Leaderboard

Reminds me of this

I like this idea a lot, in order to help encourage political discussion @roberts please be aware that anyone who joins the server and claims to speak on behalf of Oblivion, regardless of alliance, should be masked as an official Oblivion diplomat with my full backing.

So, I am not sure if the BW vs HW war was named yet, but I am fairly certain it is happening on the P&W game threads for some reason? This being despite immense opposition from players. Sure, lets please the players who are going to create a nation and nominate a name like "Merry Nukemas" then never log in again. I get trying to make it more accessible, but how inaccessible is the forums. The in-game threads don't even have an actual vote mechanic. If the player isn't engaged with the community enough to be on forums how do you expect them to know what's actually going on in the war. Come on guys, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The forums was just fine. Nobody complained I don't think and we got input of players who are actually engaged. THANKS FOR READING. DON'T FORGET TO HIT THAT UNSUBSCRIBE BUTTON AND DROP A DISLIKE

Hello everyone, It's been a bit chaotic lately, but I think we're on track to deploy the following changes to the live server early next week: New Alliance Positions system This is the main update that has been in testing for a long time because it is so complex. We are currently running a tournament on the test server to help identify and fix bugs - so far, aside from some minor bugs, it's been working fine based on the lack of bug reports. This change replaces the existing alliance positions system (5 static positions: applicant, member, officer, heir, and leader) and replaces it with a custom system which contains these default positions, but also lets you build and name your own positions and define what they can do based on 15 different permission options. In theory it's all setup to be backwards compatible such that your existing positions will migrate to the new default positions in the system, with more or less the same permissions selections. But I will be available as it's deployed for any necessary hotfixes. The Score you get from each City after City 1 is reduced from 100 -> 75 Treasure Trading system If you have a Treasure, you can create a personal trade offer to sell it to another player using a new page interface. You cannot send buy offers for Treasures - this is to prevent attempted abuse of noobs by sending spam offers or unfair offers There is a mandatory minimum Treasure sale price of $50,000,000 to prevent shenanigans You cannot trade Treasures if you are involved in any active wars You cannot trade Treasures in Vacation Mode You cannot buy a Treasure if you already have a Treasure Three new National Projects are being added Government Support Agency Improves Domestic Policy Effect by 50% (5% -> 7.5%) (1% -> 1.5% for open markets) Costs $20,000,000 - 200,000 Food - 10,000 Aluminum Research and Development Center This project provides two project slots (net: one additional project slot) Costs $50,000,000 - 100,000 Food - 5,000 Aluminum - 1,000 Uranium Resource Production Center Every Turn the nation gets 1 raw resource for each raw resource they can mine besides food (based on a chart found https://politicsandwar.com/nation/edit/map/ ) This bonus increases for every 2 cities they have up to 10. This Project no longer functions above 15 cities 1-2 Cities : 1 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 3-4 Cities : 2 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 5-6 Cities : 3 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 7-8 Cities : 4 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 9-10 Cities : 5 Raw Resource(s) Per Type Costs $500,000 - 1,000 Food The monthly Credit redemption limit is going to increase from 10 -> 20 This is a way to increase the revenue generated by the game, which is important as expenses have been increasing as I have hired an additional part-time developer as well as two full-time moderators in the past months The reason for increasing the Credit redemption limit, rather than just increasing prices or increasing the value of each Credit, is to allow those players who are less price-sensitive to spend more money on the game each month, while making Credits (and the benefits they confer) still accessible to the average player Credit prices will also increase slightly - they haven't been adjusted in years and I'm more or less just trying to keep up with inflation Option to hide left-hand sidebar and replace with a top navigation bar on desktop We set this up a long time ago and it's been an option on the test server for like a year, I don't think anyone really uses it but we'll deploy it live in case anyone wants to use it New Dark Theme I hired a designer to build out a new, updated dark theme for the game, which you can test currently on the test server. It's probably not perfect, but shouldn't be too bad Once these changes are deployed and any outstanding issues are resolved, some top next priorities include (but are not limited to): Finally implementing a new and better new player tutorial Setting up and testing with a test server tournament some changes to war mechanics Finally implement proper push notifications for the App versions of the game Fixing improvement destruction bugs, and probably a new Espionage op to destroy an improvement in one of the target's cities Among other general game improvements. --- I know that I have not done the best job over these past few months of keeping up with things - a lot of the work that has been done on the game has been stuff behind the scenes, such as setting up a pretty comprehensive moderator UI to allow me to hire moderators to help out with daily moderation work, which is a lot more to do than you might think. Getting that established and getting the new moderators trained in has been really, really helpful in freeing up more of my time to actually work on development. Another roadblock was that the part-time developer I hired a year and a half ago had no prior experience playing Politics and War. While she is a great programmer and has made a ton of quality-of-life improvements in that time, anything related to game mechanics has required a ton of oversight. The new part-time developer I am bringing on has experience playing the game and it should be far easier for him to do bug fixes and make changes to mechanics fairly independently, which ought to speed up the process of game development significantly. If you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer. Thanks everyone for playing the game and making this community what it is; none of this would mean much if it wasn't for all of you players building and maintaining the community around the game

