Leaderboard

When he was but a wee child of 7 years old, Smoth traveled to the faraway land of Switzerland. Holding his mother’s hand, the little excitable boy skipped up and down the airport, munching on his favourite chocolate: Hershey’s. Upon seeing the big, silver letters emblazoned on a brown background, passersby gawked and pointed, saying “Look, look! Look what that little boy is eating! Does he not know what he does?” And indeed, Smith had no idea. His mother, however, kind and wise, knew that she would have to protect her child from the discriminatory Swiss. Rushing towards the nearest chocolate stand (of which there were many, for the Swiss loved their name and their chocolate the rich bastards), she grabbed the first Swiss chocolate she saw, and shoved it in Smith’s hands, ripping the Hershey’s bar from his hands and throwing it in the bin. Now, Smith was a reasonable child but in him was born the rebellious fire of the American Hershey’s Lad; a courageous spirit destined to overthrow the Swiss Chocolate Hegemons. He had thought of many ways to prevent eating the tasty wonderful ohsogood Swiss chocolate, but upon his mother’s insistence, he acquiesced and bit into the bar hesitantly. Smith’s mouth exploded with flavour unlike anything he had eaten. Alas, after he and his mother departed from the airport, he never got to taste the Swiss delicacy again. On that dark, terrible day, Smith vowed he would never ever eat Swiss chocolate again, for it had given him a taste of paradise and yet robbed him of his freedom. He would put it down wherever he went, and would counsel all his friends to do the same. Now Smith wanders the lands preaching the benefits of Hershey’s and spins woeful tales of the boy who went mad on his trip to Switzerland. In his dreams, he still tastes the glorious Swiss product. For this reason we announce the existence of Chocolate Castle, to bring the taste of good chocolate to Smith once more. We are a small alliance with the simple goal of creating a nice community and to play the game with our friends ^.^ It will be a welcoming place for those who just like to chat a bit and have a good time. Chocolate Popess: Menhera Chocolate Queen: Lossi (a.k.a. Rosey Song) Holy Knight of Military Command: Aether Holy Knight of Internal Affairs: Illen Holy Knight of Economics: Psweet We understand that no micro can exist just by itself for long, which is why we are happy to announce the Nom Nom Accords. The Knights Radiant has agreed to provide us with military, economic, and other necessary support, in exchange for fulfilling all of their chocolate based needs. Menhera the Chocolate Popess Lossi the Chocolate Queen

So how much do you want for the name?

There is no Global War 15

This came to my mind yesterday, and now that I've meditated on it some, I've realized that P&W is in many ways back to the way it was in 2015. 1 - In politics, you have Rose on one side and t$ on the other. 2 - Raiders are screwing with everyone. Although Arrgh still is, you now have Mythic and KT doing it, along with some others. 3 - There is no IQ or NPO to cuck politics. 4 - BK is memey and fun again. 5 - Alex is working on the game proactively. There are some obvious differences, of course. There are a lot more people playing, we're on Discord instead of IRC, and there's a considerable amount of new features. Also, it isn't just Rose and t$. You have TCW, Hedge Money, and other smaller players here and there. Still, feels good to be back in time, haha.

Chocolate is yum

People who think that tCW switching sides and brining in Farksphere counts as GW15 should be taken out the back and be shot ?‍♂️

How about we agree to name it, "NPO's Last Time," unless NPO returns and gets into another global, in which case, we'll rename it to, "Endgame."

Get a room you two. It's 2015 man, things like this only kinda matter.

This is such a brilliant and decadent theme. Goodluck to you all and good for tkr to protect valuable chocholate. Can't wait to see how you all play around with the theme. I am gonna eat some chocholate to celebrate this DoE.

This is propaganda

Just a normal everyday Chocolate salesman my good sir. A Chocolate Castle is a piece of art by my local chefs. It's entirely worth the price for purchase. And share it for free? My good sir, that’s chocolatism.

That hurt. ?

We need the heart at the end of NPO’s Last Time. ❤️

Glad to see that Rose skipped over the whole starting the year off by narrowly escaping falling apart thing, this time. ? The scale of the game these days, compared to 2015, is quite exciting. The idea of multiple spheres felt more or less like a pipe dream back then.

