Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/12/22 in all areas

  1. On this day, Saturday the 6th of August 2022, 6 low tier Camelot members came together to create The Maroon Knight's. These members agreed to certain rules 1: all Members MUST defend eachother. If a member is attacked and in your range you WILL defend them 2: all Members are created equal, Everyone here is a human no matter how big or small treat everyone with respect 3: follow Camelot rules, Pretty simple follow the rules given to you by the Camelot Government. Clarifications We are not an alliance, this is a defensive pact and purely that we are a part of Camelot If you attack a member our defensive movements should and will be considered a Counter, your member attacked us despite the warning. The current members of The Maroon Knight's are: Aldania, Hydroland, Holy Empire of England, Sigmaville, The Britannian Federation and Stars Peoples Republic. As previously mentioned if any of them are attacked we will counter. Long live Camelot
    1 point
  2. Sponsored by DNN: https://discord.gg/MDYdBkzFh4 Individual cities built (tab 1): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=2048071689 Alliance information (tab 2): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=165451901 Alliance percent increase (tab 3): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=180076824 Alliance information by tier (tab 4): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=1687370431 Individual alliance matchups (tab 5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=2030059055 Some graphs (tab 6): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_BAnIP854eDHwnrWhDLaf6b3Ho0iy3r5TltFxSD27s/edit#gid=2047832592 Everything on the sheet is pretty intuitive so I don't think I need to explain anything, but a few caveats -- 0. This was pulled like a week ago for anyone wondering why some things look kind of different. 1. City cost is assumed to be using optimal costs (best projects, policy, etc.) so that I could estimate a lower bound instead of a higher bound. 2. This doesn't factor if players switched alliances -- for example, if someone left TKR to Cataclysm in the past 6 months, the cost of the cities they built in TKR will be added to the Cataclysm data point regardless. (No convenient way to track this and it doesn't make a huge difference regardless) 3. Obviously this is not just from alliance grants and loans, but also from a player's own nation revenue. Econ is by far my worst area, so I can't really comment much on this data, but I do welcome other people to look it over and point out anything interesting they might notice. If I can say one thing though, it's that the data is a nice way of quantifying some things that most people already know about city-building in PnW. For example, whales spend more building cities (duh), alliances with more cities also build more cities (also duh), and alliances with more members generally build more cities (also also duh). I guess that also gives a way to answer questions like, why does Rose build so many more cities than everyone else? They have a large number of members, which leads to many more sources of alliance bank revenue from members (taxes, resources from members quitting, new player raiding, communal warchests, etc.) This makes it quicker to build a city for an individual player, and then revenue from that new city goes into funding other players, and so on. And Rose is also reasonably high tiered, so members are able to make more revenue and build more cities/contribute to higher tax revenue. Not pictured from the data -- Rose also focuses city-building more than most alliances do and probably also puts members in more debt to build cities than most alliances do as a result (and also since they can afford it). (Addendum: also very likely this is the case with TFP, in case anyone was surprised to see them so high.) Following that observation to its logical conclusion, I am tempted to ask stupid questions like, would merging your entire sphere into one alliance Treasure Island-style and then taxing them all at 100% NPO-style be the fastest way to build cities? I do wonder if this is what Alpha was complaining about before they got banned as well. Feel free to answer that if you'd like xP And as always, feel free to suggest additional things to add to the sheet!
    1 point
  3. Hey all, In this last week, some newbies in my alliance had a very peculiar war happen. The opponent had purchased several cities and used them to create a larger than usual re-mil, then delete those new cities less than ten minutes later. In doing so, this allowed our opponent to have free Immense Triumphs and blockade our newbies. As one can imagine, this seems like an unintended exploit of city buying and reinforce mechanics to force a win in a war that would otherwise be trivial in the other direction. It is also largely unfair. This practice also prevents nations with higher scores from countering the quick-reinforcement that our opponent had, as the cities are deleted too quickly for a response without 24 hour surveillance. While this is economically inefficient, it basically makes a blockade impossible to enforce, especially combined with purchasing credits for buying the new cities. My suggestion is this: When a city is bought, you cannot sell that city for 120 turns (10 days), similar to the C10+ purchase timer. By adding such a deletion timer, this would prevent such quick-reinforcement exploits from happening ever again, and even the playing field when it comes to war in raiding tiers.