They already have this. Its called #the-balkans https://discord.gg/royal-orbis-news

I'll keep it brief here: Orbis politics on the forums is slowly regaining speed, but it's 2022 and off-site forums are a dated medium. Political discussion usually happens in a news server or in whatever discord happens to be active in that particular moment. Without an effort towards some form of centralization, politics becomes diluted and may appear to many as if it's not happening at all. To this end, I've teamed up with people from multiple spheres to create a discord server specifically for the purpose of political discourse. The idea is to give a platform for the leadership and FA heads to discuss the issues of the day without interjection or spam found in other public chatrooms. There is also a section for everyone to comment or discuss anything being discussed by the leadership. there are no closed off rooms - everything is visible to everyone The purpose of this server is not to replace embassies or DM's, but to give a public talking space for In-Character interactions. The organizers of the platform will occasionally prompt discussion if things are beginning to slow down based on recent alliance announcements or Orbis Central threads or even just the latest rumor. I've begun collecting FA heads and Leadership from around Orbis, but of course I can't get them all in a day. If this idea interests you, I highly encourage you to come by and check it out! https://discord.gg/6wtMx4GK

I am in favor of literally anything simple and solely player-run as the current administrative bureaucracy running the war vote is so slow that almost anything would be better; trying to introduce a different ruleset or different mechanics for the vote will just make that process even slower.

I spent a week in Rose, it was basically just t$ with chess tournaments. This bloc makes perfect sense to me.

TFW people don't understand that a net of +1, *on top of the +1 you CURRENTLY have*, is 2. e.g. "I have 14/15 project slots." "Let's buy the new project slot, project!" "Oh wow, I now have 15/17 project slots!" It takes 1 slot, gives you two more *on top of that*

Great. Time to get my next update list ready to go and accumulate more downvotes!

Finally. Only took 13 and a half months :epic: #goAlex #makePwGreatAgain #myAdmin!

I was about to say welcome, but get off green ya good for nothing moochers.