brb, setting 100% tax

Anybody who thinks is a good idea reveals themselves for having no ability to think further than 3 steps ahead. 1. Irrelevant to if the change is even good, this is just appeal to Alex's laziness. 2. Also, frankly, irrelevant, part of the bore with this game is that everyone knows everything. 3. By making it literally impossible to be aggressive without notably superior numbers, tiering, or both. Since otherwise being aggressive is now literally suicidal. 4. Aggression translates to either you have to intentionally orchestrate a dog pile or you die. 5. No it doesn't. Try thinking about it for more than 4 seconds. It took me a whole 23 of processing this bullcrap to realize it was a hilariously stupid goddamn suggestion. First off, raids aren't a significant concern to established alliances in their main battle line tiers. They don't do alot of raiding there. Secondly, it doesn't make wars more interesting. All it does is encourage amassing dog piles even more by making victory in an aggressive action otherwise near impossible. They either have to have overwhelming numbers, hoping either for the 1v1s to be drudging stale mates bloddying both severely or that the defender starts countering. Even then, they can just not counter and it becomes a stalemate. This puts pretty much all of the emphasis on tiering. Downdeclares go from being wise to being absolutely required for an aggressive action, and the downdeclares required will need to be by 3-5, or even more cities depending on the tier targetted. Oh, and even better, if you implement epi's addressing the upper tier buff this would be, now you just go back to aggressive action being suicide. Aggressors do take the risk, and that risk should be rewarded if executed properly. This myopic suggestion removes any award or benefit for being the aggressor and instead actually penalizes you. Penalizing risk has never, in any multiplayer game, been a good suggestion, and it never will be. If risk doesn't pay nobody will do anything. Furthermore, @James II, the current way Blitzes and counter offensives function in the current meta, in relation to the argument on deployment, is already quite realistic. Take NPOs entry to GW14 for example, they didn't actually commit their entire forces, and left a large number in reserver to counter attack on targets of high priority. Meanwhile, if you choose to risk putting forward your entire force, and if you've chosen and executed the situation correctly, you should be rewarded, your attack should be devastating. How devastating depends on how outnumbered you are by your target or what reinforcements enter for that target. How screwed you are now depends on how much they committed, what further reinforcements they have vs what you have. It's literally a series of attempted flanking manuveurs, and keeping or not keeping reserved back is a tactical risk in and of itself in these plannings. Because the way mechanics function rewards aggression, people don't often keep reserves and instead go all in for one big KO. There's not really anything wrong or even unrealistic with that decision, just that in the real world it'd be called reckless at best.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Long ago, in another land, there was once an alliance, who felt neglected and mistreated, because they weren't able to represent themselves properly. Due to the...poor nature of the game, this majestic and amazing alliance, was not able to use the lovely symbol &. Now, there are some who still gather about, now and again, and speak of the old days, and our love for the &. Now, here in this realm, we can be our true selves, and worship The Ampersand appropriately with beer, prostitutes, and illegal drugs (Yes, I'm looking at you Filmore.) Without further adieu, and because I'm tried of being harassed by Filmore and other, here is our official DoE. Commanders Alexio DemonSpawn Kilo 2IC HannaH Tactical Major Abrams Intelligence Major Fulcrum Major RagDoll666 Technical Major Galerion Interior Major Fulcrum Captain Lucifer Morningstar Minister of Silly Walks Filmore

Good luck in the sweet future

Cadbury wasn't able to meet our quotas, but we do enjoy their chocolate none the less

Cadburys is the best tho ^^ good luck and may the chocolate be as sweet as the soup was hot!

That’s a arbitrary DoE surcharge of $50 mil good sir. However, you can annul that surcharge for 3/5 the price for a brand new Chocolate Castle. That special offer is only going on for the next hour or so however, the clock is ticking.

I get a 10% fee for the idea.

As I Belgian I support this endavour

Is that you Keshav?

You didn't get alliance loot because the alliance you were trying to loot (the one the nation was in at the start of the war) no longer existed, therefore there was nothing to loot. Deleting an alliance and creating a new one isn't against the rules. You might question the ethics of the tactic, but it is a common one. But, it can be prevented with blockades.

Fair enough, although I doubt the outcome will be different with that much of a lead I will do the runoff poll anyway.

I dare say that a runoff of the top 3 would be appropriate considering that multiple options were allowed in this one. "NPO's last time" might have been something like everyone's 2nd or 3rd choice, y'know?

We were just talking about this in arrgh, but it seems they went to vm, Was just wondering how can they spawn this much money in 7 days.

The rules state if you feel like a game rule or suspicious actions are occurring it is our duty to report it. Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it ethical. I'll let Alex decide which action to take though.

i see they took the Roq school of hiding your tracks

What's funny was 20% of their bank was deleted for illegally hiding it ?

Thank you for proving me right.

Can't wait to see who forms IQ and ruins the game for the second time around!

That would still inherently punish offensive action which is the exact opposite of what the war system needs. People who overextend without preparation are already punished for doing so simply by having to fight more opponents. As it currently stands, a person who declares 5 offensive wars can be put in a position where they have to fight up to 8 other people. In every single global war you can find hundreds of examples of people pushing their luck and overextending themselves and being dragged into the pit as a result. You also haven't done a great job of justifying why I change like this is even necessary. Reason 1 and 2 aren't endorsements of your suggestion being good, just easy to implement, and as such aren't worth noting on. I already explained why reasons 3 & 4 are negatives not positives and you've not done much to counter that argument. Reason 5 is highly debatable but ultimately not a strong case for a change that would upend the balance of the warfare system. Frankly I'd argue a change like this would make wars less interesting as the common meta for a lot of players will become, sit back and fight the people on me, don't attack anyone, since that is now the advantage position.

