Leaderboard

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thalmoria v. Tiberius ----- Case Personnel: Defendant: Tiberius Judge: Thalmor Bailiff: TBD Lead Prosecutor: Decagon Lead Defense: Lysander Assistant Defense: Daveth Assistant Defense: Istandor ----- Charges: 1 - Misleading Shareholder(s) 2 - Conspiracy to Defraud Investors 3 - Disregard of Financial Responsibility 4 - Mismanagement of Funds 5 - Inhumane Treatment Towards Investors/Clients 6 - Violation of Commonly Practiced Bank Procedures 7 - Violation of Bank Neutrality ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What really happened with Tiberius? What did he really do? All will be revealed - and litigated - at the High Court of Thalmoria, in Thalmoria, at Feburary 25th, 2023 at 8 PM EST! This is the High Court's fourth trial since its founding almost two years ago. Ahead of this trial, we are breaking tradition by having seven voting jurors instead of five. We already have 11 members in the jury pool, but we are accepting more! Will Decagon close the case on Tiberius once and for all? Will Lysander, Daveth, and Istandor reveal the TRUTH and clear the good emperor's name? Will the bank drama ever end? Will I get that nice sloppy toppy from that redhead in the courtroom? We'll be able to finally learn all this and more ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS SATURDAY NIGHT! Discord invite: https://discord.gg/sxRyJNM7Ac

They might be back: Similar names, several nations on the network, and applying to the same alliance. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=526025

So my current alliance (and my old ones lul Aurora) probably despise me because I'll wake up in the middle of the night with random ideas on changing stuff and what not. Decided I'd throw some of these into a forum post to get people talking and to increase my rep of being chaotic good. In no particular order, just writing it down as they come to my head here are some changes that (idk how easy I haven't coded in ages) could make the game better or more interesting. 1) Alliance government types?: TLDR Make alliances actually different with bonuses besides just a theme and choosing between 100/100 or 0/0 taxes. Apparently there used to be government types for alliances. Why not bring them back, and allow each alliance to choose one (allow to change based on time or credits). The kicker is each gov type would be different and confer different bonuses alliance wide. Maybe a Monarchy can gather their troops faster since all power is centralized so you get a boost to daily recruitment value. A soviet union styled one could select a gov type that reduces daily upkeep for everyone in the AA. Maybe remove the military salvage and make it an alliance wide buff if you choose a certain gov type. 2) Alliance Wonders?: TLDR I play CK2 and CK3. Why stop at treasures, lets add the chance for alliances to build wonders for bonuses? Help. I have all this money in my alliance bank but I don't want to spend it on my actual members. What can I do? Im glad you asked imaginary other half of this convo. You could do the logical thing and boost yourself to c69. Or what if you had something to spend it on that helped everyone? This idea is basically spending alliance money (lots of money, not cheap) to develop wonders. Personally I think any alliance should be able to build them not just a select few (or else that'll monopolize it all in the top leaderboards) Anyways. Allow the wonders to confer bonuses once complete, but charge the alliance a daily upkeep. You build idk the hanging gardens, and give a bonus to food production or reduce radiations effects on food. You build the Eiffel tower and get a discount on infrastructure. Same principle as before. Could add in the bit from EU4 where if you build up its "splendor" and get more perks, but if you go to war or lose too much its splendor goes down and reduces the perks. Could also add extra bits like CK3 where you finished the Great Lighthouse. You already got the main trade buff, but you sink your money into the extra add-on, and boom now you have a smugglers cove that lets you trade small amounts of resources while blockaded. No clue. Just going wild here. Gimme some cocaine and we can flesh these ideas out. 3) Weather and Terrain?: TLDR Add more randomness, and add more changes to meta units based on said randomness. AKA weather rolls and terrain We have in game days, seasons, and etc. But the only time it matters is when you note the universal day change, and wanna farm food. Also I wanna stick it to Anri for saying theres never a good time to lead with a naval attack. Why? because ships suck. So this idea is two fold. It adds in a dice roll to combat. (or a series of dice roles, I got some ideas that could make it pretty fun if you ever wanna hear) Boom you rolled a nat 1. That sucks it means there's a nasty blizzard. --effectiveness of infantry -increased fuel usage something something. Rolled a 6? Clear skies no change. Rolled a 3? Torrential downpour. --effectiveness of tanks --max number of planes you can use. Oh no a 4. Idk tornado? Any land combat/sky combat would be a defeat and see comparable losses on both sides. -Idea I had earlier is to roll a series of dice rolls at start of a war. So there's always 10 outcomes saved or something. You can see the next 3 weather conditions normally. Build a project Idk doppler radar net? Weather Sat? and get access to 5 conditions ahead of time. So you can strategize further ahead than your opponent. This would spice things up, maybe you can't just get online and spam 5 navals to beige. Maybe you gotta plan a head and try to use your other forces to win. Etc etc. -Terrain Idea. Basically same as weather but allowing a constant increase to whatever per nation. Could be based on location on the map, could be selected or random idk. Boom your nation is in the swamp lands. Any attackers would have a hard time fighting land combat there, but so would you. Oh an island paradise? Increase the effectiveness of ships. etc etc. No clue just came to me last second.

