Leaderboard

Summary of the changes made to the formula as of 5/14: Score per City increased from 50 -> 100 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Suggested changes [bolded]: Score per City increased from 50 -> 75 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.025 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each Ships: 2 -> 1 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Why: The shortest version possible is that the score changes hardlocked people into tiers, it "tightened" war ranges. My contention is that it over-tightened based on city count instead of standing military. Your city count is not a good mechanism to be the main determinant of war range because it does represent your current military capability. The changes effectively have created an environment for wars where, even if you are zeroed, you can't escape people with a similar city count & max military. This is obviously very sub-optimal gameplay and probably unintended. I think the revised numbers will still keep war ranges tightened but not to the extreme we now see. tl;dr - Arrgh has been the guinea pig for these score changes for about a month now. Even while zeroed out we get slotted by people with max military: 2k planes, 20k tanks, 200 boats, max soldiers. That's impossible to get out from under, even while we're running extremely low infra builds. In a large-scale conflict, y'all are going to be in for a world of hurt if these score changes stay the way they are.

Dev Team Lead Prefontaine Dev Team Members Changeup Lucianus Roberts Vexz To those who applied an weren't selected, thank you for your time and submissions. I might reach out to you for consulting on specific issues and I'll be keeping your names if the team is going to expand or if it needs to replace any members.

No, he's just an idiot who thinks he knows anything because TI doesn't have literally any other option for milcom, lol.

Buck. This is a war mechanics discussion. Let's have ppl who actually war these days talk here, instead of 4k+ infra dudes.

Yea that is kind of what happens when 20+ TCM members decided they don't want get trapped in a Coal Mine that is in the process of collapsing in on itself due to poor maintenance and poor management.

Only way I like my nazi alliances. Gone.

i would agree your proposal sounds a bit more reasonable.

Just because one of the two evils is accepted doesn't mean that the second evil should also be accepted. Also, the ideology of communism/socialism isn't necessarily evil, but the dictators in charge of the state were. Compare this to Fascism, which is literally based off of the oppression of enemies and the discrimination of non aryan races. So yes, Stalin and Zedong were evil, but they weren't a product of the ideology.

This is quite sad tbh. He asks a legit question and everyone gangs up on him calling him a nazi and what not. It's a game, there can be fascist alliances as much as communist alliances. In fact, by definition, many normal PnW alliances are run by a fascist style government. @Francoist To answer your question, no. The majority of the players here prefer to pick something non-political to base their alliance on. We have anime based alliances, game based alliances, historical, among many other themes. When alliances attempt to get too political, they fail pretty quick. I would join an alliance that has good people, strong defenses, and a theme you enjoy. I hope this helped, and I apologize for your sour welcoming.

Please stay on topic guys.

>Implying your Chicken McChump ass was ever wise to begin with Let's slow down there chief and back this discussion up onto reality and try again, ye?

Maybe you should back to high school and try to finish the story, please? World need to know how talented TKR Queen is.

Either you weren't around for last global, or your memory has some holes in it. Maximum doesn't mean much when it can be grinded down, and then sat on, and very much easily with this update.

I do agree, fascist alliances being perpetually rolled does add some flavour to the game.

Similar to what I said in this post here, Is this supposed to go hand-in-hand with the other changes? Combining beige bank with reserve units, for example, makes defense so immensely powerful. Whenever defense is too powerful, like what @Shiho Nishizumi mentioned earlier, it crushes the incentive to start a war. Aggressors are taking on way too much risk if defense is too strong as there is a political cost to being the aggressor. We already have a 6 month NAP in place. Knightfall technically didn't even end with an NAP, but still had a long period of peace following it (could be wrong here, don't quite remember). Alliances need to stockpile resources to fund their war efforts. It's why wars don't last 2 weeks anymore like they did when this game first started out. Now, when tanks were buffed recently and planes nerfed, alliances then had to make sure to stockpile more steel. The combination of steel costs, political costs of aggression, buffing of defense (and therefore weakening of aggression), stockpiling behavior, and rampant changes (whoever wants to start the next war is going to have to consider being the guinea pig for this plethora of untested changes) is just going to stifle aggressors from starting wars. And again, like what Shiho said earlier, that'll just lead to a more stagnant and boring game. I'm not saying there should be zero changes to the war system. You may indeed want to help people get out of perma-pinning situations. But it's unclear what the effect of all these various suggestions are going to be when combined. For example, it's been implied that two of the previous suggestions are already going to happen, yet we haven't even been able to test them yet, let alone see them on the live server and judge them before moving onto another suggestion. I know the player base tends to beat up Alex about a lack of updates, but maybe we should slow back down a little bit, lol.

