Leaderboard

Rigging the poll to so no change could not be the most popular option, suggesting it during global war(when war mechanic changes in the past have gone horribly wrong) yeah something is fishy with this topic... But okay I´ll give my other 2 cents: option 1 is bad, you must delete spies as unit because killing only spies with em is stupid, nukes and missiles could only be nuked or missiled away, Fraggle would be glad. option 2 you can nuke everything so one nuke should realistically be able to kill all of enemy planes or tanks or what ever type of force you choose, not good at all. option 3 a little better but still the problem of nukes being realistically able to kill everything....

If listening to the spin of your government members, makes you believe this, then that's on them. Since the opening rounds of discussions, we have always maintained the same line and as such haven't really softened our stance on things. I've intimated the same request (telling us this will be a negotiation for your surrender) to different folks from your side since the opening rounds of discussion originally occurred. Not much of a "softer" fashion as much as consistently been saying the same thing since the beginning. We aren't interested in your unconditional surrender, and never did ask for it, given the same terms were given to multiple parties on your side who exited the war. In fact we were the first to offer a white peace for both your protectorates and our own to exit the war back in July? The said breaches of trust are to me a mirage used to hide the unwillingness to actually surrender or enter discussions with the intent to achieve a deal. Again, we've always been open to negotiating your surrender, and have maintained that throughout. Your governments are trying to force our hand on budging first, and we don't really see the need to and hence haven't really bothered keeping up the facade of niceties when clearly it seems to be a waste of our time and your time. Fair enough, but if the starting point of your government is a grossly unfair spin of our terms, then that's disappointing, given how we've posted literal walls of texts for the better part of the last 45 days, dealing with what we require to move onto the next term. So I'd suggest revisiting what they did promise to yourselves as members, and see what we've been saying for the better part of the last month and a half, and you'll probably find the picture starkly different to what was sold to you

The correct response to overwhelming negative public reaction is to reconsider your plan, not to claim that everyone is wrong with the exception of you. If you are so confident that you can make a better game on your own, go ahead and do so and leave the rest of us alone

So if people disagree with you then the thread is no longer civil?

Ffs, do you guys not remember the clusterfrick of stats we had before Frawley & co made their voluntary project? Stats were all over the place, incorrect and biased. With this amount of data some mistakes are bound to happen, but it's the closest to perfection we'll ever get to. Instead of this kind of treatment, lets be thankful for what they made and not throw shit at members of this community that are voluntarily putting their hours into something that benefits all the players. If you have grievances, report mistakes you believe exist but god damn, be respectful about it and I'm sure they'll address your complaints when they're able.

Sooo losing the war the response is "it's the game mechanics fault" just surrender already and stop trying to get Alex to mess the game up in your favor.

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

Does anyone else get irrationally mad at the baseball CAPTCHA Like yelling at your monitor "Yes I'm a f***ing human I was a human the last seventeen times you f***ing asked I hate you so much" It can't be just me, can it

the only people benefiting are the ones who are able to freely grow their alliances while 75% of the games major players are at war. both sides are losing by trying to save face with these surrender terms

The real issue is the NPO Side keeps trying to force its views and logic on the other side(TKR side). Its obvious that TKR side isn't budging on how it views certain things, and NPO side thinks if it drags out the war it'll get them to change its view. The war has gone on for months, and TKR side hasn't changed at all, and all thats happened is NPO side is losing allies and people fighting for them. Regardless of the end result, I can't say that this is a good strategy. I assume NPO side thinks as long as it imports allies, it'll be fine, but I've gotta say losing PnW base support for CN support doesn't look like a good strategy in the long run.

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.

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.

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

I see someone's trying to get the Worst Reputation award for the forums.

It's in the definition of VIP. Very important PERSON, why do I have to keep proving that I'm human when PnW already admits it? Sheepy, remove captcha for your VIPs, and you'll double the demand.

The ability to use up city improvements slots with stuff like airports, hotels and national landmarks would really make the game more realistic for example this could lead to you being able to make money from this I do have a few ideas for the cost of these new buildings Airport (regional) - 250,000 cash and 100 steel Airport (international) 500,000 cash and 250 steel Hotel - 150,000 and 50 steel This could add to commerce or a new tourism rating which could be introduced

You might be a Very Important Program, they don't know

Yes because all of that is somehow not a spin, and could also grossly misrepresent what we've also consistently been saying both here in public and to our members. You honestly need to get off the belief that you're entitled to not being called out for spin, or that you have a monopoly on the truth. No one does, we have our views of how things played out and you may feel strongly about a certain thing, you may call it fact, but it most definitely is not. But asking your members to objectively go through your own spin and our statements is somehow offensive to you, befuddles me, but I mean you do you Cooper, believing that your spin cannot be called out for what it is, while you're free to attack everyone else for the same. I guess you just believe in different standards in treating your posts and those who have a different view.

He's not accusing you guys of being inconsistent; he's saying you've consistently misinterpreted what we're demanding despite multiple, detailed explanations from several members of our coalition. He's not advising people to comb through your government's various statements for inconsistencies; he's telling people to compare them with those from Coalition B. We've been consistent as well (we haven't "softened" our demand because we haven't changed it), and anyone can find out as much by just reading what we post. He called it spin because, at this point, the creative interpretations of "unconditional surrender" from Coalition A amount to either ignorance or plain obtuseness. Yes. New players are always good.

