the exploit.) There were a handful of new nations that were obviously being used to hold cash in various one-man alliances with no obvious affiliations which were banned as well. The majority of the funds duplicated were transferred to Arianne of Rijk's alliance which was operating as some sort of player-run bank, as well as "Arabian Korps" which was apparently Afrika Korps' "offshore bank." All of the duplicated money/rss generated in this exploitation attempt have been removed from the game, the players banned, and I'm happy to announce that I was actually able to work with ss23 and fix the exploit which is the cause of the problem. Sorry for the wall of text. However, I feel it is important that I monitor the game, prevent cheating, and be open and honest about disclosing instances like this to you all, the players. I am sincerely sorry that I was not able to resolve this glitch earlier and prevent this duplication attack from ever happening. However, I am confident that it has been traced and contained so as not to have any real impact on overall gameplay. I will note that this instance is quite a bit different than the previous duplication glitch (you may remember as the "Nova Riata Scandal"). There was a different method of duplication used here. However, thanks to better tracking mechanisms implemented after the last duplication issue, this only went on for about 2 days, was very easy to trace and to fix. tl;dr A few people managed to generate a lot of money and resources through a duplication glitch. However, they were caught within about 2 days and the money and resources have been removed from the game. The glitch that allowed the duplication has also been fixed. EDIT: For clarification, the amount of money/rss duplicated was along the lines of $10,000,000,000. Very little resources were actually duplicated.
    4 points
  8. Alex, this would make all of NPO (the largest alliance in the game) only be able to hold 1 billion. 1 billion is literally pennies for them, it's enough for 2 nations to get city 20. 400000 per city is simply way to small for any alliance period
    4 points
  9. As we all know there a quite a few changes we would like to see made to the game. I’d like to address changes that could rather easily be made, as the game mechanics already exist. These changes are points that the community has either spoken about or things I’ve compiled from a large amount of people in the community through my Discord DM’s and numerous Voice Chat conversations one of which being with yourself. This is meant to be a proposal made in good faith to you Alex so that we may be able to enjoy the game a little more while at the same time helping you to improve your product. First off I would like to talk about the effects of Nuclear Weapons on a Nation. Generally Initial food production would be affected in the surrounding area (The City that the Nuke hit). After this The Fallout would affect the rest of the countries population, similar to how Japan’s Cancer Rates rose significantly post-bombing. This being said, I would like to propose that when a Nuclear Weapon goes off in a nation that the rest of the Nations Cities Populations be affected. This effect would stack if more Nuclear Weapons were launched at the same nation. This would help to balance how Nuclear Weapons effect nations of different sizes. “Whales” would be affected by a Nuclear Weapon in the same way that a smaller nation might be affected, but as we all know “Whales” are much juicer targets for Nuclear Weapons and will most likely be hit more often than smaller nations. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Keep the initial Population and Infrastructure hit to the city affected by the Nuke. Add or modify a mechanic that reduces the population of all the nations cities (or nation as a whole) by 0.5% to 1% stacking for every Nuke but the half-life of which is much longer than the initial blast. Possibly 1 to 5 years in Orbis Time. This helps to represent the potential die off from Fallout related illness/Cancer. Global Radiation should affect food production less but instead effect global population by 0.10% for every Full Point of “Global Nuclear Radiation Index”. This represents possible birth defects, miscarriages, and infant mortality rate due to Parental Radiation exposure. Ex: GNRI = 149.55, Global Population would be affected by a 14.9% Reduction Worldwide until the Radiation dissipates with time; slowly increasing Global Population again. A possible minimum population mechanic could be added so someones nation does not drop below a certain point with these mechanics in place. On a Similar Subject to the Proposal above I believe that a good deal of the community would like to see Nuclear Weapons being used outside of a “War-Time Environment”. As we know the threat of all out Nuclear War was prominent during the “Cold-War” Era here on earth. Firing or Dropping a Nuclear weapon on another country did not require Nations to declare war on one another all it required was a misstep/mishap or the press of a button. The use of a Nuclear Weapon on another Nation could spark a localized