Alternative suggestion: fix the "hide nation descriptions" option here on PnW. Last I checked, if you select it, it hide yours instead of everyone else's. (P.S. one image per nation description is mean and I will cut you, Roberts >.>)

I don't think it would make MLP useless, per se. You might still want it in case you are blockaded and cannot get missiles from trading. Plus, I'm sure missiles on the market would be more expensive than producing missiles yourself (just that you can get more on the market than producing them yourself, unless a limit is implemented). Further, people not involved in a global war would have incentive to have MLP, so they could produce and sell missiles to those involved in the war (pull an America, sell to both sides) to make money.

Now I know this sounds like a joke, but bear with me: Right now missiles are objectively the worst weapon due to a multitude of reasons. This solution may solve exactly zero of them, but it should diversify the overall gameplay a bit. Concrete, I suggest making missiles tradeable on the global market. It would work just like any other resource, with one caveat: they can only be stored on nations. No sending missiles to the alliance bank. I believe doing this would grant numerous benefits to P&W: It creates a new resource that is innately connected to the flow of P&W. Little use for missiles in peacetime, but in wartime… It makes blockades useful in an attrition war. Having a blockade in place would limit the amount of nukes and missiles your opponent can send you and your friends' way. The reverse is also true: someone without MLP may still be a nuisance in a losing global so long as the market provides This makes embargoes a bit more useful again. You wouldn’t want to give missiles to your enemies, would you? Did someone say spies? Spy Ops become more important in peacetime. You can only do 3 spy ops on a nation a day, but you could spy the small fry trying to sell their missiles on the market! They won’t be happy tho. This (I hope) simple change would thus buff the functionality of a bunch of mechanics already in P&W without changing the game balance too much (I think). You’d still have to be lucky to beige with missiles if the enemy has ID and you’d still lose against conventional weapons. If anything, it may shorten the time globals go for because it will be easier to do damage as the losing side. Lastly, this also differentiates missiles and nukes a bit more: instead of missiles just being the little brother, it’s now the easily accessible little brother. So no, nukes shouldn’t be able to be sold, only missiles. Nuclear weapons aren’t really a tradeable good in the real world either, while missiles are. This still sounds like a joke

I don't think it would make missiles launch pad useless as yo could now just keep building them if have them and sell them to others at a profit.

Voting for the name of your color bloc is, safe to say, an inherently alliance-related matter. Certain alliances and blocs have always coordinated to get certain names to represent their color sphere. I think this alliance coordination aspect should be more explicit. Idea: The alliance control panel should have a section that lets gov (etc.) members see what color name each member voted for. This would create a much easier way for alliances (or blocs) to coordinate certain color names and find out who's not in compliance. Currently, it involves sending a message to the whole alliance and hoping people out of compliance are paying attention. This makes you can see which color name each member voted for.

it's only 3

I think many will agree that day changes should be 30 minutes instead of just 10. I eat dinner at day change, don't want to miss day change and do not want to keep changing my day change times and missing the next day change. So, I'm begging you to change it to 30 instead of 10 minutes.

Can u add national food

The only logical solution is to fast while fighting wars. I lost 136 pounds during NPOLT and never missed day change.

An absolutely wonderful suggestion that should be implemented right away. I weep with the thoughts it provokes.

Yes, let’s change this just for you, out of the thousands of players, Sir.

Allow build buttons for both improvements and baseball to have have a quantity box you can input a number into to quickly buy a large sum of improvements or upgrades in baseball. I really don't see why this isn't a thing already.

