Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/08/20 in all areas

  1. 18 points
    A well supported player simple solution/suggestion of making **all wars (edit: for clarification, make both the offensive and defensive parties in all wars be able to receive beige)** end in beige upon expiry dependent on remaining resistance has been made meaningless with this, what, a cosmetic change at best? No one cares about the in game victory/loss ratio mechanic. None of the proposed points address fighting back from an unfavourable position and none of them address easy time of continuous cycling/sitting on people (translation: permawar easy af) that the recent changes have made possible (and the aforementioned ones do not fix this). Make the first point actually do something and make all the wars beige upon expiry, either based on resistance or some additional factors - and at least, in a way, it will patch up the main issues of the current meta that was radically broken when beige was completely removed. Not being able to break beige until you're down to 12 turns seems like a sufficient counterweight to getting beiged, but it's meaningless if there is simply no possible scenario of a nation getting enough time on beige for respite in the first place.
  2. 15 points
    From the Desk of Old Gobo Fraggle The Very Best Hobo Fraggle. Friends!! Friends!! Friends!! Let old Gobo catch some wind. Our old friend @Prefonteen had us over for some great lettuce. It was amazing until it wasn't. Let old Gobo grab a seat for a minute. The things Gobo heard.... So there we are, all of Fraggle Rock.... Let me grab some lettuce. In a square with our host in the middle. Great lettuce. We were honored. Let me go get Boober and see if he can explain this.... Old Gobo.....that was some great lettuce. Our old friend knows how to have a gathering. So.....me, Boober Fraggle, aka Old Boober, was enjoying the company....mighty fine company. You see, I brought a Doozer with me, unbeknownst to anyone. Well he escaped and fell into a hole. A hole you say? Yes, a hole. So we left the lettuce session minus one Doozer. Well then this little fella came back....with extra lettuce and a story. I'll let him tell it. It's a scam. Coalmas is just a Ponzi scheme. The lettuce man told me so. Well if this Doozer says so, it is. Let's stop this before it goes too far. Flood the coal mines!!!! Down with Exorock!!
  3. 14 points
    Summary of the changes made to the formula as of 5/14: Score per City increased from 50 -> 100 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Suggested changes [bolded]: Score per City increased from 50 -> 75 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.025 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each Ships: 2 -> 1 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Why: The shortest version possible is that the score changes hardlocked people into tiers, it "tightened" war ranges. My contention is that it over-tightened based on city count instead of standing military. Your city count is not a good mechanism to be the main determinant of war range because it does represent your current military capability. The changes effectively have created an environment for wars where, even if you are zeroed, you can't escape people with a similar city count & max military. This is obviously very sub-optimal gameplay and probably unintended. I think the revised numbers will still keep war ranges tightened but not to the extreme we now see. tl;dr - Arrgh has been the guinea pig for these score changes for about a month now. Even while zeroed out we get slotted by people with max military: 2k planes, 20k tanks, 200 boats, max soldiers. That's impossible to get out from under, even while we're running extremely low infra builds. In a large-scale conflict, y'all are going to be in for a world of hurt if these score changes stay the way they are.
  4. 13 points
    Previous strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them. That new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted. New strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them or the war is going to expire. The new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted.
  5. 13 points
    I feel like not being able to leave beige with more than 12 turns is kind of counter productive to what you're trying to achieve. If you want to make it so people can make a comeback during war...not allowing them to leave beige when they please---makes it very difficult for people to coordinate a blitz
  6. 12 points
    Before the beige changes, @Alex, one of the ways people would break out of being perma-cycled was by declaring wars on less experienced members and trying to bait them into beiging you. It stopped easy nation cycling by preying on the less experienced and requiring individuals to be disciplined and milcom teams to be very on top of things in terms of keeping up with memberships and not awarding too much beige time to people. The concern people have is that even by giving beige back, without aggressive wars awarding beige (or some other change that accomplishes something similar), it is still too difficult for people to break out of being permablockaded and makes it too easy for the winning side to permablockade the other side. In short, the old beige mechanics required a lot more strategy and skill to maintain permablockades, the recent changes and new proposals remove a lot of that strategy and also make it more difficult to break out of permablockades/turn a war around.
  7. 11 points
    Dev Team Lead Prefontaine Dev Team Members Azaghul Changeup Lucianus Mad Max Vemek To those who applied an weren't selected, thank you for your time and submissions. I might reach out to you for consulting on specific issues and I'll be keeping your names if the team is going to expand or if it needs to replace any members.
