Leaderboard

Brawl-y-wood or Brawlywood Hollywood and Bollywood fight (brawl). Perfection.

The Monastery hereby declares existence on Orbis. https://discord.gg/nNChbpC7aT https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=9084 Preamble The Monastery is an alliance open to all which is founded on Christian values. The Monastery will be welcoming to all denominations. We will serve Orbis as we grow in strength and number. We will be the salt and light of Orbis, God willing. Article 1: Organizational Structure and Policy The Treasury Acts 4:33b-35 And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. The financial operation of the monastery will be that of benevolent capitalism. Everyone is welcome to grow to any size at any pace but is encouraged to give to the growth of fellow members and other benevolent causes. Any member may submit to a tithe or may give as the needs arise. All members are expected to help others as the needs arise. The Arsenal Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 5:43-45 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. All members are expected to defend The Monastery and all allies. In doing so, they will treat any enemies with respect, and seek at all times to help their enemy enjoy losing. The Chapel Ephesians 5:20-21 (Give) thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. All members will submit to the code of conduct. Upon violation, the member may be rebuked and, if the member remains unrepentant, they will be cast out. Article 2: Code of Conduct Any and all member nations of The Monastery must be respectful to each other and others outside this alliance. They are to uphold the manners of a Christian and shall not bring shame upon this alliance nor the name of Christ. All members must abide by these six rules: All members will abide by the 10 Commandments of Orbis. No member will undercut another nor pursue price gouging on the open market. No member will VM to avoid war. All members will be active. All members will maintain an adequate warchest. No member will raid without the consent of a nation’s alliance government. All members will have fun. While The Monastery is an inherently Christian alliance, there is no formal requirement that any member share our beliefs personally, or that they hide their beliefs should they be different. We encourage friendly discussion and debate where differences occur, although mutual respect must be maintained. All member nations are to abide by the rules and regulations. Any leaders, however, must profess their faith. Article 3: Protectorate By the grace of God, our alliance will, for the time being, be protected by The Knights Radiant Carthago. If The Monastery seeks to part ways, a minimum 1-week notice will be given. https://youtu.be/qehwr2MMTqg?t=291

Daddy Strikes Back

Right now, an account setting exists to "Hide custom nation descriptions by default:" Rather than hiding all nation descriptions, it puts a button on your own nation page to allow others to hide yours. My suggestion is to, by default, have the Hide nation description button present on all nation pages so we can minimize the nation descriptions at will. Example nation with the button activated : https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=19772 Example nation that could 100% benefit from it: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=158017 Note: this is a solution to the following thread

I'm pretty sure 770 is a scam and not an alliance.

So a few months ago we had the pleasure of getting nation description boxes, most people did in fact not like them, i still despise them suckers. But they were gone. Untill yesterday, when the fire nation attacked and they are back (without notice i think?). Can we please: Not have boxes with a scroll bar on our nation page. (so like they were untill like two days ago). OR Have the option to remove them in our personal settings. I am perpetually scrolling on nations but not going down because I am going down in nation descriptions instead. I am extremely This is a stupid subject which I am far too opinionated about, please remove them again. I beg you Alex. Thanks in advance.

320

319

318

317

316

315

314

313

312

311

Er, KT was obviously the best Christian alliance

I disagree. Cornerstone lived a good life and was put to rest. This is a new work. Also, I was told by many in no uncertain terms that I should not be called CS due to the stigma applied to it by the older generations. Those who were part of CS know the good that happened internally, esp. in the early days. Those externally mostly saw LPS war dodging, somewhat weak and variable leadership, and tiering that caused the highest city count to get raided out of the alliance. And others I'm not sure about.

310

320 321 we posted at the same time 😂

Literally anything but Error 522, because Error 522 can describe literally any war in the past 3 or 4 years. Go for something unique, that actually describes the war itself, not a quality that can be attributed to any war.

Hello Orbis I am NejiTheHokage Glad to be here!

Don't farm buy food and join a alliance.

