Leaderboard

Not bitter at all, tho i can see how you think that, in fact i really dont care, this war is free to last two years if need be. Here we go again with you and your side twisting words to fit your poor narrative, just because they do not currently have any major bearing on the war, does not mean they did not do their part. Each and every alliance that exited (apart from FR) put forth a effort. The moral of the story for AD and TFP is "don't be a fricking jackass when you exit the war". Here we go again, we lied to absolutely no one, it was a defensive war, point and blank. However ill take some of whatever you're smoking Please refer to my dont be a asshat comment regarding exiting. I mean if you really want to point blame on the downward trend on current activity I will do that, its you and people like you. In your sides giant egoistic crusade to blame BK, you became the cause. We won this war a while ago, it has been within your sides power to end it, meaning less members would have quit / some would become active again . However i dont think you will get that, TGH is rocking the 25 members? Or is it less yet But Rather than just admit defeat and let the game recover, you have chosen to take a stance of "not losing" and people citing "bad terms" as a reason for not ending it, the best part of all that is we havent even given an official term list I have no idea what you are talking about, but continue pulling random bull from the air, the look fits you

Yeah... that ship sailed like a year ago.

If we remove the ways in which alliances can survive being outnumbered, then we'll have created an environment in which alliances can't survive competition. Thus, competition would end, and therefore the game would end. With that in mind, I strongly protest any form of removal or cap or elimination of bank mechanics; this game is NOT something that should EVER be "won" on a permanent level, not by anyone. If alliances can be murdered, then they will be, and then there will be no game left; I've seen that before dozens of times. That's how games go from a few thousand players to a hundred at the most, and ultimately to literally one.

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.

I am Nokia Rokia the Coal King of The Coal Mines I wanted to try to extend a hand to newer alliance leaders with some TCM books on City Growth and builds My alliance is new however my members are old in Gov I just want to help folks who may need some spare resources to lead with so enjoy and for Folks who join The Coal Mines discord server I can offer u all a recruiting bot. I wanted to connect the Guides here however i ran into some issues attaching the files so just hit me up in TCM server I can hand the guides out there have a wonderful day everyone.

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

The money stored in savings is for a personal account that is used to provide interest to alliance members. We weren't storing money of an upcoming alliance cause we had no information of an upcoming alliance. Leyaul didnt even tell us of an upcoming alliance in the follow up message with Valk.

Greetings, friends! As the overseer of ET, I find Rose guilty of stealing Noctis' cash and resources. The said resources are to be sent to the bank of ET asap where it shall be counted thoroughly and sent to Noctis. I dont really see why either side would want you.

So there was a nation in Rose that was banned a few days ago and Noctis wants us to send the banned nation‘s money to him. I’m honestly shocked this is a real thing

Dumb question and a dumb post. You wanna know what really happens after, then don't ask the forums. Go make connections.

Somehow having a big leak of a planned war (That you folks admitted to) leads to being defensive. Huh.

What's really next.;) https://binged.it/2l71v44

What exactly do you of all people have to do with a Bi-Polar world occuring? I'm gonna level with you, with my arrogant micro-ass has more say and pull on the worlds polarities than you do, and nobody would give a single shit (aside from to, understandably, laugh) if someone jacked my money. Coincidentally that did happen, including the laughter. Enjoy being bankrupted by the damage and your loans, i guess.

1st narrative: "We're not entering the war because we're not tied to BK" 2nd narrative: "We're not really entering the war because we're only attacking Grumpy and Guardian and we have no intention of helping BK" 3rd narrative: "We're only attacking TKR because they planned to roll IQ, which means they were planning on rolling us, but we're not IQ, and we're not acting like we are, really" 4th narrative: "We're only helping BK because OGREKTGEWTL are winning and therefore we have to stop that, but we're not tied to or allied with BK and we're not doing this to help them really" 5th narrative: "We're only attacking our own allies because their tactics might possibly allow ODKREGTLEGZ to build up individual nations' airforces back, which is an existential threat to our bloc. Sorry I mean blocs, we're still not allied." 6th narrative: "We're only attacking uninvolved, paperless neutrals because they're tied to Rose. Paperlessly. Trust us on this" 7th narrative: "Oh frick off with calling out our narratives, we don't care about optics, all we care about are our strategic interests. But that doesn't mean we're a hegemony making a power play, because we're not allied to BKsphere, just read the last half dozen narratives." 8th narrative: "Our narrative has been the same since we posted our DoW, just read what we've written, if you see any contradictions then it's just your illiteracy" @Miller I think that's most of it. If there's any other narratives I'm missing... ...I don't wanna know, because I'm already tired of the spin >_<

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.

