Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/28/20 in all areas

  1. Can you leave this mechanic in place until you have an alternative ready to go? Otherwise, it'll do exactly what you say you don't want it to do should a war break out anywhere.
    40 points
  2. Alex you've been give a billion damned suggestions about changing beige for years. Even largely community supported ones, how are these not already taken note of? Here's my favorite: all wars end in beige. Regardless of resistance. The only difference is aggressors who lose get half and defenders in unfinished wars below say, 55 resistance get half as well. Ones above probably don't need any and don't get any. Ta-da, solves everything you mentioned above without designing something entirely new.
    24 points
  3. Absolute disaster of a change. Beige wasn't great, but no beige will be far, far, worse.
    20 points
  4. So not only have you nerfed military score to the point where you can be zeroed but still be in range of people with max mil in your city range, but now you've removed the only chance anyone ever had at getting back in the ring if they get knocked down. I mean seriously, have you ever cared to take a step back and evaluate how your changes will impact gameplay? An absolute joke, like seriously, your last few updates have been absolute trash and are destroying the war system. Time for a rollback to the spring.
    19 points
  5. Hey Alex, I wanted to point something out from the rules regarding slotfilling: "An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war." The 'using minimal units' thing seems to be pivoted on the idea that it only becomes a rule violation if there's an intent to not win the war. Otherwise, anyone trying to fight economically is in violation of the rules because of slotfilling and I think we'd both agree that's not the spirit of the rule nor the intent behind it. As such, I think you might've made a wrong call here because the war was won; they beiged the defender. You said that they did this to prevent more attacks, but beiging is also how you get more loot and I think the wars being raid wars proves that getting loot was the motivator behind the wars. I also want to point out that this trend of alliance members leaving to hit their own inactive members isn't new. It's been around for a while. I don't know why this is a problem now (perhaps you never knew about it). I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this because I don't think the 'suspects' in this report thread did anything wrong, I don't think their actions violated the spirit behind the slot filling rules, and I would like for this ability for alliances to get loot out of their inactive members to remain a viable option. Thanks!
    19 points
  6. I would like to provide some additional evidence. Firstly, a quote from the rules with my emphasis: There is currently no reference to "allied nations" within the rules. If it is now a "rule" that you cannot attack allied nations, you must immediately outlaw all paperless treaties so that you can properly police this moving forwards. The game mechanic of not being able to attack nations protected by you, or that you have an MDP with, is clearly designed to prevent accidental declarations on allied nations. It is not a rule. Secondly, some maths. I have included the third nation who was attacking the same nation for the sake of comparison. Average loot per ground attack: Dillon = $340,099.68 Sidd = $888,663.49 Opros = $149,358.90 Prior to the wars taking place, Dillon was not militarised for ground combat, whereas Sidd had some militarisation, and Opros was (though to a lesser extent). The formula for calculating loot is very simple (taken from the PnW Wiki): Judging by the amounts that were being looted, it is clear that the amount being looted was not based off of 75% of the defender's money, or the defender's money less 1 million, so therefore it was on the dice roll formula. None of the four nations involved had any tanks to speak of. In order for Dillon to loot an average of $340,099.68 per ground attack, assuming he was getting a generous roll and the RAND was coming out at 1, he would have required an average of 113,366.56 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 625,000 with a daily rebuy of 125,000 available) to loot that amount of cash. In order for Sidd to loot an average of $888,663.49, and again assuming a generous roll of RAND = 1, they would have required an average of 296,221.16 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 425,000 with a daily rebuy of 85,000 available). In order for Opros to loot an average of $149,358.90, and assuming a less generous roll of RAND = 0.5 (to show them using more soldiers and therefore not be slot filling), they would have required an average of 99,572.60 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 500,000 with a daily rebuy of 100,000 available). If we used the same assumption that we used to make Dillon and Sidd look worse (RAND = 1), then Opros required only 49,786.3 soldiers per ground attack). On the basis of this, and the starting positions, Sidd and Dillon both raided in line with the situations they found themselves in, Sidd being partially militarised, and Dillon not being militarised on the ground, and their loot stats in these wars stack up against that. Opros, who is the only point of comparison for this set of wars, clearly was fighting the war with a much lower % of their daily rebuy than the two nations who have been punished as a result of this report. If Sidd and Dillon have broken the rules by slot filling as they did not use enough military units in their battles, then Opros has surely broken the same rules (and more severely) yet has not been punished? EDIT I should also mention that Opros initially used what could only be "one ship naval attacks" (what is more minimal than one ship) to blockade Florence. The amount of infrastructure destroyed was 0.71 and 3.93 in two separate attacks. Using the formula taken from the PnW Wiki, Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships (depending on the dice roll element) in order to destroy those infrastructure amounts. END OF EDIT Error 404 (Borg's alliance) and The Commonwealth have been in a dispute for some time, and this report was only submitted three days after the relevant wars ended, and the resolution of the dispute was clearly not to Borg's liking. It seems that Borg has therefore (successfully) used this game report as a means of "getting back" at The Commonwealth and while it may not be "against the rules", just like what Dillon and Sidd did was not "against the rules", it was clearly against the spirit of the game.
