Leaderboard

I'd like to start out with a disclaimer before I get jumped on (rightfully so, since this is only a rough idea) and clarify that I thought my idea itself is good, however I am asking for community help in the case the community finds this interesting enough. So to start, as the topic title suggests the idea here is to add "Alliance military." What do I mean by this exactly? Well it's actually quite simple. For every city a nation owns that nation can have up to 15000 soldiers, 1250 tanks, 75 planes and 15 ships. It would work largely the same. So for example TKR has (currently as of writing) 3851 cities total. So 57,765,000 would be the maximum amount of reserve they could hold in soldiers. Now here's where things get tricky because I thought of multiple ways this could obviously create problems, some of you are probably thinking "okay but if an alliance has such resources sitting in reserve they can just continually send out 'reserves' to keep their troop counts maxed" Your right to think that, which is also why I thought of the next step. Limitations on either how many times per day an alliance can send out their reserve forces and/or limiting how many times per day/week an individual nation may receive these reinforcements. So this is where I need your help, what would be the best way to achieve this in order for this to become a good idea? Do we add a bit of everything limiting an individual nation to say receiving these reserve troops to once every 5 days? Would that be too long? Should we also limit how many times an alliance can send out reserves to their member nations -10 per day as an example, or perhaps a % depending on how many nations are in said alliance or maybe a percentage of the total reserve forces on hand for an alliance? Next I'd like to just toss a small cherry on top of this suggestion. Similarly to aiding nations with resources in wartime if an alliances nation is blockaded and needs reserve forces you cannot send it to your member nation if they are blockaded which I thought would be a cool little addition that would add immense value to ships that simply weren't there before. In conclusion the idea I'm presenting is meant to help add a new breath of fresh air to the depth and intensity of a global war, give a new direction to alliance banks that at the moment only exist to give out city/project grants and 'save' up war chests and in rare cases help certain spheres from not getting caught completely with their pants down or rather giving them a fighting chance in what would be a day 1 lost war. Everything written above should be considered subject to change to fit in better with the communities feelings on if the subject matter in this topic can be of a benefit towards the entire game community or this is just another idiotic idea doomed to be tossed aside a few hours after I post this. Let the dunking commence. Thank you to the people that take the time to read this. I will edit this post with community suggestions if for some odd reason this comes off as appealing to you all. I hope it does, despite my terrible ability to communicate my thoughts and ideas. P.S just small small QoL clarifications - lets say an alliance has maxed out their reserve forces, if for some reason that alliance disbands without selling off the forces it will automatically sell off all military at the same return of an individual nation selling off military and be dispensed evenly to every member of the alliance, this does not include applicants. Also if you lose members from your alliance at max reserves you don't lose those forces but you cannot buy more until you've fallen under your new maximum. For example if TKR had full reserve and lost 20-30 cities, they would keep the forces those cities provided but could not buy more until they dropped under their new maximum.

Should have shown Dead rabbits money going away 😂

The nation in question can only receive the number of troops according to their improvements. So if they're running 0/2/5/0 the amount of soldiers an alliance can send will still be 0 until that nation switch's their build. Also as I mentioned if you blockade said nation they cannot receive any reinforcements & furthermore as I mentioned I was thinking there should be a 5 day cooldown for individual nations after being sent reinforcements.

If reserve units are cheap, it becomes a requirement for every alliance to have a max stockpile and there isnt a trade-off. If its expensive, each alliance will have to weigh the costs versus benefits of maintaining an expensive reserve army. Not having units will increase profits but will put you in a vulnerable situation if you get leaked. Being able to send reserve units to only nations in beige would better address the goal of making globals more dynamic, while not hurting Pirates.

Wish more people made vids tbh. gj

Greetings people of Orbis, For too long our fellow frogs have had no one to hear their reeeee. For too long, the oppressive alliances and blocs belittled and mocked us for our values. It is high time that Orbis celebrates M.I.L.F. M.I.L.F will not go quietly into the night, in fact, M.I.L.F is here because >bloc and it's inactive developer left this poor horny toad alone with nothing else to do. M.I.L.F is new and hot on the bloc. M.I.L.F entry should be coveted by old and new alike. Like in >bloc when enemy alliances attack M.I.L.F and lose, mommy hangs a new painting on the fridge. Soon, like all of us, you of Orbis will see this M.I.L.F and proudly proclaim, "Man, I love frogs." Signed, Daddy Frog - LEADER: Karan Rana Inquisitor Generalis - HEIR : vgk Heqet - HIGH GOV: Grock, Gatorcock, MrMoney, Paul2143, juuzou, JustAbear Froschen - LOW GOV: Anirudh, 佐藤達広, 𝕺𝖗𝖉𝖔 𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊𝖚𝖘 𝕴𝖓𝖖𝖚𝖎𝖘𝖎𝖙𝖔𝖗 For FA information join our discord: https://discord.gg/Mrd39Ad3aA Thread Theme Theme mixed by the Minister of Propaganda, the great DJ luxregem feat JustABear. Stream idem. Tldr: irrelevant micro born. Protected by CTO. Kthnxilubai

