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.

Design Team Lead Prefontaine Design Team Members Adrienne Lucianus Keegoz BelgiumFury Decagon Zig Canbec Krampus Penpiko Anri 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.

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

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

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.

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.

i would agree your proposal sounds a bit more reasonable.

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.

As the golden sun slips past it’s watery veil, the clouded sky burns bright with fire. As the red hues streak across the sky as red velvet the darkness consumes it. Swallowing the world into darkness. As I stand on the bow of my ship the only light visible to me is the glow of the lanterns. The sky seems to envelop the world in a vast void. No stars to guide me, no winds to pull me. I am myself alone on this ship waiting until morn’ to carry out my adventures. But until then I am calm, I am quiet, I am at peace under these.... Article One: Darkness Covers All Black Skies does not favor anyone on the open sea. Both pirates and merchants slip past each other under the cover of darkness. Ships are free to relax, take a breath and enjoy the sea for how peaceful it can be. Black Skies is open to all play styles. Raiding, Banking, Flipping or RP players are all welcome to relax under the onyx sky. Article Two: Guidance Through The Waters Black Skies are hard to navigate. Your charts with locations and sightings have no meanings anymore. You are left to wander adrift and must learn new skills to safely navigate the darkness. Black Skies is willing and ready to teach players about other alliances and help them find which is the best choice for them. Should morning find them they’ll have the knowledge and power to seek out for that alliance. Article Three: It’s Dangerous to Travel Alone Black Skies are treacherous. You can get stranded on shoals, lose your ships to rocks, smash into debris or even worse lose yourself over the side by a swinging jib. As such you should always bring a sailing buddy lest you find yourself stranded and alone. Black Skies is open to listen to all forms of treaties with other alliances. It is the intention and goal of Black Skies to help wayward sailors find home again. Should members find Black Skies as their home we are willing and able to not only propel our friends to new heights but to protect them as well. ...I wait for hours, days, maybe weeks even. These Black Skies do not lift. It's a blanketed mass stretching out for miles. Am I lost? Have I found the Locker? Am I doomed to an eternity? Nay, says I, as I reach for the helm. If a man has no course and every course at once, how can a man be lost under these… these Black Skies. Signed - Guilo, Commander of the Fleet Join our discord here: https://discord.gg/rcqGP3N We're open to all treaties and offers.

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.

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.

Your sh***y excuse to post just to bump this thread for your ego says a lot.

Not sure why this is being downvoted. Having an extra layer in place to try to filter Alex's shit decisions is a good idea. It's better than nothing.

congratz!

Tittle reminds me everytime I try to check my nation I always see Politics&SNORE SCREEN. Why am I so lucky to go everytime at update time uhh

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.

How do you end up with fascism being derived from socialism or are you merely commenting on the authoritarian commonalities shared between communist Russia/ China etc and that of Nazi Germany / fascist Italy? In terms of actual ideology, the two of them are quite different with considerably different origins. You could state that fascism developed in response to the advent of socialism but it is incorrect to state that fascism is an offshoot of socialism albeit both of them are considerably opposed to traditional capitalism in differing regards.

The argument between Big Brother and Fancroist was fun, but uh... you're both right ig. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism, in the same way Nazism is an offshoot of Fascism. So if socialists get to distance themselves from Fascists, Fascists can distance themselves from Nazis. But every Non-Nazi Fascist Government was run by !@#$ too. Nazis weren't the only bad fascists. So no one should defend them either. Make a Fascist AA when you have the funds if you want, I don't have anything against it not being against the rules, but part of having a fascist OR communist theme is dealing with people whose sensibilities you've offended.

I agree, communist themes should be banned too.

Who else is 99% sure this guy is trolling?

Most of the time the only people who care about that distinction are fascists and Neo-Nazis. To the rest of us, they're all just trash.

The great nation of Pontus Euxinius is looking for monetary investments The nation recently united under Emperor Ciprian the 1st and the civil war had a toll on the economy We are looking for Forein aid to be able to put back the nation on its path to Greatnes

Mine's based off a story I used to write sometime around high school/college. Never got even a little close to finishing it but had fun creating the background/characters, so when I joined here, I made it my theme.

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

Ayy lmao

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?

In before the "disband and join BK" clan show up Seriously though, good luck

All alliances start from somewhere.

well... at least he is trying

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

Good luck guys!

>1 man AA making DoE

you look promising

Your acronym is BS. Nice.

good luck out there.

Good luck!

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.

Yes, I have a concern. This is horrible for purposes of creativity, and makes alliance threads look incredibly sterile. That people have found clever ways to name their announcements and threads should be encouraged as it adds taste and flavour to the game. A far superior method of accomplishing organization would be to give players the ability to add forum tags to threads, like so: E: Surely you mean 'Thread', and not 'Threat'?