Leaderboard

They're Afrika Korpse now.

"Afrika is secured, but Europe is still endangered by Commies..." Hello Orbis, I’m here to inform you all we as an alliance have decided to say this to the game. "F U". We were the best alliance. Period. Y'all get good. Finally, just wanted to mention that myself and the rest of the gov are extremely proud of our faithful members, you guys truly are the best. Btw: alex fix the fricking game already. TL:DR: Afrika Korps officially announces its disbandment A warning was issued for Filter Evasion.

Sounds to me more like you're lacking any to begin with.

If you want NP hit so bad... Do it yourself...

tries to find AK in-game I have to say, this aged pretty well.

For some reason, I'm reminded of when DJ Khaled went on Hot Ones and quit after the first two wings, and spent the next 15 minutes explaining how he wasn't quitting, to a bewildered Sean Evans.

You will be missed fam.

Greetings Gentle Folk of Orbis, Ever since the conception of Great Job! Charlie and myself have been trying to do various things to keep this game entertaining for us and others. When we created Soup Kitchen we wanted to do various events/projects/material and call them 'Community Outreach Programs'. Information on the first Community Outreach Program can be found here. Although Charlie has since transitioned his Travel plans to include the great beyond, we still wanted to present you with more material to (hopefully) enjoy. Below is a video that includes an 'album' of sorts from some of our material new and old. You may have heard some of the tracks such as "Hobo Express" and "Soup is Hot", but there are a few new ones in there as well. Ivory Tower of Bros presents - Community Outreach Program Vol 2 Warning: Some Explicit Language Track Listing: 1. Hobo Express (2:38) 2. War On Orbis (3:19) 3. The Soup Is Hot (3:36) 4. All I Play Is PnW (3:45) Special shout out to JKell. We miss you and hope all is well. May your Holidays be meaningful and your soup be hot, Kev

Long Live The Axis Accord!

You posted in the thread, so according to Noctis, it now involves GOONS. gj

Very cool.

Yes thank you. Please keep us apprised of your progress in this conflict.

cultural victory achievement unlocked

As of Christmas 2019, The Axis Accord has begun a merger with its long time ally, The United Armies. We're looking forward to this new chapter!

-larations. Unless I am mistaken, the character limit of war declarations has recently been reduced, and personally I feel it should be reverted to how it was before. Forty characters is simply not enough space to write out a proper cassus belli from one nation to another. Just as an example, the title of this thread is only forty characters, and it's not enough space to communicate a full thought. I would suggest doubling the limit to 80 characters at least, which is still 60 less characters than twitter's original character limit of 140. Mods / Alex, could you explain this recent change - what was the reasoning behind only allowing forty characters in war declarations, and would it be troublesome to increase the character limit? Thanks.

If you did any research you would find that TMC is our prot, the same TMC which is in the same bloc as NP and Weeb

How about you just don't update it because nobody but you actually cares.

Getting me and Citrus to agree is a sign of the apocalypse.

Relevant enough for you to keep complaining

Looking forward to this new chapter and I can’t wait for whats ahead!

For once I can't tell you to disband.

Hope is a garbage bag.

You can currently attack enemies using spies while hiding behind Beige. Seeing as it is an offensive action, you should not be able to destroy nukes, missiles, spies, or bomb barracks/drydocks/hangars with spies while in Beige. To complement this, you should not be able to be targeted by spies while in beige.

And nothing of value was lost on that fine day How strange that role players for a military unit that fought the UK and US and no communists keep going on about “making things safe from communism in Europe.” I sure wonder if there’s a deeper meaning or connection to any historic or current political movements that used that justification. Hmm makes you think.

Citadel should have splitted form BKsphere, they would be still alive and well now

This guy should talk to Noctis, they’ll get along together perfectly.

I hope Sean Evans took advantage of the opportunity to make "Another One" jokes.

Aren't the awards for what happened in 2019 the near entirety of which they did exist?

Little late yourself...

That's right, not an official merge with IronFront, it's just that most members went there.

Damn, TCW's had 2 merges last month of 12+ people each..... should've made 2 posts to farm internet points like this OP genius did.

This really didn't need its own announcement, there's gonna be less than 5 people merging.

