Leaderboard

My name is Gray85 and I have been playing politics and war for about 5 months. I am in the knights radiant and really enjoy the book series that the theme is based upon. I am the father of daughters...so I am outnumbered. My wife also plays P&W and yes, we have been verified. Look forward to building relations and learning more from others.

Attention heathen nations of PANTHEON: Your blasphemy is horrid, and the lord damns the wanton pillaging and violence you visit upon the peaceful people of The Kongo! Let ALL THE WORLD KNOW we are merely defending ourselves against these savage blasphemers! WE DID NOT INITIATE ANY AGGRESSION! The people of The Kongo have been through much anointing this government. The Kongo is TOO WEAK to defend against this alliance of heathen nations. We ask that all true believers in the lord and savior come to the aid of the god fearing people of The Kongo. The Kongo awaits the might of the one thousand nations of the world to avenge these massacres! Even now, our soldiers are fighting to defend the lord's kingdom. Signed this day 27 of October, the YEAR OF OUR LORD 2020, Commander of the Lord's Resistance Army, Divinely appointed ruler of the Kongo, Joseph Kony

I will admit, it hasn't been a great year for our Lord overall, and we still have two months of joy left. I, for one, welcome the formation of The Orbis Hague - Criminal Court.

Since I pretty much invented the idea of offshore, and founded Yarr for that purpose, I offer the following suggestion to fix the problem that it now represents. When I left Yarr, we had over 60 bil in cash alone. All that needs to happen is that when a bank officer is blockaded, he or she cannot access the bank screen or make any transactions. This will still enable the process to work, but make it possible to disrupt its function...

As uranium gets used by your reactors a small amount then converts to depleted uranium, and you may choose to use it in an attack to give your units a small boost similar to how you can choose whether soldiers use ammo. I don't want to get into the particular balance in this post just whether you guys think it would be a good concept. The concept being to introduce a resource that would dwindle in supply during the early stages of a global war, creating a certain milestone. Having it be rare enough that not everybody can afford to always use it, and to fight without it wouldn't be a guaranteed loss. And to add an extra element to the current war system.

I def like this idea, as an addition this could be a new espionage op, where you use the depleted uranium as a crude bomb in a city

Countering is indirect and tries to make raiding unprofitable. This would be a way to directly protect alliance members instead of a deterrent. Perhaps it would be a good idea if defending made you unable to attack the attacker/defend other alliance members from the attacker. Also, having it so the defender would need to have a similar score to the attacker, perhaps?

Well this was an enjoyable read. But well a couple of newbie advice for you, since Pantheon kinda suck at tranning people, and just sucks in general. You need to stop producing food, you don't have enough land in your city for it to be worth it. You better of producing any other ressource like oil, and then selling that raw on the market, and then buying food from the market, you will earn quite alot more. Other then this try to max out your barracks in all your cities so you can get the most amount of troops you can have. If you have a nuclear power plant in your city, you don't really any other powerplants, a single nuclear powerplant is more then enough to cover your need. Then relocate your oil power plant to another city, and buy some oil to power them, if you don't start producing oil.

No, this is a complex diplomatic manner, involving dozens of nations and two whole alliances. We must have this space to effect a meaningful dialogue of PEACE, in the NAME OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. We humbly ask that you respect the piety of this thread and allow the diplomatic negotiations to proceed unhindered. We simply cannot tolerate this type of disrespect to our faith. The Kongo are a pious, humble people. Who are you to deny them peace?

Single nation alliance post aside... you're probably the first person I've ever seen say "The year of our lord 2020." All I have to say on that matter.

What on EARTH are you even talking about???

It saddens me to have to announce that Sphinx has stepped down as TCW Prime Minister as of earily this morning. He has announced that Putmir will be taking over until such time a proper election is held. Sphinx will remain in TCW but will be entering an extended vm due to RL obligations. Any FA interactions can be done though Me, or by contacting Putmir, Purplemoon, or RH. For the Commonwealth

I will just point out that Zim made his pumpkin while drunk with rum. This should give him an extra point or two.