  8. 11 points
    Afrika Korps. Also please don’t bother to apply to TKR in the future.
  9. 10 points
    Most of the time the only people who care about that distinction are fascists and Neo-Nazis. To the rest of us, they're all just trash.
  10. 9 points
    Permit nukes and missiles to be launched at nations you're not at war with. As long as you're not bill-locked and you have a nuke and/or missile, you can launch a nuke or missile at any city. To get an idea what this is like, go to the BattleSims for missiles and nukes: https://politicsandwar.com/battlesim/nuke/ https://politicsandwar.com/battlesim/missile/ Similar to how you test a nuke or missile by entering in a city ID, you just enter in the city ID of the nation you want to nuke or missile. This feature can have it's own screen that you access from the 'Wars' tab using a button next to the 'Find Nations in War Range' button. It could say something like 'Launch Nuke or Missile'. To prevent abuse, you can only launch 1 nuke or missile every 12 turns. You also cannot launch at yourself, members of your alliance, members of allied alliances through in-game treaties, and nations you're already at war with (you have to hit them with nukes/missiles through the war screen with 8/12 MAPs like normal). You can only launch nukes at nations that fall within your war range. Perhaps this 'range' can be increased through a project (or the idea itself activated through a project). To further balance it out, perhaps doing this causes a 0.05% increase in crime for 120 turns for missiles, and a 0.20% increase in crime for nukes. This simulates increased unrest as people riot and protest about their nation committing this senseless act of aggression; at least in normal war we're already fighting the war we're missiling/nuking. This can be used to collect nuclear counties, and radiation damage that affects food production still apply. The 50% missile defense from Iron Dome and the 20% nuke defense from Vital Defense System still apply. This idea doesn't solve any problems, but it allows for more player freedom. People can troll with this, and the resulting drama can fuel politics and lead to interesting interactions and memes. Coordination during war with this can increase an alliance's damage output if their slots are filled but they have an excess of nukes/missiles they can use. Additionally, another alliance can avoid going directly going on the offensive, but can still help a front or an entire war by nuking a particular side's cities.
  11. 9 points
  12. 9 points
    Yes, yes. Let's substitute one supposedly exploitable mechanic with a more complicated, more easily exploitable mechanic that will definitely end up being another point of contention 6 months down because "its not working as intended". Tbh, this suggestion spree is ill-advised because the core mechanic which was functional has been borked out of laziness.
  13. 8 points
    All wars that expire, end in victory or defeat based on the remaining resistance. If a war ends with a tie in remaining resistance, the defending nation is declared the victor. Once a war ends in victory/defeat, the defeated nations gains 4 turns of temporary beige status to prevent that slot from being instantly filled. This status does not stack and thus can never exceed 4 turns. This is to allow for an 8 hour window in which a nation may choose to use their beige bank after a war ends. When a war ends by expiration, the defeated nation loses portion of the infra and loot they would normally lose. The portion depends on the remaining resistance of the defeated nation. If they have 50 resistance left, they only lose 50% of the infra and loot they would have lost. Is they have 25 resistance left, they lose 75% of the infra and loot they would have lost. Nations who lose a defensive war gain 24 turns of beige bank. Nations who lose an offensive war gain 12 turns of beige bank. Nations can hold a max of 96 turns of beige bank (8 days) Once a nation gains time into their beige bank, that time expires in 16 days. Once a nation activates their beige bank, any wars that expire with the bank active add to the active bank timer but cannot exceed the cap. A nation cannot leave beige with more than 36 turns of beige unless they are a newly created nation leaving beige for the first time. Once your beige bank is active, when you leave beige your bank is reduced to 0 even if you leave with a remaining balance. You cannot activate your beige bank while you have an active offensive war. This is designed to put the control of beige into the player going into beige. This will add a new level of strategy into when nations/alliances should have members move to and come out of beige, and provides the attackers strategies to extend the maximize the amount of time their targets will receive a sub-optimal beige count as well as disrupting timers for the coordinated return. Damage and loot lost at the end of a war is determined by how much resistance was lost by the losing party, it's effectively 100-remaining resistance to give the percent. Nations repeatedly losing offensive wars can also gain beige timers to assist with raiders being able to find a reprieve. Slot filling rules will need to encompass the prospect of a nation declaring upon another nation and then performing to guarantee a loss and the addition of 12 turns of beige.