“Gerasimov’s Doctrine” – a key to Russian Success On September 22 at the Finnish government’s Koningstedt residency in Vantaa a meeting took place between General Velery Gerasimov the Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of United States General Mark Milley. Military Commanders have held internal negotiations in the past – in 2019 in Geneve, Switzerland. As always, official information on the agenda and results of meetings of heads of general staffs of two strongest armies on the planet stands out in laconism and restraint. According to the press-service of the Ministry of Defence of Russian Federation the Military Leaders discussed “issues of mutual interest including lowering the risks of occurrence of incidents during military activities.” In the Russian Defense Ministry, by the tradition, which has settled in the international diplomacy, it has been noted that the meeting "carried constructive character". The Pentagon stands in solidarity with the Russian colleagues that, by the way, happens not so often. Mark Milley's press secretary colonel Dave Butler with the reference to the chief has noted efficiency of the meeting. According to him, Valery Gerasimov's dialogue with Mark Milley "became the next stage of the negotiations directed at improving the communication between the military management in order to decrease the risks and find ways of evading conflict situations". As reciprocal curtsey to the Russians, Butler has shared Milley’s reverence for mister Gerasimov, having specified that both military leaders have not failed to show sense of humour, of course, "when it was pertinent". In spite of the fact that Valery Gerasimov's negotiations and Mark of lasted nearly six hours, details have remained in secret. Such state of affairs in the Pentagon was explained as "established practices". The surreptitiousness of negotiations between Valery Gerasimov and Mark Milley, on one hand, has strengthened the mysterious atmosphere around the Russian army and, first of all, it’s military leaders, on another, it has led to the rapid growth of interest among the western experts in modern Russian commanders. Special attention of the American and the European analysts is directed at the general Valery Gerasimov which is quite understandable as the head of the Russian General Staff for the last several years remains a recognized ideological leader and the mentor of Putin’s group of elite commanders. Among our military experts there isn’t one, who doesn’t have a strongly established opinion about the Russian general. He is characterised as a man with stone-cold face, he keeps confidence and calm in most extraordinary and unusual situations. Mister Gerasimov along with his immediate charismatic superior Minister of Defence Sergey Shoygu permanently accompanies the Russian leader Vladimir Putin on military venture, tests of the new Russian weapon, and also international visits (especially, to traditionally unsteady Middle East) and meetings with world leaders (as it was at the June summit of Putin and his American vis-a-vis Joe Biden in Geneva when the general Gerasimov was part of the Russian delegation). The trust of the head of the Kremlin Vladimir Putin the chief of the General Staff shows the high status and weight of the general Gerasimov in the Russian military and political elite is unprecedented. Cardinal difference between him and his predecessors, in our opinion, lies at mister Gerasimov’s excellent expertise in the field of military diplomacy that has proved itself during numerous meetings with heads of the foreign states and the governments. Besides, there is no doubt that the role of the general Gerasimov as a head and the organizer of modern Russian military science derived from the first Russian emperor Peter the Great, the creator of the regular army. By definition the head of the Russian General Staff is obliged with key functions of development and practical introduction of scientific concepts of the military constructions. His predecessors – Georgy Isserson, Alexander Svechin, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Boris Shaposhnikov, and many others gained outstanding practical achievements due to a theoretical judgment of character and forms of future wars. General Valery Gerasimov who looks good as the army commander, managed to be a successful leader and coordinator of modern military science. At the same time Gerasimov had a great luck to check the effectiveness of his means and ways of conducting modern war on the ground. Russia relying on its military force got back its status of a key power in the Middle East despite