looks like youre running 6 nations from one location

Before I get into the changes, lets just briefly discuss what function beige is supposed to be, and what it is in the current meta. Currently beige is something you want to avoid letting your opponents get in a global war. It results in what should be the victors moving the war to expiration to cycle the defeated party. What beige should be is a means for rebuilding after being defeated in a war. The current plan pulls from previous concepts that were well liked at the time and has a focus on simplicity, which was also requested at the time. All wars end in beige. If the war would expire, the nation with the most resistance win. If the resistance is tied, the win goes to the defending nation. If no attacks happen by either party in 20 turns, the war ends. Beige timers do not begin reducing until all defensive wars have ended. If a nation leaves beige early, their units are 10% less effective in offensive wars for 12 turns. If a nation wins a war, that nation can produce an additional 25% units for the remainder of that day. This number stacks but is always calculated off of the base 100% unit production levels. Points 4 and 5 stem from wanting to allow offensive parties some edge if the win the first round of wars while the defeated side is regrouping. To clarify point 4, if I was going to send an attack that would kill 10,000 soldiers, it only kills 9,000 instead. This 10% reduction will not effect victory (IT, Moderate, Pyrrhic) rolls, just the damage done only in offensively declared wars. To clarify point 5, if I can produce 10,000 soldiers in a day and I win a war, I can now produce 12,500 for the remainder of that day. If I've already built 10,000 I can now build an additional 2,500. If I win a second war that same day it only increases to 15,000, not 25% of 12,500. This benefit only lasts for the remainder of that day. If you win a war 2 minutes before day change, this benefits window is only 2 minutes. Some sitting/cycling will occur when nations on losing sides declare offensive wars in the opening wars. If I'm declared on 3x and then go offensive in 2 wars, if my 3 defensive wars end quickly my offensive opponents could wait to reduce the beige timers. However if I'm done fighting back in that round the beige window will allow me to not be blockaded, resupply and rebuild to out swinging. This can be fixed by making it so beige doesn't start reducing until after ALL wars are expired. As a nation needs to not be in beige to declare wars. This route allows for nations to artificially lengthen beige timers though by declaring a war right before they're defeated.

Okay so you want spy attacks to kill 4 spies? So when exactly do alliances get to spy military during a global? Mechanics are fine, you're rewarded for being offensive, which is realistic otherwise nobody would go to war

Who wants to talk to people? Especially in public, where other people can see.

Return to Forums!

Today we have hit a milestone as an alliance, Grumpy is now 2000 days old. You may be saying to yourselves, 2000 days doesn't make it your birthday... Well folks when you are as old and grumpy as we are, everyday is a milestone. I am extremely proud of all of my members and allies over the years that have helped us and allowed us to reach 2000 days old. Many imitators have been created and disbanded since I thought to myself... man taxes are the worst, I should create an alliance that would run exactly how I would want it to run if I was a member. After a few months of procrastinating and a global war, Grumpy Old Bastards was born! With the belief that the best person to spend your money is you, upholding a strict membership standard, and aligning ourselves with alliances that I felt upheld similar standards to our own. Thank you to our former allies over the years, Hogwarts, tC, KT, Error 404, Cotl, TGH (if I missed you on this list, sorry I am old), Thank you to our current allies, TKR, Oblivion, BK, NW and TI. Huge shout out to our long time best buds in Guardian, we couldn't do what we do without you guys. A shout out to the guys that have been with us since the beginning. Aenir, Hammy, Korben, Goldie, Ajax, you guys took a chance on my little startup and I think we have done alright. Also a shout out to the guys that have been the core of the best alliance in the game for quite some time, Beli, Joey Bakes, Sen, Inco, Tamer, Trevor, Boysun, Mal, Dave, Hodor, Seph, Akak, Rosen, Alex. A big thank you to our newer members, and the ones that recently came back. Thanks for bringing down the city average! Lightside, Brumle, Hillbilly, Evul, Jim, M3, Eragon, Zero, Shadows, Vice, Alrea. Thanks to all the former Grumpy members who have either moved on to other alliances, or since left the game, I appreciate the time/effort you guys put in. Guys like Warhawk, Master, Zig, Don, Jim Beam, Printer, Blackass, Verlion, and a dozen others who have carried the name Grumpy. I may be the leader, but you guys are Grumpy, and make it the force that it is today, I cant brag about being the best without you guys. Most importantly my right hand man and lady, Sammy and Pres, been playing with you guys for years, well before Grumpy was even a concept, before PnW was a concept, never would have made it this long without you guys, and I couldn't ask for better people to play with. Thanks to all of you! Lastly, I would be remiss not to mention all our enemies over the years, this game is no fun without someone to hate, thanks for the motivation to continue to build and grow. Here is to the next 2000 days! -SRD

I think this has been brought up before, but the nature of the way the in-game nomination/voting goes means the first people to make nominations have a significant edge, even if they are just the worst possible names available. Why would you name a war based on events of the first day? That's how you get horrible names like Error 522. NPO's Last Time was called Dial Up basically until the last possible moment, which is just a horrible name when compared to NPOLT. Bring the nomination and voting threads back to the forum - a place where players have to create an account to even finish the tutorial - and save us from the horrible in-game forum discussion thread UI.