war between two nations or an all out war between Political Blocs; this realistic use of nuclear weapons on Orbis would not only raise the strategic value of having Nuclear Capabilities but would add a Political dynamic to the game in which nuclear weapons counts become relevant to alliances and nations as a whole when negotiating or dealing with one another. This being said, the use of Nuclear Weapons in this manner would not require a nation to be a certain size or score range in order to hit another nation; meaning that smaller nations acquiring Nuclear capabilities could help to even the playing field when smaller nations are Down Declared on. This would also give the ability for “Micros” as we call them to have more political weight when dealing with Larger Nations and Alliances. Overall this would increase the value of having Nuclear Weapons outside of War and create a push for the Project to be bought by smaller nations, making Nuclear Proliferation an actual threat to the world at large, especially when combined with the proposal above. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The Ability to Fire 1 Nuclear Weapon at a designated city once a day. Similar to how Espionage Actions can be taken once a day. The Message would read who launched the Nuclear Weapon and the Alliance they are associated with, along with The Population and Infrastructure lost in the designated target. A chance could be added that you do not hit your designated target as well; either missing entirely and having no effect, detonation before it hits the target (having no effect except for adding to Global Radiation), or hitting the wrong target entirely in the Targeted Nation. Target designation does not have to be added but it would be a nice touch to Realism. The Ability for Nuclear Weapons to be fired without a “War Range”. Allowing Smaller Nations to fight more effectively against Larger Ones who “Down Declare” or have the Potential to “Down Declare” on them. Find an acceptable limit that a Nation can have Nuclear Weapons launched at it; The suggested limit being 3 Attacks a day, similar to how espionage attempts can be made 3 times a day on a single nation. Stepping away from the Topic of Nuclear weapons and delving into the Economic and Political side of things. A good deal of the community would like to see the ability for their alliance to embargo another alliance as a whole. This mimics Earth’s economics, where a Bloc of nations Sanctions Embargoes against another Similar to The Allies Embargoing and Blockading the Axis Powers or Nato sanctioning the Warsaw Pact. This simple mechanic that already exists, albeit at a smaller scale in the game would help to create to trade blocs. The ability to create insular trade between alliances would either eliminate the need for “Alliance Market Agreements” which are rarely used in this day and age, and make that mechanic a secondary one to the aforementioned Embargo mechanic. Overall it would give alliances the ability to stop trading entirely with enemy political/economic blocs while at the same time using the Alliance Market agreements to potentially lower the cost of goods traded between them without putting them on the Global Market. In addition the existing mechanic of Color Trade blocs could be reinforced; if an alliance could embargo an entire Trade Bloc Color. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The ability for an Alliance to Embargo another Alliance as a whole. Potentially creating Insular Economic Blocs on Orbis. Similar to the initial idea of having Color Trade Blocs. Keep Alliance Trade/Market Agreements, in order to add another layer of realism to the mechanic mentioned above. The possible ability to Embargo an entire Color as an Alliance. This next one is also rather simple, and involves alliance membership rosters/lists. Many Members of the community would like to be able to have a button to press on The Alliance Membership Page that gives them the ability to only see Vacation Mode Nations. This would expedite a good deal of alliance operations in game and would be a nice touch, considering the current way of seeing which nations in your alliance are on vacation mode is making a list of those who are not in vacation mode clicking the button “Show Vacation Mode Nations” and cross referencing your written/typed list against the new list generated by the game. Doing all this takes quite a bit of time for larger alliances when doing Membership Audits and I feel the community at large would appreciate this small change so we can have more time to enjoy your game and less time trying to work out logistical problems. It may also potentially lower the use of API to audit membership via “sheets”, and gives the ability for smaller alliances with less experience to audit their alliances effectively if they do not have anyone proficient in making “sheets”. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Add a Button that says “Show Only Vacation Mode Nations”. And only shows members of an alliance that are in Vacation Mode. Staying on the topic of potential additions to Alliance oriented content. Members of the community would like to see the addition of another “Title” in alliances. Many Alliances large and smaller utilize something called “Lower Gov”, people who take care of smaller jobs in alliances. These jobs include things such as audits, minor “milcom” related incidents, and other important jobs that help to keep an alliance running. Adding another “Title” to alliances such another “Officer” slot would help to stream-line internal structures of alliances, giving Leaders the ability to grant permissions to Upper level officers that should not be granted to “Low Gov” or potentially less trusted members of Alliance governments. Meaning that a Leader could Grants his Heir all the permissions he has, Officers being given less so, and then the new position whatever it being named has some minor abilities/permissions; giving them more power to affect the alliance then membership but not enough that they should be given a full fledged Officer Title. This would help to eliminate alliances being destroyed by either coups, bank heists, and general tom-foolery; potentially decreasing membership lost due to investments of time and money being lost to another person’s greed of apathy. It may also increase Nation retention as people are acknowledged for their time investment into this game you’ve created and the alliances they’ve helped to form and/or support. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The addition of another Title to the “Edit Alliance” Tab and the “Alliance Info” Page that can be used for internal affairs and the possible betterment of membership retention in the game as a whole. Along the lines of Streamlining Alliances. We have a proposal that would improve the aesthetics of the Alliance “Control Panel” Tab and help many people who play this game on a mobile interface. The community would like to see the “Alliance Treaties” Widget modified; as we know many older alliances/alliances that have changed blocs multiple times have an inordinate amount of expired or cancelled treaties. When on the “Control Panel” Tab/Page this creates a very long list that one has to scroll through. We would like to see this modified so that it can either work like the “Nations” Page, where people can choose how many they can see at one time and page through them at their leisure; or the modifying of said Widget into a drop down menu. This would help people navigate the “Control Panel” Page and allow people to more readily see the “Warchest & Military Information”. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Modify the “Alliance Treaties” Widget to that it is either a “Page by Page” affair or a drop down menu similar to how Build Slots is a “Drop Down” Menu. The same could be done for “Warchest & Military Information”. Moving on to a minor War/Project addition to the game. A good deal of the Community would like to see a change to the current “War-Meta” of the game. Airplanes are cool and all but let us not forget that here on earth things other than Air Planes can destroy Air Planes. One of them is Anti-Aircraft Batteries/Cannons/Networks/Guns; the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft from the ground is paramount to defending a nation, especially when you have little to no aircraft yourself. Of course just like all weapons they do not have a 100% success rate, so a miss chance could be incorporated in it, similar to how you currently do so with the Vital Defense System and the Iron Dome Projects. An Anti-Aircraft Battery Project could shoot down a percentage of incoming Air Planes, to help lessen the blow of an attack, a modest amount of aircraft could be destroyed; anywhere from 0 to 10% (or even 20% with a Critical Success). I feel this would help to eliminate if not help to mitigate an Air Plane dominated “Meta” in the game. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Add an “Anti-Aircraft Project” of some sort to help shift the Meta of the war system away from Aircraft dominated Warfare. Such a System would be less expensive than a Anti-Missile or Anti-Nuclear Projects seeing as the technology is far more simple Point Defense system then the aforementioned ones. If adding this as a project(or Levels of the same Project) is not off the table (I think it’s the simplest way to implement it), then possibly adding it as a type of “Military Improvement” so that depending on how many you purchase in a city you might be able to increase your chances of shooting down more aircraft. A Flat Percentage is merely a suggestion and could potentially be overpowered when facing a militarily superior nation. Such a project would have to be discussed for balance issues and tested before official release. Other Decently Notable Changes that could be made that are Relatively simple but received Little attention: Minor Bank Screen Change: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/21091-small-banking-change/ Some Sort of Changed to the Beige system that’s currently in place. Chances are small that this will happen but it’s worth bringing up in an open dialog seeing as there are a good deal of people who would like to talk about this in detail.
