Leaderboard

With the existing ability to add a Declare War Message (warning) to AA member war declaration pages, it would be helpful to be able to add the same or a different message on the war declaration page for AA applicants. We only recently realized that this does not appear for nations currently on applicant status. Thanks!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE SHOW! (DISCORD) We hope to see y'all there - Fridays can be a little tricky, but we always have a good time and a lot of stories to share. Our Meme Master Challenge is a quick 1-Minute game where all listeners can post up as many memes as possible while some crazy countdown music plays - after a minute you're done and the channel is hidden. TEKTONIK hosts will judge the memes and pick the funniest/best one. The winner gets announced on the next show & they receive a custom Meme Master award (shown on the image above!). Previous winners are SunTsu, Hahiha, Hope, and Daddy Lenin. Who's next? Hosts: Max, Jordan, Special Guest

Following a recent discussion regarding polls, I have decided to set up a poll to decide where Alex should post polls. I hope that the results of this poll, whatever they are, will inform actions going forward.

Environment: Browser: Chrome 83.0.4103.97 OS: Windows 10 Window Width: 1080 Description: When mousing over trades, the buy/sell buttons bounce around. When my browser window is wider, this is not a problem. However, I keep my browser in a rotated monitor whose width in that orientation can be at most 1080. Having the buy/sell buttons bounce around like this makes me frequently misclick and is clearly not desired behavior. This appears to happen with the two smallest Bootstrap window sizes. Repro Steps: Open a resource trade window Horizontally shrink window until at one of the two smallest layouts Mouse over the trade amount for each trade row Observe that the trade row bounces around Trade _ Politics & War - Google Chrome 2020-06-15 16-19-45.mp4

Make a UN with leaders of the top 100 AA and have them vote on any proposed changes

This would just lead to people nuke turreting each other, as that'd be a lot more effective than fighting conventional wars. If you're destroying 9/10ths of the city's imps, you're invariably also destroying any max capacity mil in there. The remaining mil is unusable due to the city being disabled. As such, there'd be no point in using anything else at all, given that a nuke would materially or effectively wipe them out anyways. It's simply bad game design if you can undo the substantial amount of effort and coordination that goes into winning conventional wars by engaging in a style that's not much more than just click a button to buy the nuke, and another to launch it. As for long wars; that issue is a political one, not a mechanical one. Furthermore, the recent changes, whether for good or bad, are already going to make wars more resource-intensive to wage. So I think that you're overlooking the impact that update is going to have by wanting YET ANOTHER (on top of the several that have been added by this point) resource sink to be added. And no, there's no reason why nukes should be overpowered. Ideally, nothing should be overpowered, as the main concern in games is to have good balance between the different units/tools at hand. The priorities in games are balance because ultimately, that's what leads to an enjoyable game experience; not realism to a fault. Especially not when "realism" has been forfeited several times by now in this game.

I don't think this has really been stated publicly yet, but we feel that as an alliance, it’s about time we came forward with this. This is going to be a rather long post, apologies ahead of time. Camelot has never held a reputation to be “jealous” of; we’ve been known to be one of the more “immature” alliances. Camelot was started from the ground up, by members that much of the game already disliked or shunned. Over time, we grew a niche under BK/IQ where we would essentially attack who they asked, but we also attacked on our own whims. BK protected us and as long as we did what they asked we had significant free reign, with negligible consequences. In GW14 we helped IQ initially, backed their storyline and defended them. They were our allies, and quite frankly, our only means of survival at that point in time. As the leader of Camelot, I feel it is time to apologize sincerely for the actions that I, my government, and any of my members took. Looking back, we should have recognized the red flags and taken a more stoic stance on ending the war earlier. For not doing that, and contributing to the irreparable harm that carrying on has caused many alliances and the community, I am truly sorry. PnW lost a lot of amazing people. The game lost a significant amount of players, but most importantly, community members. To those who have turned away from the game with no chance of return due to our actions, I apologize deeply. To the alliances that we had forced to fight for almost a year straight, I truly wish we could have ended that war earlier. However, I have the utmost respect for those who were able to keep their communities strong and stable throughout that. We owe the survival of this game and community to people like you and your members. To the alliances like North Point, who we screwed over and plotted against, I hope we can make it up to you and move forward. To those we are working with and have given us a second chance, I can’t find a way to put how grateful I am into words. When IQ left, they asked us to leave the game with them, but we refused. We did not expect at any point that our actions would ever be forgotten. Or that they would be forgiven overnight, instead we began changing our focus internally. We hope that if we can change ourselves for the better, everyone would recognize our effort and over time, we could heal the wounds created by our actions and forge a brighter path in the future. So once again I, and the entirety of Camelot, am truly sorry for those our actions have affected.