Those numbers are so low that the alliance bank itself would be useless.

I dont really know whats going on. Just came to say "that time I got reincarnated as a slime" is a decent anime and worth the watch. The AMV used ep 24 I believe which doesnt have much to do with the story. Excited for s2

I mean i haven't even been given aid yet from Rose because they're still at war. Any implication that this loud-mouthed clown should get jack shit for having done exactly that is laughable.

Everyone should get a chance to get their act together. Some people make the most out of that oppurtunity.

The Boris Wars Volume 4 ft. GPWC. Anyone, feel free fo join ?

Look what you've done Alex. You've got me to upvote a Scarfalot post

The new search function available in messages has some limitations. It does not search through the content of your messages, and for messages before this feature was introduced, it will not be able to search by sender/receiver. Eventually, however, you will be able to use it to narrow down messages by subject, leader name, and nation name. For older messages, it will only work for subject.

Y'know, I'm with Minesome here; I'm not even sure either

@Alex Way back int he day, you had to have 10 members to activate the banking page if I recall. Later on, it cost 2 credits to make an alliance. Maybe you just need to revert, and focus on the airpower problem...

Oh my. That's a really good point. Should have thought of that one! Edit: I hope you can forgive me my wrong doings @Micchan

I have a feeling this change of capping or removing banks may very well accomplish the opposite and strongly raise the importance of creating a hegemony. Top alliances will try to ally each other and completely decimate the rest of the game. Imagine one hegemony sphere with full military thats just keeping the rest of the game zeroed and loot them forever, while the hegemony sphere just cant have their well protected nations beiged. I guess that does make wars shorter, but personally I dont see newer alliances able to compete at all, they will get rolled and lose everything they have, including all their munitions so good luck getting back up. Creating a safe offshore is really something you can do with just 2 people even for new alliances, if they know how to do it that is. I do however believe that this concept of a game with a capped alliance bank or none at all isnt inherently bad, it's just that people havent played the game like this for years and with this change everyone has suddenly played the game in an unintelligent way basically since its existence, because all their stockpiles are suddenly not a good thing anymore and instead they should have built more cities or something. If everyone was broke then I doubt the feedback would be as bad. Personally, I kinda love the idea of fat loot all over the place, but the fact that I have savings and would lose it all makes it a pain to imagine. If this change does get implemented then I hope there will at least be an announcement long before the change actually happens so people have a month or two to use most of it in some meaningful way.

Lasting 3 months of war is of far more value than a meaningless stat. BoC should be proud.

You must want to just destroy the game. If that's your goal why not do it? It's all you. Now this idea is not only horrible but you are not given any incentive to win wars other than a victory and the small amount of resources someone keeps on them. And how does this stop offshore banks, people can just send their money via trades to an offshore anyways and have it kept. I don't who whispered this idea in your ear but this is terrible. Additionally, you just ignore all other GOOD suggestions for this game??? Do you even read game suggestions?

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.

It's definitely, like, an attempt. Not necessarily a good one.

The fun rebuild period followed by another global war, as is tradition in this game.

Nothing about this change is actually addressing that. Just because Alex thinks it is means absolutely nothing, as what Alex thinks will happen almost always has zero bearing on reality at best. Making it easy to bankrupt entire alliances will leave a pile of bodies scattered, that would correlate quite simply with the winner and losers in conflict.

Comic 2: How Pirates win wars

Your point? I mean, if that's your argument, then you burned yourself ?

Post-facto arguments based on later debate rather than actual circumstances is pretty much what IQ is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lest we forget: "The Syndicate and affiliates will not expand their attacks beyond Grumpy and Guardian" -N$O, less than a week before NPO expanded their attacks beyond Grumpy and Guardian

You should change your name to Oh Tiniest Snitch.

Yarr acknowledges that we have been overwhelmed by the number of nations attacking us and surrenders to COalition B under the following terms: Yarr acknowledges that Clarke did nothing wrong That is all Signed for Yarr: https://i.imgur.com/fX7C0ge.gif Signed for Coalition B: https://i.imgur.com/eAHrdFc.gif

You were making it sound like you yourself made that much.

Why couldn't a nation with 10 cities create an alliance, have a 0.01 score nation join the alliance, then the 10 city nation leaves? That doesn't really solve the problem. If it's easier to take their wealth (which you can use to build cities) it will be much easier to catch up. If they can hide and hoard their wealth forever, and use it to keep growing, then they certainly won't ever be caught up to.