  14. 8 points
    After reviewing feedback from Azaghul's thread Alex is considering removing the auto-accepting peace mechanic. That mechanic being that when a nation has been defeated and is beige, that nation auto-accepts peace offers sent to them in other existing wars. The main changes to the mechanic as a whole are as follows: All wars will end in a victory or defeat when they expire determined by remaining resistance levels. In the case of a tie, the defender is victorious. Wars that end through expiration will not cause infrastructure damage or give loot. Nations who are placed into beige from losing a war cannot leave beige early if they have more than 12 turns of beige time remaining. Newly created nations can still leave beige early. Losing a war adds 20 turns of beige with a maximum of 5 days of beige. Aggressors will no longer receive beige if they lose their war. Last call for input before the changes are finalized on the test server, tested, then moved live.
  15. 8 points
  16. 7 points
    I have a radical alternative suggestion guys! Why don't we, and I want you to hear me out before thinking im crazy, Why don't we reinstate beige under the old mechanics and instead of implementing a bunch of half-assed, overcomplicated mechanics that'll end up not doing what they are intended to do, just apply consistent, structured moderation? The mechanic wasn't broken. The moderation surrounding it was (ill-defined rules that were/are open to exploitation but more importantly, arbitrary moderating decisions due to a lack of consistency in application of the already ill defined rules as well as hardheadedness when unsurprisingly, contradictory decisions cause controversy). Or we can continue fricking up the meta until the elements that constituted PW's unique selling points relative to other browser sims are entirely substituted with ass. Either way, i'll be here.
  17. 7 points
    Alliance: The Knights Radiant Broken rules: War slotting in use to blockading people. The whole entire week, they've been war slotting me and blocking my resources which makes it impossible to fight against our attackers and then having only one person to block our resources then attacking all over again. Please do something about this because it makes the game unplayable, unless blockading is nerfed, it makes the entire game impossible to play. In fact probably useless to play since you have literally no options to defend yourself. Imagine a game where when you attack, you cant defend. After all, the rule applies only if it has moderation discretion meaning that the rules only apply if moderation says so.
  18. 6 points
    No, he's just an idiot who thinks he knows anything because TI doesn't have literally any other option for milcom, lol.
  19. 6 points
    I'm just gonna copy paste what I said in the discord tbh. The only thing on the test server preventing is literally two small changes. Ones that don't require having to bullshit people that it "adds a new layer of strategy" while anyone who actually understands what strategy is sees that it's just replacing one existing level with a different one. Literally the only part about the "different one" I actually like at all is offensive nation's still get beige, and that the cap is higher than 5 days. AKA, the two changes to the current test server that would make your entire spiel irrelevant. And that I'd frankly prefer to trying to plan and coordinate with noobs a week in advance of activity and actions just it utilize it properly. Because shocker, most alliances aren't your proper TEst level of elite who can figure it out alone while you sip a martini. Large alliances are already unwieldy to handle and coordinate, your "new level of strategy" just makes an already difficult task and leaves it so that maybe 3 alliances over 100 and 4 if you expand to over 75, would actually have the present skill, experience and sheer hands on deck to handle not being gutter trash. And if you're TI forgetaboutit, at nearly 300 members you're just RIP.
  20. 6 points
    This is very easily abused and basically means that every war declared leads to the defensive person getting beiged no matter what. You may ask how, well let's say I declare war on you and do 1 ground attack to eliminate 10 resistance. All you need to do is. . . Wait, and you've won the war. There is no point in declaring offensive wars in a global because the defender will always get 6+ days of beige no matter what you do. Alex may be trying to get people to fight in wars that are declared, but I assure you this will do the exact opposite and make the meta literally not doing anything in defensive wars.
  21. 6 points
    I get where you're coming from. Coming from a former alliance leaders point of view, I would want my members to know that they should be doing this themselves. Better informed members, better alliance sort of thinking. If you have members that aren't performing how you want them to, even as simple as being on the correct color, that can easily be fixed with leaders communicating with their members. If you have members that refuse to follow that basic sort of instruction, perhaps they should be considered to be removed from said alliance. Again, this is coming from a former leadership POV. Having a few small areas which require leaderships to instruct members on how they should be performing isn't a bad thing, IMO. All that being said, I don't feel strongly against adding such a mechanic.
