Leaderboard

The war system in Politics and War is utterly broken at the moment. Over the last 24 hours I have seen it only get worse. Some I know have compared it to the sinking of the Titanic, although laughable it almost seems true. I will list below just the bugs so far that I have seen or encountered over the last few weeks, many of which occurring within the last couple of days. No new map at day change for myself, but a new map for my enemies When you do a beige snipe you get an extra map from the turn before even though you declared this turn Someone who had two wars on the same person https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60760&display=war An absolutely bugged war timeline in regards to the new feature Alex added the other day, just look at the time stamps Being able to use maps past 12 saved(5 airstrikes(20 maps) at once is the most I've experienced) An instance where maps were conjured out of thin air and I was beiged because of it. This was not the map bug where they sat on 12 maps for a long period, they had 0 after they nuked(used 4 navals(16 maps) within 13 turns of launching a nuke) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1378717 I for one am demoralized. Once a fan of war and a proponent of it, I feel myself wanting to stop or simply delete my nation. The amount of bugs and as a result stress I have dealt with because of this are just something I would not expect from a game that has this very concept included in its title. My most accurate comparison for this feeling would be the stress or anger someone feels as a result of their internet lagging in a competitive online game. This is not a dig at the moderators or developers who are seemingly doing their best to solve the above problems, but what they are doing is just a band aid solution, individually going in and fixing wars. Alex needs to seriously take lead and solve these issues from wherever they source, as I fear many players will soon leave the game if this continues or even gets worse as I expect it will. I did not want to make this thread because I hate to feel that I have undermined those who I have spoken to, however this needed to be said publicly and I think there needs to be a place where people can openly post war bugs that they have experienced in hopes of finding some sort of solution faster. It is my hope that this thread will serve as just that. If you have experienced a bug not listed or if you just want to cope(like vein), please post below.

Hey all, I'd just like to sincerely apologize for all the issues we've been having with wars and MAPs. I'm honestly at a loss for why these issues all started appearing and I'm incredibly sorry that there's not much I can do about it. Rush and myself have been trying our best to manually fix any situations that have been brought up to us and I have some ideas for ways to rewrite the current system for after this global to try to prevent issues like this from happening (it will of course have a test server tournament to test it first). To that end, if you notice any issues with wars or MAPs super duper pretty please open a ticket on Discord and we'll do our best to rectify them. In addition, if you happen to find any reproduction steps or find a way to duplicate any of the bugs please let me know so I can work to get it fixed. On a more technical side, I went and looked through the changes to the game over the past week and a half and the only things in the war system that changed were fixes to test server locked features in the upcoming update and the timeline (which has no affect on how MAPs are added or wars are run, it's a purely cosmetic script that computes MAPs based on the current time and the wars done). Also, for anyone running scripts around DC (especially espionage ones) please super duper pretty please start them closer to fifteen minutes after instead of two or three, you're not helping the load any. Overall I just want to say I'm incredibly sorry for what this is doing to your experiences, I'm trying my best to resolve issues as they come up (I built out a suite of war editing tools for admins last night to help resolve incorrect MAPs or things like missing air superiority) and will be working hard in the coming days to rewrite the war system so that hopefully we won't be dealing with any of these issues in the next global. - Village

The current war system is getting out of hand with the bugs. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Alex since part of the problems the game is having is based on code he made years ago when he was just a noobish programmer. But it's is coming to a point where Alex is gonna have to make some tough decisions. The main idea that keeps this game alive is war. And if wars are gonna be even buggier from here on out, then the community is gonna die with it. The number one priority after this war ends needs to be rewriting the code for the war system so that it can handle the magnitude of players that GW's have nowadays. Not PWPedia, not new projects, and not cosmetic or QoL features. (this has been going on for years now, it's about time some major changes happen)

To clarify, what if I have 5 nukes so I declare 5 wars. Then before I get enough MAPs to launch them, 3 get spied away. Am I at fault for the two wars that I didn't launch those nukes? I didn't intentionally slotfill but circumstances forced it to be that way. From the community reaction, its clear that this has never been called out during a global before and until now, was considered a valid war by everyone in the game. Another strategy that's common is declaring several wars and one-shipping those wars for nation that don't have navy and suddenly they buy navy. The original intent there was to beige but the damage is relatively minimal. Now you can't one-ship an opponent who has 150 ships so you give up on it. But is that your fault and should those people also receive warnings for slot filling? Of course not.