    17 points
  7. I cbf to read the rest of the thread, nor do I have the time for it right now. But I would like to address some of this. These 2 nations did not send minimal units to fight a war. No, instead, they sent minimal units to beige a target, as would anyone who gave the post a few more seconds of their time. Understand, these nations aren't fighting a war; thry are raiding. Why go mill up to 5/5/5/3 and waste tens of millions on milling up, when you can just attack with a few thousand soldiers? This is more cost efficient, and allows your other improvements to make u money whilst u are raiding the target. Again, what I said earlier. It is more cost efficient to go with the least troops possible to beige the target, rather than mil up, and lose millions of steel for tanks, and much more for daily income. As for beiging to protect, how does that make sense? If they wanted to protect the nation via beige, why not allow other pirates to beige said target? Would that not get the same result, with less effort? As I stated earlier, I didn't really read what Sphinx posted, but your ruling, and the logic behind it does not make any sense.
    17 points
  8. So you're admitting you planned to send more people to attack our alliance? You aren't Arrgh or any pirate alliance you can't have your cake and eat it by hiding behind your treaty partners when you put your foot in mud. You obviously didn't learn your lesson from TKR for raiding Chocolate Castle. TCW Bank has nothing in it we empty it to our offshore. You just contradicted yourself. If the screenshot is unrelated to the Medici situation why did you choose to include it? Unless you were attempting to get me nation striked as well which is a pretty clear case of moderation as a weapon I might add. Honestly pathetic, that you need to resort to actions like this..... Yes you just explained what I already said. Good job for paraphrasing. Here is a log from TCW Government chat about the hit: As you can see Dillon recognised his mistake immediately and made changes to ensure he got the loot. Nothing here is breaking any of the rules. As per our DM's @Alex These are the rules for slot filling. 1: Dillon and Sidd had every intention of fighting them to a victory. 2: They did not prevent others from attacking. I don't understand how that works? How can you state that even when players end up fighting a war to its conclusion, that it still constitutes slot filling? Nothing about that is recorded in the game rules, it says nothing about not being able to raid allies. It simply states that wars where the attacker appears to be feigning attacks to prevent serious wars being waged against the target are the sole case of slot filling. The logs I posted above prove they were after loot and that they did not feign any attacks on purpose to prevent others from taking slots. You are penalising two long active and long standing players for a simple mistake. Worst of all is Sidd didn't make that mistake only Dillon did, he got full Immense Triumphs: So his strike was certainly unequivocally unwarranted. 3: Sidd and Dillon were after the loot, something many alliances have done by raiding their inactives. I recall Partisan and t$ doing that to one of the ex-Coalition Whales who was inactive. t$ dropped out of the AA and raided him constantly, even when Arrgh was raiding him a couple times. If you want to loot a nation of its resources you need to beige it, so you're penalising two people for following the mechanics the game has in place. 4: What use is beige time for someone who is inactive? We did not even mention beiging them so they can't be looted as a reason for the hit. If you want access to TCW government channels so you can read the information yourself just let me know. But Dillon made changes to his build to add one barracks so he could raid, that is why he had a low solider count. The bottom line is none of my members slot filled. I ask if you can do what's right and revoke these strikes.
