Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/31/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    its just a raid bro
  2. 3 points
  3. 3 points
    Maybe you can speak for BK/NPO, but I don't think you really speak for KETOG. ------- On topic: The reason why peace hasn't been achieved in any manner is because there's multiple reasons as to why the war still exists. It's not just a matter of pride, but that is one of many factors. It'd be absolutely stupid to give in, as it'd simply cement the power base of IQ 2.0 when they're the cause of the war the begin with. Simply look at them consistently dragging more alliances in (Even going so far to continue hitting previous allies, such as OWR and Carthago now). Is that what you want? To pretty much give up to that? Older vets can say whatever about Syndisphere back in the day and our dominance then, but we never pulled that shit (Other than Mensa bullying Vanguard, but even those that surrendered/white peaced out were never dragged back into the same war). Let's put it this way. There's quite a few of you rumor mongering around saying, "Just surrender and rebuild, then go back at it again". What you're forgetting is that 'rebuilding' gives them time to consolidate their new numbers (Just look at GPWC and GOONS adding into this). Their current allies wouldn't give up their spot riding on the coattails, because they'd risk being put through the traumatic experience of getting their asses handed to them again. So you got IQ 2.0 + GPWC + GOONS + whoever else cowers to them. >"But we got top tier advantage if we rebuild!" You won't for very long. And it wasn't that much of an advantage when some of the upper tier nations simply sat on their ass and not attempt to even dive down to make use of their higher city counts, or even attempted to fight when they got attacked. If you're not willing to fight a war, don't count yourself as part of an advantage. Leave the war decisions to vets, or go hide off into some obscure place and build up pixels. Don't get me wrong though, there are some upper tier nations still making use of their city count with their raids. Those are the real MVPs. >"The war is boring though" That is literally the only way to lose. You cannot be pinned down. It's easy and cheap to rebuild. The only way to actually lose is by being bored of the game and the war itself. Congrats, you as a player, lost. And if you're one of those players, congratulations again - you've just contributed to regressing the game back into stagnation. If you think there will be big changes in the game after the war, well, you won't be wrong on that simple line of thinking - but you'll be wrong in what you want to happen. >"There's no reason why we're fighting" There's very clearly a huge reason to fight. Just go dig through the Alliance section of the boards and look at the initial DoWs, or hell, the big leak that came from TCW. If NPO/BKsphere were willing to plot together to roll the two smaller spheres - what makes you think that wouldn't happen again? It's already been verified that NPO/BK won't fight each other, so who else would they go after once their membership base got bored and wanted a fight? This isn't a matter of Roq claiming that it's in NPO's best interests to join in due to some fear of a MegaTKRsphere, it's their fear of losing BK as an ally despite severing that MDP tie. Which is dumb, considering how alliances in KETOG and Chaos have fought each other more times than NPO/BK has been in any kind of conflict within the past few years (Or even supported them too in Knightfall). >"But I don't like to fight" Why are you playing then? Just hop in VM and contribute to the forums. This is almost as bad as the players who whined about Baseball being their life. >"I don't know how to fight/raid" Talk to your local pirate or milcom player. Every alliance has them. >"I just need a break" Take a break. There will be plenty of targets and plenty of rebuild opportunities when you get back.
  4. 3 points
    I agree that everyone would be better off if they surrendered to GOONS.
  5. 2 points
    http://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=129 Its already in the game, right? Why isn't it implemented?
  6. 2 points
    or even better, Alex could create a project that would be needed to have this feature. It would cost 100k of each resource to unlock this stockpile contraption, and act as a drain on resources. It could also be the solution to nerfing planes. When bombing a nation with this project, planes take 50% more damage.