Hello, I've never actually done one of these suggestion forums before. But i'm going to now because I believe there is a major problem with alliance recruiting messages. Many new players are absolutely bombarded with recruitment messages, this gives the impression of the game being a spammy mess of people looking to milk funds and score out of your nation. I think many players are overwhelmed by this. Here is my suggestion: Require all automated messages be sent via the send-messages api All messages sent via the api are flagged as automated messages/bot in-game, clearly for players to see Additionally, automated messages sent for the purpose of recruiting are flagged as recruiting messages Players can enable/disable recruitment messages on the account management page Recruitment messages are limited in how often they can be sent Each alliance can only send one recruitment message per new player Ie, I just joined the game, I can only get a message from the same alliance once Let me know what you think ig. I don't think this would be exceptionally hard on administration/development to implement. Just a couple fields in the send-message api to mark whether it's recruitment or not. And they should already be able to check if it's sent with the API or in-game.

A recent topic on raising the bonus of colour blocs got me thinking about how much potential for political discourse and conflict this system could potentially create. So I started brainstorming questionable ideas on how to change the way these colour blocs work. My suggestion is to slightly tweak the way you control a bloc, the way their revenue is determined and how names are decided. Blocs are "controlled" by the largest/strongest alliance on said bloc, this means they can name and pick the colour (no duplicates) as they deem fit. If another bloc already has that colour said alliance wants? Then bad luck, guess you have to try declare war or buy it back. To give smaller alliances a chance, a system like "market sharing" or a new treaty will allow them to gather together their 'influence'. However, only one alliance in this 'coalition' could make decisions, making like a protectorate of trade. The base Blocs are assigned a pre-determined "growth" system, this is before alliances are actually in them. What this means is the top tier bloc would have the potential for a higher max income than 2nd, 2nd would have more than third and so on. This could be something like 10-25% more than the last, with the lowest blocs having the normal cap of 75k that we have now. The idea here is to give alliances a reason to "invade" higher quality blocs since it will directly boost their revenue and adds ways for alliances to push harder terms post war without being overly toxic. More power to the alliance controlling a bloc. The idea here is the alliance who "controls" the bloc can pick and choose which alliances actually get the bonus revenue. To prevent small alliances from being completely screwed, only the top 3-5 blocs in 'potential growth' get this power which the rest of the blocs would still have dominant alliances but less control over the bloc itself. Alliances who don't have a direct treaty (Protectorate, MDP etc) but are on the same bloc will cause severe penalties to the turn bonus. The idea here is to prevent whales from different alliances (Looking at you Green) from bundling together for maximum revenue. This is me mostly spitballing ideas, but I feel like a more dynamic system like this could bring some spice to the game. This would essentially create a "golden goose" where alliances need to determine whether that bonus revenue is worth the target on their back, and people that are rivals (Looking at you green colour bloc) would be less likely to work together since it means conceding power to an enemy. I know this has flaws such as the influence pirates have on screwing a bloc over, but honestly I think that adds to the fun and risks alliances should be taking.

Considering their number one priority is making money and their second priority, especially if they can't make money, is doing damage... you should've seen it coming. All I can say is that's the name of the game and this is not a good suggestion.

When a city is not powered, have it be highlighted in red on the city screen so you can quickly identify it. When buying or selling military units, provide a screen showing how many barracks/factories/hangars/drydocks you'll need averaged per city to support whatever amount you're attempting to buy or sell to. Or provide an option to buy or sell to X barracks/factories/hangars/drydocks per city. So if you're coming off a war, have an option where you can sell down tanks to whatever will leave you with 3 factories per city worth of tanks, instead of leaving the player to do the math.

tfw HoF is so good that people literally cannot even hide they want to nerf them directly for every war update

Half the fun of wars is showing off which alliance has more skill when it comes to fighting, winning or losing. And for the losing side, down declares play a big role in fighting back. But most people don't realize how important down declares are in a losing war since most alliances just roll over and die once their mill is zero'd. But for those who have actually fought a defensive war, you know how important down declares are for helping the smaller guys out. Also, people need to calm down about the whole "WhAlEs ToO oP" thing. While I understand that most whales are split between 2-3 alliances and it can be hard to fight whale alliances, I ask the community to think about what consequence X decision has not only on the whales, but the entire game as well.

I shudder to think I find myself agreeing with SRD on something. For discussion purposes, you may want to distinguish downdecs done by the losing side of a conflict (low NS due to low military), from downdecs done by fully militarized raiders (low NS due to low infra). I personally don't have much of an issue with either; the former is a good way to even things out a bit for the losing side of a conflict, while the latter is a legitimate style of play no matter how stupid I find it. Downdecs are a great way for the losing side to inflict damage to the enemy while they're being taken down. Truth is that even in the case of a 15 city downdec, the attacker can't really do that much damage if they're properly being cycled by the other side, other than when targeting less active nations who aren't properly militarized. It is of course frustrating to encounter, but it's also one of the only exciting things to deal with when you're sitting on a defeated foe. I don't really have a strong opinion on what, if anything, could or should be done to reduce the damage done by downdecs from militarized raiders. If the dev team absolutely wants to examine possible fixes, perhaps look into increasing the infra thresholds required to max out military units, or decreasing the percentage of max soldiers that can be recruited with one day's buy?