    3 points
  10. There’s a difference between peacing out after 2 weeks and peacing out after 3 months. Hats off to BoC, not many other alliances would have stuck around for that long.
    3 points
  11. Goodluck in rebuild. Those talking shit can find another war related thread to talk shit. Talking shit about people that finished almost 3 months of fighting is just being a douchebag.
    3 points
  12. What if you leave alliance banks as they are, they just dont become "unlocked" until the alliance is at 8k-10k score? That would force offshores to have members in the range of raiders?
    3 points
  13. Terrible idea. I'm so glad this is what you were able to come up with the 40 hours a week you spent on P&W during the summer.
    3 points
  14. In this case it's the entire playerbase and it's because Alex's suggestions tend not to take into account how the game is actually played and how his ideas for changes will not grant the change he desires.
    3 points
  15. So uh. The numbers in OP? Yeah, that renders AA banks 100% useless. Many make far more in one day's income than those limits would allow stored for their nation's share, so it's not even worth depositing anything ever. A City costs hundreds of millions, so it's not useful for nation growth plans, which hurts a lot of AA's. It's not enough for war rebuilds--maybe for 1-2 cities per nation I guess. It's also not enough to supply fighters. It's... Not enough for anything, really. Is this a joke or are you just that out of touch? Hell, what about AA taxes? When the cap is reached, do taxes stop being collected? Does the money disappear? Does it go over the cap? If it stops being collected, may as well set max taxes to something like 5% because otherwise no AA's collecting anyway. If it deletes, then that's crazy talk. If it goes over the cap... we'll just tax to deposit.
    3 points
  16. Ye 400k per city when it costs 18-20m a city to rebuild post a war is far to small
    3 points
  17. Doom-clock ticking.
    3 points
  18. Your wish is my command Your mom is a basic motivational one.
    3 points
  19. Or they could have had the common sense and basic willpower to not cheat in the first place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have no pity for cheaters. Do the right thing and report an exploit the second you catch wind of it - simple as that.
    3 points
  20. 09/20 12:11 pm Prime Minister Rei Leiko of owoLand ordered a ground attack upon your nation of Forrests Critters. The attack was an immense triumph. Prime Minister Rei Leiko's forces lost 226 soldiers and 0 tanks, while your defenders lost 331 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 0.95 tons of munitions and 0.00 tons of gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 52.50 infrastructure in the city of Brigadoon. Prime Minister Rei Leiko stole $30,933.41 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. This loss has resulted in your opponent gaining ground control. Ground control reduces the amount of your aircraft you can use in airstrikes by 1/3rd. To end your opponent's ground control you must execute a ground battle that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph ground battle on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's soldiers and tanks. 09/20 12:10 pm Prime Minister Rei Leiko of owoLand ordered a ground attack upon your nation of Forrests Critters. The attack was an immense triumph. Prime Minister Rei Leiko's forces lost 496 soldiers and 0 tanks, while your defenders lost 6,275 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 2.21 tons of munitions and 0.00 tons of gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 52.50 infrastructure in the city of Chapel Hill. Prime Minister Rei Leiko stole $392,800.22 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. This loss has resulted in your opponent gaining ground control. Ground control reduces the amount of your aircraft you can use in airstrikes by 1/3rd. To end your opponent's ground control you must execute a ground battle that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph ground battle on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's soldiers and tanks. 09/20 12:10 pm Prime Minister Rei Leiko of owoLand ordered a naval attack upon your nation of Forrests Critters. The attack was an immense triumph. Prime Minister Rei Leiko's forces lost 1 ships, while your defenders lost 4 ships. You used 12 tons of munitions and 8 tons of gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 18.81 infrastructure in the city of Jonestown and destroyed 0 improvements. This loss has resulted in a naval blockade on your nation. To break the blockade you must execute a naval attack that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph naval attack on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's ships. All pending trade offers you have created have been cancelled and refunded to your nation and you will be unable to trade with other nations until the blockade is over. 09/20 12:09 pm Prime Minister Rei Leiko of owoLand ordered an airstrike upon your nation of Forrests Critters. The attack was an immense triumph. Prime Minister Rei Leiko's forces lost 0 aircraft, while your defenders lost 0 aircraft. You used 0.00 munitions and gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 50.00 infrastructure in the city of Pale Rider and 12 ships. This loss has resulted in your opponent gaining air superiority. Air superiority halves your tank combat value in ground battles. To end your opponent's air superiority you must execute an airstrike that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph airstrike on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's aircraft. He did 14 MAPs worth of attacks in 20 min and still has 1 MAP left.
