Leaderboard

This is the list I currently have for the next update. This thread is for talking about the QoL changes ON THIS LIST. This is not the thread for asking for more QoL changes, there's a whole thread Adrienne manages dedicated to that. If you have something you believe is a high priority QoL change, please contact me on discord. Alliances have the ability to create up to 8 alliance positions. The default number when creating an alliance is still 3. Alliance Trades offers also show in the global trades (perhaps have a different highlight to encourage players to go for those trades). Alliance tax brackets can be changed in bulk (multiple members added/removed at once) Alliance leaders (with appropriate access levels) can see the time-zones for members. Ability to sort alliance members/applicants by “Last online”. Move expired treaties to an “Archived” tab. Allow for alliances to issue embargoes for other alliances. The embargoes auto activate but give a notification to the member with the option to remove the embargo. Add a mass buy feature to Land, similar to Infra. Allow players to send direct trades of resource for resource Regarding the alliance embargo, I know this has something Alex has been against for some time, but I'm going to push for it to happen. It will need an easy opt out option though, which should address his concerns regarding the policy.

Within your question rests the answer. Don’t try to rationalize a group of mostly 14-50 year old male humans pouring a dozen hours a day into a make believe nation simulation game that equates to little more than a virtual dick measuring contest. Next question.

Alex stated in his recent announcement that his next focus will be on the following. My next priority is refactoring some of the domestic aspect of the game. Specifically, I have some new mechanics I’d like to introduce, including Average Life Expectancy, Unemployment, Environment, Culture, Science, Tourism, and more. But more on that later, it’s just a teaser for the future! Some of these changes are impacted by Pollution, Crime, and Disease, as well as new metrics that have not been added yet. There were two projects recently released which deal with pollution, one being the Recycling Initiative. These two projects are designed in a similar fashion, and while the impact might not seem like much in the current builds, they can be helpful to nations going forward. Medical Breakthroughs Requires: Civil Engineering Project Cash: $10,000,000 Food: 100,000 Effect: Hospitals disease reduction is increased from 2.5% to 3.5% for each hospital. You can build an extra Hospital in each city.

I mean we've all seen the stuff that comes out of TCW gov chats

Why are so many people who play this game incapable of parsing criticism without dismissing it out of hand?

Alex stated in his recent announcement that his next focus will be on the following. My next priority is refactoring some of the domestic aspect of the game. Specifically, I have some new mechanics I’d like to introduce, including Average Life Expectancy, Unemployment, Environment, Culture, Science, Tourism, and more. But more on that later, it’s just a teaser for the future! Some of these changes are impacted by Pollution, Crime, and Disease, as well as new metrics that have not been added yet. There were two projects recently released which deal with pollution, one being the Recycling Initiative. These two projects are designed in a similar fashion, and while the impact might not seem like much in the current builds, they can be helpful to nations going forward. Specialized Police Training Requires: Civil Engineering Project Cash: $10,000,000 Food: 100,000 Effect: Police Stations crime reduction is increased from 2.5% to 3.5% for each Police Station. You can build an extra Police Station in each city. Daily cost of each police station is increased from $750 to $1000.

Due to the increase in projects, and the difficulty in obtaining project slots as a new nation there needs to be more ways for nations to gain access to projects. Gain an additional project slot once all objectives are completed. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/objectives/ Gain an additional project slot once the tutorial is completed (once the tutorial new exists [which I hope is next month]) I'd like to hear other ideas regarding benchmarks to add a project slot or two. The focus should be on things new nations achieve. Maybe something like completing X achievements. Suggestions SHOULD NOT include changing the amount of infra that is currently needed to gain a project slot.

From the Desk of Gobo Fraggle The Best Nation Fraggle Rock Greetings Friends!! It's been fun. Many Hugs, Gobo Fraggle

I would like to commend UPN on waiting for Ockey, Lank and myself to be done rolling the entirety (minus the beluga) of RnR to sign them. Congratulations in particular to the war dodging beluga leader for finding a new sucker to protect them. You signed a good one UPN, loyal... very very loyal.

