Leaderboard

Permit nukes and missiles to be launched at nations you're not at war with. As long as you're not bill-locked and you have a nuke and/or missile, you can launch a nuke or missile at any city. To get an idea what this is like, go to the BattleSims for missiles and nukes: https://politicsandwar.com/battlesim/nuke/ https://politicsandwar.com/battlesim/missile/ Similar to how you test a nuke or missile by entering in a city ID, you just enter in the city ID of the nation you want to nuke or missile. This feature can have it's own screen that you access from the 'Wars' tab using a button next to the 'Find Nations in War Range' button. It could say something like 'Launch Nuke or Missile'. To prevent abuse, you can only launch 1 nuke or missile every 12 turns. You also cannot launch at yourself, members of your alliance, members of allied alliances through in-game treaties, and nations you're already at war with (you have to hit them with nukes/missiles through the war screen with 8/12 MAPs like normal). You can only launch nukes at nations that fall within your war range. Perhaps this 'range' can be increased through a project (or the idea itself activated through a project). To further balance it out, perhaps doing this causes a 0.05% increase in crime for 120 turns for missiles, and a 0.20% increase in crime for nukes. This simulates increased unrest as people riot and protest about their nation committing this senseless act of aggression; at least in normal war we're already fighting the war we're missiling/nuking. This can be used to collect nuclear counties, and radiation damage that affects food production still apply. The 50% missile defense from Iron Dome and the 20% nuke defense from Vital Defense System still apply. This idea doesn't solve any problems, but it allows for more player freedom. People can troll with this, and the resulting drama can fuel politics and lead to interesting interactions and memes. Coordination during war with this can increase an alliance's damage output if their slots are filled but they have an excess of nukes/missiles they can use. Additionally, another alliance can avoid going directly going on the offensive, but can still help a front or an entire war by nuking a particular side's cities.

This is very easily abused and basically means that every war declared leads to the defensive person getting beiged no matter what. You may ask how, well let's say I declare war on you and do 1 ground attack to eliminate 10 resistance. All you need to do is. . . Wait, and you've won the war. There is no point in declaring offensive wars in a global because the defender will always get 6+ days of beige no matter what you do. Alex may be trying to get people to fight in wars that are declared, but I assure you this will do the exact opposite and make the meta literally not doing anything in defensive wars.

All wars that expire, end in victory or defeat based on the remaining resistance. If a war ends with a tie in remaining resistance, the defending nation is declared the victor. Once a war ends in victory/defeat, the defeated nations gains 4 turns of temporary beige status to prevent that slot from being instantly filled. This status does not stack and thus can never exceed 4 turns. This is to allow for an 8 hour window in which a nation may choose to use their beige bank after a war ends. When a war ends by expiration, the defeated nation loses portion of the infra and loot they would normally lose. The portion depends on the remaining resistance of the defeated nation. If they have 50 resistance left, they only lose 50% of the infra and loot they would have lost. Is they have 25 resistance left, they lose 75% of the infra and loot they would have lost. Nations who lose a defensive war gain 24 turns of beige bank. Nations who lose an offensive war gain 12 turns of beige bank. Nations can hold a max of 96 turns of beige bank (8 days) Once a nation gains time into their beige bank, that time expires in 16 days. Once a nation activates their beige bank, any wars that expire with the bank active add to the active bank timer but cannot exceed the cap. A nation cannot leave beige with more than 36 turns of beige unless they are a newly created nation leaving beige for the first time. Once your beige bank is active, when you leave beige your bank is reduced to 0 even if you leave with a remaining balance. You cannot activate your beige bank while you have an active offensive war. This is designed to put the control of beige into the player going into beige. This will add a new level of strategy into when nations/alliances should have members move to and come out of beige, and provides the attackers strategies to extend the maximize the amount of time their targets will receive a sub-optimal beige count as well as disrupting timers for the coordinated return. Damage and loot lost at the end of a war is determined by how much resistance was lost by the losing party, it's effectively 100-remaining resistance to give the percent. Nations repeatedly losing offensive wars can also gain beige timers to assist with raiders being able to find a reprieve. Slot filling rules will need to encompass the prospect of a nation declaring upon another nation and then performing to guarantee a loss and the addition of 12 turns of beige.