You need to figure out why your game attracts so many racists and neo Nazis. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=231349

Thank you very much for your kindness and advice. I just wanted to play in a fascist alliance for roleplaying reasons, since this game is about politics I assumed some fascist alliances might be here as well. But others took things very seriously, they don't understand that they are playing in a game.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I believe the answer to your question is no.

Cool, this idea fixes the imbalanced over-tightened ranges reasonably well , as well as prevents insane down-declares however, To prevent weaker alliances being permanently pinned down in a respective tier which is the case now due to the abusable dead military score i think it would be better to have military score increased like it was previously but not that much (Debatable) thus i think that will help the people to not fall prey to the abusable score which is now. Thanks

According to the game’s admin, both are legitimate within the game. Your preference for one or the other doesn’t affect that. The words and actions of fascists are indeed the same, they say they want to create brutal repressive dictatorships where the state is all that matters and that’s what they do. There has never been a communist country on this planet. What you’re referring to are socialist states or socialist countries, if you prefer that. No country throughout history has achieved the criteria that define a communist society, namely being stateless, classless and moneyless. Every country run by a communist party so far has maintained the state, money and class divisions. As for whether they’re failures or not, that depends on what they were trying to achieve. They were certainly plagued by crimes against humanity, just like more or less every country under a fascist regime. It’s true that some communists like Marxist-Leninists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, while other communists disagree with that concept. The elimination of all classes simply refers to the process of creating equality in an economic sense; by removing the distinctions between classes, basically wealth, all classes will merge into one. It doesn’t mean literally exterminate literally everyone not a part of the working class (though as a fascist I can see how your first instinct would be to think that). And while Marxist-Leninists want the dictatorship of the proletariat, fascists just want a dictatorship. With that in mind, it’s pretty hilarious that you think fascism has any kind of moral high ground over communism or at least Marxism-Leninism when both of those ideologies have led to atrocities of the same nature. How can you criticize the dictatorship of the proletariat and defend fascism when fascism is by nature characterized dictatorial power? It doesn’t make sense and it’s a glaring contradiction. Basically it seems to me like you’re okay with dictatorship as long a it’s “the right kind” of dictatorship. A simple internet search will show anyone capable of reading that this isn’t true. The nationalistic tendencies of fascism create a slippery slope of beliefs that lead people to embrace racist views. Many fascists have been and continue to be racist. Racism was a key characteristic of early German fascism and continues to be a characteristic of fascist movements in Europe today, typically in the form of thinking non-Europeans are inferior to Europeans. Suggesting that there isn’t a single racist fascist or that many fascist movements haven't married fascist politics with racism, is just wishful thinking, disconnected from reality. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re trying to twist the real nature of things to fit what you yourself want to be true. Fortunately, wishing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

And I'm telling you you have no experience to know that and that pres only experience is in elite alliances with membership who didn't NEED to be managed to begin with. Your opinion doesn't count for shit if it's backed by hot air, get that through ya head mate.

shots fired everywhere in this discussion!

Sorry but I'm not, a large portion of Fascist leaders have their origins in socialist circles and groups. Including the leaders of 2 of the axis powers (Mussolini joined the socialist movement, and Hitler joined the NSDAP). You're right that Fascism has stark differences to socialism, but there is no denying that the ideologies roots lie there. *Should Digress that I'm referring to the early 20th century fascist revival movements and not the early Italian model, not pre ww1 movements which were somewhat friendlier, and very unlike the fascism we think of today* It's a pretty complex history, it's fair enough to argue that fascism as a concept has it's roots elsewhere, but the people who managed to put it in action started with socialism

Im telling you that you are greatly overestimating how hard it is to manage 15 people. And you misunderstood my comment, as with the city score update and beige update had benefited TI greatly I didn't state my support for it, this is an update that would be detrimental to my Alliance compared to the lack of beige, and I still support it, because its a good idea and gives people getting hit the hardest a fighting chance, and that should speak volumes in itself. Either way, I'm not squabbling with you on this anymore, I made my point.