    17 points
  9. It's well overdue. How many times have a lot of us blamed Alex for being very inactive in development? How often do we blame him for doing stupid changes? How often do we blame him for not discussing game decisions and developments? How many times have we criticized him for the changes? Every single time. Alex does discuss. Alex does share. But the community, most of the time, is not aware of the decisions before they are implemented because of a lack of awareness. Criticism is natural. Someone will always have issues with any change. But there have been decisions by Alex in "past" that have not been taken after making the wider community aware of these beforehand. This needs to change. What I suggest: - Alex informs the community of changes well before he starts implementing it even on the test server (cause historically the feature that reaches the test server always reaches the live server after some "fixes"). - Alex informs the community of his game - development plans at every single step. How to do this? Do a forum post after pushing it on the test server? No. Alex should use a public tool like Kanban Boards (Trello) / Issue trackers (Jira/GitHub) which anyone in the community can open and track. Forums are for discussions. Not for tracking things. We need to know the status of each accepted suggestion, and Alex's decision on it beforehand. The link to this platform should be as easily available as possible to the community. Make it a game objective to open it. And put it on the main navigation sidebar of PW. And it's not that much work for Alex, this platform will be managed by their own moderators (and don't worry, they don't have to "moderate" but just move ideas according to their status). All Alex has to do make his decisions more accessible. Easy to track right? I am not trying to make this a "democratic" process. I am trying to make it "transparent". Alex can still push his own updates into the game. But we need to know about them beforehand. (So that we can protest and prepare). Is this hard? Doesn't the community deserve this after 6 years of sticking around? Please @Alex ? P.S. For this to work, Alex needs to commit. Every single change needs to be tracked. Not just the "big" ones. Every single decision the developer takes affects someone in the game. tl;dr Alex needs to commit to better workflow for this game. It's not his hobby project anymore. The community needs better sight on his "vision" for the game.
    16 points
  10. Hi @Alex, I appreciate the answer you gave us on the reasons explaining your decisions, but I was hoping to add a few factors for your consideration which you may or may not have included in your original analysis: A) This completely breaks down the war system. Without beige, first-strike advantage is enormous as all you need to do is hold down your opponent, who has no chance of building back up. For some troop categories, you can only get 40% back with a double buy. Combined with the recent score change mechanics, you can't even use low military to your advantage. Part of the game has always been about competency in understanding the mechanics and strategizing around them, but now it seems like the goal is just to have the most button-pushers on one side blitzkrieg-ing someone else. B ) This will destroy the raid economy. A lot of the looting and raiding that occurs at the lower tiers is only possible because beige time allows nations to build-up resources. This sorely hurts newer nations whose economies are largely dependent on raiding, and by extension, the game economy will suffer with resource prices shooting up as a major source of excess resources is effectively diminished. C) This will greatly increase member attrition. During war, one of the largest contributors to the loss of members from alliances and from the game is extended periods of time of not being able to do anything. We saw that with last war, avoiding beiges–at great effort to implement I might add–incentivized people to go inactive and leave. Now, we're getting rid of that protection, so anyone can hold another down indefinitely. This allows for an even worse abuse of mechanics than the last war, and the consequences on the game will potentially be grave. D) As a meta note, we aren't giving enough warning or input on decisions like this. I've noticed that you've put up votes before, and have tried the democratic approach. We all appreciated that, but in such a large decision as this, none of the community at-large seemed to be apprised. That is disappointing, to say the least. I'd like to think we, as a whole, should be involved in the decision-making and path of the game. Giving us warning and room for discussion can help to calm uproars like the one here. Thanks for listening. Hopefully, it helps o7
    16 points
  11. I propose bringing back beige from loosing wars with 3 mechanics changes to balance it: In general, the point of these proposals is to keep beige as a mechanic that gives people space to get a reprieve and rebuild going into the next round of wars. The problem right now is that beige gives people an unfair advantage in the round of wars they are in when they are beiged. These changes reverse that, so that getting beiged puts you at a disadvantage in your current round of wars while maintaining the ability it gives you to rebuild and have a chance to fight effectively later. 1) The nation with the lowest resistance automatically loses when the war expires All wars end with either a peace agreement or beige, no expiring wars. 2) Minimum beige time I can think of two ways to do this: Either you can't leave beige unless you have less than 12 turns of beige left, or have a minimum beige time and each lost war adds 12 turns to it. This mechanic would reduce the unbalanced advantage beige nations have of being able to come out whenever they choose. With this change, you can use beige stacking as a tool to prevent someone from rejoining the war for a few days. 3) Nations on beige automatically accept peace offers from opponents This prevents people from using beige as a way to avoid being countered while they beat up on weaker opponents who can't do anything to stop them. It makes countering and beiging someone a viable tactic to relieve other people at war with that nation.
    15 points
  12. ITT: "I'm too lazy/incompetent to properly moderate (and too cheap to hire someone else to do the job for me), so I'm knee jerk removing a fundamental war mechanic without bringing an alternative replacement in it's stead.".