    1 point
  4. Allow taxing of specific resources rather than just a flat tax on all.
    1 point
  5. Yep. Also, as SRD put it "buy him up to 20 cities" isn't exactly feasible given that there's a city timer. brb, gonna spend 10x more time complaining about how much i dont know than it would take to click a link and see the alliance's treaty
    1 point
  6. I did not pay $4,444,444 for you to take credit for it. 😠
    1 point
  7. Locking thread. Positive feedback does not compute.
    1 point
  8. If #3 was implemented then PIAT would have an actual use and Sheepy knows that it desperately needs one.
    1 point
  9. Knowledge Base (A knowledge base is a published collection of documentation that includes answers to frequently asked questions, how-to guides, and troubleshooting instructions): I feel like this would be very similar to P&Wpedia by helping new players and people who forget 😅. It would allow new players ask/search questions on P&W. The Knowledge base can be hosted off-site on some admin supervised site or directly on the site how PWpedia is set up. I came up with this suggestion because I was looking for some other features of my upcoming Hub for P&W. I quickly made a few demos and here are some images. This should allow selected players to make articles on P&W mechanics or connected things to teach newer players on the game. _______________________________ Help Desk (A help desk is a department or person that provides assistance and information usually for electronic or computer problems): I think this could be a good idea since the number of issues the game is experiencing. It will allow users to create tickets on the website itself. Alex/Staff can have a few people volunteer for credits or rewards to monitor the tickets and help the person out. (ticket opener) I think this will help players and Alex. If this doesn't get implemented, I will just do it by myself :serious: Edit: Both of these could be player ran and admin supervised. 👋
    1 point
  10. Game Suggestion: Dev Team stop messing with shit that didn't need messing with.
    1 point
  11. So I started playing Politics & Wars once again and I changed the nation's location to Australia to mine Uranium and apparently when I am trying to build mines the game is showing me that I can build Coal Mine, Bauxite Mine, Lead Mine and it's pretty weird because I should be able to mine Uranium, oil, and Iron. And I tried to fix it but was not able to do so now I need help 😢
    0 points
  12. so I changed my location to south America and now it's showing this
    0 points
  13. Hello! As you may know, I have been leading Elysium on the test server for a while now. I was considering creating a similar alliance on the main server for a while, and after leaving Morningstar due to communication issues, I decided to stop looking for an alliance that would let me join without Discord and instead create one! Anyway, the Elysian Empire has been created. We are on the Black color trade bloc and have several vacant leadership positions, including FA, Internal Affairs and Economic Affairs. We have no raiding restrictions, low taxes and a lot more that you can see in the alliance description! We accept anyone, including beginners, and have no limits on score or cities for joining. So, if you want a strong alliance that'll protect your nation, check out the Elysian Empire and I hope to see you in our alliance! DISCLAIMER: This has nothing to do with DNN. DO NOT SPAM THIS POST.
    0 points
  14. This is just me spitballing maybe a trash idea. We scrap beige, scrap war slots, scrap the whole war system. War no longer functions as a fast-paced race to the bottom with resistance, but is instead something the player engages with more directly both offensively and defensively. Overview: The idea would be that rather than having X amount of slots, your country would simply be at war or not be at war. The war itself would be a slower-paced almost minigame where you slowly tick towards either a win or loss - each turn would tick it in either direction. Wars continue until peace is agreed upon or until victory is achieved. Certain things provide modifiers which can increase or decrease your ticking speed. Ticking: The ticking itself would be a simple formula each turn or each update. By default, all parties involved in the war would contribute +1% (of 100) per turn ticking war score. So you could have multiple defenders, multiple attackers, etc. Entire alliances could fight wars together in this system. The formula would looking something like: 1 (the default tick) * number of soldiers + tanks ratio. So the side with more forces would receiver a multiplier based on the ratio of ground forces. So if you have twice as many ground forces, your tick would be 2 per turn while your opponent would only tick 1. So you would net-shift by 1% per turn towards victory. Modifiers: Air support - realistically you're not going to wipe a nation's airforce out in a blitz. Both sides will likely have air support throughout the war. This can be calculated and added as a ratio too, or maybe done differently. Naval support - similar to air support. # of nations involved - each nation would count as a new "front" and give a negative modifier to the ticks. Rock-paper-scissors: One of the biggest elements of the proposal would be the active role players could take within a war. Having three options or more that counter the other options would be essential. So example: 1. Order an Assault - If your opponent chooses to retreat, gives a positive modifier to your ticks. If they dig in, it cancels out your modifier. 2. Dig in - Default option chosen if the player selects nothing 3. Tactical Retreat - If the player digs in, gives a positive modifier to your ticks. And then if both players select the same option, no multiplier or bonus is given. Casualties: Players will suffer casualties to their military just as they do now, but it will happen indirectly while at war. Casualties will increase as the player takes more actions such as ordering assaults or retreats, and they will decrease as the enemy's military is thinned out. A bit of RNG will also be added in at update each night: A chance for a "big battle" occurs where you can suffer or inflict heavy losses based on your current winning percentage. If you are close to losing your war and have chosen to dig in, you will have a higher chance for a "Big battle" where you inflict heavy losses. If you order an assault at the opening blitz of a war, you will have a higher chance to inflict heavy losses, etc. Victory or Loss: Since this war system is no longer dependent on running attacks to decrease resistance, beige is no longer a required mechanic. The victors still get loot and inflict their infra damage, but the losers don't need to immediately go hide for a week though their military may be weakened. All very conceptual and obviously a huge change to gameplay. Just a thought though.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.