Hi everyone, The submission period for your P&W themed jack-o-lanterns is over! You can see our submission thread here: Now, it is time for voting! Please evaluate the following submissions, and submit your votes using this form here: https://forms.gle/vNUojjB94wcjz9ie7 We will announce the winners on either October 30 or October 31. Again, a huge thank you to Zim, Andru, Laurentino Cortizo, Adam the Conqueror, CloakedMidnight, and Rockychososo for sending in these fabulous submissions!

Currently when you have ground control or air superiority on an opponent, it shows their army combat values as if they are not under these controls, I am proposing that we update this to show their modified combat Value from the space control. Example: the opponent below is currently under ground control, making him able to use only 66.7% of his planes. His army value says 1410 however in reality it should be 939 as only 313 of his aircraft can defend. While we are on the subject of combat screens another change I am proposing is to make your choices such as how many units to send or to not equip soldiers with munitions to update the army value, max loot, max infra stats shown instead of being static to the original values. As you can see above, selecting these values currently shows the same values as before.

This lacks ambition. Needs a 12 month NAP.

With 2 out of every 3 suggestions being a new project, we need to re-examine how project slots function if that's going to be a primary mode of nation customization. 5-10 slots for the average nation doesn't offer a ton of freedom especially considering that several projects are "essential" to functioning in PnW. I have a few perspectives on this: 1. Classify certain projects as "Essential" and these cost 0 slots to purchase. These can be viewed as flat nation upgrades rather than nation customization slots. My personal suggested list would be the Intelligence Agency, Propaganda Bureau, Space Program, Center for Civil Engineering, Moon Landing, and maybe the two Urban Planning projects. Effectively all of these are firmly in the "need" category of projects rather than a "customization" category. 2. Tie project slots into different things other than infra. 5000 infra earns a project slot, 5 cities earns a project slot, 100 wars fought earns a project slot, maybe even certain achievements can earn a project slot. This would allow for a certain retention of project slots as well even if infra is shed, which I think helps further customization. 3. Allow project "swapping." You buy a project once and can choose when to equip, unequip, or re-equip it. Basically "unlocking" the project instead of paying for it multiple times. 4. Rework Pirate Economy into something useful and nerf the iron dome/VDS.

eyy lamo 20O deys of ErR0r

Ik for a fact qwerty is not a multi he has never broken a game rule that I can see, srry for writing but I thought it deserved to be said and the one who reported him AV Alan knows he's not a multi Alan is a troll who claims everyone is a multi he should be the one banned tbh

I have no idea if it is the right balance, but the idea is interesting.

Situation: Game’s economic system is fairly active and somewhat working well. Meanwhile, there doesn’t seem to be enough wars. Complication: How do we create more of ‘friendly’ wars where both sides know what they are getting into (I.e. they choose to fight a war). Idea: Discovery of mineral rich yet disputed territories. Mechanics: Game randomly creates a notification announcing discovery of mineral deposits in some disputed territory. Whichever alliance eventually owns the territory benefits from a temporary increase in mining (e.g. 25% increase in coal output for 1200 turns, numbers are placeholders). To own the territory, alliances need to claim the territory by clicking a ‘claim’ button on the notification page. Game randomly picks two alliances that ‘claimed’, to fight for the territory. Whoever wins (basically one side clicks ‘accept the loss’ button) gets the reward. Some territories can be claimed only by Top-20, some by 20 to 50 ranked alliances, and some by non top-50 alliances. What are your thoughts?