    14 points
  13. If all you've got is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail. This change is going to cause more playerbase attrition than even NPO's wildest fantasies could cause, with the ability to now perma sit on players.
    13 points
  14. Massive casualty reductions don't much matter if you're outnumbered and have no means to recover. With removing beige, there's no barrier to stopping an alliance arranging perma-blockades and sitting on you for as long as they want. There really should be an alternative in place prior to removing a mechanic this important.
    11 points
  15. The crux of the argument against the people reported seems to be that TCW protects the person that got raided and thus it's unfair to everyone else who would want to raid him. I don't find this compelling. TCW has the right to protect their members. They also have the right to withdraw their protection of any of their members in any capacity to any extent for any reason. If they want to permit allies to hit an inactive member with a lot of loot on them, then so be it. If you want the loot that badly, attack the guy that has it. Don't want to fight TCW? Then I guess you don't get the loot. Tough luck. As the rules are written out now, slot filling absolutely did not occur. People shouldn't be punished for rules that aren't written out. That being said, I don't think this is a precedent that should be established in the first place.
    11 points
  16. Alex... if this is true, I am extremely concerned as if you have had the same thing reported to you by two people, one being a random member of the community, and one being a member of your QA/API team; and you make the decision that the report by the random member of the community is unfounded, yet the report by a member of your QA/API team is correct and justified; things no longer become about whether someone has broken the rules, and more about who is reporting a rule breach which is a very sad state of affairs. The quotes from AntMan lead further evidence to support my point quoted below. This needs to be cleared up now...
    11 points
  17. War Slot Filling has been a hot topic recently, and it's become more apparent than ever that some thing need to change to make it less of a judgement call on my part to determine what is and what is not war slot filling. Therefore, I have updated the Game Rules to clearly and explicitly state that declaring wars on your allies is generally war slot filling. This means that going forward, you should not be declaring wars on allies, whether they're in your alliance or an alliance you're allied to. These wars, for the purpose of raiding, sending a notification to remind them to become active, etc. are not allowed. If you have a nation in your alliance that is inactive, for example, and you want to raid them, then you can kick them from your alliance and do so. At that point, I would generally not consider them still an ally. But leaving your alliance so that you can evade the mechanics and declare war on an alliance member, then immediately rejoining the alliance is now clearly and explicitly against the rules. The reason for this change is again to make it as clear as possible what is and what is not allowed so that I am not forced to make judgement calls which generally leave no one happy. Furthermore, for far too long the "beige" mechanic has left perverse incentives in war, such as not wanting to complete a war or intentionally defeating allies to help them. As such, I have removed "beige" time given from losing wars. New players will still start with 14 days of beige time, but going forward no one except these new nations will experience "beige." When you lose a war now, you will remain on your previous color. I understand that the point of beige is to help out the defender and give them a chance to rebuild, but unfortunately the unintended consequences are so problematic that it has been and still is a pressing moderation issue. By removing the beige time issued as a result of losing a war, it will be much easier to determine what is and what is not war slot filling because there will be no incentive to do a "fake" war against an ally that results in a defeat and beige time. My intention is not to make the game punitive and impossible to rebuild / recover from a lost war (or series of lost wars) and I will be exploring alternatives. However, the beige time from losing wars is a broken, abused mechanic that can no longer exist as-is, thus it's removal. Lastly, with these changes I have notified two players who recently received moderation strikes for war slot filling that their strikes have been removed. It is now crystal clear that what they did would be considered against the rules, but it was not so clear before, which is why I have removed the strikes. If you have suggestions for an alternative to the now deprecated beige mechanic for losing wars, I am all ears and would encourage you to make a post in the suggestions forum here: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/52-game-suggestions
    10 points
  18. I will once again toss my hat in the ring to offer my services as Alex's moderation doppelganger. I promise to be the most biased unbiased moderator ever! I can assure this because when you accuse of me being biased towards you, I'll laugh as I write up my many fan fictions of every single one of you getting rolled into Oblivion and made a pet servant to roquentin himself! Indeed you can rest assured my decisions will be pure hearted and just, because I truly, deep down, want to see all of you crash down into catastrophic hellfire from which there is no escape. And really, if we're gonna have a world where some apathetic nutcase destroys everything around you, why not pick the apathetic nutcase who will make sure it's a damn pretty explosion as it goes! Why, if we're going to be beset upon by Satan, why stop there? Hire Literally, Actually Satan Akuryo and go that extra mile in total unapologetic damnation of you and all you love! Vote Akuryo for Game Moderator today, and let this be your face of eternal damnation and bullshit calls! * *All reactions including downvotes counted as in Favor responses
    10 points
  19. I'd just like to point out that an alliance can coordinate a sit on a person now. Whether it's a raid target or not, they're not free game now. Because you can decide when a war ends by reducing the resistance of a nation to 0, you can just as easily have an alliance member ready to hit that person as soon as you free up your slot. This will disallow others from being able to get a shot at a raid target for example. Making raiding for the average player that much harder now as there will always be people that go to these lengths for loot.