The lack of fact-based evidence from some of you folks is astounding. Sorry to be the buzzkill here, but in order to investigate like an actual journalist (and not a fake RON 🤮 journalist) I decided to visit every single war force-peaced within Rose and tS (dunno if there are more elsewhere) and see if it was justified or not. Let's break them into a few categories: 1. Clearly Incorrect Mod Decision https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381210 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381206 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381200 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381198 These are the ones that have been brought up the most. Sheepy has undone the strike on them, so it was a moderator mistake. It was not a mod endorsement that missile turreting is illegal as some overreactors claim to be. 2. Wars Against Arrgh and HoF https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382487 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381758 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381749 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381748 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381361 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381360 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381358 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381163 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381162 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The wars were against Arrgh and HoF nations, not HW nations -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued for several days without attacks -- this can be verified by checking the attacker MAP count both at the bottom of the screen and in the war API. I think it is blatantly clear this is against the rules however you shape it. In fact, in some cases it's explicitly against the rules as the attacker did nothing but fortify the entire war: 3. Wars Against HW https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382274 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382407 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382272 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382185 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382183 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382452 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382264 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382085 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The wars were against HW nations, which then leaves it closer to moderator discretion -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued for several days without attacks -- this can be verified by checking the attacker MAP count both at the bottom of the screen and in the war API. -Some of these wars also led with attacker fortifies: For those of you that don't believe that these wars lasted several days without attacks, let me give a few examples. First, to resolve the rumor that some wars were peaced immediately without even the ability to nuke or missile, an example: Some people may be wondering why this war appears to be peaced immediately with no MAPs being shown as generated whatsoever. What I've tested and discovered is that whatever script shows when MAPs generate only runs when an attack gets made, and then makes up the difference in MAPs between the last attack and the new attack. So, if no attacks get shown until the war gets force-peaced, no MAP generation will be shown. To prove these wars lasted several days, I asked the mod team directly and provided a few examples: The wars in question: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382185 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382183 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382274 And Sheepy's response: GMT, of course. That means all of those wars went almost a full three days without any offensive attacks. So, there's been a second layer of moderation discretion that's been brought up. What if the attackers ran out of nukes/missiles to hit defenders with? What if they say, planned on naval attacking their opponents but could no longer do that if their opponent built ships first? I think it's perfectly legitimate in some of those cases to have those series of events happen, hence moderation discretion, but let's go through all the nations in that third category and disprove both these theories: Jingoa: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=236570 -- declared 5 wars on both HW and Arrgh nations. Fortified at the beginning of every single war and didn't make a single attack in any war. There is not a single doubt he intended to win or make attacks on any of those wars, period. Tappin: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=233068 -- declared 5 wars, of which one war was force-peaced. In that war, his opponent had 0 ships which eliminates that theory. He suicided ground in 3 other wars, one of which he also launched a successful naval attack. In the final war, he launched 3 missiles over the span of 4 days. So, the question becomes, if he knew he could suicide ground or do navals against the force-peaced war, why didn't he? If his plan was to focus missile attacks on the final war, then he couldn't have used those missiles against the force-peaced war. So, why did he declare the war? The Danish Realm: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=119191 -- declared 3 wars, of which two were force-peaced. In the third war, he also didn't make a single attack the entire war. Seems pretty clear as well. USNAR: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=103480 -- declared 4 wars, of which one was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender started almost maxed on ships which eliminates any potential need to hit ships before they built or something. Ground suicided in one war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, this goes in the same category as Tappin. If he had the potential to ground suicide and didn't, and had no intention to focus missiles on the war, why did he declare it? Santa Cruz: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=66816 -- declared 5 wars, of which one was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had 0 ships and experienced no naval attacks. Ground suicided in one war, launched 6 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other three. So, falls in the same category as Tappin and USNAR. Of note, both Tappin and Santa Cruz had force-peaced wars against the same person, Clown, whose beige history before they declared looks a bit like this: Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here, but seems a bit suspicious you'd pick this target if not to stack beige, doubly so given he has a 1000 infra average, hmm? Manitoba South: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=166562 -- declared 5 wars, of which 1 was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had max ships. Ground suicided in two war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, falls in the same category as Tappin, USNAR, and Santa Cruz. To be fair, I think the people in that category have every right to appeal their strikes, and I can't say with 100% certainty they entered those wars planning to do nothing the entire war, although there is evidence to disprove if that was the case. Regardless, even ignoring those wars, there are still tons of examples showing tS especially planned on declaring wars with no attacks whatsoever and solely the intention to get beiged. If you still don't believe me, you may bring up that in those cases, the wars should only be checked once they have ran to their conclusion. So here are some additional categories that may be of interest: 4. Beiged Wars against Arrgh and HoF: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382175 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382270 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382244 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382240 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382233 5. Beiged Wars against HW: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382184 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382271 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382275 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382869 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued until the attackers were beiged -Some of these wars also had attacker fortifies: Interested to hear what the defense for any of these were. So, what have we learned today? 1. It's TRIVIALLY easy to avoid getting force-peaced, and I'm sure the WIDE MAJORITY of Ro$e members have enough braincells to realize this, even when purposely trying to bypass the slotfill rules. 2. Ro$e have had a SIGNIFICANT number of wars in which there where no doubts whatsoever that they broke game rules. Any attempt at distracting from this is PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. 3. I await my downvotes from every tS nation ever.

