Leaderboard

Howdy there! So listen up, 'cause we got some big news for ya: IOSEF STALIN ALLIANCE GOT ITSELF A DIPLOMATIC ALLY WITH THE ADMIN TEAM!! Can you believe dat shi? But lemme tell yah, we didn't just go around makin' friends wit da admins causwe thought they was kewl - no sirreee. We did our research first and found out them admin peeps be pretty friggen smart n' organized, so we figgered hey why not give em a shot as our buddies? Plus, let's face it, who doesn't want a powerful friend like dem guys on your side eh? Anyways, it was a bit tricky convincindemto join forces since thay don'treALLWAYS wanta trust strangers (can you blame em?) but after showinm dem whata good buddy WE couldbe... well let'ssay it worked out okay innthend? Nowadays we even hava lil group chattin session goin once in aw while where we swapstoriesn'shiz and just hangout LIKE REGULAR PPL YA FEEL ME???

Alex and Orcanshul have made huge FA moves here. The entire game will be watching the new power dynamic...

Camelot couldn't handle the heat I was spitting

Hello Orbis, it was brought to my attention that some people go to the trouble of making multis but don't put too much effort into covering it up. In that sense, I want to give those fellas a few helpful tips that might come in handy in case they wanna make successful multi farms in the future. 1 - Avoid patterns in the account names, as per the example below: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=104710 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=107663 2 - Don't have accounts in the same alliance (refer to the examples above which will serve us for the entire guide); 3 - Try to have nations with different size, not with the same city count; 4 - Create the accounts within a considerable period of each other; 5 - Do not declare war on the same nation, with both accounts, within 30 days, otherwise you're just asking to get caught; 6 - Try to pick different continents for your nation; 7 - Do not log off both accounts at the same time; 8 - Do not choose identical national projects for each nation, try to mix it up a bit. I hope this was helpful.

If someone is on the same continent as you, your war range gets a slight buff. So even if they are out of regular war range the buff can allow you to attack them. This should be a very minor buff but I think it would be realistic and I think it makes sense. For people concerned with coding this - it's literally just changing the percent value for people on the same continent.

A full explanation of how it would work. The idea came up during casual discussion in RON, and it was recommended that I drop it here so it doesn't get buried. The feedback I've gotten so far has been generally positive, but I'm curious to hear more about my proposal and any similar ones that have come up.

- The Drauhts were gathered together, sharing a banquet which was unlike many held before. Outstanding both in lavishness and solemnity, it likewise stood out since it marked the last gathering that was to take place under Requiem's banners. Unable to properly interpret Father's teachings following the Vizier's fall into slumber, both followers and officers alike had decided that it was best to bring the organization to an end on good terms. The bell's ringing to mark midnight went unnoticed, as the banquet lasted well into the early hours of dawn. A final meal was held during the afternoon, after which the followers packed up their belongings, and gathered to bid a final farewell to the premises that had served as their home for upwards to nearly a year. Most proceeded to leave as a group, set to join a new enterprise. A handful left on their own, seeking to chart a different path instead. The sacred grounds soon fell silent. Only one person remained. The Harjis slowly walked around the now deserted premises, so as to make sure that everything was in order. After making sure that everything was as it should be, he withdrew to the small shrine. Originally a place where services were held, it had been repurposed into the Vizier's resting place in the latter days of the organization. Somberness filled the air. Hours went by as the Harjis idly sat besides the Vizier, deep in his thoughts. He recollected what had happened in the past year, and pondered about what was to come; such thoughts blended and merged to produce a general bittersweet feel. The Vizier was the person most apt to interpret Father's teachings. He was also a person with a sense of direction and leadership that was seldom matched. He had known how to rally countless people in times past. While tasked to divulge Father's teaching, he was still seen as a fatherly figure by many of those who continue to fly his banners of old. Neither his dormant body nor his belongings could be safely moved, less so in the current situation. The bell rang to mark midnight in a cold and serene night. The Harjis still laid in wait. A small but distinct noise broke the silence. He immediately stood up, instinctively laying his hand on his sword's grip. He walked outside and towards the gates. On the opposite side of the fence stood a man who wore a distinctive green tunic. From top to bottom, the uniform worn by this person was very familiar to him. After being presented with a letter and seal that confirmed the person's provenance, the Harjis welcomed him in. Following a night's sleep and a frugal breakfast, both men talked as they slowly walked around the premises, finally arriving at the shrine. The Harjis presented the dignitary with the master key, after which he shook hands with him, laid a final tribute to the Vizier, and left for the gates. Now outside, Shiho watched as The Syndicate's banner was raised above that of Requiem's, signifying it's new status as an extension of the former. Raindrops gently began to fall in the middle of an otherwise sunny day. He readied his belongings, produced a map from his pocket, and set off for his new destination. Such marks the end of Requiem. - Most set off in the pursuit of new glories under a new banner and vision. A handful decided to pursue their own paths. A many will have reunion, followed with closure. May it be that all find happiness.