Good suggestions (Values would need to be edited though) but new improvements are always welcome. I might add Hydro power could be good as well and a way to include @MinesomeMC love of water. ;,p However I would add, to help realism if your nation's social policy is Conservative you can't build any wind, solar or hydro plants. EDIT: Some suggestions on the two plants proposed. Can't help but think these are tailored to your nation since you have 10k land, ;,p so you might need to tone down the requirements. But it'll be nice to have a way to maintain power without worrying about blockades making you run out of Uran/Coal/Oil. I do think as a trade off they should be far less efficient, but not as inefficient as presented here so for example: Solar provide power for 500 Infra per 1k land, Solar also reduces pollution by 5 for each 1k land. and Wind provide power 250 Infra per 500 land, Wind also reduces pollution by 10 for each 1k land.

and that was your choice, wasn't it? you chose not to take our word and you had to know the consequences of that when you did it. you are still the ones who escalated, not us.

We reacted with a strike on TKR as that was the strategic target since we'd be joining the coalition anyways. Soup and TGH countered for TKR with war decs, meaning that you yet again expanded the war. Typhoid was hit after they countered NPO in defense of Senraizen.

I don't think it should exist at all.

Pressing the same button over and over and over, looks like a job a robot would do

If everyone else would just follow Chaos and BK's lead and surrender to GOONS we could have this war over by Monday.

NPO has not imported any CN players, GPWC are not CN players. NPO didn't import GOONS, I did. Although I did play CN, GOONS by and large are from SomethingAwful, not CN. Learn the facts before you pipe up.

now that's done and my member has apologized. Time to make a post about how TKR is trash.

Huh, who would've thought. It figures.

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.

Hmmm. This isn’t the herb I’m looking for.

And we are closing the poll. Thanks for participating in democracy and thinking ur vote matters Also, it will be nice to not end the war since 69 people voted NO

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.

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.

Guess who's back boys, its Kuwait with dat reroll, I successfully joined TR and was one of their best comrades, today I decided I would steal the bank alliance, I decided the best time was during a gov meeting. So, with the rob, The Regiment is bank less and I left the alliance bc I felt so bad, anyways, have a jolly Good day -The Most Hated Gamer, Kuwait

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'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!

i feel like this is the best burn that could possibly have happened

I would consider somebody wasting defensive spy ops on me to destroy 1 infra during war as trying to help; rather than cause harm. Although lulz at whatever this is.

i for one am mad that GOONS isn't on that list

We already defeated TKR. You're just taking unfair advantage of them while they're down for personal gain. Shame on you.

Please ask someone to teach you how to troll. I don't mean like on a master level like GOONS, maybe something less shitty than atm like BK.

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

GOONS run a command economy, 100/100.

Agreed. We wouldn't want 1000+ RoqBots to suddenly get VIP with just $600m, when it would individually take $20,000m or $20b.

TKR’s inclusion was heavily debated on before and during Chaos-creation talks. Their hesitation was that they didn’t want to abandon their current allies. However, the rest of us wanted nothing to do with TCW and also wanted the bloc to be smaller in size. So the requirement was for them to drop their current allies. The resolution was that we would protect TCW for 30 days while they figured their crap out. But you are incorrect with your narrative that CoS colluded with TKR to create a power sphere with TCW/KETOG/Everyone other than NPO. We wanted to destroy hegemonies, not build them up. In fact, if we ever got too big/powerful it is written in the bloc charter that we would disband. Chaos all stemmed from Soup approaching CoS about a treaty and it expanded from there (the reason why it wasn’t brought up in Adrienne’s announcement is that we asked to keep our alliance a secret until we founded). Like we stated before, the goal was to push a reset button on the political landscape. At the end of the day your side fricked up by colluding against us and continue this hypocritical narrative that we were the ones colluding. I kind of feel bad, because you guys (NPO) are obviously smart and aren’t necessarily the ones responsible for the cluster that was created. But the alliances you chose to sleep with continue to make mistake after mistake, and you attempting to spin their mistakes are only making you look bad. Again, it’s tough to blame you as you don’t have much to work with narrative-wise.

do you have anything to actually contribute or do you do nothing but shitpost? cause all ive seen are shitposts.

Hey! Welcome to the game, best advice I can give you is to find a good alliance to show you the ropes and have fun with the game. [Insert Immortals Plug Here]

Have you paid any attention to what Vivec said? He specifically said the intented limit would be 300, not 50. Which is nearly two and a half times NPO's current member count. Let's be honest here, no small alliance would merge past the 300 member mark for a variety of reasons including but not limited to just not possesing that many members, (which i would like to mention has never happened before.) Moreover, the whole point of this suggestion is to limit stuff like NPO's 1200 man alliance, not prevent micros/smaller alliances from merging. I'd suggest you re-read his suggestion with a clear mind.

An easy mistake to make! That arrow is actually pointing to my incredibly stylish jeans, woven from the finest guinea-pig fur of a thousand GPWC nations, and which are perfect to wear during a fulfilling day of granting minor miracles on the forums and transforming infrastructure into war stats! It is interesting that your mind went to my wang, but worry not. It is only natural to be so impressed, when gazing upon a superior lifeform!

Exactly what it says in the title. The profit from manufactured resources are more heavily impacted by taxes than simple raws. Please give us the ability to set separate tax rates for each.