Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BrythonLexi

  1. I can't really say I agree with this. From history, we can look at the Winter War with Finland giving the Soviets a bloody nose, and how even the greatly outnumbered + outsupplied Confederate rebels held out 5 years against the Union in the American Civil War. From the game standpoint, there's not really any politics nowadays for the last few globals, which have basically amounted to "Find the Secret Treaties!" ever since Duck Hunt. It could easily have been Rose or Blackwater getting dogpiled instead of Hollywood, because everyone's victim of just blaming secret treaties as some stupid CB. Last war I remember with a decent CB was that one war about treasure raiding. Not well thought out, but it at least had reason past fighting for the sake of fighting.
  2. Fully agree in the changes here, especially with making aggression more costly per-attack. It's often the case in games with thematically army-scale combat that the attacker should face 3:1 losses or similar for a good shot at victory.
  3. He would never give us up, so why would we let him down?
  4. Adding on an additional bit. If this were to be added, I would prefer this to be in both Alliance and Alliances API, since if it were only in the Alliance API, it would still require over 400 calls to get all treaty links in the game (if they exist).
  5. It seems like an oversight for there to be no official API to view alliance treaties. I wanted to make a program that could show me the treaty web past the largest 50 alliances. However, I cannot do this without doing an HTML read of the entire site, which seems clunky and would use a lot of bandwidth. Is there any particular reason adding treaties to the Alliance or Alliances API would cause issues? Example for the section (using ASM as an example) may be: 'treaties': [ {'id':790, 'type': "MDoAP"}, {'id':8835, 'type': "MDP"}, {'id':8743, 'type': "ODoAP"} ]
  6. Alright, I've been thinking. I've been thinking about the huge value that Orbis as a whole places on the split between In Character and Out of Character - especially after NPOLT. And what I've figured out is that this is an artificial dichotomy. There is no truely In Character experience that wholly separates itself from the person's Out Of Character political beliefs. Would you really expect a non-leftist to join United Socialist Nations or Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics? Would you expect a non-Muslim to join United Ummah? Or would you expect someone who doesn't like capitalism even a little to join The Syndicate / The Enterprise, or The Company? Let's even look outside alliances. When you created your nation, what did you go for? Me? I went for an anarchist commune because I am an anarcho-communist. While I am sure there are unicorns (there always are) who are, say, American Republicans who made a nation LARPing as a Neoliberal nation, that is almost certainly not the case for the vast majority of people playing Politics & War. It's a game where people tend to make themselves as a nation - and that includes their OOC politics. "But when we mean OOC we mean how GOONS made people eat dog food!" Nope. No you don't, let's be real here. It's completely okay to discuss someone's political beliefs when you completely agree with them - but as soon as it's a disagreement, the cry about OOC is cried and all debate is closed down. Y'know the people who complain about new leftist alliances because "communism sucks"? It's certainly not because they hate communism in real life or something. [Although I will concede about the generic names, hence my specificity with reasoning.] This false distinction between OOC and IC politics has gone on too long, and makes no rational sense upon further scrutiny. It is merely used as a weapon to shut off debates you don't like - and it is making actual political discussion a stigma outside your safe space - kinda a bad thing in a game called Politics & War. TL;DR Your Orbis nation and alliance reflect your OOC politics. It is folly to say otherwise - this split between OOC and IC politics is completely artificial and useless.
  7. No. A specific ban on Stalinism and/or Maoism, sure. But banning the whole spectrum of leftists that y'all unwelcomingly lump under as "Marxism" or "communism" is like if Alex banned UKIP members over the N azism rule.
  8. Yeah, it honestly alarms me a bit that there is no homophobia/transphobia rule in the draft. On quite a few P&W servers there is rampant bigotry against gay and trans people - like with people being deadnamed or the use of "traps" as a slur
  9. True... not sure how to justify Confederate flags being banned then aside as a hate symbol in of itself on par with the N azis. Even then, you'd have to include a lot of flags and symbols (prob using the ADL hate symbol list as reference) that half this game would NPO-style delete over being banned. I mean, remember when Afrika Korps was a thing in this game?