    10 points
  20. Just going to say, thanks and good on you for listening to the community and making a fair decision in terms of the slot-filling. That said, I don't think removing beige is the best change going forward, especially with it being that much easier to consistently keep a target slotted, as well as taking some of the depth away in the war system as beige discipline has always been a rather important factor for alliances, and baiting beige was another tactic employed. This suggestion Akuryo gave honestly seems like a pretty good idea, and definitely better than both past and present iterations of beige, it creates a balance where you have to decide between giving your enemies beige time or causing more damage which ideally would be a case by case basis rather than "sit at x resistance and pin them" and would hence create a little more complexity in the currently relatively simple small-scale nation on nation warring.
    9 points
  21. Alex, I really fail to see how even if Dillon's strike is warranted that Sidd's can be. It looks like you've looked into Dillon's case and decided that based on some (at best) circumstantial evidence that the OP admitted they had taken completely out of context, that Sidd is guilty too. Sidd would have required between 296,221.16 and 592,442.32 soldiers in order to loot the amount that they were looting. They have a maximum soldier count (assuming they are running a 5 barracks setup) of only 425,000. If you go down the middle and say that Sidd was getting a rand value of 0.75 then they needed 444,316.74 soldiers to loot that cash. The statistics are on Sidd's side. This really looks to be a case of "looking after your own" (your own being a member of your API/QA team who was annoyed that TCW/THL wouldn't let him and his friends raid them). The fact that the majority of the game, including the allies of the people who raised this report in the first place think this is wrong, is testament to how wrong this decision is. There is nothing in the rules that says you are not allowed to attack your own alliance teammates so that entire point is completely moot. Can I suggest that if this is truly against the rules, you make that clear in the rules because this currently looks like a biased decision?
    9 points
  22. Well, who would do that u say? Me, for example. I have 2k infra, and 8k tanks as an mmr. All I ever do need is 50 soldiers and a few thousand tanks for an IT every time. Plus, it is a lot easier to switch one mine to a barrack, than do that to all of em, and wait 3 days to max soldiers to get max profit. That's besides the economic factor as well. As a raider, I'd expect you to know this, Borg. What I said was in reference to slot filling. Slotting ur own member for loot is not against the rules, as the reason you are targeting the member is to loot him, not to prevent others from attacking him, which is what the basis of slot filling is, to prevent others from attacking the nation in question.
    9 points
  23. I'd agree this is war slot filling, thanks for the report. In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." These were both Raid wars, so if the attackers' true intent was to steal as much loot as possible, they wouldn't have sent such minimal units. Just because they fought the wars to completion does not mean that it can't be war slot filling - it seems clear that the intent was to fill the slots to protect the nation from being attacked, and then give them beige time to continue to be invulnerable to new declarations. I will issue moderation strikes against the two nations that committed the war slot filling violations. EDIT: Also a reminder that this is a no discussion forum, and I've already issued some warning points to offenders in this thread.
    9 points
  24. Link to original post: since Alex wants to give everyone warns for discussing whether or not war slot filling was done here's a place to continue the discussion. Clearly it wasn't slot filling as beige was achieved by all 3 nations attacking the inactive member, but seems some people got a little upset that they didn't get a chance to do so.. discuss.
    8 points
  25. There seems to be no point in arguing or bringing forward well-intentioned, valid suggestions if the administration is just gonna arbitrarily chop off whatever they deem a nuisance to moderate in this game, however crucial a given mechanic or however radical the change is, without any consideration for how it reflects on the gameplay meta, or without any plans how to alleviate newly induced (and much bigger) issues. But new projects, amirite? Just sit back and let it burn, dawgs.