  7. 2 points
    i hate when mommy and daddy fight like this 😭😭😭
  8. 2 points
    While I believe most of the community appreciates the new "hotkey" link to the wars page from the new mobile navbar, I can't really wrap my head around dislodging resource bar from there. It's supposedly one click away, but the resource dropdown table does not even work half the time, ironically on pages most relevant for resources (trade, wars). Very often you need to check on your resources. Making a trade offer? You need the direct information of how much you have. Calculating gasoline/munitions reserves and how many airstrikes you have left. And so forth. And then you hit this dropdown and it does not even work, so you need to go to another page, refresh it, *then* see your resources, head back to the relevant page.. and so forth. Frankly I don't think any mobile user of PnW cares about how much is some feature aesthetical or not, as long as it's useful and serves its purpose. So here are my alternative suggestions, along with some other slight navbar changes that I believe would improve QoL for mobile users. Variant 1* *The resource navbar has NOT been scaled in this example. Theoretically it would look the same as it were before the navbar changes. Variant 2 I've also included a poll but I have no idea if I've managed to set it up properly. Nonetheless, please share your thoughts! *For reference, this is how the current navbar looks like.
  9. 2 points
    I'd only have enough energy to get through about 3 pages of counting before I got tired and gave up, so I have about 8.6% of the stamina as you do for making a count like this.
  10. 1 point
    https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=183391 Under the black color bloc voting section, this player submitted an entry including the n-word (which I don't think needs background). https://politicsandwar.com/world/color/voting/
  11. 1 point
    @Mitsuru wow, that was really good
  12. 1 point
    Thanks for letting me know, I'll handle that.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Rebekah reforming The Originals reminded me of this
  16. 1 point
    No one bothered to correct you because: A. The first part in your post. Everyone tries to deflect blame everywhere else like outside politicians, like this game is based of human created politics, huh Crazy. B. Almost every NPO mouthpiece is at least decently good at avoiding gotcha posts. whether confirming your statement or denying it, one way or the other someone is going to use it against them later on. Especially if they can prove (Or have the patience to go digging all over these very forums) they did. And to them it's better to just let points they don't like or insignificant points to drop and not defend or attack them. Because they get lost in the fray of one line "wit" or WoT they and others type. C. They like it better when others respond against you because it's easier to make that responder, and everyone they're tied to an enemy. Or a villain. Not that everyone doesn't already do a good enough job of that themselves. -Gestures Vaguely at Everything- OOC question. When's the last time your IRL government told you the truth or was honest on a world scale? What do you mean? The government never lies. There is no global warming, The Mueller Report was a witch hunt, and Epstein most definitely killed himself in a guarded cell while on suicide watch. /s.
  17. 1 point
    Here's a curious notion, there are 20 posts (2.3%) out of the 854 replies in this thread from TKR Gov/FA (3 people in fact) who may have anything to do with actual negotiations. IMO none of these could be construed as inflammatory. Unless representing in a clear manner a difference of opinion is considered inflammatory of course. The posts from other TKR members equals a grand total of 97 (11.3%). (I'll put in here a +/- 0.2% accuracy disclaimer - there was a lot of posts to sift through 😬) I would argue the angst and knotted knickers we seem to be dealing with here, and associated Coalition B FA policy development, could be attributed to a large portion of the remaining 86.4% of posts. If negotiation is what coalition B wants, then it needs to happen elsewhere. Hearts, minds and common ground are not being won here.
  18. 1 point
    The bug that doesn't let you beige and win wars has been there before the upgrade.
  19. 1 point
    Wars don't work, no maps used says i've taken loot but no loot gained, sys troops got killed and both of us have all troops intact.
  20. 1 point
    The thing is the Nazis are the one “historical event” that is banned from the game entirely, so by extension roleplaying as the Nazi military should be banned as well.
  21. 1 point
    I haven't been around much but I do have to say - I can trash Akuryo on these forums and laugh for hours with his responses back (in IC context of course) but listen to that man talk for most my shift on VC. Elijah is alright too.
  22. 1 point
    Well you're not wrong about kittens being wholesome. On that note here's a message to our brethren at OWR and the homeless Empyreans:
  23. 1 point
    Hail to the socialist empire of the Red Banner. : New Eire Socialists Kingdom. Erin Go Bragh.