Because this is Never give up war

Knightfall 2.0 colorized

Dial Up War

Note: These rules were originally written by Forum Mod @Four, revised by @Eva-Beatrice, @Olive Penderghast, and now, myself. National Roleplay Rules: Each post you create must contain at least five sentences to be considered valid. You must make reasonable posts and requests from other players in this community. Any development by your nation must be played out over a reasonable amount of time. No matter how advanced you may be, things do not just happen overnight. If knowledge of something is posted in a manner which would render you unable to know about it, then you may not use this knowledge in any way or for any purpose. It isn’t forbidden for you to make an assumption that another nation or player may do something, but you will not know for sure unless such knowledge becomes public. Consent is only required for war. Non-violent posts made without consent are acceptable. (Example: Player A sent military jets through Player B’s airspace without permission. It is up to Player A to respond to Player B’s actions as they see fit.) Basically, if it isn’t a direct attack on your nation, consent isn’t required. National Roleplay Posting Etiquette: You are to remain within your own means. This means that you cannot “overnight” things for your nation. For example: One day, you have modern technology/weapons, and the next day, you have the most advanced technology/weapons. This isn't to say that you cannot develop your technology, or for that matter, anything in your nation. This is just saying that you actually have to RP the transition and growth of your nation to make it fair for the rest of the community. Many nations have a theme built right into them - these themes are derived from RL lore and/or made up of personal lore (lore created by an individual). That being said, all lore should be posted here so that you know what people are using and how you can adapt to National Roleplay with your nation. You have the option to allow or disallow IC/OOC chatter in your thread. This means that should you make a roleplay story/event that you would like to discuss out-of-character within that thread, you may simply state in your original post that your story/event will be open for discussion. Within your OP, you may also state that this story/event is only between select players - just to keep the RP a bit cleaner. If you create a new thread in the OOC subforum for the purpose of discussing an in-character post, just be sure to provide a link to that IC post for ease-of-access. This system allows for a cleaner RP for everyone. You also have the option to carry on your IC discussion through other platforms like IRC (if you're ancient), Discord, Skype, etc. This is National Roleplay, not a 140-character status update. Players of this community are expected to put a little bit more effort than just a few random words in an OP. This is a roleplaying community, where you roleplay your nation and your nation's story. In order for a proper dialogue to develop, players in this community must put in a little effort. For example: Black Box is a National RP member. He has a modern nation and he plays within the lore of modern-day America. This was his post this evening: “President Black Box of the United States of Box won today’s election with 97% of the national vote.” Nobody replied to his post and it got lost. Why? Because he used his time to create a status update instead of giving the community something to build off of. There is no creativity or effort. The key here is to just provide a little more effort with your story and with replies to other player’s stories. You are not God. Simply put, you cannot just snap your fingers and make something happen (besides a snapping sound) in real life, and that same thing applies here. You are not invincible. You are not unbeatable. You don't have the 'best' of anything. You are not a god. You can't destroy nations at the stroke of a key. You can't take over the world one-handed. Do you see where I'm going with this? You can't decide to just take over airspace, bodies of water, or land that doesn't belong to you. You can't force yourself on a nation and take them over. Come on, guys, do I need to continue? This etiquette ruling falls under playing within your means as well as the consent rule. Sure, maybe you have some awesome tech, but you need to RP it correctly. Sure, you might win battles or you might take over land, but it needs to happen the correct way. Through consent, and shared RP stories/events. National Roleplay Moderation: It is to be understood that moderators have the final say in regards to reports made or any rule violation. It should also be understood that select moderators are put in charge to oversee this roleplay community. These moderators have put in time and effort to help rectify issues, and will continue to work with the community and assist with whatever is needed to help it run smoothly and continue to be a source of entertainment. That being said, each member of this community most read and understand these rules as they have been provided to you. Any post in this community is an assumption that you have read and understood each rule. Therefore, should you post something that is a violation to these rules, Moderation will point you right back to this thread. A violation is a violation. Thank you for reading, and enjoy the Politics & War National Roleplay!

21 nukes launched today? Cmon TEst, you can do better than that

Hi guys! I see you like being playground bullies too. Glad you stand up for Orfeas' right to be an utter douchenozzle. Fortunately, last war taught us how to turtle nuke endlessly, and we look forward to making this very costly for you. Cheers, Fark

Two minutes in heaven is better than one minute in heaven

Oh, Im sorry, I missed seeing that your head is so far up your ass that you didnt notice them raid us repeatedly, send DP at us, support DP with additional attacks and spies, mass raid our allies in NK, and raid our allies in Alpha. Youre right, we had no reason to be pissed at them. Aside from Orfeas being a shitbag, anyway.

Which is why his point that us hitting Arrgh is unfair because we are too many is so laughable.

You choose Fark over Polar because Fark is tiny and you are cowards

Its not finished, you twatwaffle. You backed out of accepting peace.