Similar to Plane Attacks, i would like to propose some changes to how naval warfare works in the game. I would like some opinions on the proposition, some changes or critiques you all have of the idea. The types of battles include: Patrol Seeks out Hostile Ships. Naval Equivalent to Dogfights. Destroys 10-20% more ships than current (when attack type is used) Destroys 80% less infra (when attack type is used) Strategic Positioning Boats are placed in key areas for bombardments, as well as the naval equivalent for fortification. Best used when nation is under blockade and low on ships. Destroys 95% less infra (when attack type is used) Destroys 80% less ships than current (when attack type is used) Takes 30% more losses than current (when attack type is used) Enables a 30% infra damage buff on bombardment attacks (after attack type is used) Enemies take 10% more damage, while doing 10% less damage (after attack type is used) Bombardments and Defensive Attack's use 90% less gas and 15% more munitions (after attack type is used) Broken once a patrol is done (after attack type is used) Naval Bombardment Destroys 10% more infra than current (when attack type is used) current naval attacks already do a lot of infra damage Destroys 70% less ships than current (when attack type is used) Also feel free to share some other attack types, alongside what their pros and cons would be.

I like the idea of making ships less useless, but I think a better way to go about that would be to actually make them have actual impact on alliance wars. Right now, most alliances don't even bother maxing out ships when militarizing because the score they add hurts more than the value they actually bring. BUT. What if ships could kill planes? Doesn't have to be anything massive, just enough to make alliances actually bother buying them

photoshop

Can’t wait. Looking forward to seeing this game become bigger and better and offer more variety to everyone who enjoys playing this game as much as I do. Thanks Alex, your game means more to people then you even know. 👌

This project provides two project slots (net: one additional project slot) How is this true and yet that's an additional 2 projects? Yeah smooth brain moment nvm

Yay for updates!

No, but if you were at 19/20 Projects you could build it to put yourself at 20/22

The increased pace I have been seeing lately is quite refreshing and will hopefully bring some more livelihood into the game. Keep up the great work, Alex and team!

Never thought I'd see the day Parti responded to shitposts - ones not even directed at him - with seriousness. And you entirely missed the point too. Morality? No one said anything about morality. You're losing your touch, old man. You want serioustalk, go chat with Morf instead of bringing his points to my posts. I fulfilled my obligation in our embassy already. 😛

Neither duration of existence of former bloc nor number of wars fought with it are metrics that have any bearing on the merits of our signing. It is not tkr's place to dictate the morality of said metrics. Your other stated points regarding TS and rose being principle drivers and our treaty therefore being immoral is frankly undone by your standing treaty with GG. I will advise my government to simply ignore it as what it is- a flimsy justification of your outrage over the existence of a similarly tiered grouping. The bloc is here. It's competitive. It's not dominant or game breaking. It breaks an old rivalry and shapes a new tie. Ive yet to hear a solid argument as to why it's a horrible thing that doesn't reek of cognitive dissonance.

Your new bloc existed for what? 2 months? And through zero wars? And you were so demoralized by one alliance leaving, you felt the need to start over? That's the best argument I've heard for why Rose couldn't be considered competitive. Congrats.

What's up with the "lets reward stupidity and dog piles" attitude vs discipline and beige cycling?