This isn't really a farewell or goodbye but I'm gonna be taking a break from p and w. Recently my mental health has deteriorated because of a lot of factors. My life has become so monotonous over the last couple of months, logging in every day to a game that I don't really care about anymore hasn't been helping. I've tried various things to help make me feel better including "self medicating" but nothing has helped. I'm taking a break from life, I'm gonna try new things and in about a week I'm gonna decide on if I'm gonna keep playing or not. I'm gonna stop chatting in p and w servers for a while as well. I'm sorry to the people in my alliance and some of my friends for acting weirdly over the past while. I just didn't want to admit there was something wrong with me but that just made things even worse. I'm sorry guys I really was acting strange and negative. I'll hopefully be back soon and you guys will have the old Jamie/Alexsa back. Goodbye for now.

Nation link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=216197 Nature of violation: "Childbeaters" does not seem like an appropriate nation name, leader name is sketchy too.

Personally I would like the data of a forum poll referenced in conjunction with the data of a random sample poll, so that way you get the opinions of the 'hardcore' or 'dedicated' players as well as the opinions of the 'not-hardcore' or 'less invested' players. Main issue is some people may get to vote twice, but methinks not likely to make a large impact on the results outcome. Discord polls are also nice for small-tweak changes that impact the game insignificantly and assuming Alex maintains an agreeable standard of what is a small and insignificant change.

I have never considered this before but actually I like your idea. lmao at prefontayne voting for 'no input necessary.'

It is legit better than Alex deciding things on his own though The concept is: The alliance leaders will have greater access to members playing the game. They can make proposals and present proposals being discussed to their members. While I would agree alliance leaders dont have knowledge in all parts, they atleast have more knowledge than their members in most circumstances Currently, a vote in open forums can be easily rigged by having people in your alliance making accounts and voting on a topic. This means a large alliance will always have more sway than a smaller one.

Voting is a terrible idea. People have no idea what is best for the game, especially alliance leaders. I say this as an alliance leader in a top 10 alliance.

Okay cool.

Yeah, that's ban evasion. Taken care of and investigating any other alts. Thanks for the report.

That wouldn't be a valid strategy it would be The Strategy. The first few rounds of war, would be everyone nuking each other to wipe out any and all extra improvements. Fighting conventionally would be silly until all your opponents cities have been nuked, and you force them to buy infra so they can max war improvements. There would be no point to even run conventional attacks till every extra improvement has been destroyed, and then once that occurs then you might see actual fighting start. But if you want war to be a 3 click affair where you click to pull up the nuke screen, then click the city you want to nuke, launch nuke, log off for 24 hours, buy another nuke, then repeat everyday for a few weeks, that will really be an improvement to the war system. the only positive it would have is wars would probably be shorter because people wont be able to afford to fight for extended periods because all the econ improvements will be wiped out, so they wont be able to support themselves. but then again, you still have the 2-3 weeks of just nuking each other before any conventional war even thinks about kicking off.

Hello everyone, I am the owner of this nation. My country is the Mongol Empire, and the leader of the Mongol Empire was Chinggis Khaan, which means ''universal ruler''. I know it might sound rascist, but if you knew your history, you'd know this is not discrimination to any group of people, thank you

join sexclipse

@Changeup I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting I made an OOC attack? If so, Akuryo's comment seemed a bit OOC as well. So tell you what. How about me and him both take a nation strike and then he gets banned for getting his third one 😂

At least I don't cheat or defend cheaters. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt to get 2 nation strikes imo. As much as I've enjoyed my low tier raiding, you've given me an incentive to grow so thank you.