    2 points
  21. No important direct BK ally has surrendered
    2 points
  22. The OP says that Vacation Mode / gray nations would not count toward the cap. So there wouldn't be much advantage to having inactive nations.
    2 points
  23. Because it's a terrible idea. All this does is slow down new player growth since the best way to grow in this game is to join an alliance. With alliance banks being capped it means that the smaller member count alliances get bent over the table as bigger alliances have more access to cash thus being able to grow members faster. Sure, I could create a system where I have a bunch of member holding cash that restocks the bank when growing members but honestly this is a game not a job and I don't work that hard at my actual job. Another thing it makes raiding a waste of time.
    2 points
  24. @Alex I think you may want to make a distinction between cash and resources. For resources, I think you hit onto something really good about the frequency of war cycles. We currently have a resource glut in the larger alliance banks that allows them to last in wars for practically indefinite periods of times. Putting caps on the amount of resources storable makes a lot of sense in this respect to encourage shorter wars. Another way to implement this could be some form of decay rate for resources stored in alliance banks versus within nations which in the real world makes sense because resources like gasoline and such have shelf-lives. For cash, it might make sense to exclude this from the limits. First, a lack of resources is enough to halt a war effort and enforce a regularity of war cycles. Second, cash is used for rebuilding and growth which makes it essential for alliances to be able to store large sums in order to do these things. Excluding cash from the caps will also resolve a lot of the other potential problems with the idea. You could theoretically get the best of both worlds by increasing loot/attrition of resources while still letting alliances grow, protecting the health of the game.
    2 points
  25. Yeah because a city 4 has 3 more cities of capacity than a c1, but so does a c20 vs a c23. getting a nation cities gets harder and harder progressively, so a c3 shouldn't get the same amount of space proportionally as a c25
    2 points
  26. So then just change alliance creation to require 10 or more cities. That fixes that. You're welcome
    2 points
  27. You could just leave the bank rules as they are and change the rules back to when raiding was profitable.....
    2 points
  28. I have to say though, it would decrease the amount of time alliances are at war. Alliance's would only be able to afford going to war for less than a month at suggested alliance bank limits (unless they kept it all with-in their nations, which can get raided). Honestly, it's a double edged sword. It removes alliance bank looting, but it allows you to get bigger loot from any certain nation. It will allow the better raiders get their stats up (without having to Theo three banks).
    2 points
  29. Propaganda thread's suddenly turned fire over the last few pages. Keep it up
    2 points
  30. If you were a good runner you would use the Naruto run
    2 points
  31. EM, i have been on my summer sabbaticals for 6 years now. I think you are taking the joke around this a bit seriously mate. The other side of the coin is I only plan my wars excluding summers, ask anyone that has fought me in wars I plotted. Anyways, I can't start new wars without ending old ones right?
    2 points
  32. 2 points
  33. I don't think they will have the score capable of reaching those rich players, and their chances of beating them are even worse. What this change might do is push all the bigger players into their own alliance, so they can all grow without fear. Not saying it will happen, but yeah.
    1 point
  34. Ah true I didn't think of that. Where would rich nations store their money during a war though?
    1 point
  35. Oh boi, that doom clock post did not age well at all
    1 point
  36. First one to like this gets a prize.
    1 point
  37. No we do not. Nothing to see here, move on.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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