    8 points
  26. Hey Alex, frick your no-discussion forum. Jk don't delete this post Disclaimer that I don't know if you're discussing this off the forums with the parties involved, but based on what's shown here it seems like there's a need for consistency and clarity. People have provided massive amounts of evidence and explanations as to what went down and by the definition of the game rules regarding slot-filling, this is not slot filling unless you exercise 'moderator discretion', or plan to make changes to the rules. Moderator discretion itself doesn't make much sense as the exact same thing was reported by someone else, and it was ruled to be within the rules, and was allowed. This practice has also been going on for several years already. Really, although I think there's absolutely no reason to punish the people here, if you're going to do so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if you made a proper stance, sticked to it, and announced it. If you're planning on banning this practice (I don't think you should, but that's neither here nor there), it would be far better to make more specific rules on what 'slot filling' entails exactly, and then remove the nation strikes on the TCW nations. People can't be punished all of a sudden with nation strikes for taking part in a long standing practice. How are they supposed to know that this is now a rule violation when it has never been one before? If you're planning on enforcing this in retrospect, go ahead, make the change to the game rules and provide specifics on slot filling, but to punish someone out of the blue when this has been allowed for several years already isn't a very promising stance. If you don't intend on banning this practice, (because quite frankly it simply isn't slot filling according to the definition of slot filling right now), then undo the strikes on the TCW nations, acknowledge your mistake and move on. I don't believe you intentionally showed favouritism to Borg's report, as you've proven many times that you do want to create as fair a game as possible and I do appreciate that, whether the difference in response to the reports was influenced by an unconscious reaction or simply by a more well written post, I don't view you as someone to show bias simply because of a friendship with a player, but that is a very common view harboured at the moment among some people, and responding with "This is a no discussion forum" when this is an issue that very clearly needs to be discussed isn't going to help. And I was planning on making this a shitpost.
    8 points
  27. Active duty and reserve duty for units. You can buy units up to your max and place them into reserve status where they can't be killed unless the building which houses them. Spies can also hit them but in a much more limited capacity. This way you can stack units into a protected mode while you work yourself up to max mil again in reserve status, and can then come out swinging.
    7 points
  28. We need Beige. We can never rebuild in the next global... We need some sort of protection!
    7 points
  29. Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97925 Ruler Name: Deulos Nature of Violation: War Slot Filling The Rule (emphasis is mine): Evidence: Firstly I draw attention to the following thread which shows a precedent set by Alex for issuing Nation Strikes for nations who are trying to raid "economically". The Precedent: The precedent I am drawing on is that the nation strikes were issued for, and I quote: All of the attacks for which the nation strikes in the precedent were with a greater number of units as a percentage of what could realistically be expected to be there. War Timeline of the offending war: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=687885 Opros started the fight (after declaring war) with two naval battles in order to gain naval blockade over the nation of Florence. These were clearly one ship naval attacks, despite the nation having the capability of rebuying up to 60 new ships daily. Unless Florence had many ships themselves (if this is the case, 0 were destroyed, yet Opros still maintained immense triumphs), these attacks could only have been made with minimal units. These were clearly naval attacks with minimal units as using the infrastructure damage formula provided on the PnW Wiki (see quote), Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships to make between 0.71 and 3.93 infrastructure damage per attack. It is not possible to start a battle and send in fewer ships than 1. Later, Opros then launched four ground attacks on Florence averaging a loot of $149,358.90 per attack. Using the loot formula, again from the PnW Wiki and quoted below, Opros would have required between 49,786.3 and 99,572.6 per ground attack. Opros was capable of rebuying 100,000 soldiers per day. In the preceding 48 hours, Opros had lost around 120,000 soldiers so on the basis of there being two rebuys, should have been capable of having at least 200,000 soldiers at the point where they attacked Florence with ground attacks so therefore used less than 50% of their military power to raid a nation. The recent precedent set meant that a nation that was using close to 100% of their military power in a battle was given a nation strike for "slot filling" as they were sending "minimal unit attacks" so it is my view that this must also be "slot filling" as the number of units used was way less than what the nation should have been capable of sending into the battles.
    7 points
  30. @Alex, it's not the players fault your broken game makes it so mechanically losing wars isn't a big deal. They're fighting and winning the wars according to YOUR OWN GAME MECHANICS. This isn't war slot filling, they're simply playing the game, and if you don't like how they're playing the game, maybe get off your lazy butt and FIX YOUR GAME for once instead of over-moderating it and enforcing crap rules... Enforcing your crap rules poorly at that!