Actually, Chinggis Khaan is the Mongolian spelling of Genghis Khan. You can find it here under “Name and spelling variations”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Uhhh, I know this may seem wrong, but I don't understand how he is using a racial slur, because he has "Ching" in his name. If his war declaration was "I'm Chinggis Khan, leader of the Ching Chongs!" then I would see where it is racist, but its not that. I don't think he was trying to be racist.

sometimes i wish the mayans had gotten their prediction correct

We already understand the real issues here is the long standing problem of excessive force and the inability to be self reflective and accountable to citizens from the police force on an institutional level. On the other hand there are also opportunist and insurgents trying to take advantage of mainly peaceful protest to riot & loot. These have been video tapped by the peaceful protesters like the guy in military grade gas mask and suit smashing windows , mysterious pallets of bricks showing up near protests etc. The police like any large institution that lacks proper oversight seeks to protect itself and it's members. It's not simply an issue of a bad apple but a culture of covering for the bad apple via a lack of discipline that leads to these excessive incidents then add in the ability to do their own internal investigations and you got a pretty self perpetuating cycle. On a side note notice some countries call it a Police Service while we call it a Police Force which kind of hints at the underbelly of a deeper issue in a country where we have been in a state of perpetual war for 2 decades and war mindset for over half a century.

I know this feel

Personally, I find it neat when protectorates of the same alliance ally each other. It's a good way to make friends before "graduating." Congrats on your treaty!

You're right, people like you are very full of their selfish ideas, only they care about and would only benefit them. Tell me again why something only you and a handful of other people, in the entire game would actually care about, should be added to a long list of far more necessary changes. Because nobody cares about leaderboards, and you can just learn to make a sheet to do it yourself.

They're not saying Nuke turreting itself is a problem, they're saying nuke turreting becoming the primary strategy of the game is problematic. It might be a thing that happens in the current game, but it is not an effective means to win a war, just a lazy person's way to deal damage. The current meta is "Nukes are good for dealing damage against superior opponents with expensive infra, getting sitters off you whilst in beige, and baiting people into beiging you." Nukes becoming a large part of conventional warfare kills strategy, makes it hard for small/new alliances without large bank stockpiles able to compete in war, and ignores that they already serve a purpose in the current war system, a change in price would be a sufficient change, if any is necessary to begin with. The new nukes would also make it possible for pinned nations to drag their pinners by destroying the military improvements (along with the military inside). Edit: Scarf brings up a good point, if I'm a 32 city whale with the score of a city 20, I'm declaring on 5 city 16's right as my cities start reactivating again.

