Grave

The secret plan to give coal to the Swamp is in full swing.

A simple rickroll > sarcastic apology Its not even close.

This would be a change that would allow beige to return as it was and still not be better than winning, not replace beige .

I think this deserves a Necrobump.

It's definitely a complicated set of issues, I ultimately agree more with the statement all lives matter, black people aren't the only POC who face Socioeconomic obstacles, systematic racism and race driven police brutality. But saying All lives matter as a counter argument to Black Lives Matter is usually a refusal to acknowledge the validity of the statement that Black lives matter, and when societies actions gives off the impression that Black Lives don't matter and never really have, it's not a selfish self-promotion in ignorance of the plights of others , it's a reminder of this simple fact that Black lives matter . On the topic of the Riots, like the prior, is also very complicated, stealing and arson are wrong, but when you march, kneel, say that your life matters, raise your hands up peacefully and chant "Hands up don't shoot", for years, and you are scrutinized, politicized , laughed at , and things keep appearing to get worst, what other avenue should they take?

Honestly think the apology Isn't even necessary, although takes a lot of humility and courage to admit wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness on this toxic trash heap . support.

In a perfectly balanced game , numbers (assuming equal activity) would always be the main determining factor , PnW is not a perfectly balanced game, warchest, and military count, and numbers should be determining factors, any effort to change that would be met with everyone using the same strategy as those winning against all odds and the result would be the exact same. Groups with the better strategy numbers, activity, warchest and military having an advantage is never an excuse to not make a more balanced game. Also i do find it hilariously ironic that raiders are complaining that once they reach c30+ they have to fight people who fight back .

Merge ming, ally TGH, blitz Ordo The Immortals, The Commonwealth, and Camelot

People who are saying tanks are OP now obviously didn't come to the test server.

Hey, look everyone, it's the guy who got baseball nerfed because its "unfair to others"

Currently the alliance that wins the first round of blitzes is on top and that is already true. Minimalist builds shouldn't be the meta war needs to cost more (though tanks and ships being necessary) and that cost needs to be supplemented partially to the winner and taken partially from the loser. The only nations this undermines in 1-5 rounds or even more are the ones who didn't prepare with extra resources .

- Make an IOS app available in the U.S - add all updates to the Google play and ios store (last google play update shown is from 2017) - community advertising in other games , web fourms , social media , etc. Show the game off

While we are at it make tanks more resistant? , you can lose only up to 5% aircraft from a tank hit with proposed changes but lose up to 15% of max tanks for example 4.1k /31k lost and aircraft are cheaper to replace

If this would cause wars to end in one round for you than that's on you, but I suspect this would cause global wars to last 2-3months simply on resource consumption/ lack of production instead of potentially a year. As for cordination and numbers, the best cordinated alliances should win, also I believe size would matter much more and numbers less than they currently do as this would make people more inclined to use tanks and ships. And in turn be able to have more sucess in (and higher maintainabliity against) 1v3 updeclares when that extra revenue comes in And this doesn't break the bank for the losers as it is similar to having an alliance tax be in effect while in beige.

Took the words out of my mouth What's bad about them? There are two relatively agreed upon problems with the current game mechanics, that alliance wars can be dragged out for too long and the the loser ultimately wins I think both of these general premises (even if the % Is disagreed upon) cover both problems better than any potential solution offered so far.

This is a joke... right?

My idea is basically either one of two options: Either winning nations could get 10% of pre-tax revenue from the losing nation for 10 days, hindering alliance income and personal income . Or the losing nation has 10% of their total improvements not function at all for the same timespan, (not including any power plants). This would be stackable so If some one lost 6 wars in a 10 day span they would lose 60% of their pre tax revenue/ total improvements until the first timer expired then 50% etc. Overall the concept is Pretty straightforward, let me know what you all think about this? Wash your hands, stay safe and have a great day, -Grave

The thread is Beautiful, im proud to be a part of a bloc full of dedicated , loyal and war tested alliances. I can sense the fear of the haters who attempt to talk trash but are probably having very concerned government meetings about us as I write this. I'm also proud and grateful of our time with Syndicate and TKR, but im also grateful for an Orbis that doesn't require a bloc of that size to exist anymore. I wish you and all your allies the best in your future endeavors.

TI is the only top 5 alliance not in any active conflict the entire month.

If you war every day why do you need to war against much weaker people? "Im at a slight disadvantage now that 3 people are fighting me" is a very poor argument against city based range. A nation shouldn't have a easier time attacking the more destroyed it is. Buying tanks and ships shouldn't put you at a disadvantage. Bigger nations shouldn't be raiders, they should be fighting people their own experience level. Infra lost /=/ value in infra lost, would prove it by screenshotting some of your high losses members overall damage dealt and recieved but NPO nuked the stat page. People with more cities are more likely to have more stuff to loot. These changes wouldn't promote a farming only gameplay just heavily increase unit related war costs and overall end wars sooner. And that way we'll just have more wars.

I wouldn't be against this if its only to identify "war crimes" and prevent those. i dont know what could even constitute as war crimes in a game though. Maybe preventing the losing side from surrendering but that's only one thing. Preventing war or nuclear war even is against the nature of the game and the wishes of most of the community. But I'd rather be permarolled into dust than never fight a war again, why else play the game if not to eventually do some pvp?

Make it so planes can only hit ships, ships can hit ground and ground can hit planes, easy peasy. Make alliance war declarations an in game mechanic, set a damage limit (500k/infra at start is good) , first alliance to reach that limit wins

The fork in the road war. (For the part that started Jan 6th) Think about it, practically every major alliance had to make a decision that would've drastically changed the outcome if the decision was different Npo cheating, TI + Fark and TCW joining Coal A Goons blitzing TMC Coal A holding out against unconditional surrender Specific alliances in Coal B wanting harsher Reps (pushing Coal A away from surrender) BK deleting (sped up war end) I could go on but you get the point

Much respect ODN, the last legitimate alliance of coalition B ( was still in war and not planning on quitting) you should all be very proud, we need more alliances Like ODN.

Rumor has it, the hole has no bottom at all.