    7 points
  31. What about looting? Does that still exist?
    6 points
  32. They'll just get defeated and re-slotted. One thing contributing to such tankiness was exactly beige deterring people from further action, which would give some respite to those nations to partially rebuild. But obviously that's gone without beige. Your actual thinking is that you fricked up a moderation decision because you were too lazy to properly look into it the first time around, and are too prideful to admit that you fricked up. So you're killing an essential mechanic due to your pathetic vanity.
    6 points
  33. People can obviously be sound in some areas and forget in some other areas... Not everyone is a perfect raider and never makes mistakes. I am sure most people in this game have forgotten to change war policies before a real war atleast once. Plus changing all to barracks for two days means losing two days worth of resource production for a little bit more loot in ground attacks. Depending on the nation, that might be unprofitable. Second...people have attacked their own members since the game started. It is just smarter to raid your own member and keep the money you granted them rather than kick them out and have the resources on them raided by someone not in your alliance. This is all very logical stuff you know to be true :,)
    6 points
  34. Again, it is still easier to switch that one barrack, and not to mention costs less. Sure, a few ground attacks probably get you enough to recoup ur losses on switching the barracks. But then come in the economic factors. Regardless, this is hardly a moot point. Alex just needs to remove those strikes.
    6 points
  35. I unironically reported this 2 days ago and it has been called not slotfilling So yes, this thread can be closed
    6 points
  36. Ok so lets break down this confused and misinformed post. 1: The rules over slot filling imply you can't hold a slot to prevent someone from attacking another player, and that if you have no intention of fighting a war to a victory then that is classified as slot filling. Our members did nothing of the sort. They fought their wars to a beige and broke no rules. 2: That screenshot is regarding the attacks we launched against Agon, nothing to do with "slot filling" Medici which is BS. 3: When they hit they did a GA with 2,000 soldiers, but it was unknown to them that this sort of army strength would fail to get an IT GA, because of certain coding reasons. A problem they rectified in future hits. So no this isn't slot filling. Honestly you should re-read the rules before making posts.
    6 points
  37. Without beige, there needs to be a way to rebuild units without them being killed in large numbers. Active duty military: Function just like your current military units do. Reserve Military: Each day you can buy your normal daily buy of military (bonus from PB project as well). When they're bought they default get put into your military reserve. While in your military reserve they cannot be killed from military attacks on your nation unless the improvement which houses them is destroyed. If you destroy an improvement which houses units, the number of units lost is equal to the % of total military you have that can be stored in there. If you're at 100% military in reserve and active status you lose 100% of what can go in that improvement (5 ships, 75 planes, etc...). If you're at 50% of your max military in reserve and active you lose 50% of what can be housed in that improvement. So on and so forth. At any time you can move any number of reserve military into active duty. You cannot move from active duty to reserve. Once a unit is active it can only be removed by being lost or decommissioned. Units in reserve status cost less (numbers to be worked out) for upkeep. This predominantly impacts Tanks/Ships/Navy. Soldiers still cost a similar upkeep. Reserve units + Active units <= Max military. That means you can't have more units than your maximum, your total is your reserve plus your active. Points to consider: As most nations will likely be in reserve mode outside of war time, this poses a possible issue. The side going on the first offensive likely won't kill much in the way of units in the opening attacks, since the enemy's military is on reserve. The trade off being is that you instead can virtually guarantee you'll gain at least one superiority on the enemy. Is that a fair enough trade off? How should spy attacks interact with reserve units? I believe they should kill less, the question is how much less?
    5 points
  38. With Beige gone, it is possible to permanently hold down a nation forever in blockades without them having the resources to fight back (it was still possible before too just not -as- easy). This new spy attack is to slip blockades and supply a blockaded nation. What it does: A nation can send spies into another nation which is blockaded and supply up to $25,000,000 and up to 10,000 total of resources (ex: 5,000 gas and 5,000 ammo) to a nation. The difficulty of this mission is determined by the number of nations blockading the target nation. Each nation blockading adds a 15% chance of getting caught, to a maximum of 55%. So one nation blockading gives you 85% odds of success, 2 gives a 70% chance of success, 3 gives a 55% of success, and anything above 3 gives you a 45% of success as you reach the cap. If your spy "attack" is caught, you have a chance of being discovered. Your spies have a chance of being killed. Your resources get split among the nations blockading your target nation. The numbers are very much open to discussion. Should the amount of money/resources be based on the number of cities the target nation has? Should anyone be able to send this "attack" to anyone? No score range needed. Should the chance of getting caught be done differently, or have different odds? Other input?