Yes, yes. Let's substitute one supposedly exploitable mechanic with a more complicated, more easily exploitable mechanic that will definitely end up being another point of contention 6 months down because "its not working as intended". Tbh, this suggestion spree is ill-advised because the core mechanic which was functional has been borked out of laziness.

I'm just gonna copy paste what I said in the discord tbh. The only thing on the test server preventing is literally two small changes. Ones that don't require having to bullshit people that it "adds a new layer of strategy" while anyone who actually understands what strategy is sees that it's just replacing one existing level with a different one. Literally the only part about the "different one" I actually like at all is offensive nation's still get beige, and that the cap is higher than 5 days. AKA, the two changes to the current test server that would make your entire spiel irrelevant. And that I'd frankly prefer to trying to plan and coordinate with noobs a week in advance of activity and actions just it utilize it properly. Because shocker, most alliances aren't your proper TEst level of elite who can figure it out alone while you sip a martini. Large alliances are already unwieldy to handle and coordinate, your "new level of strategy" just makes an already difficult task and leaves it so that maybe 3 alliances over 100 and 4 if you expand to over 75, would actually have the present skill, experience and sheer hands on deck to handle not being gutter trash. And if you're TI forgetaboutit, at nearly 300 members you're just RIP.

Yes, nations who get zeroed out will eventually have the ability to rebuild and fight back. The alternative scenario is that you can hold someone down forever?

I have a radical alternative suggestion guys! Why don't we, and I want you to hear me out before thinking im crazy, Why don't we reinstate beige under the old mechanics and instead of implementing a bunch of half-assed, overcomplicated mechanics that'll end up not doing what they are intended to do, just apply consistent, structured moderation? The mechanic wasn't broken. The moderation surrounding it was (ill-defined rules that were/are open to exploitation but more importantly, arbitrary moderating decisions due to a lack of consistency in application of the already ill defined rules as well as hardheadedness when unsurprisingly, contradictory decisions cause controversy). Or we can continue fricking up the meta until the elements that constituted PW's unique selling points relative to other browser sims are entirely substituted with ass. Either way, i'll be here.

Except the beige he's testing out is neutered in accordance to his priorities/considerations, which haven't changed. Expecting him not only to return to old beige (which he clearly doesn't intend to do), but implement one which, for his purposes/considerations, is even worse, is unrealistic. Before beige got removed, they could escape if they put the effort into it anyways. As for flaws, just to cite a few: People intentionally UF'ing (mind you, this was already happening to some degree last war), so to still kill units whilst not grinding resistance (so to deny beige to their foe). Thing is, there'd be a much higher incentive to do this now, since being just one res below the other guy would deny him the beige. Given that the infra/loot damage would also be fractioned, rather than the full value, taking this beige wouldn't be as punitive either. And no, the trade ratios wouldn't be that much of an issue with air, due to how dogfights work. It wouldn't just be a matter of people not wanting to win their wars (which seemingly bothers Alex); people wouldn't even want to win those individual battles. This is also a further nerf to aggression. Being the aggressor has it's own set of costs, which include political ones, if not properly justified (it doesn't matter that you're tired about that "old song and dance"; other people aren't, and it's a relevant matter for politics, and it'll continue to be a relevant matter for politics). It also takes genuine effort to put together a good offensive. These costs and efforts should come with a set of tangible benefits of their own. One of them being conventional control. This benefit has already been nerfed with the casualties reduction. Given that it's already harder to bring these nations down, they shouldn't just be able to rebound effortlessly. Else, there would be no incentive to be the aggressor, which would lead to no one wanting to be such, and with it, a staler (read:boring) game. And no, there isn't much disruption that'll happen, given that you'd be able to hold beige for 16 days. This is guaranteed two war cycles if all wars expires; else, it'd be more. It's simply too long for such to be possible, as you'd be all but guaranteed to get more than enough beige time for a comeback. I'd also suggest you actually try to address the point raised by them, rather than just smugly reduce them to one or two talking points and discard out of hand. You're the one trying to argue for this mechanic; make a proper defence for it.

I must admit i had a great laugh, Its funny you of all people has an opinion about the war changes

If anything, it'd be worse in that regard. But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected. That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.

