Leaderboard

This doesn't make any sense in its current presented form. Larger nations can field way more units in ground/navy in less time. If any of these are implemented, then it's making it impossible to fight someone bigger than you and that's the main reason air is more powerful as it's the only functional way the game could work to allow updeclares to be viable. Otherwise, it's just a game where the bigger you are the more will you will dominate, meaning a super small minority of players can dominate the rest a la DBDC. Only way it works is if ground/navy have to be maxed over 6 days as well and suicide ground attacks 3 on 1 work the same way as suicide air. The updeclare range restrictions would have to be removed too and this is only for the one where air can only target air. A larger nation can just buy out of range by double buying ground/navy/air a lot of the time as is. The only way to even keep them down is because air can airstrike those units. The rest are just unworkable. I don't think it's the right solution to the overall problem either way though.

I would like to instead propose Nine Million Nuke November where we try to reach the magic total of 9,000,000 nukes detonated and make everyone starve I think my proposal has a better chance of success

I'm all for throwing shit in every direction guys, but can we not throw shit at the guys who are providing us with services we all kind of enjoy? I dunno. Just a suggestion!

@Cypher as requested. Just as a general note on these, I omitted VMers which is why you don't see Seb on the KETOG chart, and although I tried to include offshores, I'm sure I missed a few of those.

3 different options: 1. Nerf planes 2. Nerf planes 3. Nerf planes yeah... 'Planes are currently the only unit type which can attack other unit types giving them an advantage over other unit types. Please review the options in the OP and vote accordingly on how to balance the issue' Please note that this is a leading question (or poll), 'Vote accordingly on how to balance the issue' suggests that because they give an advantage over other units, they have to be balanced. That might be true, but it also might not be. You are also implying that your solutions are the only way to balance this.

1) Select a random player (nation at least 100 days old) from coalition A 2) Do the same with a player from Coalition B 3) Put them in a 1 on 1 chat 4) Stream the chat to everyone 5) They have to do the peace talks, no one can tell them what to do after the start (you can prepare them before) 6) They have to agree before the end of the day Terrible result guaranteed but at least we have some fun

I wonder if Frawley is going to track such a serious opponent of ours.

I’ve had a good few months away. How are you all?

It's already hard to take down a nation with 10 cities more than you even with air being good. You only have 3 defensive slots on them to use and a lot can go wrong. If the idea is just to make them all powerful, then that's a huge issue. The problem isn't balancing units if the goal is to put larger nations out of reach. There are plenty of ways to make each unit better(like tanks counting for a lot less score and being cheaper to make, with cities counting for more score), navy defending itself only against air, and so on. It would make more sense to buff or increase production/decrease cost of missiles instead so people can resist more if they're zeroed out. It makes sense for one conventional to be better than the others rather than rock paper scissors. Air was made powerful and the utter failure high casualties were put into reward taking the initiative in fighting at an individual disadvantage to facilitate this. That doesn't mean it's the best set up, but war would just be in the favor of larger nations is air is nerfed. We've had conventional as the end all be all of warfare, but if people aren't happy with how it plays out, allowing for more unconventional options is the best way so everyone can still have a fighting chance to do something. These last two wars are the only times where larger nations have had to fight to similar degrees as smaller ones, so nerfing the only way to take them down will entrench their advantages and encourage the maintenance of cartels of big nations.

Naw.

We don't think that either, but we will get them to admit defeat.

Admitted defeat and then being presented terms doesn't mean, nor require, you accept the other terms.

Someone nuke him for suggesting such an outrageous agreement.

As like everyday, I don't recognize GPWC as legitmate alliance. Not only is the alliance just a Tax Farm but they stole Golden Phoenix Coalitions acronym GPC. So we decided to sue GPWC in a totally unbaised court with me as the judge. The agreement btwn GPC amongst itself is. 1. GPWC will no longer be seen as legitmate alliance (not like it ever was) but rather as an extension of NPO regardless of what Frawley says 2. GPWC will be referred to as jr-NPO or RoqBots. Any alliance who refers to Guniea Pig Whaling Company as GPWC (use of GPWC/RoqBots gets the GPC pass) will also be seen as a RoqBot 3. GPC will have a Valid CB on GPWC and will use it whenever it feels like it. 4. @George (James T Kirk) will be recognized as the Princess of GPC because why not 5. GPC > GPWC/Roqbots Tl;Dr - GPC > GPWC (RoqBots)