See this just proves my point, I'd never have to solo plot out an entire war for TI, I have a very competent MilCom Team whom I deliver instruction too and we all then instruct the alliance It's a pyramid of instruction of simple orders, that when most people complete it , a cohesive and complex strategy is unfolded across the entire system. You say I lack experience yet you are the one here complaining about being inable to properly lead a much smaller AA. On that note, it takes experience to recognize experience, there are many transferable skills and bits of knowledge you can bring here from other games, and when it comes too PVP Nation Sims, managing the war effort of a 5 year long global is just the tip of the iceberg for me.

I agree, communist themes should be banned too.

Yeah, I've heard it all before buddy. If you didn't really want to talk about politics, I find it funny that you started playing a game called Politics & War and then proceeded to talk about politics. The fact of the matter is, like I said, that the evil things those people did still don't make the evil things done in the name of other ideologies any less reprehensible. The numbers aren't important, even a single person murdered by an authoritarian ideology is one person too many. Look, if you don't realize that in games like this alliances that brand themselves with communism, fascism, capitalism or whatever else attract people who identify with those brands, you're the one that doesn't understand how the game works. No surprise there. I mean, look at yourself. You come in with a username that I can only assume is a tribute to Francisco Franco, asking if there are any fascist alliances around. I don't think it's unfair to assume you might have taken a liking to fascism in one way or another, just like it wouldn't be unfair to assume that because my username is Big Brother I probably enjoy the novel Nineteen-Eighty Four. Sure, this is just a game but it doesn't mean that I can't play the game in a way that is hostile to fascists if that's what I want to do.

Who else is 99% sure this guy is trolling?

Afrika Korps. Also please don’t bother to apply to TKR in the future.

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.

Good luck guys! Love the DOE

Hodor.

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

As opposed to when we discuss and make productive posts and then features roll out which don't include our input? Alex is going to do whatever he likes regardless of whatever input anyone gives on anything, as proven by literally the entire history of the game. Frankly my only question at this point is why. For someone who hates moderating the game and doesn't like public outcry and pressure, he seems hellbent on consistently implementing the most poorly constructed and disliked proposals by the vast majority of the active player base and alliance leadership in the most rushed and destructive way possible.

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?

All alliances start from somewhere.

I had 12 cities at one point. The "Delete City Option" really helps with tiering and helping new players.

>1 man AA making DoE

Cool theme and I like your DoE's aesthetics :) Good luck!

you look promising

Your acronym is BS. Nice.

Good luck!

JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE VOID TOUCHED AND THE GLOBAL ALLIANCE AND TREATY ORGANIZATION Optional Defence and Optional Aggression Pact between the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization and The Void Touched Preamble In recognition that the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization and The Void Touched agree to peace, friendship and to grow and support each other as time passes. Article 1 - Non-Aggression No member nation of either signatory alliance may attack a member nation of the other signatory alliance. Any violation of this will result in immediate reparations equivalent to the damages done. Refusal of the violating nation to pay reparations can result in severe punishment from the alliance they are affiliated with, and the reparations will be paid by another nation of the aggressive alliance. Both alliances agree to peace between each other until article 5 has been activated by either signatory. Article 2 - Optional Defense In the event of an attack upon one signatory alliance the other signatory body may come to the defence of the attacked alliance. This is optional and encouraged, but not required. Article 3 – Optional Aggression If either signatory requests aggressive military it is strongly encouraged for the other signatory to provide what assistance it can, though both parties accept that this is not an obligation. Article 4 - Intelligence Any information picked up by a signatory of one alliance that may contain information leading to hurt/danger towards to their signatory partner must be given to the government of the partner alliance as soon as the information is picked up. Any other information or intelligence picked up by one signatory alliance may be given to the other signatory government, but there is no obligation in this case and it is completely optional. Any privileged information from this relationship may not be shared without the express consent of both parties. Article 5 - Termination This treaty may be cancelled if one of the articles given in this pact is not met or one of the signatories has done something that shows ill-will towards their partner alliance. Unless both alliances agree to termination, there must be a 48 hour notice of cancellation before the termination takes complete effect. Global Alliance and Treaty Organization - Governance Inaugural Assembly Chairman: JMKeynes (JMKeynes#7172) Inaugural Vice-Assembly Chairman: CRV24 (Crv24#3514) Inaugural Minister of Foreign Affairs: ComradeV (ComradeV#6086) Inaugural Minister of Domestic Affairs: Skoriaan (Skoriaan#9981) Inaugural Minister of Defense: Tobi (Tobi#0119) Inaugural Minister of Finance: Armen Yao (Armen#1085) Void Touched Lotus: Luviel Arbiter: Gabe Prime of the Stars and War: Dabigbluewhale Prime of Harmony: HorusLoyalist Prime of Credits: Aaroneus