A project designed to combat offensive spy ops. It would lower the chances of a successful aggressive op toward your nation by let's say 15% currently but that number could be higher or lower as needed. It would also increase the chances of you knowing who did the op by let's say 20% (also could be adjusted as needed) even if the op is successful. Counter intelligence agency could also introduce a self op where you can have an x percentage chance of being able to reveal who may have done 1 of the previous ops against your nation. The range this would have would be solely within the 24 hour period of day change. Cost would be something like: 350mil~ 50k steel~ 50k Aluminum~ And require both central intelligence agency and spy satellite as a pre requisite

Some of the game I play in baseball doesn’t add up to my record . I am getting money but it isn’t registering that I play it . I play about 300 games and only show I play about 80

This is probably quite literally the only nation so far that I've seen that has gone this far without warning. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=312479 Legionry Romania was the !@#$/Fascist Government of Romania during WW2. His ground forces are named after the SS who committed tons of war crimes. His general, admiral and Air force commander is named after individuals of the fascist regime of Germany.

Earlier today I received a trade deal from a random nation. The notification was: 07/11 10:14 pm of sent your nation a trade offer. wants to buy 1 food in exchange for $0 each, or a total of $0. As you can see, there was neither a ruler nor nation name in the notification. My guess the player deleted their nation shortly after sending me the trade. However, the issue I'm facing is that the trade deal is showing as pending on the side menu like this: ...and on my nation page here: However, when I click it, I see no trade deal pending: ... As you can see, there is literally nothing showing here. So I'm not able to cancel this trade despite the game insisting I have a trade. It's not affecting my game play, but it is kinda annoying to look at. Just wondering if this trade can be cancelled by Alex or another admin. Thanks for looking into this!

That is super strange - let me see if I can just manually remove it for you

EDIT: This post was a bit of a cluster-f. TL;DR: Fortify should ask the user what to fortify against (air, land, sea). If user fortifies against air, and opponent uses air-strike, then the attack will be severely nerfed.

I think something like this is a much needed mechanic to make globals wars more dynamic and opens the possibilities for exciting counter-blitzes in the second or third rounds where alliances rebuild the military of tiered members over a couple days while in beige. Functionally, this could contribute to breaking the cyclical nature of large wars. In my opinion, for this mechanic to be balanced: Nations that receive units need to be on beige. To prevent cringe down-declares in wars and to protect piracy so that alliance counters can not instantly max out their military The number of allowed unit transfers per day needs to correlate with the size of the alliance (whether it be score, nations, cities, average score, etc) Alliance Reserve unit rebuys need to be very slow. 30-40 days to hit the max Unit upkeep should be similar to normal unit upkeep and the cost should be spread across all the alliance members Units shouldn't be sent to inactive nations that happen to have 5/5/5/3 military builds

Yes that's sorta the idea by way of the nation builds needing the military improvements to receive soldiers and yeah, blockading + 5 day cooldowns on anyone that did receive reserve troops, even if it's only 1 soldier or ship. I'm sure we could also add in a required log-in like if someone is red or purple diamond they cannot receive troops until they log in even if they meet the improvements required. So nation X is inactive for 5 days but is running 5/5/5/3 however nation X's military on hand is only 0/2/5/0, because nation X has a red diamond nation X cannot receive reserves until he logs in and the diamond changes.👍

If you can't send to inactive or blockaded people this may be a decent suggestion.

I thought of something else. I think all alliances should start at a fixed cap on military and allow them to upgrade the cap. That would allow alliances out of top 10 to have a say in this. Example: Fixed Cap: 10m Soldiers - upgrade for random amount - Upgraded Cap: 20m Soldiers

Spanky's idea was kinda like this.. Heres a way to fix it i just thought of. Tighten the war ranges and give the ability to send expeditionary troops to an ally. They count towards the units you have fielded, so if I lent lets say pascal 5k tanks itd count it as me fielding those units towards my max military but pascal would pay rss upkeep for them. Snd have them in his nation. You can only send troops in a certain score range. Doing this would force more cooperation amongst allies. It would also force the big boys to do more proxy like wars by gifting countries units and such. There could be a cap on the units based on your own military. So if pascal is lets say c15 with max mmr he can only get maybe 5 cities of max mmr units from me. Doing this would allow 3rd parties to intervene more in wars by gifting nations units without directly participating in wars. It would be a good mechanic because then in wars where lets say the prots are left out they could donate troops to their struggle allies without directly going to war. Or if lets say clock wanted to donate rose troops they could to a degree to help turn the tide. Tis a random thought I had lmk what yall think (taken from Ron) It would be a good idea If its done right.

its a bunch of work, i tried to make one once, and gave up just looking for free software to do it.

Would've been out by now, was going to go live but then war happened. Part of the delay is Alex's fault, but the continued delay is out of not changing things in the opening rounds of a war.

For the record, its not people, its you, throwing hissy fits when things dont go your way. I am glad to hear that if we decide to hit you in the future you are going to be cool about it tho.

live look at TKR Milcom chat

Think about it this way guys rose isn't bad at all they know what they are doing. So if they start playing this game and trying to win and do stuff right everyone would call for rose to be nerfed. Nah they just suck.