  22. 6 points
  23. 6 points
    Similar to the removal of downvotes, I think this could encourage people to instead reply physically (with malice), and the ND rules do not really stop people as is. As for reducing the likelihood of producing good faith reports, I'm not sure the reactions actually discourage people from making them, since downvotes don't have any baring on reputation. They're a tool to easily show dissent/disagreement, which you tend to see on reports made disingenuously, fall into a gray area, or a person merely disagrees with enforcement on whichever rule. Overall I think it is important to maintain reactions on reports because people will make bad faith reports regardless, and the community needs a way to publicly denounce them. Edit: Is is also possible that there isn't a lack of good faith reports as gauging the moderation subforum may make one believe, but that many of those reports are, instead, made privately, off-forum, due to the negative connotation associated with being a "whisteblower." I have personally received messages including nations to report because they don't want to make the report themselves.
  24. 5 points
    Buck. This is a war mechanics discussion. Let's have ppl who actually war these days talk here, instead of 4k+ infra dudes.
  25. 5 points
    Founded on May 3rd, 2020 by 5 like-minded individuals, Radiant Design Co. is a solution for all your design needs. There was a gap in the market, where many people who were seeking to customize their nations or alliances couldn't find the people they needed to help them with their graphic needs, or their existing options were too expensive for them, which is why we created the Radiant Design Company. The company has been a success and now we are hiring again! If you are skilled with Photoshop or have a talent for design and want to make yourself some PnW cash then Radiant Design Company is the place for you. For more information you can visit our discord server: https://discord.gg/NWDghwr DM me on discord for applications or more info surrounding becoming a designer at RDC: Eclipse#2657
  26. 5 points
    Except the beige he's testing out is neutered in accordance to his priorities/considerations, which haven't changed. Expecting him not only to return to old beige (which he clearly doesn't intend to do), but implement one which, for his purposes/considerations, is even worse, is unrealistic. Before beige got removed, they could escape if they put the effort into it anyways. As for flaws, just to cite a few: People intentionally UF'ing (mind you, this was already happening to some degree last war), so to still kill units whilst not grinding resistance (so to deny beige to their foe). Thing is, there'd be a much higher incentive to do this now, since being just one res below the other guy would deny him the beige. Given that the infra/loot damage would also be fractioned, rather than the full value, taking this beige wouldn't be as punitive either. And no, the trade ratios wouldn't be that much of an issue with air, due to how dogfights work. It wouldn't just be a matter of people not wanting to win their wars (which seemingly bothers Alex); people wouldn't even want to win those individual battles. This is also a further nerf to aggression. Being the aggressor has it's own set of costs, which include political ones, if not properly justified (it doesn't matter that you're tired about that "old song and dance"; other people aren't, and it's a relevant matter for politics, and it'll continue to be a relevant matter for politics). It also takes genuine effort to put together a good offensive. These costs and efforts should come with a set of tangible benefits of their own. One of them being conventional control. This benefit has already been nerfed with the casualties reduction. Given that it's already harder to bring these nations down, they shouldn't just be able to rebound effortlessly. Else, there would be no incentive to be the aggressor, which would lead to no one wanting to be such, and with it, a staler (read:boring) game. And no, there isn't much disruption that'll happen, given that you'd be able to hold beige for 16 days. This is guaranteed two war cycles if all wars expires; else, it'd be more. It's simply too long for such to be possible, as you'd be all but guaranteed to get more than enough beige time for a comeback. I'd also suggest you actually try to address the point raised by them, rather than just smugly reduce them to one or two talking points and discard out of hand. You're the one trying to argue for this mechanic; make a proper defence for it.