This is a terrible suggestion in the current design space. The underlining logic for the suggestion seems to be an argument for realism, but nothing else about the game is realistic on any reasonable scale. Game elements only reference realistic things, and forcing a sense of realism into one aspect breaks the games internal logic and has cascading effects. This suggestion takes place in a game where players can already be held down indefinitely, acquiring penalties for scenarios that have no counter play. Adding penalties for those scenarios is untenable, as the balance of power is already shifted so far away from a nation losing wars. On top of this, given the genius idea to add radiation as suppressant to food production in game, the damage from a global war would get multiplied by the factor of decreased, causing spiraling inflation as production plummets under these penalties. I'm assuming this is a troll post, but it's a bad troll post, with arguments based off a poor understanding of both basic game design principles and a basic understanding of the current game balance. I know it's lulzy to try and bait Alex into crashing his own game, or make people angry with targeted suggestions, but if you want to accomplish either of those things, you could stand to be a bit more subtle.

Happy holidays to you too OP, and to that delicious airstrike target you've got there.

Yeah, Nazis are bad but what about people that mod forums for browser based nation simulation games?

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=36419 Ruler Name: Sphinx Nature of Violation: Alex, This nation is using a mythological creature as their ruler name, i think it is very offensive to bring such a fantastic beast down to the level of a PnW player. It should not be tolerated, i think this falls under harassment (of the mythological beast ofc) A sphinx is a mythical creature with the head of a human and the body of a lion. In Greek tradition, the sphinx has the head of a woman, the haunches of a lion, and the wings of a bird. She is mythicised as treacherous and merciless.

Just want to reiterate that Guardians of the Galaxy was better than any avengers movie

I know it was not brought up by in the original post and it's not as openly offensive as a rape army, but is "markets controlled by happy merchants with many shekels" really not as obviously offensive to you @Alex as it is to me. I'm not sure you are as immediately aware of antisemitism as you may come from an area with a smaller Jewish population, but to anybody of Jewish heritage it's very clear what meaning of that phrase is. It could say the exact same thing with the word money instead of shekels and still be extremely anti-Semitic but using the term shekels makes it extremely clear that that is what Horsecock is implying. You can literally Google the phrase and the first hit is Know Your Meme explaining the happy merchants meme. And I'll post this link from the ADL again in case further explanation is needed https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/the-happy-merchant