If you’re seeing 15 city down declares, it’s because the issue is that it’s still too easy for massive nations to play on 800 infra and not lose improvements. Increase the rate of military improvements destroyed when infra is much lower than total improvements owned.

This is not true. If it was, you would never see newer players catch up to the day one guys, and there are a ton of people catching up and passing day one nations. Why is this you ask? because crazy down declares are only possible when whales are getting crushed, and the little guys are winning. Even when that happens its still not easy to win those wars because you come out of beige, declare one war, and if your opponent has its shit together you get hit by 3 other people whose entire goal is to harpoon the whale. And you know why that is fairly easy to do? because in the game there are like 90 players with 40 cities or more, but there are over 550 nations between 30-39, and over 1000 nations between 20-29. what does that mean? you have numbers, lots and lots of numbers to overwhelm any advantage a whale could have. If the whale is winning, and the little nation is losing, then its physically impossible for the whale to reach you. After a few rounds in a winning war, my score is around 9-10k, which means if you are around 7k score or below, it is extremely difficult for me to hit you, I have to decom a ton of military/projects/infra just to skim the top of the largest opponents in range, which either does damage to me (in the case of selling infra/projects) or leaves me exposed to counter attack due to low military numbers. Is it demoralizing to get declared on by a 40 city nation if you only have 25 cities? probably, it's why people complain about it all the time, but is it really an issue? I do not believe so.

Wouldn’t really matter if you can’t refine it

And TKR.

Learn to play the game b4 you post on the forums, joined 1 hour ago headass.

This isn't a major change that would be made, but I feel it's kinda just time for it to happen, as the current system is really outdated. As the title of the forum post says, I want to propose the idea of removing the revenue cap on the different colour bonuses. In the game, we now have five different colours that have reached the cap, those colours being Green, Orange, Brown, Olive, and Yellow. The 75K cap per turn has been in place, as far as I know, since before I started playing back in early 2018, and it's majorly outdated. The mechanics it uses haven't really changed, but the way the game works has changed majorly. Back in 2018, and I'll show my age here, there were no players who had reached 40 cities. The first player to hit 40 cities was Seb, and he did that in May of 2019. Since that time, we now have 3 nations who have 50 or more cities, and 81 additional nations who have 40 or more cities. There are more cities than ever, there are higher infra levels than ever, and the mechanic is still "Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue / Nations" which I think is just outdated. I don't think an uncap of the daily colour revenue would be anything revolutionary, but I simply think five colours being capped, and the mechanic not changing in the past four and a half years plus is just too long, and it should be changed. If someone manages to get it so their colour bonus would give forty million per day if it wasn't capped, let them. They should be rewarded for the work they've put into their colour bonus, and perhaps having it uncapped would give players more to politic about, with people trying to do all they can to get their colour bonus as high as possible, instead of just understanding that the colour bonus basically just gives an extra million per day if they do enough right to cap it.

I love this idea, color bloc used to be a bigger factor not so long ago. Just a year ago (5th of july 2021) this is what color blocs looked like: A pretty big difference compared to them now: Maybe if we wanted to make it less harsh for smaller alliances/players we could make the color bloc income easier to acquire than it is now up to a certain level (50k?), and after that point it's the same mechanic as it is now. I strongly support the uncapped color bloc, or at least increase the cap to something like 150k, because imo we should reward alliances' efforts to increase the income and police the bloc

Well if the point of doing the color bonus was to stimulate politics, the more valuable you can make the bonus, the more likely you are going to have people defend their color/ invade better colors, which in turn leads to more conflicts.

Interesting idea, but I think a flat bonus of 1 billion dollars per turn for green would be better.

You're not the only one. I was very disappointed when I realized it wasn't the case.

For some reason when I read the first line I thought you meant cannibalism.

Allow taxing of specific resources rather than just a flat tax on all.

or... you could let the market dictate the cost. since now that it is really high, a bunch more people are going to jump on the bandwagon, and the price will go back down. Or you could try to manipulate the market with new projects and watch food price plummet like raws plummeted after they released the raw project for new nations.