  27. 5 points
    Perhaps making beige a player controlled mechanic? Instead of being sent to beige when you are defeated in this system (even expiring wars ending in defeat/victory), you add time to a beige bank? This bank can be capped at a set number of turns (days) and those turns would expire after X days, maybe something like 10. Once you use your beige bank you're required to use all of the time in one go. If you have 6 days stacked up, you have to use all 6, however you do have the option to come out early in the last 12 turns (1 day) like in the current system. This would theoretically allow for a nation to start rebuilding in their own way, and can be coordinated by active alliances to allow for counter attacks in subsequent rounds. There could also be a temp beige status for anyone who was just defeated in a war, something like say 6 hours (3 turns) where a new war cannot be declared on that nation. This way, should a nation want to use that beige bank they have a window to do so without their slot being instantly re-filled. Effectively a nation would fight in the first few waves even while losing and then be able to deploy a prolonged beige status at the time of their choosing. These several days of beige allow for rebuilding and blockade expiration. Yes other active wars would still be going on, and perhaps any wars that end in defeat while in beige status add to the currently active beige timer. Adds an element of strategy for both attacking and defending. Rewards active/organized militaries. Opening blitzes can cause more damage by prolonging the duration of exposure to attacks while bank building and still allows for the ability to come back from being knocked down. EDIT: and to the point of attackers and defenders, losing a defensive war can give 2 days of beige bank, and attackers losing a war only get 1.
  28. 4 points
    i would agree your proposal sounds a bit more reasonable.
  29. 4 points
    Yea that is kind of what happens when 20+ TCM members decided they don't want get trapped in a Coal Mine that is in the process of collapsing in on itself due to poor maintenance and poor management.
  30. 4 points
    Yes, nations who get zeroed out will eventually have the ability to rebuild and fight back. The alternative scenario is that you can hold someone down forever?
  31. 4 points
    https://gofile.io/d/EmNYk8 Here's the recording of the episode. I think it'll only be up for a few days, so download it while you can. I would've preferred to have it hosted somewhere for streaming but YouTube wouldn't allow it because it's to long. Oh well I guess. Nokia recorded this (big thank you to him) and he started doing so before the preshow. I'm not sure where everything is so it's best to just start from the beginning and have it on in the background as you do something else. If you just want to hear Nokia and James go at it, skip to 30 minutes in. This would've been up sooner, but my internet is trash and there's nothing I can do about it. Hope you guys enjoy it! I had a lot of people in my DM's asking about it. I think this will suffice.
  32. 3 points
    This is quite sad tbh. He asks a legit question and everyone gangs up on him calling him a nazi and what not. It's a game, there can be fascist alliances as much as communist alliances. In fact, by definition, many normal PnW alliances are run by a fascist style government. @Francoist To answer your question, no. The majority of the players here prefer to pick something non-political to base their alliance on. We have anime based alliances, game based alliances, historical, among many other themes. When alliances attempt to get too political, they fail pretty quick. I would join an alliance that has good people, strong defenses, and a theme you enjoy. I hope this helped, and I apologize for your sour welcoming.
  33. 3 points
    Just because one of the two evils is accepted doesn't mean that the second evil should also be accepted. Also, the ideology of communism/socialism isn't necessarily evil, but the dictators in charge of the state were. Compare this to Fascism, which is literally based off of the oppression of enemies and the discrimination of non aryan races. So yes, Stalin and Zedong were evil, but they weren't a product of the ideology.
  34. 3 points
    The argument between Big Brother and Fancroist was fun, but uh... you're both right ig. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism, in the same way Nazism is an offshoot of Fascism. So if socialists get to distance themselves from Fascists, Fascists can distance themselves from Nazis. But every Non-Nazi Fascist Government was run by !@#$ too. Nazis weren't the only bad fascists. So no one should defend them either. Make a Fascist AA when you have the funds if you want, I don't have anything against it not being against the rules, but part of having a fascist OR communist theme is dealing with people whose sensibilities you've offended.
  35. 3 points
    Similar to what I said in this post here, Is this supposed to go hand-in-hand with the other changes? Combining beige bank with reserve units, for example, makes defense so immensely powerful. Whenever defense is too powerful, like what @Shiho Nishizumi mentioned earlier, it crushes the incentive to start a war. Aggressors are taking on way too much risk if defense is too strong as there is a political cost to being the aggressor. We already have a 6 month NAP in place. Knightfall technically didn't even end with an NAP, but still had a long period of peace following it (could be wrong here, don't quite remember). Alliances need to stockpile resources to fund their war efforts. It's why wars don't last 2 weeks anymore like they did when this game first started out. Now, when tanks were buffed recently and planes nerfed, alliances then had to make sure to stockpile more steel. The combination of steel costs, political costs of aggression, buffing of defense (and therefore weakening of aggression), stockpiling behavior, and rampant changes (whoever wants to start the next war is going to have to consider being the guinea pig for this plethora of untested changes) is just going to stifle aggressors from starting wars. And again, like what Shiho said earlier, that'll just lead to a more stagnant and boring game. I'm not saying there should be zero changes to the war system. You may indeed want to help people get out of perma-pinning situations. But it's unclear what the effect of all these various suggestions are going to be when combined. For example, it's been implied that two of the previous suggestions are already going to happen, yet we haven't even been able to test them yet, let alone see them on the live server and judge them before moving onto another suggestion. I know the player base tends to beat up Alex about a lack of updates, but maybe we should slow back down a little bit, lol.
