Leaderboard

I've noticed that every now and then the debate about what's a macro and who's a macro comes up in the community. And now, with even more terms becoming more common, such as nano, superpower or great power, it can be confusing for some people(myself included). I thought that it would not only be fun, but also a different way to talk about this topic with a TIER LIST, I know, so cliché, you couldn't come up with a better idea like a WoT and a TL:DR at the end? NO, I like having fun, plus who cares if it's clichè, am I right? Guys, am I right? Anyway, the intro was already to long, let's dive into this, here's how I thought we could divide the different power tiers: S tier, the SUPERPOWERS: basically, the alliances that make the moves, that keep the game entertaining A tier, the GRAET POWERS: alliances that still keep the game entertaining, but hold a bit less influence, compared to S tier, usually they need to be paired with another alliance in order to exert their power effectively B tier, the RISING POWERS: these are the alliances that are on the right track to become a great power, when they do something, it doesn't go unnoticed, they can also shake the game, but not as much the above tiers C tier, the MIDDLE: these alliances aren't irrelevant, but they are also easily forgotten. They do influence their bloc, nonetheless, but that's about it, they don't influence out-of-the-bloc politics D tier, MICRO POWERS: these alliances don't have influence over their bloc, at least, not enough to be noticed, and usually just follow the steps of the bigger alliances they are tied to E tier, NO POWER: alliances that are forgotten, they only make it to the news if they disband, it's a pretty bad tier to be in, usually no-one wants to be tied with you either F tier, THE FORGOTTEN TIER: if you can find alliances that you believe are even worse than E tier, this is the place for them. Basically as E, but worse, the game would be better without them Extra tier: the last tier is basically for alliances that you're unsure where they can go, no label on them Here's the link to the Tier List, feel free to change the tiers and explain why you did, hope this will make the topic more understandable to newbies, but also kinda see where different alliances stand from different Point of views. LINK Here's mine, in case anyone's wondering:

I always enjoy these, because i see these flags, and have no idea who half of these alliances are.

Option 4, easily. I play P&W in spite of myself.

To Whom It May Concern The Band of the Falcon has successfully slain the alliance known as The Vision! It is thusly declared that the following terms be adjudicated by the victors of this war. Statue I The Vision, heretofore referred to as TV, will be placed under armistice against the Band of the Falcon, heretofore referred to as The Band, for a total of ninety (90) days. Statue II TV is hereby forbidden from committing further acts of unwarranted aggression, i.e., "Merge or Die" conflicts. The Band hereby pledges a pact of intervention, regardless of standing treaties, in order to adjudicate this statue. Statue III TV will not recognize the peacekeeping operation from The Coven as a hostility. However, The Coven will withdraw peacekeeping operations at the time of the signing. Statue IV Should TV as an entity cease to exist during the 90 armistice period, which will also represent the length of the treaty in totality, the treaty is temporarily rendered void until it fully expires. If TV returns to fold, then the treaty reactivates. Signatories The Band of the Falcon Sheriff Big Jim, Commander of the Falcons Lord Prince Velekk Hemlock, Commander of the Falcons The Vision Executive Minister OwO, Visionary

I just want out

Incredibly sleep deprived as I'm writing this rn and therefore didn't read the rules too thoroughly but tbh most alliances are just happy being good allies and not standing out a great deal. So a couple of these are probably in the wrong places but imo overall political power is too concentrated within a few places, and it would be nice to have a larger set of politically active actors.

Given Rose and t$ complained about not being able to influence the game with their own spheres, thus needing to ally up. I'd argue that potentially no one meets your S tier criteria.

Out of all the micros that have posted on the forums, y'all have been the most competent. Keep up the good work.

I would love to see somebody put together a power rankings instead of a tier list, and every week or two move alliances up and down the list in terms of perceived political power.

Falcon's involvement in this war was pretty sweet to see, micros about to dominate PnW news soon!

Congratulations to the victors. All of Orbis can take note of the military prowess of The Band of the Falcon and hope we can aspire to such levels of sucess. May your victory reign on your alliance and bring fruitful bounties.

And I'm here trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty. Don't own a car? I'm calling homeowners about switching to solar power to save you money! Don't own a home either? OOF.

im here to meet single women in my area

I see no issues with these terms

This is just a poll I made for fun, not related to the dev team or anything they're working on.

They should've accepted peace before we forced them to.

I mean it’s not bad in the slightest. These terms make sense imo, they even recognised just how fragile nanos are (and how much they get reformed) through the disbanding term

Suck it! i choose 4 of the 5 options. I dont follow your rules!!!

To be honest, this leak should have been backed up by some kind of evidence, anyone can create a fake leak. They should have provided the transactions, otherwise it's just mere speculation

Where is the troll option. Please fix

I'm just in time to meet my annual Quota of "Ships needs buff" post. So here is the slight suggestion: When airstriking ships, ships should count as 2.5 defending "planes" in the formula. War Ships have guns that shoot planes, this isn't some huge new invention it's just a thing that exists. The damage done to the ships should remain the same. Why? Well here is a short list: This would make airstriking ships less valuable (and naval striking ships more valuable). This would make boats more valuable, and seeing their price i believe they deserve a bit of a buff. Make it more interesting to defend a war. A C30 can have 450 ships (5*3*30) and 2250 planes (15*5*30). If a C30 with max Planes attacks a C30 with max Ships (and no planes) the succes rate for an immense triumph would be around 92%, so it wouldn't compeltly change the meta in that regard. The attacker would lose (this might be somehwat innacurate, I might have !@#$ed the math, please tell me id i did) on average 60-70 planes, the defender between 35 and 40 ships. Still a profitable trade net damage wise. The C30 might be able re rebuy for a long time, but that would cost a !@#$ ton of money and once peopel focus him he is screwed. The real change would happen when the defender still has planes too, airstriking ships when the enemy still has planes would hurt like a !@#$. That's all, it's a minor change, but one I like, thanks for comming to my ted talk. Ps: if the 2.5 would be too strong the number could go down and vice versa, just giving an idea here.

Credits to @Vicic for burning his dinner

How has nobody made a propaganda thread for the biggest, best, greatest, and most consequential war in this games history yet? Here it is, everyone. Give the world your best Johnson memes, or face certain death at the hands of our hegemony. I'll kick it off.

I hereby on behalf of Haunted Mansion, preemptively surrender to the combined hegemonic forces of Johnson's.