  24. 1 point
    For many years now people have wanted a change regarding planes being "OP". What makes planes the strongest unit is that they are the only unit that can attack other unit archetypes (ground/navy). Not only are they able to attack other units, if they have no air units standing against them, they kill units without suffering any losses. To address this, either planes need to only be able to attack planes, unit wise, or ground and navy need to be allowed to attack other units archetypes as well. OPTION 1 Planes can only attack planes. They lose the ability to target ground units and naval units. OPTION 2 All units can attack all other units. Ground can attack air and navy. Air can attack ground and navy. Navy can attack ground and air. If this option is selected then discussions can be made after regarding if damage rates are equal between the types, or if there is a rock paper scissors style such as Air is strong against ground but weak against navy. Navy is strong against air but weak against ground. Ground would then be strong against Navy but weak against air. Or however it plays out. OPTION 3 All units can attack ONE additional unit type beyond their own. For example, Ground can attack ground and air, but not navy. Navy can attack navy and ground, but not air. Air can attack air and navy, but not ground. Again, how the actual attack orders are will be up for discussions should this option get chosen. In addition there can be strengths here as well, units attacking outside their archetype might not be as efficient, or something of that sort. This thread is NOT for stating that "no change should happen". If there were a change, which of these options would you pick. This thread is NOT for politics. One unit type can attack all others, that gives that unit type an advantage, this is looking at ways to level that advantage. This thread is NOT for suggesting new unit types or projects that impact military units. Keep it civil.
  25. 1 point
    If you don't want a plane nerf, then choose one of the other unit buff options. When there are 3 unit archetypes, war shouldn't be all about one of those archetypes in a game. If you ask any player with fighting experience which unit type they'd like to dominate their opponents in, it's air. That's a problem. And just because it'd be more difficult to pin whales doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It should be hard to upswing a nation with many more cities than you. It's also important to define by what you mean by upswings and whales. Taking down someone with a 10 city advantage on you should be hard. By all means, what is the solution? You've highlighted in your own post that air is overpowered as it is the only means to take down enemies. As above its important to define what sort of scenarios your talking about when attacking larger city counts.
  26. 1 point
    There was too much push back at the time so I never went ahead and implemented them.
  27. 1 point
    Thankyou @CitrusK for paragraphing that, sorry to hear that story, good luck in the future.
  28. 1 point
    Thank you all for your support, It really has helped. I hope I can stay in this game, it is a great community.
  29. 1 point
    It's not an out-of-character problem, and therefore doesn't need to be regulated in an out-of-character fashion. If it's an in-character problem for you or anyone else, that's fine, but don't come to the suggestions forum looking for solutions to it. Regulating player associations is never going to work. Alliance membership and alliance treaties are the two most obvious ways this is semi-frequently suggested, and both have painfully obvious workarounds that are trivial or near-trivial to implement. We also shouldn't want these regulations, regardless of their efficacy. Unless an alliance is obviously sucking players into inactivity (particularly mismanaged or inactive micros are the only groups I can think of that would fit this description) then alliance size should purely be a matter of player choice. What you and the others are implicitly arguing is that the ideal alliance size is somewhere under 300 members (more specifically, it seems to be 50-100 members). Not only is there not a coherent, non-political reason for this preference (I don't see this suggestion as "persecuting NPO" so much as I see it as undue preferential treatment given to incumbent 50-100 member alliances), but there are good reasons to prefer larger alliance sizes. Larger groups tend to sustain themselves better than smaller ones because they have the resources and knowledge to invest in long-term player and community development. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Most of GPWC isn't "active" in a meaningful sense (there aren't anywhere near 1000+ people actively building nations, let alone raiding or fighting wars), so you're leaving out some important details as well. But more to the point, so what? I mentioned above that this isn't an OOC problem and that there are probably more and better OOC reasons to prefer larger alliances to smaller ones. I didn't say it was lazy or ridiculous for others to fail to replicate GPWC; I said it was lazy and ridiculous for them to frame large alliances as threats to game health, especially if they omit important details in their arguments. Even on its own terms, all that argument amounts to is a failure to adapt to a perceived threat. In other words, if you think it's somehow unfair for a sub-100 member alliance to coexist with alliances several times its size, then the onus to change and innovate is on that alliance's members, not the game's developers. That would be great. CN hit peak membership after it made international news, and I'd be very excited if PW managed to do the same.