This is an extremely important announcement from your favorite pirate alliance. We’ve been the subject of a brutal hacking campaign carried out, likely, by the Syndicate. They’ve targeted us where it hurts the most, out of pure jealously that we are the masters of the Caribbean and their Nassau Office is a rental leased to them by Ripper. The YouTube video featuring Arrgh’s former alliance anthem was taken down resulting in a new anthem being chosen. Behold the new beauty of our alliance anthem: Though the jealous Syndicate tried to break our spirit, we preserved and came through this incident stronger than ever. I’ve spoken to Ripper and we’re definitely raising rent in Nassau as revenge. Thank you for your time. Arrgh!

It wouldn't be a proper TJest campaign without the entire AA disappearing over night by the end of it all.

I can wait for you to get an extra $50-60m.

Pantheon really going to cause another alliance to disband smh

It depends on the context. The question we should be asking is: Is the artwork game related? I'd consider custom flags for use in-game, on the forum, discord, etc. to be "in-game goods" or at least "game related goods" which would not be against the rules to trade for in-game money. If you were, say, a painter and someone commissioned you a picture of a horse that had nothing to do with the game and was going to be hung up in your house or something, but wanted to pay in in-game money, that would be against the rules. It's a gray area with some nuance, but hopefully that makes it clear what is and isn't against the rules.

As you well know, I think the worst of the forum's Karma system. I think it's overly politicized, and it's a sad replacement for actual discourse. Given the recent KERCHTOG outrage at my statements, I've considered instead the possibility of buying my way to like 8000 upvotes as a sort of FU, but I'd think that's sort of a drastic step. Instead, I am offering to sell my upvotes and downvotes. The beginning price is 1 billion for 10000 upvotes / downvotes, and of course I will exercise personal discretion on who is allowed to receive upvotes / downvotes. I believe this will help debase the quality of the upvote / downvote system as an indicator of poster quality, and help move Orbis forward to better forums and better communications. I am well aware that this post and my other posts will be chain-downvoted as a result of this, but seriously, it's Inst. Why should he care? In general, I would also like to point out that this is now an exchange for vote buying on these forums. If you'd like to buy / sell upvotes / downvotes, including those on me, all are welcome!

Got someone you hate? Want her/him to be downvoted into oblivion? Not going to be able to get the KERCHTOG hate machine to do your bidding? Call me. The basic rate, FYI, is 1 upvote / downvote for $100,000. This is a very accessible price.

Part 1 can be found here Problem: Improvements rarely get destroyed in cities. Nations whom operate at a low infra level while fielding large armies are able to fight for long periods of time without much monetary risk of nation damage while still operating at higher improvement levels. These improvements can be used to mine or refine resources that the city's infra levels should not be able to support. Solution: Damage Roll-over. The current damage formula for infrastructure damage caps at 1/2 of your total infra plus 50. What that means is if you have 1,000 infra in a city, and that city is attacked, the most infra you could lose in that city is 550. However it is very easy to kill more than 550 infra in a single attack, be it through a nuke, navy, or bombing. Lets say I was planning to attack that city with 400 ships, and my max damage was around 1200 infra. I spend a large amount of gas/ammo to launch the attack and I get a decent roll and do 1100 infra damage, but the cap system reduces it to 550, effectively losing me 550 possible infra damage. This is where the damage roll-over come into play. For this extra damage I destroy improvements. If we go by 50-1, that would mean I would destroy 11 improvements in that city. If we go 75-1 that would destroy 7 improvements. 100-1 I would destroy 5 improvements. Whichever ratio you'd want to go with works. In a long conflict eventually almost all cities in a nation fighting back at low infra would be forced to operate around the infra levels they are currently sustaining. Notes: These damage ratios can be tweaked for different units. Since nukes are devastating to buildings perhaps they have the most favorable output on damage overflow to improvements lost. It would give purpose to nuking a city with 700 infra. As air is an overpowered unit already (the only unit which can attack other units that cannot attack it back) the output on the damage overflow should be the worst by far. Damage overflow from ground attacks could gain you infra perhaps.