In Alex's message about removing beige he said "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" could you please explain how this is not going back to that, just with a different goal post for what losing a war is?

I've been giving some though to a new National Project idea or Domestic Policy. It is my preference that the following suggested mechanic would work best as a National Project and not as a Domestic Policy. The idea stemmed from the Domestic Policy of Urbanization which reduces costs of infrastructure and I realized there is no mechanic to reduce land costs. I though adding such a mechanic would be welcomed by some players. Such a mechanic can be introduced as a project named "Agricultural Mastery" rather than a domestic policy and have the following effects: Agricultural Mastery - Agricultural Mastery is a national project that reduces the cost of land in cities by 5%. Agriculural Mastery also increases food production in your nation by 2% and reduces pollution in your cities by 1%. Agricultural Mastery requires Irrigation System National Project an City Planning/Civil Engineering National Project.

King of the Heralds: Benfro Prince of the Heralds: GoldyHammer Herald of War: Blink Herald of Growth: Schirminator Herald of Foreign Affairs: Herald of Internal Affairs: Wizel16 Herald of Fabrials: Talus Shards: Odium, Honor, Survival, Harmony

No, it doesn't. I'd prefer you didn't waste everyone's time trying to claim otherwise either, it is for this specific reason when I talk about almost no one on this subforum knowing what a bigger picture is that you're one of the first names to come up. At least unlike pre you're not also blatantly disingenuous, you just chronically fail to observe other details than the primary one which has garnered your eye. When one seeks to solve a problem one must consider the other effects their solution may have. Honestly I think you're vastly out of touch from being in TKR for basically ever that you do not know or do not remember what it's actually like to be in an alliance that is not just generally all around good generally all the time. I made my point with size, it gets exponentially harder the bigger you are, but allow me to illustrate how little size actually matters to my point. Let's say it's a more middling alliance. 45 members. These mechanics are introduced and war has broken out. You were hit with a well executed blitz that completely rolled you and your allies, unsuspecting of it, into the dust. As milcom you just spent the last several days putting up the best defense you could, ensuring warchests were had, builds switched, units and their rebuys used and timed correctly, counters sent where they could be sent, communicating with your allies as you start to setup a centralized command structure and planning a large scale counter attack with the beige banks. Stuff looks pretty bad right now, you got blindsided hard and as a middling alliance, poor morale especially in the face of a superior enemy is a far greater concern to you than the Titans you tug the robes of. Even they are concerned, but your enemy all beiged you, no fancy delaying their timings or anything to screw you up, they made it easy! So it's decided the beige banks will be used ASAP to launch a counterattack! Your new job is to now organize and manage 45 warchests, nation wide city builds, unit buys, activity, personal daily reset settings, beige banks, you need to setup squads, pick your targets, assign people to them, coordinate all of this with all the hundreds of other nations being managed by allied milcoms. And don't forget, if your enemies are intelligent you're also still managing current wars, more incoming, potentially counters for those or allies, oh and I almost forgot spy operations! All this while planning a coordinated blitz a week+ in advance and hoping people show up or don't quit or VM or leave or that your enemy guesses you're coming and correctly blunts you with their own counter blitz. And God forbid anybody particularly in gov, just can't spare the time because of life, lol. Now all of this, doesn't sound that bad to you I'm sure. For Pre, he ran an alliance of elites, it wasn't necessary to do all that. For TKR, there's just so many bloody government members, not even counting retired ones who could still be called in to help, the task is great but so is the manpower to tackle it. That, is straight up, not the case, for almost every alliance in the game. They either lack manpower or the knowledge or often both. Even in the four whole alliances I think could handle pulling an operation off like this, it's still alot of effort on the people doing it. And don't forget, bigger alliances attract more people, particularly people with skill and knowledge. A larger alliance is not merely more powerful because of its many members, but also because it's very power is a positive feedback loop that attracts more individuals with the ability to push that even further. Which is a very long winded way of saying, most alliances simply cannot field a milcom department large or experienced enough to do this. TKR has probably what, 5+ what might as well be milcom heads, good ones even, if it needed that many? Syndicate has at least three, and they're some of the best period. Rose has Valk and DtC both of which have no life Roses milcom into actually existing single handedly before. Lastly, my own alliance, just in active gov currently, effectively has at minimum 5 major Milcom personnel who could walk into damn near any other alliance in the game and suddenly that alliance would have a respectable milcom. As much as I wish the game to be more skill oriented because I'm a self biased patrician who would benefit from such, go too hard in that direction and even I'll quit the game because I'll be bored, and everyone else will quit because why bother when the logistical operations demanded by these mechanics are so significant that compared to a TKR, they might as well not have an MA to begin with. And then at the end of it all, even if that entire anecdote is wrong, you will still be crushed and lose to a cadre of alliances who have more resources than you, more people to fight on, and more commanders to get them to do so.if you don't want 6 month long wars then at some point, making an enemy bend the knee and keeping it bent, must be possible. Perma warring is after all, included in the rules now.