Have you tried turning it off and on again

Can confirm. If people building ships to the point where I can’t get an IT after declaring on them with little to no navy I wouldn’t attack either. I have employed this strat in many losing wars and it’s honestly baffling that it could be considered slot filling. This has huge implications on how moderation will be handled in future wars as well and this does not sit right with me.

I don't believe for a second that a single Ro$e member with 0 military would declare attrition wars on multiple max military 700 infra HoF (who they're not even at war with) members with the honest intention of doing damage. Even the ones who did attacks only did so specifically to AVOID slot filling moderation. And yes, I'm arguing against my own benefit here, since having our slots filled massively helps us.

@Alex I want to point out that this happened because of you. You have allowed this to happen for multiple years, YEARS. You have allowed this to happen for so long that it has become a literal military strategy known to every block in the game, and then suddenly You change how you enforce it. If you want to change how you enforce the rule, that's fine, it's your game, but have the decency to make a post and/or an announcement in game saying that you are aware of how things used to be, but you are changing it, and state the reason you are changing it. Let people know that the enforcement is changing, as opposed to changing without telling anyone, and punishing people for not being aware of how you are switching enforcement. You're giving people strikes for something that was allowed for years, as far as I understand.

These are not bugs. These are merely surprise features, like Kinder-eggs or lootboxes. On a serious note, I agree 100%. The fact that things have gotten this worse imo only shows with how little regard the community of this game are viewed. We're heading down a CN like path, with neglect by the admins. I find it funny how Alex's old code was less buggy than this. How can a feature that worked flawlessly in the past break so suddenly? Revert to the old system, the one that worked