Yea, no surprise you can't nuke a low infra city and walk away with a profit. Do you want to be able to naval 1000 infra with 300 ships and walk out with a positive too? All attacks have a threshold where if you dip below it, the economic damage you inflict upon a foe is lesser than what it cost you to do that attack in the first place. This isn't a bad thing (given proper balance, and not some stuff you see going on currently. E.G: Naval casualties). And if it were to be an issue (which it's not, for reasons I'll elaborate below), the sensible approach would be to simply reduce the cost of nukes, and not make them doomsday devices as OP suggested. It's also a good thing that they're a bit on the pricier end. For one thing, it makes it so that they don't completely render missiles obsolete, given that most people view them (and do indeed treat them) as a step up from missiles. Especially given that ID's are often built due to their inexpensiveness and good enough reliability at what they do. This is in contrast with VDS', which are substantially more expensive and less reliable at what they do, and thus aren't built as often as ID's. Secondly; yes, nukes (and to a lesser extent, missiles), should be more expensive to use relative to conventional attacks, in regards to value destroyed in contrast to resources spent. For one thing, conventional attacks require you to have said unit to inflict damage with, which is a higher upfront cost compared to that of one-off weapons. Secondly, that military often has to face off other military in order to do their attacks, incurring further losses on themselves, and mitigating the damage they do in turn. Missiles/Nukes have none of these considerations when you're using them. The only ones they have is whether the other guy has an ID or VDS, and whether the infra you're killing is valued more than the ordnance you're using. Given all the above (plus guaranteed improvement killing, and radiation for nukes, and selective improvement killing for missiles), it is a fair trade off that you have to consider whether using one is economically viable or not. Especially since, again, this is a consideration for all attacks. And as a final note regarding that, as it's worth mentioning; the threshold is relatively high at the moment due to the inflated nature of the current market. Usually, it'd be at least a couple hundred infra lower. That threshold is also not that big of a problem given the current situation, since a lot of people stacked infra higher than they otherwise would, due to the duration of the NAP. So it really balances itself out in that regard. I know exactly how and when nukes are used. To the point where I elaborated exactly on how and when to use them on internal guides (which I reckon is more than what 95% of the alliances out there write about them, which would be "don't use unless you're losing and want to shred some infra"). In fact, and just as an example, you can use nukes as a way to get rid of a would-be pinner, and allow yourself to use your beige time to build stuff (either conventional military, or nukes/missiles to turret more). I've myself used nukes for that exact purpose, and to do either or of the listed (usually both at the same time) several times last war. It wouldn't be done overnight. Obviously not. But wars aren't over overnight either. They go on for weeks, if not for a month or two. Which is ample enough time to get the volume necessary for what I mentioned. Never mind if you already have a stockpile built up prior to a war. And because I think you didn't actually realize it; that snippet you quoted was elaborating based on the the functionality OP suggested they should have, rather than the functionality they currently have. I wouldn't mind them killing more improvements, as was suggested above. But the focus of my text was why the OP's suggestion was a bad suggestion, rather than a comment on how to rebalance nukes. Resources are, in fact, finite; even for top 50 alliances. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of those AA's don't tax their members 100/100 (which is what you seem to be alluding to) constantly (if at all), or necessarily even have a high tax rate to begin with. So those AA's are neither gathering the amount of revenue you seemingly think the do, nor do they have the amount of resources to sustain those PLUS all of the stuff that's been added. There's a reason why you, for example, don't see those AA's spamming Spy Satellites, Advanced/City Planning, or cities outright, in spite of the desirability of all of those.

Admin is busy, post Anarcho Primitivist memes

I totally agree.

In my eyes, I love seeing people peacefully protest for the right to equality, equity, & justice as long as they are legally, socially, ethically, & morally good. Obviously some of the ways like looting, riots, & some protests were not really a good idea. The police involvement in certain situations was also wrong. Walking/standing the streets alongside people supporting you w/ no fighting, just all of you wanting to be equals legally, socially, ethically, & morally is awesome. Sad thing is there will always be differences between people but hopefully we can learn to cope & adjust to be able to work together.

I agree that all lives do matter. The problem I have is that the people I see stating that, are also the people I know who are racist (the kind of people who say "send the blacks home" and such) - obviously this then undermines the message. At the end of the day we all bleed Red. It is stupid to belittle anyone because of race, creed or gender.

This is factually incorrect. You claim alot of BLM are extremists when in fact the vast majority of looters are looting/rioting for another cause and merely jumping on the BLM bandwagon as a chance to cause havoc. Also ALM are not assumed to be extremists and supremacists, merely racist because at this moment, it is black lives most severely endangered, not white or other non-black races. ALM is used by people who claim they favour equality, but in reality it takes the focus off of black suffering and suggests all races are treated in such a way which is simply not true. Quoting stats like 50% of police killings are white is completely disproportionate to population and shows ignorance of those who support ALM. As the celebrity Seth Rogen said, frick you if you support ALM I do however agree with the main gist of this. Rioters should be arrested where possible as they are not helping the BLM movement and attacking shops and businesses will not support it in the long term, only cause the middle classes to turn away from violence as they have historically. Donations and petitions are needed

Meanwhile Epi

Wow, never thought I would see the day where Camelot would seem remorseful, I wonder how much Arthur got paid to apologise.