1.) Baseless assumption, you cannot see all my wars, furthermore, anyone who took literally 10 seconds to look at my recent wars can see my opponents are not all inactive. 2.) It's not shitting on the person, it's shitting on their suggestion. Your remark about raiders being the only opposed to the change was not only misinformed and misleading, but also contributes zilch to the conversation except for trying to discriminate and dismiss real criticisms. 3.) I appreciate people trying to make suggestions, but this ain't it, chief. People make good suggestions, people make bad suggestions, It happens, it's okay, it's nothing personal when it gets shot down. Calm down. 4.) This was the point I was making with my pixelhugger remark. Taking your argument and reversing it on you. I can just as easily claim you only support this claim because you lead an alliance full of high-tier, with high infra, discouraging conflict as will happen in this suggestion, benefits the ROI of your infrastructure immensely. Don't play this card.

This is stupid. The entire balance to the current war system is built around the idea that multiple nations can coordinate to effectively tear down multiple other nations, especially larger ones. This completely eliminates that in favour of the types of players who sit their and do nothing. The fact you listed "Re balancing war towards defenders" as a positive speaks volumes of your mindset. If people want the first strike advantage, they should strike first. Its that simple. Aggressors SHOULD be rewarded because otherwise everyone would just sit around lobbing insults at each other trying to get the other to move first. Being first to strike is a HUGE incentive for global wars to start which are a core part of the game. If alliances feel that they have a strategic disadvantage rather than a strategic advantage to striking first, people will strike less overall and we'll hit another period of stagnation. Aggressors are the ones who draw the starting battle lines and decide the time, they don't have as much control over how counters play out as the defender, they more than not are the ones who take the largest PR hit, they have to do MORE coordinating and organisation than the defenders to in order to be successful in an even fight.

We can grow ourselves just fine. Not everyone requires IQ manhwa handouts to survive, some people can actually manage money lmfao

What do you mean invest? We sure as heck aren't going to be giving handouts to you ENTITLED MILLENNIALS. If they want to grow, they can grow like I did in the good old days: massive amounts of infra in a time of relative peace

Guardian, Grumpy(you're welcome SRD) and alliances with Keegoz, Sketchy and Hodor in high gov...

Still don’t know who those soup kitchen people were.

The point is that was always a placeholder name chosen due to frustration regarding the servers lagging out in the first two weeks of the war. Since that describes only 1/16th of the war's duration, and less than 1/100th of the war's drama, it is therefore an awfully misleading and bad name to give it.

Needless to say this departure never happened.

I feel like "no superiority/blockade/less/no MAPs" would be flipping the switch the entire other direction. Blitzes would become useless and the war system would suffer for it.

From a gameplay perspective when you look at successful games you have two "genres" of war games: Strategy Games: These type of games balance their usually-shallow war system with mitigating factors such as army movement, terrain bonuses or penalties, fortifications, and bonus research trees that affect unit stats. "Instant" Games: Games like Clash of Clans where you instantly go into battle have a different set of balancing factors. If you get raided, for example, you lose resources but your army and buildings aren't affected. PnW has some elements of strategy but it is not a strategy game. Your army cannot avoid or mitigate wars. Someone blitzes you, your army takes damage. Pretty simple war system. The problem comes from the lack of balance: Blitzes are too strong. We don't need to eliminate the ability to blitz, but we need to mitigate and balance it. PnW also has an added element of being a persistent game - meaning you cannot pause it. You logging on or off has no impact on someone else blitzing you. So how do we balance it? Reducing casualties: Two or three coordinated nations can cripple a target with an initial blitz. They can also completely zero out a maxed military overnight while you're asleep. Casualties need to be reduced to allow for players to have a chance to respond to attacks before they're completely incapable of fighting back. Increasing daily military buy limits: This is probably the biggest culprit of the "snowball effect" we see in an effective blitz. Not only will you lose 50-100% of your military in a blitz, you can only rebuy 10-30% of it per day. Even in a double-buy situation, you're facing 3-to-1 odds and if your opponent is online at update they'll just zero you again. Refactoring score ranges: Cities, being the determinant factor of military capability, should count for more score than they currently do. Reduce cost of units: Tanks are still too expensive in steel. Navies and Airplanes take too much cash.

Black Knights has disbanded. Congratulations to our former members who are departing PW and best of luck to those who choose to remain.

See, Keshav was right about EMC!