skepticism of its geopolitical competitors. Roger McDermott, professor in Jamestown Foundation said Gerasimov's role as president of Academy of military sciences (AVN) marked an important step in further improvement of the Russian army. He stressed that Valery Gerasimov's election as the AVN chair in December, 2020 was caused by his aspiration to let the academy revive the interest in military science and art of war. Being an inspirer of the Russian military science, Valery Gerasimov does his best in summarizing the modern armed conflicts experience and modeling of future wars. Meanwhile, his American colleague Mark Milley is not involved in any kind of scientific research and the analysis. Mister Gerasimov is widely known in Russia as the author of a number of articles in which he comprehends the experience of wars and military conflicts of the past and defines the character hostilities of the future. Mark Milley, the graduate of Priston and Columbia University is a rather a politician than a military theorist. Such differences between Russian and American military chiefs can be explained by differences of military systems of the two nations. The U.S. Joint Chief of Staff is initially engaged in combat operations planning, the Russian General Staff also conducts scientific forecasting. The American military analysts point to these disproportions in powers of Russia’s and U.S. military staffs. “The General Staff of Russian Armed Forces solves a much bigger range of problems than simple planning of operations. It is also responsible for development and improvement of the theory and practice of future war by forecasting. In the Russian military system the forecasting is directly connected with military science”, – Charles Bartls and Lester Grau wrote in the book “The Russian way of waging war”. Being directly involved into multi-level scientific researches on forecasting of the future conflicts, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian army is a key coordinator for the enterprises of country’s military and industrial complex. Possessing information on perspective weapons of potential foes, every head of the Russian General Staff, as a rule, personally supervises development and tests of the weapons of deterrence. Eventually, specifics of Russia’s political system in which military command is most distanced from election processes allow the Chief of the General Staff to concentrate on his professional duties only. The U.S. political system expects that the chairman of Joint Chief of Staff shows flexibility to minimize political risks as the White House administrations change. Theoretical concept of Chief of Russia’s General Staff caused discussions among military experts. The so-called “Gerasimov's Doctrine” is the concept of “new generation war” or the “hybrid warfare”: simultaneous use of power methods, information campaigns, political pressure, and economic sanctions. For the first time this term was used by the British researcher Mark Galeotti in February, 2013 – almost immediately after Gerasimov’s speech Russia’s AVN conference and the publication Gerasimov’s article “Science’s value is in foresight” in “Voyenno-promyshlenny Kuryer” newspaper. The article included ideas about a combination of military and non-military methods of armed struggle between the states. Afterwards Gerasimov’s article was also published by “the Military Review”, the popular English-language magazine, and was repeatedly quoted in European and American mass media. The research associate of the Kennan Institute in Washington Michael Coffman wrote that the term “hybrid warfare” was first mentioned in an article in 2005 by Americans James Mathis and Frank Hoffman, who used this definition to describe the nature of the military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Coffman considers that Gerasimov precisely described the western model of “hybrid warfare” in the Big Middle East and tried to explain how the West succeeded in use of non-military methods against its foes. Despite the intrigues around terms, “Gerasimov's Doctrine” is an issue of a great interest as it describes the scale of Kremlin’s foreign policy claims and effective actions of the Russian military using methods of “new generation war”. Helsinki meeting did not become a bright political event or a breakthrough in relations between Russia and the West. But the quiet Finnish capital once again gives a hope for the military chiefs of two nuclear powers mutual understanding. In a situation when politicians fail to find a common ground, military professionals are able to avoid new global shocks.