The war changes tbh its difficult to offer a analysis rn due to the bugs, so I'll come back to that later. In regards to the score changes (which imo is the most significant change of the lot) to address several points which have been bought up: The score adjustments are not 'minor' - if you haven't noticed that much difference its probably because you are running a high infra/military setup; for those of us running a leaner build the score change is massive (for example: I've gone from 1590 > 2640 overnight) The net result is heavy tier stratification; for the people who think this is inconsequential I would invite you to think back to the last global war: NPO operated a 'death tier' around the 20 City Level; the new scoring system effectively means that if you were in that range there would be no prospect of escape - ironically (given the score change has been partially motivated by people complaining about 'downdeclares') this would have resulted in a lot more people quitting. a global war, where someone with no military can be declared on by someone with max military at the same city level, offers little to no chance of staging a comeback (given the predominance of blockade cycling tactics); this results in a stale, predictable and boring war - whoever has numerical/military superiority will win for all the people complaining about the last global war I honestly don't see any issues with the tactics involved (and I say that as someone on the opposing side); the only reason why NPO was able to engage in a prolonged airstrike campaign was because they were printing money via GPWC - once the bans came in the NPO machine crumbled because they were no longer able to economically sustain the military campaign throughout the last global war there were numerous attempts to regain control over the lower tier; the lines shifted but periodically safe zones were established at certain score ranges (e.g. <1000, <1200 score etc.) - with the new scoring system this quite simply would have been impossible due the majority of people being stuck inside the NPO death zone running planes only is a valid tactic; I honestly don't understand peoples complaints with this - the solution is to run a lean setup where it costs them more destroy cheap troops (soldiers) than the damage inflicted - under the new system max military will become the new meta, so effectively zero tactics involved, again resulting in stale/boring gameplay And no, we don't need to 'wait till the next war' to see the impact these changes will have. Imo some sort of middle ground is vastly preferable to the new scoring system; personally I don't think changes which make global wars predictable and hand an unassailable advantage to the larger side are desirable or healthy for the game in general.

Edit: these are sub units, not new units. You’d be able to set your army up in military customization tab, invisible to public Soldiers Artillery crew- would coincide with an artillery attack, would be weak against air attacks Anti-tank crew- self explanatory, weak against infantry Infantry- well balanced core of army, weak against tanks anti-air- strong against planes, weak against everything else medics- lowers casualty rate Tanks light tanks- weak against other tanks and anti tank guns , strong against infantry, less chance of being destroyed in air raids medium tanks- well rounded, no weaknesses, no strengths heavy tanks- anti tank guns cant penetrate, great against other tanks and infantry, weak against air raids Ground Attack Types Artillery Attack- you take no casualties, kill a moderate amount of enemy units Ground Attack- the regular attack we have now Airplanes Fighters- good at killing other planes, cant bomb ground units, decent against anti air Helicopters- most versatile air unit, limits infantry casualties(air vac), balanced, bad at killing infantry, great against tanks, decent against artillery and anti tank, weak vs fighters, can destroy bombers, good armor against anti aircraft Bombers- great at bombing artillery and tanks, anti tank guns, decent against infantry, bad against helicopters, really bad against fighters, bad against anti air Attack Types Dogfight- only fighters fighting, defender that has anti air has a slight advantage Bombing- bombers bombing land units Navy Destroyer- has torpedos, solid against battleship, aircraft carrier, bad against Cruisers and planes; cant bombard ground forces Cruiser- good against destroyers, bad against battleships, has the best anti air of any ship; can decently bombard ground forces Battleship- great against cruisers, decent anti air, bad against destroyer; great at bombarding ground forces Aircraft carrier- lets a nation build 50 planes above capacity, great at bombing other ships Attack types Land Bombardment- kills land units Naval bombardment- direct fight against enemy navy Air attack- aircraft carrier planes attacking enemy ships, land bombers are not usable in this role Examples: So if you had 50% anti air, your enemy could just do ground attacks and destroy your army so basically, this is where spies come in. You could gather intelligence on your enemies different unit compositions to better know how to defeat them. This is kinda like perks, but more flexible and customizable. The goal of last update was to get rid of a planes only meta, this accomplishes that too, while making the battle field more dynamic.

The only change I want to see in June is for the May Changes to disappear

You are wrong. And people don't need to see how they respond in real conflicts to see the fairly obvious negative implications of most of the changes.

My tanks do fly tbh. It's Dutch technological superiority.