I don't have time right this moment to address criticisms but I think this is a much more balanced system than before. It allows people to eventually get a reprieve from being endlessly cycled while still giving a big advantage to those who strike first.

It's great that you were able to channel the disingenuous nature of your political career to your resume project too.

why does the beige have to last up to 8 days if a full rebuild takes 5? I don't mind that it stacks up, but I don't think it needs to be stacked up for over 5 days. maybe, we could add a max stack of 5 days and once that is reached (3 total beiges) all other wars automatically expire. This also means the loser will only be plundered 3 times and winners will likely race to be amongst the first 3 beigers thus, encouraging the proper use of beige. That would ensure the defender 5 days of uninterrupted beige without nations "sitting" on them. Another little tweak could be that a war must have at least 1 attack every 24 hours from either party or the war will expire. That's easily played around but it will also help the whole "sitting" strategy we are so used to to circumvent the purpose of beige.

This is absolutely not a suggestion I will advocate for now. There are much more presses updates that need to be done. I just wanted to create this thread so as to get the idea in people's heads for later.

Good luck, guys!

Good luck boys

Previous strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them. That new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted. New strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them or the war is going to expire. The new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted.

I feel like not being able to leave beige with more than 12 turns is kind of counter productive to what you're trying to achieve. If you want to make it so people can make a comeback during war...not allowing them to leave beige when they please---makes it very difficult for people to coordinate a blitz

A well supported player simple solution/suggestion of making **all wars (edit: for clarification, make both the offensive and defensive parties in all wars be able to receive beige)** end in beige upon expiry dependent on remaining resistance has been made meaningless with this, what, a cosmetic change at best? No one cares about the in game victory/loss ratio mechanic. None of the proposed points address fighting back from an unfavourable position and none of them address easy time of continuous cycling/sitting on people (translation: permawar easy af) that the recent changes have made possible (and the aforementioned ones do not fix this). Make the first point actually do something and make all the wars beige upon expiry, either based on resistance or some additional factors - and at least, in a way, it will patch up the main issues of the current meta that was radically broken when beige was completely removed. Not being able to break beige until you're down to 12 turns seems like a sufficient counterweight to getting beiged, but it's meaningless if there is simply no possible scenario of a nation getting enough time on beige for respite in the first place.

The thing with taxes here though is that they don't do anything. Tax rates are cancelled out by another factor (happiness I think?)

How're these for ageing well, mate? Don't worry, the whole community is behind Alex https://prnt.sc/ta5jhn https://prnt.sc/ta5jsa

NPO's new motto: Benfro man bad

RIP my DMs. Looking forward to more time spent with you lot. ❤️ We will miss you Adrienne.

For a while I have found it difficult to play around with taxes in my nation as it is estimated off of government policies I wish there was a section under revenue where you could set tax brackets like for lower income earners 10% and for higher 30% I think this would make the game a lot more realistic and enjoyable

and... blocked

Interesting idea. I think expanding on current game mechanics could give this game some well earned love. Instead of just adding projects or modifying current numbers the addition of a new mechanic would add a depth that need not be explored by new players, but give experienced players a new tool to use. Of course I think the crime numbers should be increased, perhaps it could scale with city count or have an exponential curve. I think instead of down voting without giving any criticism you should bring up why you think the suggestion isn't worth the time of day. Otherwise we won't have play opinions on what this game needs.