Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/22/21 in all areas

  1. Yeah, okay, no. Much as I am not much a fan of NAPs, we all needed a $&@%ing break there, after 9 months of war and the game as a whole needed to recover. NAPs were signed before NPOLT too, you know. An extraordinary circumstance that I hope to God is never repeated is not the cause of what you're proclaiming when it's been something that's been prevalent for years and people have been complaining about since at least ToT.
    4 points
  2. 3 points
  3. Can we put the nation link back in the forum name, so when someone posts something, I can click the link and look at their nation?
    2 points
  4. City defenses as build options. (AA guns, etc)
    2 points
  5. Someone had to take the bullet to allow the game to restore itself after several months of non-stop warfare which alienated most of the players of that time. The community took a huge dip in activity, there was a ton of rebuilding to do, and even then - a lot of players continued to leave the game. That "worst precedent" was meant to be a reset to the game. With one side of the war almost completely gone, it allowed the alliances and players that remained to rebuild after. You can !@#$ about it all you want, but you're still here, there's new faces around here leading since that time, and there's new alliances and new political schemes going on. Get the !@#$ out of here with your bullshit "worst precedent" crap. You can go through my history and see my various stances on NAPs. You can also talk to many of the leaders of that time and ask them what was my opinion. I'm pretty sure most would say I was against NAPs, or preferred short ones (Like 2mos, tops). The 6mo NAP after that war was necessary. Not my damn fault if you chose to follow or allow other newer leaders to followup on that precedent. (And if anybody is crying about a 6mo NAP after that hell of a war, you're a !@#$.)
    2 points
  6. Tbh I think spies should be buffed and deal more damage
    2 points
  7. There is a little visual bug in the espionage-menu. The operation costs are shown different. I guess the calculator doesn't checks for the Spy Satellite project (it makes spy-ops a bit cheaper).
    1 point
  8. Here's a crazy idea, how about when you destroy infrastructure, it actually stops things from working.
    1 point
  9. Oh, I also forgot to note. Go back and re-read that particular "worst precedent". You didn't have to follow it. I think 2 alliances opted out of it. There was a choice. Nor does a NAP really stop alliances from attacking each other. It's just text, there's no grand alliance that upholds NAPs and punishes people from breaking them.
    1 point
  10. All wars end in beige, this forces players to actually win wars and make gws more intersting as no side can horribly dogpile the other side as it gives them a chance to rebuild and fight back dealing damage
    1 point
  11. Downvotes show experienced player bias. Ofcouse energy put into this game might seem wasted. That might be also a problem with this thread. Veterans react most and will stick up for their interest, mainly maintaining the status quo. How about a forced reset for all.nations above c35 to c15 but with a banner saying 'I had over 35 cities!'
    1 point
  12. Change score ranges for wars because some down declares are just ridiculously unfair
    1 point
  13. Congrats on being the new Emperor of Rose, @Lucianus! Congrats on finally not being Emperor, @Valkorion Baratheon. Enjoy your retirement
    1 point
  14. Fix spies pls. Takes forever to build spies. They all die in a matter of 3 minutes
    1 point
  15. I am also FAIRLY certain that this is just a graphical issue and mathematically only one debuff is applied.
    1 point
  16. Peace in our time. I look forward to see what Rose's future holds. Best of luck!
    1 point
  17. Ships vs Ships seems to be too weak. At C9 at max Ships I can destroy about 12-14 ships in a naval blockade. My planes however can airstrike and wipe out 18-24 ships. The ships take up 240 gas and 360 munitions. The planes take 165 gas and munitions. Ships are stupid expensive to fight against other ships.
    1 point
  18. never expected kt to merge with someone
    1 point
  19. End of an Era tbqh. But excited to see what comes next!
    1 point
  20. Micro news not allowed here :serious:
    1 point
  21. Perhaps if you would spend some time doing something that actually affected the politics of the game instead of !@#$ing about something you think is bad for the game people would give a little credence to your tirade about a very small part of the game.
    1 point
  22. Interesting, "formally surrenders" = admission of defeat, no? If so then props to Rose for being a class act and not insisting on white peace after we spared them from what would have been the most embarrassing L in Orbis history, after getting rekt by a coalition half their size, but I guess they just needed the ego boost. Can't wait to see who they blob together with next war for their 4th consecutive dogplie in globals.
    1 point
  23. Don't worry. We don't have a NAP with you 😈
    1 point
  24. GW16: Ends with blanket NAP Literally everyone: NAPs are bad Literally everyone: NAPs encourage political stagnation and mindless pixelhugging HW: Offers no NAP to Roasis Inc in order to set a good precedent tS: Agrees with everyone (caught in 4k) Rose: (Absent from the political picture as per usual, wants to pixelhug and scared of getting clapped by BW so probably simping to Oasis to roll BW after NAP as we speak) GW19, BW + Rose: For shame! Shame on you!