Inb4 c4s have 10k land per city because they raided alot

because the whales pay admin xP rawr

So, let me make sure I'm getting this straight... TKR, Grumpy, and Guardian arguably dominate a large portion of the market (don't believe me, just go look at who currently holds the lowest sell offers for food and most manufactured rss and the highest buy offers for most rss)... and you're saying that there are players who manipulate the market by consistently undercutting and whatnot. In other words, I just want to make sure that you're actually saying your allies manipulate the market and need to be stopped by limiting the number of offers they can post per day. That is what you're saying, right?

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.

See title. TLDR of changes that could improve it significantly: - Make it easier to find. It's hidden away and heavily mentioned as an afternote. Working it into the tutorial (after these other changes, also rework tutorial entirely but thats another thread that im sure will come later) will make it more prominent. - Let aas have more characters to describe themselves. -Set up certain community-decided on tags (ie, Raiding Alliance, New Player Friendly, City x Requirement, etc) and a search system alongside that to allow alliances to tag themselves and show them what kind of things players can expect from that alliance, as well as search for specific types of alliances. -Make it look better. This just looks... rough. Again, search system would go a long way and I believe there's a few webdesign people in the community that have already worked on an idea for this specifically. Th I'm sure there's more ideas I missed, but I'm mainly posting this to open the conversation and also bother @Prefontaine about it. Feel free to add below.

me when I have 142 noobs to buy UP for 😂

That is not an entirety bad idea, would make a bit of logical sense aswell. And might cause a bit more stockpiling then currently. But it does raise some issues, like nukes and misslis, unlike spies has an impact on score, it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to program a bot to figure it out. We already have seen some bots that has shown some disturbing ability to figure out how many spies a nation had by simply loking at the procenties of different spy actions against said nation. It's why alex changed the procenty shown to be greater or lesser then 50%, even thought i am doubtfull that it worked completly.

Quite simple, allows up to x Farms (I reckon 3-5) per city to be protected from the elements. They always produce Food at a constant rate, regardless of the season or the radiation levels. Requires: Arable Land Agency, Green Technologies, Mass Irrigation Cost: Same resources, but about 10x to 15x what is required for Mass Irrigation

Thanks for the clarification Adrienne. All I wanted to communicate by mentioning your post was that your list is an example of great suggestions for the game. The vast majority of which have not been implemented to the game. Thanks for the information. Its great to hear that things are happening. Although, I don't believe the amount of content that has been coming out these past two years is completely satisfactory. Honestly, this post comes from simply years of waiting for more content to drop. Discussions with fellow members and other leaders. I am stoked to hear that Alex is putting more effort in, however I hope that effort actually bears fruit. Seems like perfectly reasonable suggestion. Thanks Prefontaine. I hope these paid moderators are effective and we do see more content/improvements drop. I can see this simply being a money grab. However if it is to invest more into the game that's awesome. I wonder however how the extra cash would be invested? Would there be another developer hired?

I was talking to old man wampus yesterday, and he told me something i did not know, I always assumed you can hit the 10 nations above and below your nation. Based on what he told me and what was confirmed by one of my guys, its only the 10 nations above you, not below you. So my suggestion is two fold. First I would recommend that we make it above and below, I also believe we should increase that number to be higher than 10. The game has grown significantly over the last few years, and it feels like 10 is not enough, it is too easy for large nations to build out of range during wars to avoid taking damage. I feel we should increase that number be able to hit the immediate 50 nations larger and smaller than you. Looking at the top 50 as its currently set up, there are now more than 50 nations in the game with atleast 40 cities, so the gap between #1 and #50 isn't terrible, but if the community feels this is too much i would be happy with increasing it to 25 instead of 50. I cant even say this suggestion is self serving, since it will probably hurt my nation and my alliance's nations more than help us.

I dont really feel like writing a long philosophical essay on this so ill just put it straight. I believe alliances should have the option to tax manufactured goods(steel, aluminum, gas, munitions, food) and leave the raw materials(coal, oil, iron, bauxite, lead) alone. Some alliances have no real use of keep fat amounts of raws but need manufactured items on hand. Thank you that is all

I would echo Scarfy here. If you have suggestions for the game, you should feel free to bring them up. That is part of what makes the community great.

𝅘𝅥𝅯 just because it's in a paradox game 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯 doesn't mean you can cram it in here 𝅘𝅥𝅯

when my cities cost over 2 billion dollars to build, its a hard pass from me.