Go away. This is my forum.

The Day of Awakening is among us. We have been trapped in the Dark for far too long and have awaited the day for the Light to return to our gaze. The Light is here my brothers and sisters, you need but look for it. In the pursuit and subsequently, the revelation of the Light - my mortal eyes abandoned me. But I say to you my family, I have never been able to see as well as I can see now. The devout followers of the Light Giver have come together today to create a haven of the Blessed. We are here to safeguard those who allow themselves to fall prey to the Dark. The servants of the Dark incarnate, Ah-Lecks, seek to destroy the truth and shroud us all in Darkness. We know our place now: Holding the door open to the light for those who seek entry. We are followers of Light. We are The Enlightenment. Sincerely, The Blinded One: Kevanovia The Messenger: Hodor Holy Usurer (Econ): Keegoz Pathfinder (FA): Samuel Bates Keeper of the Creed (IA): Leftbehind Grand Inquisitor (Milcom): Caanite Omniscient Council: Pika, Do Not Fear Jazz, Spectre, Charlie Traveler Our New Discord Server Chapter 1 of The Creed:

@hope I didn't realize your Heaven's Gate alliance would literally have all of Coalition B committing in-game suicide

I took this poll very very seriously, and spent hours toiling over which option to choose. No input necessary would also remove mine :3

Why isn't this browser game like the real world? Why can't we just have one world war where we blast ourselves back to a tumour filled Stone Age? Seriously, if you're going to argue for realism, lets go all out. Nukes should vaporize the players IRL. That would be the most realistic.

The cost of radiation cleanup increases as the number of cities increases. So (ballpark) the cost of a smaller nation to restore their city might be equivalent to $1M while the cleanup cost of a large nation might be equivalent to $10M. Meanwhile, the cost of building the nuke might be equivalent to $10M. Would need to tweak the numbers, but the idea would be that nuking a small nation would be a net loss for the attacker. That would match the current design which makes nuking low infra cities a waste of resources. It seems that many people dislike the idea of disabling cities. I think that's an interesting mechanic which actually helps larger nations deal with being nuked. The biggest factor to improving nukes is getting rid of improvements, so if you wanted a lighter change, then Gideon's suggestion of destroying improvements equivalent to the amount of infra destroyed would be a good compromise. Sure, that would be a valid strategy just like the previous war strategy was to do mass air-strikes to establish air superiority. So how would you counter someone who wants to nuke you 4 times? The attacker is already at a net loss since they spent the resources to buy 4 nukes. You could nuke back to get even or you could stay conventional and rebuild to 800 infra/city. Anyway, if you all want to leave nukes as super missiles, that's fine. This suggestion was based on commentary in the latest PNW radio show with Alex where people complained about the impotence of nukes, the no-beige meta, and a desire to delete/destroy cities. I think this would be an interesting way to address all three issues, but it's clear that the community would prefer that nukes remain a loser's weapon. Whatever Orbis. Might as well take nukes out of the game.

Delete your forums account, everyone will be much happier.

@Vein I honestly thought you had better standards than this idiot, lol. (repost since akuryo pinged the wrong account)

Getting some complaints and also experienced some odd occurrences. Somehow having significantly more military like 35 VS 20 ships does not give an immense triumph. Also, some people came to me about ground battles not being balanced. 200k VS 135k and the one with more results in utter failures. I don't see war odds listed as one of the May changes so I'm a little confused as to what's changed. I know somethings changed.

Bud read the rules before you post plz. You are being super toxic and trolly. As I said before this forum isn't the place for such things.

Duh, nukes should be more powerful for their cost. Currently it cost about the same amount in resources as it does in infra destroyed, if you target cities with <2000 infra. This tells me you don't know how and when nukes are launched. You can only launch one per day and disables you for 24 hours to even do anything else with that opponent. It's not like you can spam click them. Okay, it's not like top 50 alliances have infinite cash flow or anything. Why should getting a tax from 200+ members ever complain about resource costs? Better build a vital defense system if you don't want to be nuked. Don't get on here and spread those tears of 2500+ infra cities.