From my viewpoint, the gov expands as the membership expands. Taking my own personal experience of starting up and running grumpy. When we first formed and had about 10-15 members, i did everything, i ran the bank, i did our FA, i did our IA, I ran the military and i had a few people as higher level advisors to run ideas across to make sure I didnt do anything supremely stupid. As we grew I had to start delegating responsibilities, I gave up Econ to Pres, then I took on a military lead, at one point I hired a FA guy (what up zig!) I did this because the amount of work needed to do these jobs to the level I thought they required, needed more than just me micromanaging everything. End of the day, as a gov member your general membership is your customer, and you need to be serving them as best you can. You need to remember they dont work for you, you work for them. I think alot of people either dont understand this, or just dont realize this, and those people are terrible leaders.

Goodbye, Req. It was an honor and pleasure to work alongside every one of y'all. Let us see what the future holds.

Er... I would argue the way alliances are generally run is a natural outgrowth of the game mechanics and human nature, not something specifically modelled after NPO. Democracy isn't some default state we have moved away from. Lmfao. No. The game has a talent shortage, not some hidden surplus of brilliant players being held back by the evil old elitist cabals. Your argument is a generalization. Some alliances are led by people who as you would say have "actual competence at running the alliance" and some of those people are terrible at FA and despite having internally competently run alliances, consistently find themselves in bad FA situations. Some alliances are indeed run by FA operators who possess no skills at managing alliances, running departments etc. But that is what the purpose of a second in command and high government is, and the better alliances find that balance. Some leaders are skilled at FA and have the ability to manage people, delegate tasks, run individual departments. In short, some alliances, are bad. That does not suggest a wider formula of "elitism". The truth is, this game lacks talent in pretty much every field. Most alliances are not teeming with back benches of talented potential government members. There is not enough competent Econ/IA/Milcom/FA people to go around. This has been the case for literally the entire existence of the game. This game is played at different levels. Different people are comfortable with different levels. You are looking at everything through the lens of politics, and assuming that it's how everyone perceives the game. Many players don't care about FA at all. They login, press some buttons, fight people, buy shit. Some people want a community to engage with. Others want to run the internals of an alliance and never see the FA, some want to run the bank etc. Some players like doing their meta news shit, radio shows, or playing other games with their community. Some want to raid, see their loot numbers go up, be on the war leaderboards, spy people, be a troll, shit post. Some like to make bigass forum posts complaining about the people generating content for the game they play. If your doomposting was actually true the game would have died a long time ago. I don't think we can agree that we play within a closed off system that voraciously discourages new blood. I think most alliances would happily take more government. Some people are not suited for it and will always find it hard to break into government, and we can say that's unfair or whatever but go play any other multiplayer game that requires you to interact with others and you'll see the same situation. This I can at least agree with. Operating your alliances for the sake of legacy or longevity without proactive action and generating interesting content within the game is a weak purpose. But this undercuts your point. You both recognize the majority of content is generated by certain players and take issue with this, but in the same breath you yearn for people to do more. Then perhaps all of the stifled low gov people you referred to should band together, form a new alliance, and come take their position at the table. This idea that gatekeeping is what holds back alliances is honestly silly. If you bring value, alliances will flock to you, if you are competent, alliances will work with you. You can't sit in your bubble building cities and expect to be taken seriously, you have to assert yourself, which is why FA operators are leaders, more often than not. I would suggest like others in the thread, that instead of trying to proselytize the game into conforming to your idea of how things should be, you should simply make the alliance you envision, and prove it's viability. The excuse that we are not tolerant of failed experiments, is just that, and excuse. If you have conviction in what you are saying, then you shouldn't see the risk of failure. Stop criticizing the people making moves if you aren't willing (or able) to manifest all these ideas you are arguing for.

You want to know why I was allies with Guardian for years? Because they know what they are doing. If they tell you something is probably a bad idea, you should listen to them.

One way to ruin your alliance rep I guess. I somewhat get it, aim high and then have them negotiate down to where you want to be. This was however a pretty bad mis-step and there are people experienced enough in this war who should have stopped it. HS coming out now and acting like the community is the problem for being understandbly annoyed by the term also always ends well. Maybe it's time to go back to t$ if that's where the mindset is at?

The smallest violin plays for you.

You can only make one mistake in joining NW, and that is joining tomorrow instead of now

It hurts me to see that Grumpy is struggling to take our deserved crown as best alliance for new players. Our grant program, in which you grant us some money to be allowed to join and we offer no city grants whatsoever, is a unique concept; similarly our ability to protect the newest of players (nobody is in range but we'll offer moral support) provides a service nobody else can match.

*Yawn*

While I will agree that are terms are a bit hardline, we’ve been working with you guys to the best of our abilities to come to a more amicable agreement. I don’t see how we are acting in “bad faith” when we try to have a mature conversation. After being able to discuss things with Piggy, we’ve been willing to negotiate in a respectful manner and narrow things down. I’ve even attempted to agree to the conditions you yourself asserted upon us, but you unfriended me before I could even agree to them. As far as the situation regarding Legion, we have willingly negotiated out the term entirely, along with a good number of our other terms. We were willing to negotiate it out from the start, and after being able to have a conversation, it has been negotiated out. As far as the third claim, the interview was on 6/11, almost a full month ago. Positions have changed throughout the war, and the comment was made prior to terms being drafted in any form. Sentiment at the time of the interview would be that you guys would be completely unwilling to negotiate, and that seems to have checked out for some of you.