    5 points
  39. Justice is served... And the game is broken now... I move to increase the current nap timer if a new system isn't put in place before the current nap expires.
    5 points
  40. This was not slotfilling, @Alex. The alliance war distinction that Sphinx made refers to a time when you should expect as an alliance leader for your members to be triple slotted and so yes, sending people to hit them is intentionally blocking that. That's not an assumption you could generally make in peace and, in this particular situation, E404, a non-pirate alliance in a sphere, generally wouldn't be triple slotting TCW members unless declaring an alliance war because that is an act of war. If they were declaring an alliance war, that would be exceptionally easy to spot as there'd be a multitude of wars between those two alliances. To say that alliances will permawar each other to keep each other from getting hit will never happen because the only way to effectively do that without achieving the same outcome as being warred is to not fight at all and just hold the slots. Ergo, actual slotfilling. This was an alliance raiding its own members to recover cash from a member they hoped would wake up but isn't guaranteed to. This is a practice several alliances do and have done for years, a practice which you have ruled previously to not be slotfilling. Most members don't switch policies because they aren't raiding consistently and no one ever remembers to change policies in peacetime. They attack with smaller units than they would during an alliance war or even than a career raider would sometimes because it's a one-off raid, it's supposed to be economic. Your goal is to beige, the loot along the way isn't the primary objective and most alliance have minimal military on them during peace as well. They aren't going to max out their military for a single raid - that's expensive and ill advised.
    5 points
  41. So, and I will accept the warning point against my account in this matter, is this an official statement that any and all raid wars that take place without being on pirate, and having max soldiers are slot filling? If that is the case, fine, so be it, but then the same ruling should apply to every other nation that does the same thing. If that is not the case, then this would be a discrepancy in moderation, and would be a clear red flag, at least in my opinion @Alex
    5 points
  42. Alex, you told me literally yesterday this isnt slotfilling WTF are you doing now?
    5 points
  43. Alex... did you grow up in flint michigan? I can only imagine you thought this was a good idea if you got childhood lead poisoning.
    4 points
  44. I think everyone agrees, that the beige mechanic is broken. But removing the beige mechanic, before having an alternative ready, is stupid. We have lived with this for years - Im sure we can wait one more month before a decent alternative is ready.
    4 points
  45. You're right permanent rolling will just last longer cause no one can rebuild congrats on doing what NPO wanted yourself. Impressive to say the least.
    4 points
  46. I see what you are saying, but I would like to bring up a few points. The first, and primary disagreement I have with your statement is that this is not the first time such a this has occurred, There have been many instances of people dropping out of alliances to raid inactive members before, as has been stated by multiple people on this thread, yet I do not recall many, if any, instances of those being marked as slot filling, so I would like to express concern there. The second point I would like to address is the matter of the concept of it being a "fledgling raid." The raids were done to be triumphant victories, as Sphinx said, that was discussed in the tCW government channel. The members were not told to do the least amount of damage possible, they were told to get triumphant victories, which they did. We specifically discussed if this would be considered slot filling, because as an alliance, we did not intend on breaking the rules, again I address Sphinx offering to allow you to see what we said and when we said it in our gov channel for clarity. If it was known we would have to have max soldiers, I assure you, that would have been done, but that brings me to my third point. If the wars were declared, and multiple days was spent just making soldiers, would the same claim not have been made? That this was a case of slot filling? The members declared their wars with their soldiers, and attempted to raid in a timely manner, which is reasonable, in my opinion. It seems unfair to mark members down with slot filling for a rule that they, and it seems many here, did not know existed. My fourth and final post, and thank you to everyone who has come with me on this journey, I apologize for making you read my words but won't pay for your therapy, is that in the instance of Medici, he was a member of tCW. That means myself, Sphinx, and every other member of gov who has access to the alliance control panel, can see what he possesses in his nation, and we looked at that and came to the conclusion that, despite Medici possessing a few hundred million dollars, that was not a concern for us, as the alliance makes enough money to recoup that in the span of a few days, as are a large alliance. What Medici possessed that was valuable was the resources, both refined and raw, which were worth far more than the money itself he possessed, and the only method with which those raw and refined resources could be recovered would be, naturally as you know, via defeating Medici in a war, commonly known as "beiging" a nation. Your point of saying we desire to keep Medici on beige indefintely is unfair due to this reason, as the game as it is currently structured, forces us to beige Medici in order to recover that which we desire, his raw and refined resources.
    4 points
  47. 4 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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