I, for one, will forgive Alex for his oversight on this matter if he brings back downvotes.

Actually, while that might well be the case there, the issue has indeed been tested on the main server and GC does indeed prevent full plane use.

Sike anime is bad

Grid Energy Storage Cash: $10,000,000 Steel: 2500 Gasoline: 2500 Aluminium: 2500 Effect: Increases the amount of infrastructure wind power plants can power by 250. Reduces all power plant upkeep by 50% Here an idea for a project I had. The bonus to wind power plants would be beneficially to those with a mid level of infra(around 2500) and the upkeep reduction would be beneficial to everyone. It would reduce upkeep by 100k-300k a day depending on the size of your nation.

I'm new to this. I barely know what to do. Also, how do you get to the screen where you can buy infrastructure and whatnot?

CAN YOU SHUT THE frick UP AND ACTUALLY POST SOMETHING RELEVANT FOR fricking ONCE?

It's pointless to devote a certain amount of time and effort into a feature that isn't expected to see much, if any use, in contrast to devoting that that same amount of time and effort into more significant/worthwhile updates, such as the recent update and the Alliance QoL thing. It's simply a matter of investment vs return, and the latter options offer far better returns for the investment involved. As such, I'd be encouraging a greater emphasis to be placed on the latter two. This is inconsequential enough to where it could very well just be added directly as changes to the improvements themselves. Which would allow far more people to make use of them if they were so inclined.

Oddly enough you bullied other people enough to force yourself out

Actually it makes the pixel huggers safer by requiring a numerical superiority in a tier to actually have a chance. Pixel huggers tend to have more massive alliances in terms of players. Also, hilariously if you read the announcement thread, the people outcrying the hardest are also the most aggressive fighters. People like Seb and Epi are the ones shrugging and not caring. Pixelhuggers are the ones happy because the changes made aggression not worth the risk, your aggressive war fighters are the ones upset.

I don't have to be involved in the development to tell you that your half-baked projects and the new mechanics are shit. And me being more involved doesn't mean they aren't shit. My counter suggestion is that you do the responsible thing and remove your involvement from development moving forward, because you're shit at it.

145-12. I'll take it. Well one of them was Alex putting in the down-vote so others could click on it, so technically it's still at 11. I'm sorry you're so upset about this game update. If you're so invested I would recommend becoming more active in the game suggestion/discussion area. I don't see any threads of yours there on a quick check. Best of luck.

Your armchair theory doesn't hold water, when compared with the results at hand (as hinted by Justin). And they certainly will not in an actual war context, when you have the target itself counter attacking and rebuying, counters coming in, etc etc. You focused on a singular problem, and chose to smack it with a hammer irrespective of how the cracks affected the entire structure. Just as an example, wars being way grindier and resource intensive (in part because costs such as gas/muns usage weren't altered), means that upstarts/new players will have a much harder time competing with old alliances, due to the simple fact that the latter have had more time to stockpile. And these fights will be fights of attrition for the simple reason that you can't really zero someone, let alone pin them, if they have the resources to spend. Wars being these resource intensive also dissuade alliances from warring in the first place, as there's much more at stake. All of this contributes towards stagnancy. And if you do get 0'd because you went broke on, example, steel; you can't even fight back anywhere near as well as you could under the old system, due to cities being the main NS contributor. You'll be in range of people with similar city counts as you, who are nonetheless maxed (provided similar infra counts). So congratulations on stripping those people from any tools for fighting back, other than nuke turreting. Were these factors considered at all? No. Again, that GC still limits the amount of aircraft deployed, that Air Superiority has no effect, tank K:D being 1:1 on IT's; all of these are indications that barely if any testing at all was done (because otherwise, people would've spotted it and told Alex about it), and most likely you lot just did some maths, went like "Yep, this checks out", and went with that; and failed to implement it properly while at that. Again, this sort of stuff doesn't work because you completely ignored a ton of circumstantial factors that simply can't be mathed (or simulated properly on test server, for that matter). Oh and as a little aside; on top of what Durmij said, it also takes effort to properly plan and pull off a good blitz. It's only natural for a substantial advantage to be the trade off for both the cost and effort involved in it.

Imagine a game developer catering to the wants of one player? Grow up. The update progressed P&W as a whole.