  10. Yeah; i'm not arguing they should be allowed. But what I am saying is that the banning of the Confederate flag should mean limiting similar symbols. Like, not all the flags seen at the Jan. 6th Insurrection should be banned but absolutely used as a vague idea of what similarly-minded people use to get around Dixie / Confederate / N azi flag bans. But of course, caution should be used - while lots of Wehraboos use the flag of the German Empire, i'd still be a bit sus on banned the German Empire's flag on P&W. I'd probably say a good limit that would include Confederate flags and non-NSDAP fascism would be secessionist attempts, and symbols of N azi-like parties such as the Golden Dawn (Greece)
  11. That makes sense, but given the whole thing with banning the Confederacy, you're effectively banning everyone who uses the Dixie flag (which is a large porportion of the American South, and a fair amount of even Northern conservatives). That, and I apologise if i'm a bit too cautious - given the extreme transphobia in parts of the P&W community. Seeing no rules on homophobia or transphobia is also alarming. Either way, there is a huge white supremacy problem on this website, that @Zei-Sakura Alsainn showed and got attacked for.
  12. I do have concerns about the lax amount of moderation points given to sexist/racist comments - where even the worst case is worth half of what a ban would be. Secondarily, I am worried about N azi-like beliefs that would be excused just for not being NSDAP-themed - like, while you do have a ban on the Confederacy in place (which is largely an American thing), it's easy for crypto-fascist themes and icons like "Kekistan" to easily pass through, because there is no Kekistan hate group.
  13. Prob gonna get deleted when the official one is made, but post your suggestions here. My vote is for Error 522
  14. Best of luck, and may the PnW servers have a swift victory (please i just want my daily bonus)
  15. Give them hell! Good luck in the war!
  16. This guy [fornicates]. Best of luck in life, Dave.
  17. .....why though? Either way, glhf
  18. I like the idea at its heart, but I do think there would need to be balance applied for the reasons @Sweeeeet Ronny D mentioned - the possibility of bots being used to snipe city build funds. Much like nukes and missiles, maybe having a small time limit for "safe" money (Say, a turn or two - not as OP as a day to where you can just deposit and withdraw all your money daily to keep it immune) so that city builds and projects are kept largely safe. Targeting alliance banks would be a bit overpowered imho (ex. a small, newbie nation being able to spy some amount of a huge alliance warchest). For that problem, I would recommend entirely different changes to how offshoes work (Not for this thread, but TL;DR changing alliances shouldn't prevent looting alliance warchests for active members).
  19. I can tell you have literally no idea what anarchism is. Debate with us when you actually know our stuff. Let me help you.
  20. Congratulations to you and your new alliance! May the best of luck be yours. Ignore the haters, they don't kniw what they're talking about. My guy, so did and does capitalism - and this isn't a place for OOC politics.
  21. Especially on this last point, yes. Basically the only players who have real say for in-game politics are: Leaders (and, to a lesser extent, 2ICs) of major (top 30 or so) alliances, as they have influence over many players Veterans of the game, as they are very interconnected in the community of the game (those connections are critical for having weight behind your words) Organisers of news Discords like Morf Radio or Royal Orbis News, as they have the ability to nudge narratives in their subtle ways For 99% of players, they won't be one of these - even if they do stick around in the short-to-medium term. Adding on to what i'm saying, I can use myself for an example. I've been with the game for just about 10 months, and have had a decent resumé as an ASM Foreign Affairs person as well as co-founding a high-tier micro with friends. You'd think I would have some level of say over things in Orbis, but not really! I'm still pretty green compared to the real movers and shakers; and while I do have many friendships (as well as some rivals and foes), I would still say my effect on Orbis is marginal at best.
  22. As someone with basically opposite views on both taxes and politics, I still absolutely agree and you raise a good point about the beginning raiding - something I never thought of before. But yeah, even as a proponent of full command economy (100/100), the rebuild part absolutely stands firm - as well as @Solomon Ben-David's points about community. My game enjoyment comes mostly from chilling with my friends and playing other games like CK2. I like to think of the "Nations" in this game more like provinces/states, and the "Alliances" more like actual countries (and blocs being actual alliances and so forth). You would definitely fit better in a low tax alliance like Arrgh as mentioned.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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