  36. 3 points
    Definition of fascism 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition So outside of the "authoritarian" piece of fascism, Authoritarian being a different word btw, fascism is almost exclusively defined by Nazi principles of racial purity, ubernationalism, and the like. Also nice troll, former GOON or NPO player.
  37. 3 points
    No, it doesn't. I'd prefer you didn't waste everyone's time trying to claim otherwise either, it is for this specific reason when I talk about almost no one on this subforum knowing what a bigger picture is that you're one of the first names to come up. At least unlike pre you're not also blatantly disingenuous, you just chronically fail to observe other details than the primary one which has garnered your eye. When one seeks to solve a problem one must consider the other effects their solution may have. Honestly I think you're vastly out of touch from being in TKR for basically ever that you do not know or do not remember what it's actually like to be in an alliance that is not just generally all around good generally all the time. I made my point with size, it gets exponentially harder the bigger you are, but allow me to illustrate how little size actually matters to my point. Let's say it's a more middling alliance. 45 members. These mechanics are introduced and war has broken out. You were hit with a well executed blitz that completely rolled you and your allies, unsuspecting of it, into the dust. As milcom you just spent the last several days putting up the best defense you could, ensuring warchests were had, builds switched, units and their rebuys used and timed correctly, counters sent where they could be sent, communicating with your allies as you start to setup a centralized command structure and planning a large scale counter attack with the beige banks. Stuff looks pretty bad right now, you got blindsided hard and as a middling alliance, poor morale especially in the face of a superior enemy is a far greater concern to you than the Titans you tug the robes of. Even they are concerned, but your enemy all beiged you, no fancy delaying their timings or anything to screw you up, they made it easy! So it's decided the beige banks will be used ASAP to launch a counterattack! Your new job is to now organize and manage 45 warchests, nation wide city builds, unit buys, activity, personal daily reset settings, beige banks, you need to setup squads, pick your targets, assign people to them, coordinate all of this with all the hundreds of other nations being managed by allied milcoms. And don't forget, if your enemies are intelligent you're also still managing current wars, more incoming, potentially counters for those or allies, oh and I almost forgot spy operations! All this while planning a coordinated blitz a week+ in advance and hoping people show up or don't quit or VM or leave or that your enemy guesses you're coming and correctly blunts you with their own counter blitz. And God forbid anybody particularly in gov, just can't spare the time because of life, lol. Now all of this, doesn't sound that bad to you I'm sure. For Pre, he ran an alliance of elites, it wasn't necessary to do all that. For TKR, there's just so many bloody government members, not even counting retired ones who could still be called in to help, the task is great but so is the manpower to tackle it. That, is straight up, not the case, for almost every alliance in the game. They either lack manpower or the knowledge or often both. Even in the four whole alliances I think could handle pulling an operation off like this, it's still alot of effort on the people doing it. And don't forget, bigger alliances attract more people, particularly people with skill and knowledge. A larger alliance is not merely more powerful because of its many members, but also because it's very power is a positive feedback loop that attracts more individuals with the ability to push that even further. Which is a very long winded way of saying, most alliances simply cannot field a milcom department large or experienced enough to do this. TKR has probably what, 5+ what might as well be milcom heads, good ones even, if it needed that many? Syndicate has at least three, and they're some of the best period. Rose has Valk and DtC both of which have no life Roses milcom into actually existing single handedly before. Lastly, my own alliance, just in active gov currently, effectively has at minimum 5 major Milcom personnel who could walk into damn near any other alliance in the game and suddenly that alliance would have a respectable milcom. As much as I wish the game to be more skill oriented because I'm a self biased patrician who would benefit from such, go too hard in that direction and even I'll quit the game because I'll be bored, and everyone else will quit because why bother when the logistical operations demanded by these mechanics are so significant that compared to a TKR, they might as well not have an MA to begin with. And then at the end of it all, even if that entire anecdote is wrong, you will still be crushed and lose to a cadre of alliances who have more resources than you, more people to fight on, and more commanders to get them to do so.if you don't want 6 month long wars then at some point, making an enemy bend the knee and keeping it bent, must be possible. Perma warring is after all, included in the rules now.