The alternative is them forcing their views on us. It's of no benefit to us. They have to budge and show some humility because they made it life or death. We didn't do that. They made their stances clear on it and this response isn't particularly harsh in the slightest. They've shown they are prone to excesses when they feel they have an edge and we can't really say "yeah, that's totally fine guys, good game white peace". The people on our side who left simply just weren't wanting to fight a real war from the get-go, which was the issue to begin with. In most cases, they were either people who traditionally bailed quickly, newer alliances with no staying power, or people who were looking to ditch their allies and find new ones either way because the war wasn't won fast enough for them. There's no way to retain people who only stick if the going is good unless you're curbstomping 10 to 1 99% of the time or at the very least you are always doing better than the opposition. It followed the traditional pattern of less committed peripheral alliances dropping out due to lack of internal prep and/or cutting their anchor allies loose. KERTCHOGG knows a lot of people just can't handle real wars so when they were doing well, they took advantage of the fear they could instill and some alliances even went under their protection until it wasn't safe. It's not about trading people in, it's more if people can't handle stormy weather, you're gonna lose them either way and most of KERTCHOGG has been in way worse shape than the alliances that dropped out.

I want to know where pre is getting his idea that a 10 city difference can be overcome by air units when it cant. The city difference has to be smaller than that or the smaller nations have to be working in conjunction with a larger one who is doing most of the damage. The past two wars are proof that larger nations are needed in every war in order to actually take down other larger nations. Even if pres preconception was correct, the game would still be played how @Alex wants it to. Sheepy has stated numerous times over the years that he doesn't want an unbeatable top tier which is what's been suggested here.

I'm not going to be cornered into voting for "the option I dislike the least" because I dislike all of them and have no intention of my vote being used to support something when I dislike it to begin with. Keep your poll, I vote 'present'. If you want to have an honest discussion then, at a minimum, "Keep the current system" should have also been an option. I agree with other commenters that a change of this type really should only be considered as part of a larger adjustment in the war system. I am intrigued by the anti-aircraft ideas and even the naval support options may have some merit when considered in a comprehensive change. The options in this poll are not sufficient to consider.

So... what your saying is that some people are correct in the fact that you don't have anything else in terms of terms ready for negotiation? Or is that a slip of the fingers? What table? The one behind the Locked door that says "Wont open til Nov. 1st?" Is the timer still up? I'll countdown the days. Let us die young or let us War forever We don't have the power, but we never say never Sitting in a Low tier, life is a short trip The music's for the sad man

Where's the "These are 3 shit suggestions" option in the poll? Aerial superiority has ALWAYS been a thing in any war in the history of the world. Sure, there's some ground and naval capacities to counter, but they're largely ineffective, compared to simply having the superior airforce. Your example with 30 city nation vs three 20 city nations is bullshit imo. So what, that someone (player or alliance, doesn't really matter) spent more on one nation (30 cities) than the others? If Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark decided to attack Germany, there's no guarantee that either side would be victorious, just like there's no guarantee who would win in P&W in your scenario. As Curu said somewhere; if you're a goodie goodie whale, you'll make a splash and keep the dolphins at bay, especially with beige mechanics being the way they are. Don't make Alex kill his own game, please.

@HerbWhy would you destroy 1.00 infra in a city? How cruel can you possibly be? Poor TKR, how will they ever recover from such destruction. If you think someone who wasted half a million bucks on destroying 1 infra on an already destroyed nation of TKR is a good fit for my pinging squad, then I don't know where you lost so many brain cells. By the way, does anyone else think that Herb deserves the "Most damaging spy op" Award for destroying that precious 1infra?

Well now that song is gonna be stuck in my head for days

It's been established already by our glorious savior, Pre, that you're all being unreasonable.

I'm gonna nuke even more now

If you feel like Frawley's stats are biased or inaccurate, you are more than welcome to create your own database. Though I doubt most of the complainers are competent enough to program the time on a microwave.

Moving topic as this is not an alliance announcement.

Look what I did to akash, your #2 biggest nation, take that stupid heads. http://prntscr.com/pnq1di Who's next?

There is no coalition C. Maybe if you stopped posting stupid topics you wouldn’t get reported for spam.

I made these graphs as part of a conversation in Discord, figured I'd share in case anybody else finds them interesting. If anybody has a request it only takes a minute or two for me to make Excel spit one of these out. No Micros though.

Next Case: SK vs. SK vs. SK

I thought this was someone threatening IRL legal action over events in this game again and I was getting my popcorn ready, lmao.

As someone who runs a recruitment bot 24/7 it is pain to look for unread messages that are from possible applicants, alliance members, or foreign entities. I'd like to propose two possible solutions to this issue. 1. Have Unread Messages on the top until they are marked as read or opened allowing the receiver to easily find the unread messages Or 2. Allow a search by unread or something similar to allow me to find such emails that haven't being opened or set to read

Yes, because Aragorn is known for his politeness and chivalry.