Greetings, friends! Almost 3 weeks ago, Coalition A posted two separate public announcements in which KERCHTOGG and $yndisphere both offered their preliminary surrender, contingent on the negotiation of terms. These surrenders marked the fulfillment of demands set by Coalition B as prerequisites for any negotiation to occur and were posted separately as a token of good faith following the near breakdown of the monthly (1st of the month) negotiations. The statements of some Coalition B officials had indicated that the fulfillment of these demands would allow for the beginning of earnest negotiations and ultimately, peace. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. It has been well documented that prior to the expansion of the war to include The $yndicate and its allies, KERCHTOGG-Coalition B peace had stalled. For reasons of their own, Coalition B implemented a 1-month timeline for any talks, meaning that on the 1st of every month, KERCHTOGG would be given a window to surrender. If KERCHTOGG failed to do so, no avenues for peace were to be had until the next month. A few weeks prior to the November 1st negotiations, Coalition B was informed that Coalition A intended for the negotiations to include $yndicate representatives: Shortly thereafter, Afrika Korps inquired with t$ about their position on the coalition and peace. As Coalition B has justified its escalation with t$ by asserting that The $yndicate's protection of TEst was an "aggressive" interference in the broader coalition war and as consequently, t$ and its allies had been engaged by a variety of Coalition B participants, we had been under the impression that Coalition B viewed us as a part of Coalition A. Our response went unanswered until November 1st, the night of the preliminary negotiations. Once Khai answered, we immediately confirmed what Adrienne had already told Coalition B on October 17th: that t$ and its allies sought to to be included in coalition-wide negotiations. As no objections had been raised, we were under the impression that a joint negotiation was to kick off later that night. Unfortunately, when negotiations did begin and representatives were brought into the chat, the appointed $yndicate representative was promptly removed. Furthermore, the tone of the negotiations was immediately set by Sealteam6, one of the appointed Coalition B negotiators. Simultaneously, The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were initially ignored and eventual responses were evasive. Sphinx: TheNG: Skae: The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were leveraged by under to (troll) admonish KERCHTOGG for "trying to go around their appointed negotiators". In addition, Coalition B negotiators set a 24 hour deadline for KERCHTOGG to surrender if negotiations were to begin. After the 24 hour window, there would (again) be no avenue toward peace for an additional month (until Dec 1st). For the remainder of the 24 hour window, Coalition B negotiators were barely responsive in their chats with KERCHTOGG, and t$ received no updates. The public surrenders were posted a few hours before the window would close as a token of good faith. By compromising and allowing negotiations to be conducted separately despite our preference for joint negotiations, and by accepting the preliminary surrender requirement, our coalition sought to open up an earnest dialogue with the intent of negotiating the terms of our surrender. Starting with the KERCHTOGG surrender negotiations, the following snippets stem from the first days after the negotiating channels were opened. These days primarily saw KERCHTOGG requesting to for the presentation of peace terms, as well as occasional inquiries as to the status of t$. The structure of peace talks as enforced by Coalition B is, on its own, debatable. Coalition B has opted to hide the content of the terms of surrender, revealing one article at a time and refusing to move on until that article is (barring exceptional circumstances) irrevocably accepted. Aragorn has publicly argued that this approach has been the norm prior to Knightfall. That has proven to be a lie. The argument Coalition B brings forth for this approach is one of structure and speed. We pose that it is designed to force Coalition A negotiators to negotiate blindly and at a disadvantage and to cause talks to proceed more slowly. In a vacuum, the reservations concerning this structure might've been set aside for the sake of good faith. Unfortunately, the conduct of underlord as well as the continued silence regarding half of the coalition served to enhance already existing concerns over the motivations underlying Coalition B's approach toward these negotiations. A few days ago, Epi (CAM gov) also publicly commented on the potential cause for the delays in presentation of terms to t$. When Coalition A agreed to surrender and to accept the demand for separate negotiations, it did so with the understanding that peace terms would be presented, and that the entirety of the coalition (even if negotiations were to be separate) would be given the chance to begin working towards peace. This understanding is derived from posts such as: Ultimately, the broad categories of the terms (without details as to what they entail) were presented. As the initial articles include (forced) admissions of guilt and revocations of CBs, the blind negotiation of terms creates a dilemma for us. The (irrevocable) acceptance of such an admission of guilt - even if these admissions were based on false premises - weakens one's position when it comes to Articles such as IV and VII. When one does not know the impact of term 1 on term 8, it becomes impossible to evaluate the merits of accepting, rejecting, or negotiating said terms for his side. The negotiating position of our side would therefore be untenable. Furthermore, while it has been suspected for quite some time due to all of the aforementioned occurrences, we've recently had it confirmed that Coalition B does not actually desire peace and these occurrences are intentional with the aim of delaying peace talks. The log below isn't our only piece of intel regarding this but serves as a sample of the information we've been receiving. Between notorious trolls hijacking the negotiation process from the beginning, a negotiation structure designed to undermine Coalition A negotiators, the structural delays in moving the $yndisphere peace process forward, general lack of clarity in Coalition B communication, public hints by Coalition B government officials regarding the above issues being deliberate, and the apparent lack of desire for actual peace, the collective alliances of Coalition A conclude that they can no longer in good faith maintain the status quo with regards to negotiations. Considering the unfortunate exhaustion of good faith through these negotiations, the alliances comprising Coalition A consider themselves unified for the duration of the war. Moving forward, all negotiations will be conducted jointly. We furthermore withdraw from negotiations until a full list of terms is presented to representatives of the entire coalition. Our offer to surrender jointly will continue to stand, as will our offer to negotiate the terms one by one (chronologically) once the full, detailed list of terms has been published. /s/ All Coalition A Combatants

Can't fulfill terms you haven't been given. How exactly do you see us jumping that hurdle, my knowledgeable and well-intentioned friend?

Give Milton some credit. At least he's active enough to respond. The same can't be said about the actual representatives.

"They have stopped speaking to you because you are voicing discontent over them not speaking to you" Right

It's sad that this world has degenerated into this style of play. Making wars last months for very marginal reasons. Not caring how much it hurts your community or how many of your players leave as long as you think it hurts the other community more. No concern for the health of the community as a whole.

Something I noticed in those logs is while individuals such as Skae were appointed to represent Coalition B in talks they are not actually in channels where the decision making process is made. Which makes these "representatives" essentially only a middleman/messenger for the people who make the actual decisions. This another example of something that provides no benefit but drags the negotiation process out. This is especially concerning because as can be seen in multiple posts by Coalition B leadership whenever those leaders are asked a question they defer to the representatives who they know full well are out of the loop. To quote a certain hamster "This is very problematic".

That the exact problem with PnW. If you're (regardless of what coalition you're in) comfortable with watching people delete you're part of the problem.

Ugh, Partisan, how dare you?! Coalition B has made it clear that leaking the contents of the totally good faith negotiations would result in totally not good faith negotiations. How dare you squander their totally honest and earnest outreach?!?