Over-powered. Wars are one-sided enough in this game, why make it so that you can completely wreck your enemy and remove any slim chance for them to get back into the fight. Alternatively it will just push up warchest requirements so everyone has enough money to just rebuy stuff during wartime

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

First, for those asking about the updates in this thread they are being worked on and will come on the test server first and then will be pushed live as Alex implements them. My hope is that they will all be out in the coming month. Now for the bulk of the thread Game Changes When Alex changed military kill rates he based percentages off of daily rebuys. The changes I'm listing are not changing those numbers, but instead are increased or decreased directly by the listed percentage. So if an attack kills 50% of a daily rebuy by Alex's listing and I say that is decreasing by 20%, then the attack is changing from 50% to 40% of the daily rebuy. Just wanted to be clear about that. Time to dive into it. Spies Spy Casualties reduced by 60% from spy attacks. Losses from failing an offensive spy op are also reduced by 50% Spy Satellite only increases damages from spy vs spy attacks by 20% instead of the base 50%. Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more difficult. If your odds of success were 75%, they are now 70% Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more likely to have the identify of the attacker identified. If your odds of being identified were 70% they are now 75% Soldiers 5% increase is casualties from soldiers fighting soldiers. (combine with tank bonus later) 33% reduction in tanks killed by soldiers. Soldier only attacks/defends kill too many tanks. Tanks Tanks ability to kill planes after gaining ground superiority reduced by 40% 15% increase in casualties to soldiers by tanks 5% increase in casualties to tanks by tanks. Planes 40% 25% increase in tanks killed by bombing runs. 10% increase in soldiers killed by bombing runs. 10% increase in ships killed by bombing runs. Ships 10% increase in ships killed by other ships. Treasures Treasures can be directly traded between players. Treasures cannot be traded while either nation has an active offensive or defensive war. A nation with a treasure already in it cannot trade for another treasure. City/Project Timers New City timers are not effected by projects. New Protects have their own timer of 10 days (120 turns) City timer resets are reduced by 1 credit to 3 credits. Project timer resets cost 2 credits. New Project Someone give a good name for this project Effect: This project provides two project slots. Cost: Cash: $50,000,000 Food: 100,000 Aluminum: 5,000 The cost/concept is focused on giving mid-tier nations an additional project slot. I'm highly open to the idea of changing costs to better reflect this. Whales might buy it, but whales have more project slots than the use in many cases. This one might get entirely shot down by Alex, I've not run it by him yet. Most of these other changes have the green light for Alex, but the numbers can be tweaked still. My plan is have this thread decided upon sometime around the first week of October, so please provide input during these next 10 days or so. These changes are the results of threads like these, suggestions in the suggestion section (like treasure trading and project timers). In addition the new project is due to a desire for more project slots. Attention is being paid and other conversations are being had on discord. Please continue to provide feedback. Thank you.

I'm new to the game, I used to play CyberNations 10 years ago or so. I like that the game has a better variation of the map than CyberNations did (does?), but largely it seems to be an unimpactful role-play thing. I've had the thought that a game like this could make the map / land mechanics more impactful. Stage 1 of game changes - purely cosmetic: - The world should be made of hex pieces, like the image attached. The hex pieces in the game should be much smaller than the ones in the image - The player sets where his capital city is. The player will always have at least one hex pixel. - Each city added will take up 1 additional hex pixel. Per (lets say) 5000 land purchased, another hex piece has to be occupied. - Player's land holdings have to be continuous - Land will be colored your nation's trading block color - We won't worry about players' lands intersecting in this first set of changes. Stage 2 of game changes - reset map, add intersecting and relocating mechanisms - The same mechanisms mentioned in stage 1 will apply, except for the intersecting portion - New players will be only allowed to place their nation that are (let's say) 20 hex pieces away from the nearest active nations, on all sides. - Players can relocate their nation, but this is limited to a once a month max (maybe once per 3 months?). - (Very) inactive players will have their land removed from the map, and be prompted upon next login to relocate their country and to select the new hex pieces they want to take. - New war type: If bordering a nation, you can declare a war of conquest for a selected bordering hex piece. - If you border an alliance member, you get a bonus of (some sort of bonus to incentivize alliances having continuous land - +2% increased population count, maybe?) - If the game gets many more players, the playing space can be expanded west and east, with new continents added. Stage 3 - more incentives to fight over land: - Certain hex pieces (that you cannot place your capital city on) will give benefits of producing more natural resources (e.g.: Oil hex pixel if captured by player, and if they have oil resource improvement, they will be able to have an increased production rate) I'm a programmer. I realize this would probably be a great deal of work, and I probably have not accounted for some abuse of the mechanisms to grief/troll others, but I think those can be overcome. I feel this sort of change would make the game have a cool visual component: we often think of real-world wars in terms of how land holdings changed, it would be cool to see a map of how the in-game world's territories were claimed by alliances 5 years ago, and where they are now.