  38. 3 points
    I must admit i had a great laugh, Its funny you of all people has an opinion about the war changes
  39. 3 points
    why does the beige have to last up to 8 days if a full rebuild takes 5? I don't mind that it stacks up, but I don't think it needs to be stacked up for over 5 days. maybe, we could add a max stack of 5 days and once that is reached (3 total beiges) all other wars automatically expire. This also means the loser will only be plundered 3 times and winners will likely race to be amongst the first 3 beigers thus, encouraging the proper use of beige. That would ensure the defender 5 days of uninterrupted beige without nations "sitting" on them. Another little tweak could be that a war must have at least 1 attack every 24 hours from either party or the war will expire. That's easily played around but it will also help the whole "sitting" strategy we are so used to to circumvent the purpose of beige.
  40. 3 points
    If anything, it'd be worse in that regard. But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected. That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.
  41. 3 points
    I've been giving some though to a new National Project idea or Domestic Policy. It is my preference that the following suggested mechanic would work best as a National Project and not as a Domestic Policy. The idea stemmed from the Domestic Policy of Urbanization which reduces costs of infrastructure and I realized there is no mechanic to reduce land costs. I though adding such a mechanic would be welcomed by some players. Such a mechanic can be introduced as a project named "Agricultural Mastery" rather than a domestic policy and have the following effects: Agricultural Mastery - Agricultural Mastery is a national project that reduces the cost of land in cities by 5%. Agriculural Mastery also increases food production in your nation by 2% and reduces pollution in your cities by 1%. Agricultural Mastery requires Irrigation System National Project an City Planning/Civil Engineering National Project.
  42. 3 points
    And again, if the concern is moderation, just rewrite the rule so that it only concerns itself with allies slot filling. What's defined as an ally? Direct ties and whoever is in their temporary coalition. It'd be easier to change (especially given the bugs that invariably follow an update), it'd net the same end result, and it'd avoid having another rather poor update be pushed out. It simply makes more sense as a whole.
  43. 3 points
    Pretty self explanatory. Reports are getting politicized, with IRL and ingame politics, and this is reducing the likelihood that players will produce good faith reports, while increasing the chance that bad faith reports will be made. This is a natural extension of the non-discussion rule. Edit: I think I remember already suggesting this. Can't remember the outcome though.
  44. 3 points
    Poster has no matching nation, so topic has been locked.
  45. 3 points
    I was issued a nation strike for supposed promotion of violence against a race. I disagree with this because the city names in question were regarding the BLM group and rayshard brooks, who is a person. while I can understand if you don't want me promoting violence, I was not, I was saying cops should be able to defend themselves against protesters and criminals. neither BLM or rayshard brooks are a race of people, and I was not promoting violence about either, I was saying cops should get an rpg for self-defense and that there was nothing wrong with the shooting of brooks, it was sad, but is what happens if you try to shoot a cop. I am not contesting my other two strikes for slot filling and racism, but I would like to note that I am a firm believer in the phrase all lives matter, and I believe racism is the lowest, most crude form of collectivism and should be shunned from polite society if it is real. I was also unaware what I was doing was slot filing, but I accept your decision on that. Ban ID: 1825
  46. 3 points
    You can see why we are hiring 😂
  47. 3 points
    Again, I don't see what is preventing Alex from simply rewriting the rules to acknowledge the reality at hand. It'd be preferable as it's easier to modify that than it is to rewrite the code and have it not be bugged for weeks on end (on top of the initial time invested which is much more substantial).
  48. 3 points
    Just have slot filling be limited to keeping allies from filling each other's slots, and call it a day. Maybe make an exception for some really obvious cases (example, guy in an AA at war declares on some people not at war, who would have the incentive to beige him ASAP to get rid of him) if you'd like. It definitely doesn't warrant making it nigh-impossible for someone downed to rebound.
  49. 3 points
  50. 2 points
    The great nation of Pontus Euxinius is looking for monetary investments The nation recently united under Emperor Ciprian the 1st and the civil war had a toll on the economy We are looking for Forein aid to be able to put back the nation on its path to Greatnes
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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