Doesn't solve any problem apart from targeting successful communities, thereby reducing buy-in to the game. Whatever potential diversity is up to themselves and should never be imposed by folks for shits and giggles. It literally is persecuting folks for being good at recruiting for no other reason than your own lack of it. I have no idea why anyone would want to kill communities who play this game because they may not have the strength to recruit as well tbh, its a terrible idea and that'll kill player retention faster than most other things.

I wasn't talking about final terms but in the past some have been levied like big reps by some of the alliances. I was mainly talking about the threats made earlier on about scorched earth, last chance, and the fact that there was a deliberate effort to muscle people into cancelling treaties, which has happened multiple times. Basically, when people are confident enough to say, this is your last time fighting, it's severely problematic and they made it into an existential struggle. There's also a level of viciousness that has been shown by some people on the other side(not necessarily the same ones who had received large reps in the past) where they have tried to cripple people before e.g. repeat hits on vulnerable alliances, delighting in those attempts to cripple them economically, acceptance of rogues challenging the other side to do something about it knowing they couldn't hit all the alliances harboring the rogues, and demanding cancellations and the behavior exhibited earlier on shows it didn't go totally away. Like they've said that's all in the past and it's me not letting go, but the attitudes shown earlier on did not indicate that was the case. I mean i'm talking in an in-game sense. Those are the stakes you set for the war. We're able to keep it going, so simply having the stance of admission of defeat/surrender as a final term being a precondition isn't that crazy of a demand. Given a lot of people on your side feel you haven't lost, it might be a waste of time for whoever is dealing with it if they have to deal with another side that doesn't think it lost.

That's cool. Stop complaining about the community contributions of someone else then and put your 3 billion people to work making your new unbiased stats site.

I'd echo Malichy. All of these options are horrible and I refuse to vote for any of them. Count me as "here and against all of them." You've completely missed the point of what is wrong with the war system. Which is namely it is *too* one sided to larger nations. Sure they should have an edge. But it shouldnt be a snowballing thing where you can't ever do any damage to them once a war turns against you. The problem is the difficulty in competing with an opponent who is larger then you. All of these suggestions widens the gap and makes it more difficult for players who are newer or dont have an amazing support network alliance to boost them super quickly. It would kill game dynamism. Larger nations already have an INSANE edge. What you need is more ways you can at least HURT them even if you lose wars. Not less. The idea shouldn't be to have a bunch of untouchable overlord nations reigning over a bunch of peons. I'll also add if you want to pick something broken to fix start with spies. The idea you can spend a month building them up and they are all gone in a day or two never to be gotten back for the whole months long war is ridiculous.

You know, I'd have believed you if you had said something like BK, KT, whatever alliance Shifty is in, TGH, Acadia, or whatever alliance that currently has kosmokenny's attention.

Going to share some of the pictures of food thus far!

P. good. Just saw this new video, kind of reminds me of something, can't put my finger on what though:

Hoo boy, well have I got some good news for you!

Someone has been watching too much United States of America again.

Two batman's fighting each other while Robin Cries in a corner. I think it's symbolic of ET and GPC beating NPO so hard they cry like an orphan.

no u

Ok, @Malleator, I voted no, so I'll answer truthfully and completely as possible. 1. How much longer do I want the war to go on for? - Not much longer, maybe no longer than the end of October or mid-November. A lot of folks have gone inactive or quit. It's hard to miss. 2. Will this be P&W's first eternal war? - Hopefully not. I doubt the P&W economy was designed with permawar in mind. Prices are already crazy. 3. Can eternal war be sustained? - See above answers. 4. Is that what the players want? - Probably not, and it would be illogical to assume so. If anyone likes war so much, there was always Arrg!, Mythic, or maybe some other raider alliance to join. 'Normal' nations/alliances don't benefit from wars, since their nations make money from infra, raw materials, manufacturing, loans and taxes. Logically, raiders should love wars (plenty of targets/ cheap rebuild!), but no one else should be in love with the idea. 'Regular' nations/alliances only benefit (materials prices!) from wars they profit from, ie. stay out of. Or they are trying to defend themselves, or accomplish some geopolitical objective. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

I don't really see a reason to cap alliance sizes. As was stated, all that would happen is a confusing mess of "Alliance Name 1" "Alliance Name 2" that are all allied together. To be a meaningful change, we'd also have to require some limit to the number of nations that can all be allied together through alliances and treaties, but that isn't really possible to enforce.

Before joining this alliance, I felt a severe concern for the people around me. And now? Why, now I don't feel a thing! Join today! Only YOU can save yourself!

VM for 6 months more and come back then

I heartily endorse this product/person/service.

So uhh. . . You might want to adjust those rates, wampus has 51250 tanks and could kill 3416 planes in 1 attack. . . Just seems a little flawed