  30. 1 point
    Awesome story. Well, the issue was you saw it as an all in or all out thing. I hope at some point you can come back to help Sandman and others out, but don't totally unplug if you can help it. Like I'm kind of an extreme opposite but you can always try to check in on your phone or something if you come back. It's not something you have to sit around for hours for. I know for most people it's just too much of a hassle if they have stuff going on to just pop in a few times a day, but if you're invested in what the other guys are doing, you should do that instead of quitting and joining back. Hope your father and family are in good health from now on.
  31. 1 point
    Inspired by the peace talks thread... 😛
  32. 1 point
    I added some "paragraphs" to make it look better. It's honestly worth the read if you haven't read it. I tried to put the paragraphs where it seemed to fit, I probably messed up on the positioning in a few places. I'd suggest reading it, it's a nice read, and a better story. On a side note to Sol, what happened to you and your alliance, sadly, isn't too uncommon. There's been plenty of alliances that have had leaders take time off, and die while they were away. It's something no alliance leader wants, but it's the "curse" of this game when you're busy. It honestly sucks. But, I hope that in the future you can create another alliance, have good friends, and work on it as a group. I can't wait to see how your story unfolds.
  33. 1 point
    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.
  34. 1 point
    Oh look another politically motivated suggestion. Realistically limiting member count is restricting game growth. You are limiting invasion communities from coming here. So it's a solid no from me.
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Sure, but then they're adding a lot of potential targets to loot their alliance bank as well. But really, what do you want me to do? There's not really a good way to force people to play the game a certain way or else (be banned? Idk.) I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. Surely a number of those players will actually start playing and do their own thing, and a number of them will just go inactive and stop checking in.
  37. 1 point
    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.
  38. 1 point
    Sorry for your loss.
  39. -1 points
    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.
  40. -1 points
    In light of the Guinea Pig infestation that has taken Orbis, which renders benefits by the means of referral links to mass recruited nations that will most likely go inactive eventually once they've hit the 500 Score requirement and deposited the bonus. After that is done, I'd imagine the over 1.2k nations with 10 cities would serve nicely as tax subjects, as well as a means by which to keep a slot in the leaderboard with bloated and not necessarily active low score nations. Should they get raided despite the low score, the main alliance is likely to counter with the active percentage of the sub-alliance, making it harder for raiders and estabilishing a hegemony in the low tier. The way I see it, while the number of people in an alliance isn't really the problem here, though I believe a 300 member maximum is reasonable, GPWC in specific seems to be just the case I depicted from analysis, setting a precedent for other alliances to operate under the same premise, by which they can freely use this system to benefit themselves in a short amount of time. Such alliances should be monitored for various reasons, in order to avoid exploitation of in-game mechanics.
  41. -1 points
    I think it's a big problem that a single alliance has more than 400% the members of any other current alliance in existence without any regulation. It'd be the same if a person with a large social media following brought over some 10,000 followers into one alliance (completely hypothetical), but it's a huge problem since the overwhelming majority is located all in one alliance, under one government. It's not even about our "lack of recruitment" (I personally don't think we should have to do Sheepy's advertising for him in order to compete), but that having such a large umbrella of members under one government's disposal is absurd. It's not persecuting anyone for being good at recruitment, it's adding regulations to split up the power and add risks to having such a large member base, much like how corporations in real life are regulated. I also don't see how it'll kill player retention since the split of power is only in-game and I'm sure your community would still exist all on the same Discord platform, not to mention the increased demand for government positions would allow more of your members to get more involved in the game.
  42. -1 points
    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, no, the only "unfavorable circumstances" are yourselves. If you were willing to and able to cope with the idea that coexisting with other groups is a good thing that keeps both groups healthy, then you literally wouldn't have any problems at all. But you're not; all you want is to be the one group that exists and for all other groups and individuals to serve you, at no benefit to themselves, or be killed. All your problems, all that you've ever whined about, are of your own making. You are the cancer that destroys your hosts, and with that your foundations for existence. And that's not going to change, so you'll just keep blaming everyone else for your own failings.