Dear friends and foes, whether you are fighting for Hollywood or Celestial, perhaps not fighting at all, I think now is the right time to put our differences aside and address a different issue. As you may have noticed, our dear patriarch (Alex) and his A-Team bestowed some quite controversial moderation actions upon us. A significant number of players were warned for slot filling, in our opinion wrongfully. Definition of slotfilling: I'd like to argue that Celestial (and others) that were punished for this, are innocent as I see no correlation with rule breaking. While some didn't do any attacks when they declared it can also very well be due to the reason that they ran out of resources for nukes and missiles which Celestial and other blocs have used in the past. The strategy of nuking/missiling has been used many times in the past and is a proven form of alternative warfare. As the wise Changeup said: "It's important to remember both these spheres are at war, with Ro$e sphere having lost the conventional war, and has been launching nukes at HW in order to close the damage gap. In case you aren't aware, this happens and has happened in nearly every global since 2018, where one side loses/gives up conventional warfare (due to various reasons, such as not having military units, the enemy having superior tiering/numbers etc) and tries to equalize their damages, sticking to nuking infra and soldier only warfare, at most flashing units." Interestingly enough, even nations that did conduct attacks were warned as well so we have sent Alex our appeals, but he is ignoring each and every one of them. I hereby declare a protest and urge people unhappy with mod actions to waive this flag we made until Alex decides to consider our appeals. Use this flag to show support for your brothers and Disclaimer: We do not have anything against PnW mods personally, we just disagree with their moderation. "Politics begin where the masses are, not where there are thousands, but where there are millions, that is where serious politics begin."- Vladimir Lenin

Sigh. Which genius has been advising you this time alex? 7 years of random outbursts of idiotic moderating decisions during global wars, yet it took you a huge investigation by half the community to consider axing the most blatant and game-constricting cheating (npo) the game has seen. Id say im disappointed but its par for the course.

Never change Alex. Since you've ignored my entreaties on discord for 3 days now despite multiple pings. Please see the four below wars that you personally marked as slotfilling despite people making attacks. "I'm the one that issued all of these warnings" - Thank you for clarifying. Finally. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381198 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381200 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381206 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381210 Edit: Congrats you finally got me to create an account on the forum- since I've been ignored on other mediums.

I have already responded to a similar thread here: Quote: I'm the one that issued all of these warnings, and to be very clear, even any attempt to do an attack I have given the benefit of the doubt on and not issued a warning. It is possible that there were nations who received war slot filling warnings that had wars where they did missiles/nukes, but it would clearly state in the warning that it wasn't for those wars but for ones where they had been at 12 MAPs for at least a couple of days and had not done any attacks. Unless I made a mistake on a warning, this is 100% not true. It's also worth noting that on all war slot filling violations or multi reports, aside from a few instances, I have been making all of these decisions myself. At some point we will probably get to the point where I feel comfortable letting the hired moderators make these calls, but to date I have been making these decisions personally. Please also see:

I read in RON that supposedly these are new mods. If that’s the case then they need to have some basic training of how aspects of the game work, especially with regard to what they’re going to moderate. Even the worst war guide will have something about turreting (which has existed for years in other games) and the other strats people are being penalized for. They don’t need a nation but they do need to know how stuff works.

Quoting @Changeup Seriously, what is this moderation? These are genuine war tactics that have been used for years at this point, and nuking/missiling is the only way to inflict damage on opposition once you've lost the conventional war. IMHO, all these warning issued on Celestial nations need to be repealed, because every single person in this game has "slot filled" that way, and will continue to do so unless this war system is literally scrapped for another one, so we might as well all end up banned in a year or so.

This is a true cb of this war. Alex wanted us to check his new war system. We are all beta testers after all.

This new map tallying thing should just be ditched entirely. Other than for the fact that it's so undercooked that it may get you food poisoning, it's simply a flood of pointless information to have an entry for every MAP generated.