For civility sake. We wont be disbanding. We will not bow to comments such as that.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are either of you to assist the other in case a real big alliance hit the other

Prologue: Once upon a time there was a lovely princess. But she had an enchantment upon her of a fearful sort which could only be broken by love’s first kiss. She was locked away in a castle guarded by a terrible fire breathing dragon. Many brave knights had attempted to free her from this dreadful prison, but none prevailed. She waited in the dragon’s keep, in the highest room of the tallest tower, for her true love’s first kiss. We all know how this story ends. But what we don’t hear is the dragon’s tale. We wouldn’t even know the dragon prefers to go by The Federation (TF). A strange title, you may think, but for a dragon a fairly normal one. TF was fed up after years of knights coming into the domain. You see, dealing with one self-pretentious knight barging into your home and ransacking it all like he owns the place is one thing. Years is quite another.. And so TF packed up and left to see where the world would take him. Soon, news of TF’s journey travelled fast and reached the ears of an odd assortment of characters from across the kingdom who were also fed up with the medieval treatment. The first was the giant gingerbread man, The Immortals (TI). How did the gingerbread man earn such a title? We shall see. You might think being a giant gingerbread man would be fun, and you would be wrong. Burdened by constant taxes by their lords, the faraway kingdom had become home to hordes of famine-struck villagers. Everywhere TI looked were hungry and betraying eyes. And so TI left to join the dragon TF. Soon, the party grew. First the encountered the leprechaun, who went by the traditional Irish title, The Ampersand (&). & was wanted for drinking the king’s entire supply. It seemed the alcohol only made & stronger and smarter. There was Hawkeye the Dark (Fark), who mysteriously existed in the faraway kingdom but quickly became a valuable member of the party. So was the ever-mysterious Florida Man, locally known as The Fighting Pacifists (TFP), capable of performing any act. The final member came when the party reached the vast, oceanic domain of King Triton, or as he came to be known, The Lost Empire (TLE). TLE was sympathetic to their cause, and so he banded together with the dragon TF, the giant gingerbread man TI, the leprechaun &, Hawkeye the Fark, and Florida Man TFP. And when the journey finally came to end, there was a beautiful friendship. And so the friends gathered together and settled in The Swamp, where they agreed to the following: Chapter 1: Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Who is the swampiest of them all? All members of The Swamp agree that should any information come to light regarding the security or welfare of another, it must be shared. Chapter 2: Well, I have to save my ass. If any member of The Swamp is attacked, all other members agree to militarily, financially, and diplomatically defend one another. An attack on any member of The Swamp is an attack on the whole swamp. Chapter 3: Can’t we settle this over a pint? If any member of The Swamp decided to start an offensive war, representatives of all other members must be notified at least 24 hours in advance. Other members are not required to join. Chapter 4: What are you doing in my swamp‽ All current members of The Swamp must agree to the admission of another member. Chapter 5: This is the part where you run away. Should any current member wish to exit The Swamp, they must inform representatives of all others 72 hours in advance. Epilogue (tl;dr): The Federation, The Immortals, The Ampersand, Fark, The Fighting Pacifists, and The Lost Empire agree to an MDoAP bloc henceforth knows as The Swamp.

I am aware that this thread does not exist to entertain my back and forth with you, but let me ask you this. What purpose does it serve? If you believe it to be a solution to disorganization, additional text that needs to be read is just ungainly. What Adrienne and I have put forth will ultimately allow people to sift quickly through all threads with the same tag, and will occupy no space in the thread title itself. It is not a particularly big change, and I fully expect someone to come in a few posts down complaining about me 'whining', but I don't want to add [tag] when I can achieve exactly the same purpose with something far less obtrusive and far more useful. Thanks for actively working on the upkeep of forums, by the way. I appreciate that.

Why not use the tags feature instead of trying to make it included in the title? It distracts from the announcement else.