    1 point
  25. Minispheres are like communism, started with the best intentions and ended in a disaster Never worked and probably will never work because there's always someone who wants to win, win what is still a mistery, only Alex is the winner at the end of the day Bipolar world was boring but at least we had more or less balanced wars for years because all the pieces were already on the table The only solution is to punish dogpilers, if two spheres create a coalition to hit another the other two join the war to turn it in a 3 vs 2, do it a couple of times and no one will do more dogpiles like that
    1 point
  26. my only questions are: why is it so expensive if it is so inaccurate? why do we need this? what stops me from using a nuke instead if they deal more damage and are cheaper?
    1 point
  27. To be honest, I always liked the idea of Approval Ratings actually doing something, but it seems difficult to incorporate into the game without destroying everything and everyone. Your idea is pretty similar to all other ideas I've seen about Approval Ratings, and I can’t say it’s one of my favorites, but I think you’re on the right path. Oh, and about the spy ops idea, no one cares that much about getting sabotaged to the point that they'll use 3 of their spy ops to trace down some random enemy, plus, it just sounds like an annoying chore that won’t actually be beneficial. But that’s just my opinion, after all
    1 point
  28. C40 vs C35 is not a one-sided battle. It's an extremely workable updeclare, comparable to C6 vs C7. I would actually consider it a sidedec, not an actual updeclare. For your range, it would be as if you had declared on a C28. The point is that while the number of kills for a single city remains constant, the agglomeration of cities controls damage stability. Let's say, for instance, 100 ships fight 50 ships. Ship fights, like ground fights, are symmetrical in the amount of damage dealt, but unlike ground fights, ship fights ignore population-based resistance, so it's an easier example. Ships deal between 8-12% of their count in damage, so let's say the 100 ships kill 10 ships, while the 50 ships kill 5 ships. So far, so good, right? But now it's 95 ships vs 40 ships, or 95% of previous damage output vs 80% of previous damage output. In a return fight, the formerly 100 ships have a strong chance to kill another 10 ships (50/50), while the 40 ships can expect to kill 4 ships instead of 5, a 20% reduction. Let us say, assume 12 MAP go in. 100 ships kill 10 ships on the first stab, 9 ships on the second stab, and 9 ships on the third stab. That's 28 ships killed. The 50 ships on the other hand, kill 5 ships on the first stab, 4 ships on the second stab, and 3 ships on the third stab. That's a total of 12 ships killed, vs 28 ships killed, or about 85% of what having 50% the number of ships should actually imply (12 vs 14). At the end of the exchange, the 100 ships guy has 88 ships left. The 50 ships guy has 22 ships left, or that the 50 ships guy has lost more than 50% of his ships, whereas the 100 ships guy has 88% of his ships. If we continue infinitely, ignoring rebuys, the 50 ships guy, in another 2 engagements, will have about 5 ships left, while the 100 ships guy will have 85% ships left. Another attack by the 100 ships guy finishes off the 50 ships guy, or in other words, the 50 ships only manage to kill 15 ships, while the 100 ships have killed 50 ships. That's very disproportionate to what a 2:1 ratio looks like on paper. This is why Lancaster's Square Law applies to PnW (even if we go to a salvo damage model, as a TKR player who really should have known better tried to obsfucate with). The 100 ships are not twice as powerful as the 50 ships, but four times more powerful than the 50 ships due to their greater damage stability. === As far as the game being too incompetent these days, I actually agree. The near-abolition of plane strat has dumbed down the fight. I still recall when, during Nova Riata vs Pantheon, I deployed a bunch of Pantheon members using Soldiers-Planes vs max-milled Nova Riata. We eventually overextended, after which Classic BK saved our asses once NR had been exposed with the infinite resources exploit, but NR's fighters were getting decimated, deplaned, and rendered non-operational despite fighting a nominally weaker force that had half their members. This actually formed a sort of trinity, because tanks were useful for certain applications, planes were useful for certain applications, and ships were useful for yet another set of applications. Tanks were used primarily as raiding tools and also to bulk score, in order to present a unified line and to prevent easy updeclares. The relative disutility of tanks in a conventional fight, likewise, provided an interesting meta in which tanks countered soldiers, planes countered tanks, and soldiers countered planes. Plane stratters were vulnerable to people conducting raiding ops against them (as they still are, except plane strat does very little these days), and presented exactly what you were asking for, a way to counter dogpiles. Now, if people went to max tanks to counter raiding ops against planestratters, as people are doing now, they bulked up score massively and made themselves vulnerable to downdeclares or planestrats. These days, everyone maxes tanks, but there's really no penalty because plane strat doesn't work anymore. === But, honestly, I think you're just enjoying the extent to which downdeclaring is broken right now, and you want to have the game changed so that whoever the upper tier controls the game. Or, in other words, we should just make it so that Wampus owns the game, or alternately everyone builds a Wampus and goes to straight PnW feudalism (tons of farms and a fighting caste). Numerical advantage is a fundamental aspect of the game; hell, you arguably won Roqpocalypse because of your numerical advantage (Alex listened to the masses). You are asking Alex right now to privilege the few (with way too many cities) over the many, and depending on how well the few donate / pay up, it might end up being the case. Since NPO has departed, I don't have any particular affixation against a game made up of Wampuses and farms. In fact, I'd think it'd be exciting to an extent because of the sheer douchebaggery we could expect (Schrute, Greene, etc) from these people who have been built up with the cash of the masses and the ideological bullshit we could expect from people who can abuse their "lessers" with pure downdeclares. I'm retired, the game, imo, is built around douchebaggery, and it wouldn't bother me.