Polaris gives its 72 hours cancellation notice to the Haunted Mansion, Genesis individually, and Farkistan individually (Ice Chest Accords). Polaris wishes them good luck in their future endeavors, and we cherish our moments together, however short it was, whilst simultaneously recognizing the need for this change, and Foreign Affairs move made in adjacent to this cancellation, in order to, in our belief, secure Polar's interests on Planet Orbis. Whilst we may not have a treaty together any longer, we do regard the Haunted Mansion as good friends of Polaris regardless, and hope those Alliances regard Polaris as the same. /s/ Cobrastrike, Emperor Deja, Imperial Regent Bohemond Hauteville, Minister of Truth JadenStar10, Minister of Love Dendarii, Deputy Minister of Plenty Upwardthinking, Deputy Minister of Peace Kriegskoenig, Imperial Advisor EaTeMuP, Council Advisor AlmightyGrub, Imperator Emeritus

Polarwealth Accords Article I, Sovereignty Both signatories recognize that both alliances will retain their full and complete sovereignty. Neither signatory shall take any action that could potentially infringe on the sovereignty of the other. Article II, Non Aggression Both signatories will hereafter refrain from any form of hostile activity, hereafter defined as military force, internal subversion or espionage of any kind, against the other. Article III, Conduct Signatories of this treaty pledge to show only respect and good will towards each other. While this will prohibit outright verbal hostility in all its forms, it will not restrict healthy debate or productive disagreement. Article IV, Intelligence Both signatories agree that should a signatory alliance receive information that points towards a possible leak in another signatory's security, or info pertaining to the security of either alliance this information must be shared and discussed immediately. Article V, Defense Should either signatory be subject to an act of aggression, they are well within their rights to request military support, which the other signatory is obligated to provide. Article VI, Aggression Should either signatory find it necessary to commit an act of aggression upon a third party, they may request military support from the other signatory, though this request is under no circumstances an obligation. Article VII. Amendments This treaty may be amended by the consent of both of the signatories. Article VIII. Termination This treaty may be terminated by either signatory upon notice through private channels. Upon termination, the treaty shall remain in effect for a period of 72 hours. Polari/s/ Cobrastrike, Emperor Deja, Regent Bohemond Hauteville, Minister of Truth JadenStar10, Minister of Love Dendarii, Deputy Minister of Plenty Upwardthinking, Deputy Minister of Peace Kriegskoenig, Imperial Advisor EaTeMuP, Council Advisor AlmightyGrub, Imperator Emeritus /s/ The Commonwealth Prime Minister: RightHonorable Chiefs of Staff: Jeric, Lionstar Chancellor of the Exchequer: Christian Dahl Head of the Military Command: KillzBob Home Secretary: Dillon I Foreign Secretary: Azazel

I honestly agree with that, I've seen a few people declare on HoF and Arrrgh people while they have zero military and clearly no intention to missile/nuke a pirate. Personally I think beige fishing against people you are in a global with is perfectly fine, but the second you start looking for outside sources (pirates and raiders in this scenario) it should be a breach of the rules. Beige fishing the enemy is reasonable, you are basically testing their beige disciple and overall co-ordination.

I was declared on by a total of 4 nations. Out of those 4 nations the only nation that was forcibly peaced was the nation that did not do any attacks against me.

The irony here is alex has been increasing his time and financial investment in the game. And which old system are you suggesting we revert too? I'm not sure where I said this? I did mention in terms of mechanics the option redesigning the war system. Village and Alex are separately considering rewriting the code for the existing system entirely. And also half jokingly/ half seriously rewiting the entire game in a totally different language. See below The map tally system is basically meant as an admin tool to help sort out the actual map bugs. It is attempting to back words engineer the map history for a war separate of the actual records. It's predictive of what should be not what actually it is. It's also currently expected to be on the buggy side, it was released in an alpha state because of how severe some of the other issues where and it was needed now.

I'm a personal fan of the feature where attacks don't cost any MAP's but still do damage.

For profit. That's what raiding is. We had information that a global war was imminent and chose to use it to our benefit, to take advantage and raid. If you know what a HoF war looks like, you know that this isn't it. For the record, as an alliance we made a total of 9b war profit (loot minus all expenses) in just the first 3 days of the war.

