Alex

This is just a mistaken description, likely from a long, long time ago. Ships themselves can't damage aircraft, and I'll fix the description to reflect that.

I'll update the tank description page, but essentially 1 tank = 40 soldiers, or like 22-23 armed soldiers (w/ munitions). Tanks are very expensive, cost a lot in upkeep for gasoline/munitions, but also are destroyed less often than soldiers are killed in battle. Who wins a battle is (generally) determined by overall army size, so if you factor in soldiers along with tanks at their soldier value (40/22) then you can get a better idea of when you might want to have them and when you might not want to have them.

At one point you couldn't have more units of any type than you had soldiers, someone told me it was ridiculous and so it was changed. (This was some time ago). Now, it appears, it is not so ridiculous, and the number of tanks/ships/aircraft should in fact be pegged to soldier count.

Updated

I don't think you could just steamroll into North Korea for fear of what they might do. They're "nuclear capable" (I'm not 100% sure they have fully working bombs or w/e, but they've been researching it at least) and while they don't have a long range the risk of one being lobbed at Seoul is probably enough to keep us from sending troops in. Couple that with the fact that we'd likely face high casualties as they're going to be pretty built in, I think it's the sheer cost of doing something like this that prevents us from toppling the NK dictatorship. It's not for a lack of want, but a lack of practicality.

Welcome, Nathan, I'm going to change your forum account display name to reflect your in-game leader name so you don't get your forum account suspended. Other than that, how are you liking P&W and how did you find the game?

I think most players would find it tedious to have to click twice do something once, but that's just my opinion. If there's enough support for a prompt before every transaction, there's no reason it couldn't be done.

You need 3 posts before you can get the bonus.

Glad you got it figured out, also remember that any wars you were in before you turned to beige will still remain active even if your color changes.

Right, I'm aware and still have yet to come up with a solution. I'm open to suggestions. The issue is simply that if applicants don't affect the alliance bank when they lose a war, an alliance could have all its members as applicants to protect the bank.

Well, this is an interesting debate, but like all things, it's time for it to come to an end. I apologize if you feel that you did not get a chance to get your point accross and that I'm cutting off your debate, but it's just chance that I found this thread when I did. Please let this discussion be, or find a different medium to have it (not on the forums or in-game, please). Thanks.

Pages of note that need to be changed?

But the bot just tells you what numbers are in range -- in-game you can actually see the list of nations that are in range of someone else.

Well, are you sure you didn't just build a Wind Power Plant? Those cost 25 aluminum. Looking at your nation you have two Wind Power Plants (-50 Aluminum) and your nation has bought 50 aluminum (+50 Aluminum). You have 0 on hand right now, no evidence of getting any through bank activity or wars, and you don't have any aluminum refineries. Looks like 50 in, 50 out, and that's why you have 0 to me.

The awards are tied directly to your account - If your account was deleted (through inactivity) then your awards will be gone with it.

Good catch, I'll fix it, although you can't accept any offer for more than the player has on hand at the time anyway. (No way to exploit it)

More roleplay really adds to the game, we do have sections on the forums for roleplay, though: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/forum/41-national-affairs/

No? I just click on (for example the green one, which is Uranium) once and it switches to showing me just the price of uranium over the past 30 days. Clicking it again brings me back to all the resources.

Updated

I get that it's a power grid that costs money, but what does it do? Like why would anyone want to spend all that money/resources on it?

I'm not talking more math and number crunching, I'm saying I don't want a new way for players to abuse the game to get an unfair advantage. I already stated I would add a separate tax rate for resources, but we don't need a million bells and whistles to satisfy every desire, especially when there's serious potential for it to be abused. 1) Look at the tools we already have. There are constantly nations cheating through trades and bank activity. Sure, it's against the rules, and if I catch you you'll get banned, but people will still try it anyway. During the speed round, alliances practically did this already - they set their tax rates to 100% and brought in a lot of coin from inactive nations. 2) I agree with you that nations should be removed from alliances for inactivity, more-so for the small inactive alliances that affect color stock to be removed. I'd say 14 days is a good time. Nations are deleted at 45 days, and accounts after one week with no nation.

As Grillick stated, that's easily solved through a little resource/money distribution. Send your smaller nations more money from the bank if you want them taxed less, or having your food producing nations manually send in extra food once in a while. It doesn't all need to be done automatically so that nobody has to login or actually do anything.

What?

All I can see this being used for is creating a 100% tax bracket that inactive nations get thrown into so they can be farmed by the alliance until they're deleted for inactivity. Having this sort of system does not encourage activity, whereas having the players actually do some work distributing resources does. I am pretty firmly against this idea.

I think you'll like it here! Welcome to the game, Christian Iles!