    1 point
  29. or we could all start being transparent with treaties and stop caring so much about the aesthetics of having seperate spheres on the treaty web. i swear nobody would care about intersphere treaties if it weren't for the visual treaty web. Instead of just getting past a simple stupid aesthetic we keep having unknown alliances.
    1 point
  30. These mechanical changes aren't solely beneficial to a losing nation. These all seem designed to make it a lot more difficult (or rather, impossible) to take someone's military down and keep it down, which'll make it much harder to defeat nations with more cities/military. It also reduces the games already simple strategy, since this would remove any kind of beige cycling. If that's the case, imo there should be other mechanisms so at least people with more coordination can be rewarded for their efforts. What i'd like to see: If you are kept blockaded and run out of resources, you should still have options for fighting, albeit in a diminished capacity It should be easier to break or bypass blockades The kinds of attacks a losing nation does should be buffed (without severely changing the dynamics for everything else) Ideas: - Allow buying and using soldiers without power, but they are weaker or the cap is much lower - Increase soldier tank kills, but also casualties to other soldiers - Some mechanism for receiving funds when blockaded (with some costs and limits associate with doing so) - Reduce navy rebuy to 3 days (maybe increase naval MAP usage and navy losses to air as a debuff for this?) - Have utter failures destroy some amount of infrastructure (though much less than a successful attack)
    1 point
  31. Personally I think we should just change the mechanics so that Wampus can declare on any nation, that he can declare on any number of nations, and that no one can declare on him. Would be a fun meta. === To be explicit: GnR already proved that updeccing is extremely weak right now. Updeccing depends on dogpiles. Your proposed changes, by weakening updecs more, could finally shift the game beyond the C4 barrier where the optimal strategy is now to have a bunch of farms feeding Godzilla-type nations a la Wampus who duke it out in mass city-buying contests so they can get sufficient supremacy to downdec the rest of the game.
    1 point
  32. This statement is correct. You shouldn't be able to win a dog pile, if you have failed at politics to the point of getting dog piled, you should lose. If you are able to politically maneuver your opponents into a dog pile, its pretty ridiculous if the game mechanics are such that your opponents have a shot at winning a fight.
    1 point
  33. Let the largest nation in the game be allowed to participate in the other half of the game! #FreeWampus
    1 point
  34. Not enough dislikes, obviously untrustworthy. Who does this guy think he Is? The Maker of the Game? I don't think so.
    1 point
  35. OWR hereby recognizes hostilties from aargh! Go arrgh roll that already rolled micro!!! such wow!
    1 point
  36. make it only 2 def war slots all war end in beige bring back old ground control. rn you can just use tanks to take out the enemy airforce without any aircraft, which is just !@#$ed. air attacks are kinda useless rn. wanna kill planes? use tanks. wanna kill soldiers and tanks? use tanks. wanna kill ships, ok NOW use planes. naval battle are useless, except for 1-naval beige rush. too expensive. reduce muni/gas usage. for spies, just reduce them by 1/2. aka max spies is 25, w/cia its 30. that way its doesnt take 5 years to rebuild spy count.
    0 points
  37. Id say make a progresive weakening of military. For example, above 300k soldiers make them less effective, 400k even less effective, and so on and so forth. This would break the importance of supernations with c35+ and would give newer players a bigger impact on orbis. Same with score ofc so bigger nations can be targeted easier.
    0 points
  38. Solution: Bring back that you have to get ground battles to win a war. Airstrikes/Naval/Missiles/Nukes do not affect war progress, but are simply to secure stategic edge. Model 1) Each start with 100 resistance, Ground battles do 10 resistance each IT, yady yada, u know the drill. Basically only change is Airstrikes/Naval/Missiles/Nukes do not affect resistance. Model 2) You need to get N Consecutive Immense Triumph's in Ground Battles. If enemy is able to secure a pyrrhic victory when you are at N-1 victories, suck to be you, start over. Basically back to '16 wars.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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