5 globals from now we will all be rehashing ayyslamic crusade memes.

With a common theme of accidentally sending the wrong nation/alliance funds meant for another, I do believe a potential way to lessen the frequency of these is sending a warning similiar to trades that outlines who youre sending it to (alliance/nation), their link (to verify), the amounts your sending, etc. Here's two examples of how it could look For Alliances:

A forthcoming project has been planned called Fallout Shelter: While this is a nice project, having it as an additional project may nerf nukes to the point of semi-irrelevance. I would like to suggest that the Fallout shelter is not buildable if a Vital Defense System (VDS) is also built. This allows a choice between low chance of blocking or a lower but guaranteed protection.

For someone who raids, it is very annoying when you have 5 wars, and you have to do the same attack over and over. I propose a feature where you can select the amount of soldiers and tanks you want to use, the attack type and the wars you and to initiate it on. It well then use as many MAP's as possible, and attack as many times in all of those wars automatically. This would mak2 it a lot quicker.

Actually, I like this idea. Fortification desperately needs a buff, after all.

Make more projects for raw resource mining. Have them run similar to the Uranium project.

because the whales pay admin xP rawr

Rather tedious and petty, I know, but then again, I think it could be convenient; especially after that whole Cosmonauts-Aurora thing (but let's not jump into that rabbit hole). I think some content contained in the message history would be; "[1st Leader Title/ 1st Leader Name] of [1st Nation Name] submitted a peace offering to [2nd Leader Title/ 2nd Leader Name] of [2nd Nation Name]. The proposed truce was [approved/denied/ignored/revoked] (approved if peace was accepted, denied if peace was declined using (may need a refresh on whether or not specific military action for "decline peace offering" is present) specific decline peace military action, ignored for decline by military action, and revoked if peace offering was taken back by offerer). An example would be: John Doe of Example Nation submitted a peace offering to Anonymous of Test Nation. The proposed truce was ignored. If the peace was accepted, the message could just be "John Doe of Example Nation submitted a peace offering to Anonymous of Test Nation.", followed by the usual message for when a peace deal is accepted and the war ends in a seperate textbox. Open to criticism.

I think just one for when it was offered would be fine. This would help clarify confusions of who broke a standing peace offer/agreement. This would mildly prevent abuse/spam of offering, taking it back, offering, taking it back, etc.

I like this suggestion because it goes against the narrative of "ships weak, pls buff".

Er Ok, the easiest way to explain this is, under the current game this would just be sheepy nerfing anyone who has ever been in a loosing war. The approval metric is just broken and awful.

So, I am currently being beige cycled in a war and I had a thought. I understand the purpose of cycling and can appreciate it use, but my suggestion is to make better use of the espionage system by allowing allies to try and smuggle goods into a nation currently being blockaded. This would allow alliances to support members and add a bit of intrigue into wars. I haven't totally thought it through, but on a failed attempt I would consider goods lost or possibly stolen by the nation with the blockade. Or if facing full slots, the items simply are destroyed in the attempt. Just a thought as I sit with zero gasoline and munitions and was thinking of ways that a nation that is in my predicament could find help.

A tree you can invest cash and resources in to unlock bonuses for your nation such as income increases, military buffs whether its damage or increase military building capacity, resource production buffs, buy discounts, etc

Personally, projects are a poor man's tech tree. I would much prefer a decent tech tree, so we could have more variety in nation builds. I'd make sure of two things though: First, add things like City Count, Infra Count, Land Count to the prereqs (along with any previous nodes). Maybe even stuff like "must own x improvements" or "x soldiers", etc. Two, have opposing branches in some cases. If you unlock x, researching y will negate x (and you'll lose it and anything unlocked after x). Also the further you go down the path of x, the more expensive y becomes. This stops nations (like myself) from simply buying out the whole tech tree. Which is currently what I've done with the projects (hello 23/30 project slots). It also makes people think about what they're choosing.

Add the ability for the alliance to see what their members are voting for (if at all) in regards to the colour trade bloc if Enable Alliance Information Access is enabled.

I look forward to seeing this update in 2024. Good stuff.

You're likely not on a continent that has coal. Only select continents do. Also, for future reference, this isn't the right subforum to ask questions. You can just ask in the Game Discussion main subforum ( https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/51-game-discussion/ ) or in the Discord server.

Actually, I think this idea has a little merit; the only thing it would realistically do is increase MMRs for anyone active enough to care.

Abracadabra

Theres no red. Denied.

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.

@AlexIsen't this a bit much? Found out by trying to share some stories with a newcommer ingame, about one of the former alliances that used to be around: https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Afrika_Korps Kinda make it bit hard when one can't mention them by name... Can't we get a freature, where players can turn the censor/profanity filter off on our own? So ingame message, can compete atleast a bit with discord.

Cursed treasures sounds entertaining. Should be able to pass it on through winning an aggressive war imo

We should implement NFTs into the game as well!

What.