Blitz SK, Blitz SK, and Blitz SK again

Hey there, Welcome to the game To build cities, click on cities on the left hand bar, then click on your city. It will then give you an option to build infrastructure and improvements or you can follow this link: https://politicsandwar.com/city/id=406122 In addition, I recommend to increase your infrastructure in multiples of 100 as it is cheaper to do so. At every 50 infrastructure you build, you can purchase 1 improvement. I also recommend you to got through the tutorial as it will help you with all this stuff

Nation link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=215407 Inappropriate names: "Coochlips" (Nation name), "pisscream" (City name), and "assdrizzle" (City name)

These people are very nice and friendly love to them. we have some great conversations on discord. And have kept me in this awesome game.

Well, there are several issues with perks. Basically, it doesn’t change anything. The meta right now is get AS, do ground attacks to zero ground/air. No perk would erase that. In fact, people would just pick the perks that enhance this meta. So basically, everyone ends up with the same perks, so no effect on gameplay This would make war more exciting, as there would be dozens of ways to set up your military, all of which have advantages and disadvantages. Makes war way more fun then a milcom guy making a guide and everyone just clicking buttons.

The game currently is too overly simple. Combat and wars lack strategy besides overwhelming others with numbers. Adding things like this to spice things up is a step in right direction. That being said i don’t agree with every type that op suggested but I like the overall idea of different units.

yes, say you have 100 solider, you could divided them whichever way you see fit. could also throw in a tech tree to unlock the new sub units, but not sure if that too complex. Ok, so say your in an alliance war, and they dont have navy, but have crazy big army, airforce. You could use a mainly battleship force to kill their army without any casualties.

It's only common sense by like, 1950 standards. Common sense these days says battleships don't exist, destroyers are basically just smaller cruisers, all cruisers are missile cruisers and only so big to house helicopters, dedicated air superiority fighters are rare in favor of multirole aircraft that can ground attack and dogfight (even then, the F-22 for example is still capable of limited air to ground engagement soooo), dedicated bombers are either tanky ass A-10s that can fly with 1 engine and 30% of both wings shredded off or are too stealthy or fly too high to be hit, heavy tanks don't exist because they were blended with mediums in the 50s and 60s to create Main Battle Tanks and Light tanks do exist and are one of the only non basic things already in the game described accurately for current "common sense" of actual military units in the OP here. Shoulder mounted AA weapons are useless against anything but helicopters, AA guns as well, SAMs are the only ground based AA worth a damn against jets. Anti tank guns also don't really exist as shoulder mounted anti tank implements are often pretty overkill, especially considering a poorly supported tank is easily outflanked, at which point it'd be vulnerable to even a rifleman tossing a grenade ontop of the engine vents, let alone even a simple RPG-7. Furthermore how does any of this work? Do I divide my soldier cap up between the options? How effective are medics, or artillery, or anything else? Do different units cost more than others? Why would anyone build anything besides medium tanks (there's a reason heavy tanks became obsolete and people tossed heavy armor on the fronts of mediums, gave them the heavies engine and gun and called it an MBT, it's flexibility), why are destroyers not treated like mini cruisers, because they pretty much are. Actually, an Arleigh Burke is straight up superior to a Ticonderoga in most cases. That's a destroy outmatching a cruiser in damned near everything. It also costs twice as much as the cruiser. Why would anyone buy battleships? Their ground bombardments have limited range, targetting and payload delivery. They're also massive targets that are EXTREMELY vulnerable to aircraft (carriers are literally why nobody builds battleships anymore) and any job battleships might be good for, a carrier just does better. What other customizations are available? Is there something like a full perk tree too? If im willingy to spend an obscene amount of money can I just turn my military into the United States military and cackle with glee as I roflstomp people with completely unnecessary and overwhelming force? 😛

how is a common sense war system more complex than flying tanks?

If you think it's just minor score adjustments maybe you should spend some time in a real Alliance learning how to properly wage a war and then re read those changes for me chief.

No, so that's 12 dissatisfied people and counting. The projects are like lip gloss on an worn out old whore. They make it a little better, I guess, but don't substantially improve anything. Meanwhile Alex just knocked one of the foundational mechanics of his war system into oblivion.

They're all pretty much shit too.

I'm not. I made the Projects.