Alliance militaries would be a mechanic to help defensive nations in a war. It would allow them to gather soldiers from other nations in their alliance, but only if the nation agreed to it. There would also be a maximum amount of troops you could get from other nations. This would be more true to life because in pnw, you have to blitz someone with 3 wars to get a true counter. But in real life, such as in the Korean War, the UN brought troops from different countries that did not necessarily declare war on their own, but with the United Nations. In order for it to not be overpowered, there would be a certain limit on the amount of troops, and the troops would be put back in each nation after the war is over, but some of them might not go back to the original nation because they were killed in fighting. This mechanic would only be able to apply to the nation on the defensive side in alliances. What do all of you think? I would love to hear from you, and I accept any criticism on this topic.

Have you ever greeted someone, and the moment that person opens his or her mouth, you start regretting validating their existence instantly? @Joseph Kony you may file your complaint in this form, please fill it out and send it back to me: Have fun! -Ichigo Kurosaki, Titan of Pantheon

There would also be a limit on how much troops they can bring in total, so not just like 100k soldiers but 100k military units in total. The numbers aren't set in stone but it would go something like that. I also like @Nukey6 idea about using war slots, that would mean it wouldn't be just whoever had more troops, but also strategic planning involved unlike the current system.

@BrythonLexiraises a good point but I do think a way to defend alliance members is far overdue. What if contributing used war slots? That way alliances would need to prioritize which members to defend.

Problem: Improvements rarely get destroyed in cities, no where near the rate at which the infrastructure that supports them gets destroyed. This creates an additional problem in that nations never really stop producing resources even during war, thus further saturating the market. Solution(s): Cities do not work as well when it’s operating above the improvement level it can support. If a city is at 40/20 (They only have the infra to support 20 improvements but have 40 from pre-destruction levels) improvements it operates at a 50% capacity, this capacity is capped at 50%. Thus if it was at 40/10 then it would still work at 50% but 40/30 would operate at 25%. What that means is you can only produce 50% commerce / refinement /raw production during this time. In addition to the improvement production rate decrease, when operating above the infra levels which your nation can support you improvements decay over time. For every 5 days a city is operating with more improvements than it can support one is destroyed at random (barring power plants) Areas to consider: Should this production capacity reduction impact military unit production -- This would likely lead to nations deleting improvements that focus on economy to keep an more functional military, or rebuilding infra. The complaint that this "punishes the loser", the loss primarily comes from reduction in income, as improvements are very cheap to replace. The real loss comes from lacking the production you had pre-war while you rebuild. Though this lessens resource/money saturation some. This limits the ability for the losers to fight back over long periods of time. This is somewhat of a blessing in that wars won't drag out forever -- well they might still but it makes it more costly for the nations with no infra lobbing nukes and such. The non-operational should possibly take effect after 5 days from the first infra destruction in the city. That way in a surprise attack those cities aren't instantly gimped, the reason for 5 days is that is the cycle of 1 war max time.