Alex is PAINFULLY out of touch with the community

In all fairness, I think there's one nation where forced peace was mistakenly given: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=59152 He missiled in his peaced wars (albeit those being against Arrgh), so I think there was a wrong decision made there. That being said, all the other peaces I've seen seem perfectly reasonable -- something that may help clarify these wars is to include a timestamp in the war as to when peace was manually forced, just so people know the difference between when the war was declared and when the war was peaced. There are lots of ways you can bait beige including from nuke/missile turreting, soldier suicides, threatening naval beiges, and so on. I don't think this is an attempt at getting rid of any of those -- in all fairness, nations who do get slotfilled without any attacks done against them do take advantage of that by hitting people without them being able to counter because of the slotfill.

This is attempting to be fixed, the issue is that sheepys code is so bad its difficult to understand why its not working

the game is currently held together by thoughts and prayers (sheepy is an atheist)

I agree with the OP of this post, but I want to address this specific sentence because it's, in my opinion, a dangerous hyperbole. The CN admin was absent for 7+ years, including silence on mod abuse/cheating scandals that broke the game/multis were widespread, etc. Alex makes mistakes but he's never just said "!@#$ it" and walked away for years. Hopefully this thread and others, and some discord chats being had right now, will see things get the attention they need though. In fact, I can say various discord chats are already in motion right now trying to figure things out.

Not sure if I agree with that one, so let's clarify what's happening here: Ro$e did NOT intend to slot fill, they did not specifically want to benefit the people they declared on by filling those people's defensive slots. The problem is that what some of them are doing is, strictly speaking, against the rules that have been well established for a few years now.

Alex friend.. you are making a mountain out of a molehill and frankly there are much bigger issues right now that need your attention. Let the players worry about moderating actual slot filling and the like. If hollywood players thought there was an issue they'd make a game report.

I wasn't online over the weekend, and going through a very large backlog of DMs and tickets on Discord now. When I get on P&W, I typically do the following: In-game messages -> Player Reports in-game -> Forum -> Discord Tickets & DMs So I am not ignoring you, there is just a very large volume of things for me to attend to, and I have not even seen your pings yet. No - and the rules explicitly state this.

If we don't enforce the rules this way, it sets up a really stupid incentive structure. If this wasn't war slot filling, you could have alliance A at war with alliance B, and let's say alliance C is allied to alliance B. Alliance C dumps their treaty with Alliance B and declares war on Alliance B en masse and fills all their slots, but does no attacks. That would ruin the war for Alliance A basically. You could never be a victim of an alliance war, by having an "enemy" (who is actually an ally) "beige bait" you in perpetuity, filling all of your slots. You could have invulnerable, unraidable alliance banks. Letting people war slot fill just doesn't make sense and will ruin the game. I do agree with you that we could reconfigure the beige system to be better, and we have been discussing that for years at this point. It's near impossible to get everyone to agree on an update to the system. The dev team does have a new system in mind that we generally all agree would be an improvement, and are working on implementing that on the test server so that everyone can play around with it and we can get real feedback before launching it in the actual game. But I strongly disagree that allowing war slot filling would be a net benefit to gameplay.

Respectfully, I feel like this completely does away with some real misery-mitigation techniques players have been using forever. It is absolutely miserable to be on the losing end of a war like this, and players routinely try and provoke beige so as to be given a chance to simply not give a shit for a few days. As far as I can tell, the point of moderation should be to force players to comply with good and common sense rules, not to force them to grit their teeth and bear arguably the worst part/time of the game. If you’re bent of following the letter of the law here, I would instead suggest changing the letter of the law to better reflect the way the players of your game have long chosen to play it.

@Denisonyou missed a spot: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1365332 edit: also this one

at this point you're just meming yourself, Nyx. There's only one thing you can expect, and that is dnn

Do you have any examples of wars being manually peaced even when the attacker has done attacks?