  43. -1 points
    Yes, and we should probably start with an unconditional surrender from your side.
  44. -1 points
  45. -1 points
    Lets say your national currency is the Ruble, the in game count of your money is equivalent to the actual amount of the money to dollar e.g. Your original currency was ruble and you had 65,796,540.33 RUB and you decided to change your national currency to dollar, if you do so, the 65,796,540.33 RUB you had will be converted to $1,000,000 based on real life exchange rate
  46. -1 points
    These forums are here for everyone. I like to think that the actual, genuine political discussions are actually happening between our leaders in a much less cluttered and private space than this. Perhaps that is where an obstacle to peace lies, in the conflation of this public space with where the genuine negotiations are supposed to take place. It would be very foolish indeed to allow the unregulated statements (trolling), and inadequately informed opinions (you may include mine if you like) that populate this forum to unduly influence political discussions between our leaders. I do hope the negotiators are above that!!
  47. -1 points
    Okay so I'm home now so I can respond properly. (As I mentioned in my ingame msg, I unfortunately can't seem to use the forums on mobile outside of reading/reacting.) A. That's what I was getting at. Which is true, glad we agree on some things. B. Thanks I guess, while I wouldn't suggest I'm well versed in Orbis politics (as aside, I had a much better understanding of CN politics between 06-10.) I don't really disagree with the rest of your assessment so yeah, pretty much. C. Also don't fully disagree. Thought for the record anyone from KERCHTOGG or w/e they're called side I don't view as villains at all, they're defending their own actions and interests, just as we are and I don't fault that. That said eventually it'll be time to let bygones be bygones and move on. And lastly, I laughed. Good humor Pasky. 👍 @Buorhann I might get to your recent post later, but I apologize for the "child" comment the other day, I had a rough week and shouldn't have went that far/taken that out on you. (And that's not a good excuse, therefore the apology.)
  48. -1 points
    While the Revenue screen is really good at letting you know how much you are production as well as how much you are using of your resources. I have yet to find where it shows How much you have stock piled of each of your resources. I would love to know how much my nation have of food, coal, oil, ect. that is on hand that I can either use or trade. Without knowing that I would have too guess at or sit down and figure out how much I have which the game itself should be doing that for everyone. Then I would be able to trade what I have for what I am needing faster and better. So my suggesting is to add a inventory that shows what your nation have on hand which would be for your eyes only and no one else would be able to see it. If there is one should be added to the Objectives so new players as myself would know where it find the information, If there is not one it would be good for everyone so they would be able to know what they have just by looking at their stock pile inventory. While this may have been suggested before and shot down for who know why. As I am new I am suggesting this.
  49. -2 points
    Already have it created on the test server, although it's different than one you're suggesting with the construction of satellites. The Space Program project will enable you to build 1 additional missile per day, and allow the creation of some other space-related projects, like the GPS Satellite (one per day, having between 4-24 in your alliance gives you a 1-5% bonus in military battles for everyone in the alliance), the Spy Satellite which is like a continuation of the Intelligence Agency NP, and a "Land on the Moon" project which is purely cosmetic but will trigger a game-wide space-race upon its release.
  50. -2 points
    (Reminder this is in the test server... so most of you probably don't care. Also, I'd assume test server related posts can be made here, but if not take it down I suppose...) a mere organic minded fool earlier today: "pls 8ball Is it time for Jihad?" The glorious divine knower of all, the magic 8ball: "yes, idiot" and another organic minded fool: "pls 8ball should we declare on the alliance called Elven Tribe?" our electronic minded mastermind: "sure, I literally couldn't care less" organic minded fool: "pls 8ball should we target more at the same time?" thine holy 8ball: "Is trump's skin orange?" organic minded dimwit: "pls 8ball should we declare war on High Gods?" the holy sphere of 8: "8ball ok, whatever yes" The Holy Jihad has been declared, the forces of Empyralot under the divine will of our true leader the discord 8 ball have begun the Jihad against the forces of evil, "High Gods" and "Elven Tribe".
  • Create New...

Important Information

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