👀

I made mine with Canva, though any software with some level of editing should do

With the hopefully soon incoming treasure trading feature incoming, I think its possible to expand that mechanic to be more impactful and varied. Currently treasures give a flat increase to both an individual and alliance. Once they are tradeable, it could be fun to have negative treasures spawn. New treasures: Spawns on X nations and provides a -5% income bonus to the holding nation and a n-1 treasure income bonus to the alliance (-2% if its by itself, 0% if there's another treasure, 2% if there are two positive treasures and a negative treasure) Gameplay ramifications: 1. Gaining a negative treasure could be beneficial, esp. during a global, as it would disincentivize people from beiging you and gaining the debuff. 2. Micros could approach macros with debuffs to gain them for a price much the same way that some macros buy treasure buffs. 3. Adds minor "random events". 4. Presumably easy to implement as the infrastructure for treasures is already developed.

So what is the sphere's name? Is it Assassin's creed theme? Or Assassins creed + house? I'm assuming t$ is Altair. Who is lupus? Its never lupus. Wait, Vega is that AI from doom! So rose is the an annoying AI. Oh yeah, Andromeda is from Mass Effect. And Gemini man is from Megaman 2! Idk what lepus is. Y'all pull out really weird themes.

I like the idea that we can build recycling centers to hold down pollution, but we don't see any other alternatives to hold back pollution. I would like to propose the addition of Hemp Grain & Fiber as 1 single commodity; obtained by an additional upgrade to the current 10 farms policy. For example, the 11th through the 20th Farm upgrade will be at a higher cost, and will produce Hemp Grain & Fiber which can be used as a "Green" alternative to producing Oil & gas(IRL we can take hemp-seed oil and directly pour it into an unmodified diesel engine and it will run). I can imagine it would be a good idea that Hemp farms would reduce pollution in a city by 15 or 30 points each as this reflects real life data that Hemp processes more CO2 than most other plants. "Biodiesel has been successfully used in Europe for over 20 years and has covered 30 million US road miles" quote from the website below https://www.travelinggreener.com/hemp-fuel/ I hope this gets trending in the forums i would absolutely pay money to see this happen. Ive already donated hopefully the admins will see this and code it up.

I wanted to talk a bit about how badly the spy mechanic is screwed up. In the real world, you cannot wipe out 1/2 of any country's spies with 1 attack by other spies, and completely destroy them in 3 attacks. That wouldn't be so bad if there was any way a country could rebuild its own number of spies after such an attack. This needs to change. It makes spies useless as a defensive weapon. I would suggest cutting the number of spies that can be killed in a spy vs spy attack to 1/4th of what it currently is, PLUS double the amount of spies that can be purchased per day when a nation is at war. (maybe that's too drastic, just a suggestion!) Also, the spy vs spy attacks while a nation is in beige should be completely abolished. Beige was supposed to be a chance to rebuild. This really needs to be re-balanced. It's just not something that can be overcome in any way. There should be at least a chance that an attacked nation can pull himself up out of an offensive blitz. Thanks for keeping the game fresher with updates, Alex!

but thats a net of two slots, isn't it? you could've bought one project, you bought one and now you can buy two

The war naming scheme has been terrible for a long, long time but I think the problem is a lot of the suggestions are not curated. If as you say in your first suggestion that multiple names are cut down if they are similar is good, and also in the name suggestions maybe have a bit of info explaining the name decision. I also think the community should not name all wars, maybe global wars, but it annoyed me greatly when RON is trying to name every smaller conflict and also casually repress any viewpoints and history about the plight of Armenians. Armenia matters and is a proud and ancient nation but the authoritarian oppressor's at RON flippantly dismiss any posts in support of Armenia and try to hurt Armenias Revenge in the name suggestion vote by stating "Our Manias Revenge" (and then deleting the suggestion completely). Classic Armenia suppression from a bunch of fascists at RON. We all remember RON trying to take de-facto war naming authority on the forums by stating that everyone use RON. Well we all know a certain group that does not get any representation on RON and that is Armenians. #DNN is the only tolerant and accepting news group not controlled by thugs and corporate interests. Armenia's Revenge is not just simply a war name, it is a movement.