Roll us? Really? You've already lost to me...

it's only a matter of time until @Thalmor and I finally put our differences aside and make out, our unholy union will shake Orbis to the core (as well as each of our respective alliances, probably)

Hello! If you didn't know, I'm Nyx, co-leader and founder of Elysium. Recently, members of DNNLA and members/allies of Elysium began to attack each other, sparking a war between our alliances, despite there not being an official declaration of war from either alliance. I would like to ask for peace between ELS and DNNLA to limit infrastructure and military damage to both alliances and their members. While DNN has approached me with peace negotiations through a Discord server, neither member of Elysium is able to get Discord for personal reasons and therefore cannot negotiate in this way. If anyone involved in the war would like Elysium to repay any damages and help with rebuilding, I have plenty of resources I could send over. We will cease all attacks on DNNLA if you stop attacking us. Please consider this offer of peace and reply if you have any questions or negotiations. And please, don't spam this one with DNN messages too... Thank you, Nyx of Andromeda

>Dumps their treaty Thats not how the game works in a practical sense. Even if the treaty didn't have a 72hr clause, if you arbitrarily did that, your alliance would be done for, because no one would want to sign you, lol. But that would be entertaining to see for sure, after all it would be the implosion of an alliance.

I didn't agree to this peace

Alex is fully aware of how important war is and how bad the map issue is. He and 3 other devs have spent literally 100s of dev hours trying to fix it to no avail. It is unfortunately the worst type of bug to fix. It can not be reproduced on demand and only a couple of requirements for it to happen are even known. It's only on the live game and only during globals so chances to test fixes are few and far between and come with the risk of breaking the game in a critical time frame.

Just gonna leave that there since apparently there's a bug that doesn't register air superiority? Also ha I've done 7 GA's in a row before, which costs 21 MAPs. 20 MAPs is rookie numbers in this racket!

Rush brought up a suggestion in RON about just reverting back to the older war system or reworking it. It just needs to be addressed by Alex.

This was inspired by a discussion held with a few Eclipse friends, so take with a grain of salt (obviously this is not meant to be a serious exploration) The premise was -- if Celestial, Hollywood, and Clock all broke up and split into two different sphere leaders each (Rose, tS, TKR, Grumpy, Cata, Eclipse), was it possible to make some roughly even coalitions out of them? In order to do that, I pulled some numbers from my coalition sheet here: As a later addition to that post, I added something called Dryad's Power Rankings, which were essentially an approximation formula based on how the nonlinear "power" of someone with one city count may compare to the "power" of someone with a different city count. Using those rankings and some other stuff meant to keep numbers relatively close, I wrote a quick program to generate some semi-random spheres that were fairly close in power and put them onto a tiering chart. For alliances counted, I just included Ro$e/HW/Clock/Backrooms/Johnsons alliances above 100k power. Here's an example of a tiering chat and a randomly generated corresponding treaty web that the program generates (ignore the middle dot, just there to prevent everything from floating away): The program is also able to manually pair alliances that may stick with each other no matter what. For example, here's an example of a tiering chart where 5P and HS always go with tS, NW and BK always go with TKR, GGO always sticks together, GS and RE always go with Aurora, Paradise and DB go together, CTO and the Legion go together, TLE always goes with TI, and Elites always goes with TFP: Anyways, this is all a bit silly, but still curious -- how many fairly even spheres do people think we can feasibly make in our current political environment? Or are there any other pairings people want me to experiment with? Please let me know!

_ __| |_ __ _ __ / _` | '_ \| '_ \ | (_| | | | | | | | \__,_|_| |_|_| |_|

hes stating their are more diplomatic & reasonable methods to sorting issues out, like joint color bloc coordination in all depts instead of always being more behaviorally aggressive via wars & trash talk. All this sounds like is seethe to me since you apparently thought of nothing more than "Grumpy man lets roll out" cuz that may be a big source of bodily pains yall complain ova while Clock & BR ova here are actually doin sumthin.