hi.

>TKR prot

I second this, both because it would solve my (linked) problem and because people should be able to minimize descriptions with one click if they want to. it's like a two in one combo deal. Great stuff.

Congratulations on forming the second best Christian aa Zig! Right after 770 of course.

Then people will know my true identity as Les Paul Supreme. . . Oh wait. . . On a more serious note, I didn't have the chance to read over the whole change of rules, but for players to have the chance to know what mod gave them a warning and so on would be a plus even if it's an alias. It allows for players to see if they're constantly being targeted by a certain mod, and compare said mod actions with other players with the similar offense. It would give the chance to single out issues like this of bias as the community, and make mods more identifiable even if it's just an alias. Just like me currently as a Forum Mod.

310

Good war, everyone! o7 @Sval I hope you like your 🥔

I take a fun defeat over any boring victory, maybe you're to new to understand it but I played this game long enough to know that "winning" means nothing, often people who want to win leave the game when they understand this, there's no goal so there's no victory, this game is just a terrible waste of time if you play to win

We need a question before creating a nation, are you here to win? yes/no If you clic yes you're blocked from creating a nation Why people need to win in this game? The only ability required is to be smarter than a primate, then numbers do the rest and after that both the winner and the loser will start again doing the same thing they did before the war, but if you are stupid enough to chose to make that war even more boring than what this game already is then I'm not sure about that ability required, but could be because when I started playing this game we had quality primates in charge of alliances

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

You know, let me put out my view on this general war. Hollywood deserved this rolling because of its really bad assault on Rose last war, wherein it obtained a tiering superiority and bulldozed both Rose and the people who came in to reverse the dogpile. Moreover, the winner of the last war was going to be the loser of the next war; i.e, if Rose had won the last war, it'd have likely been hit by Blackwater mid-war or by a combination of Blackwater and Hollywood the subsequent war. This would have been a result of a perceived Rose hegemony due to the specific outcome (i.e, the interventions were secret treaties and so on). The only way Rose could have won the previous war would have been to produce a decisive victory, and as a consequence of The Last Ride, Swamp was too shattered to provide the additional mass to overrun Hollywood. But, on the flip side, Hollywood winning despite a mild numerical inferiority WAS a major problem for Hollywood as well. The amount of force Hollywood faced implied that #1, that Hollywood had upper tier supremacy, and #2, that the game mechanics changes since Roqpocalypse meant that upper tier supremacy was potentially gamebreaking. The game in general felt that Hollywood had demonstrated that it was a tremendous threat; i.e, it had lost Guns and Roses by losing. Hollywood, in other words, had options available (just as Rose coalition had options available), and its choice of winning the previous war (and I still suspect Rose etc sabotaged their last war) resulted in its current and devastating loss. ==== As for more general remarks, the repeated rollings of Paragon, Paracovenant, then NPO and IQ obscured key facts about this game, simply because for you guys, Paragon, Paracovenant, and NPO were non-entities and non-people. War is not fun. No one is going to deliberately start a war they won't win (barring suspected "rigged" wars like Surf's Up). Unless !@#$-ups occur, wars WILL be dogpiles, because the defender won't really have much chance of successfully repelling the assault. The losers will lose their infra, some alliances on the losing side will collapse (see what's happening with Chocolate Castle right now), and even if the losers have the logistics for the infra-destruction to be a blip, they will not be able to play the game for the weeks to months the war will last. Or, in other words, as people have remarked regarding other games, "wars are against the rules of the game, just not enforced as such, because they're rarely fun for the losing side, and are effectively a way of driving them out of the game." If, say, we increase the counter-dogpile mechanics in the war, first, we increase the strength of harassment attacks (probable WTF, probable KT), which could ruin the game meta on its own (i.e, optimal warfighting protocol is now to send harassment units out), and second, we make the dogpiles even worse. As I've said before, no one will launch a war they do not expect to win; Hollywood did not launch vs Rose thinking that they had a substantial chance of losing, Rosynd did not attack Hollywood thinking that they didn't have the forces available to conduct resistance, and so on. ==== Then, you might ask, what are wars fundamentally about? They're about power. They're about achieving a strategic configuration for the post-war that's favorable to the initiating side, so much that they might be sufficient to eventually achieve a hegemony. While I've shown I've disagreed with your whinefest about how "unfair" this war is (to reiterate: all wars are unfair), I do agree that we are fast approaching a bipolar situation. Or, in other words, the minispheres concept was NEVER going to be stable; it was a facade (and the facade in itself could have been useful) and was eventually going to break down. And it's still your goddamn fault for the breakdown; if you had never attacked Rose the way you did, interventionist forces would never have had to intervene and demonstrate their own incompetence. Regarding this state of affairs, I am somewhat disappointed that minisphere system fell apart so soon, first, and that it is likely going to devolve into a bipolar arrangement as opposed to a tripolar arrangement (a tripolar system will degenerate into a bipolar arrangement eventually). But it was TKR-sphere, Hedgemoney, and collectively Hollywood's call that caused all of this.