You couldn't pin down someone forever on the old system either, due to the resistance mechanic. If it was possible to forever pin someone,, the last war wouldn't have gone for eight months for the simple reason that there wouldn't have been a way to present any resistance. It's not anyone's problem that you were simply ignorant to this fact. No, it wasn't. And yes, hitting people with less cities when 0'd yourself was a valid strategy; note that you yourself were 0'd, and the other person had military; often maxed to even be in range in the first place (the alternative being ridiculously padded with infra, in which case that's their fault). And as soon as you bought military yourself, you put yourself in range of larger people that they themselves had military to put you down. It's nowhere near as a foolproof and unbalanced matter as you're making it sound, and wasn't too difficult to respond/address if the defender's milcom was reasonably competent, and the counters did their due diligence. That your response's substance is "well let's gut this entirely (and frick up other things as well) because it was a circumstantial issue at best" exemplifies the approach taken, and the disastrous result thereof. Clearly you yourself were not, given that you failed to notice all the other issues Justin and myself highlighted. And if you were, it shows your ignorance in regards to the war system; which is unsurprising, as you haven't seriously fought since 2018, when you sent your AA to die in a futile banzai spearhead.

Ayy lmao

Why are people worried about the meta changing, its good for the game. If the game was the same from launch to now we wouldn't have seen a lot of Strats that have came out for a long period of time. NPO's turtle Strat, to Arrgh's submarine Strat, to tS's Aircraft only, each Strat changes the game and bring in a new competitor and a new storyline along with it. So I like the changes, some things will of course have to be tweaked but for the most part, lets go into the abyss together!

You really despise this person/people, eh?

I don't like these hot takes. I won't defend the update, but you can't blame Alex for Fraggle quitting. Fraggle is quitting because she wants to quit. It is her decision alone. It appears to me she's quitting because the raids against her demoralize her, but again that's not Alex's fault and it's more than fine for people to raid Fraggle. Had I not rebuilt infra, I would be jumping on that myself. I'm in the minority on this but that's fine. I never cared much for Fraggle and I still don't. The cult of personality around her was cringe and unwarranted. After years of building nukes, she chooses to VM and may very well delete soon. She could be an absolute madman (manwoman?) and go out nuking everyone, but she doesn't. In fact, she couldn't for the longest time because she purposely grew herself out of range of everyone and even if she did go on a nuke rampage, all you would have to do is blockade her and she couldn't do anything. Also, her threats against KT in February were extremely impotent and people who make impotent threats/don't follow up lose tons of respect and credibility in my eyes. It's just cringe. Obviously, I wish her the best in real life. IC/OOC divide definitely applies. The way she roleplayed her posts was interesting and different. God bless.

Join in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

Gentle Folk of Orbis, I am aware that a good portion of you are familiar with Factory Fresh Media. Our award-winning shows have had a lasting legacy on the genre of news delivery that remains unmatched. With the return of the estranged Bald Creative Genius (Charles G. Traveler), we wanted to make a thread to not only update you all on the going-ons of our network - but to have a thread where we can update you with the time of our shows to help cut down on forum clutter. Our website has been updated to reflect the new shows brought into our network. Be sure to be on the lookout for show recordings and other updates on our site. You can always catch the shows live on our Factory Fresh Media Discord. Updates: The legendary Great Job! with Kev and Charlie returns next Friday (March 20th) at 10PM EST. George debuts his new show, Shut Your Mouth, alongside Epi on Tuesday (March 24th) at 9PM EST. Thalmor Radio continues next Friday (March 20th) at 9PM EST. If you are looking for an advertisement or a song to be created and played during these shows, please let either @Charlie Traveler, @Thalmor, @Azazel or myself know. Song Examples Soup is Hot (Alliance Anthem): Yakuza (Alliance Anthem): Hobo Express (ORB Media): Advertisement Examples Terminus Est: Church of Spaceology: IQ (lol): Thank you for your patronage. Sincerely from, FFM Factory Fresh: Always Bringing The Best Quality Media to Your Ear Holes

So friendly that they tried perma warring the opposing coalition last war. Join Camelot!

Yeah, it will bring new purposes to land. It was originally brought up by Elijah Mikaelson actually......this is sort of awkward now lol.

Monumental idiot. Good job.