Jump to content

Bolby Ballinger

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bolby Ballinger

  1. The Enterprise, my dear friend, He's not right for you. He was your first. I get it. I get the value of loyalty. But, look at this past war. You put your all into it. You declared more wars than anyone and even though you didn't have much to damage your dedication STILL saw you rise up the leaderboard. And in return what did The Syndicate give you? Nothing. They sat there and did nothing for you or for this sphere. They declared as many offensives as alliances a quarter of their size. In a war we all were winning they had more defensives than offensives. They let you do all the work and gave themselves all the credit. A partner is supposed to put in the work to make things work. You've done your part, never doubt that, but in your heart you know that they don't. You deserve a real fighter. No, a real partner. Someone that will stand by your side and take on any challenge with all guns blazing. Someone who will look at your accomplishments and congratulate you on a job well done. And that would be us, Carthago. The two of us were more bloodthirsty than any other alliance. Together we put in more work than any of the rest. And I want that to continue. The landscape of this world changes. Houses fall, Camelot crumbles, and some alliances fall to the Weiside. Our time is limited and we shouldn't waste it holding up somebody that doesn't care about us. You're great fighters and loyal to a fault. And you should be known for it rather than being seen as The Syndicate's pet. When the time comes for this sphere to split, leave them. We will embrace you and recognize you for your talents. At our side you will no longer be ignored. Your successes will be yours and we will stand at your side ready to fight like demons, together. P.S. There's a few cans of Pizza Flavored Pringles in the box. Noticed you had quite a few at the last meeting. Figured you must like them. (;
  2. Trade works better the more participants there are. Therefore the Color Blocs should have their bonus be decided by how many different alliances are in it. The more the better (with an upper limit on the bonus). To prevent a bunch of single nation alliances from being made to abuse that make a minimum number of nations an alliance needs to count toward improving the bonus. To promote political competition among the trade blocs (rather than consolidation in a few) set a limit on the number of alliances that can be on that color. This will obviously require the creation of a colorless trade bloc with no limit on alliance numbers to catch anyone that's left out should every color bloc get maxed out. Should also provide a bonus, but a noticeably smaller one than a proper color bloc. That will encourage smaller alliances to compete for spots on a color bloc. Balancing it can then be done by just adjusting the maximum number of alliances allowed on a color bloc. Ideally there's not enough alliances to fill out every color bloc letting the colorless just be an emergency measure/ catch-all. Another color bloc plan would be to have each color bloc provide different levels of bonuses. This bonus is predetermined and not affected by anything. It's set where it is and that's where it stays. Then set a maximum number of nations that can be on a color bloc with the lowest bonus one having no limit. This would encourage the big alliances to have their own spheres rather than being teamed up as now their bonuses aren't the same and who has what color is an inherent point of contention. Basically, more smaller speres, less big spheres. Also means those spheres are defined by the color they're on more than they are now.
  3. It honestly sounds like more of a "simplifying the math" change than anything else.
  4. Alliance of the Year: Carthago Most Improved Alliance: Best New Merged Alliance: Best Rookie Alliance: Best Alliance for New Players: Most Likely to Succeed in 2024: Most Likely to be Rolled in 2024: Carthago Most Honorable Alliance: Best Fighting Alliance: Carthago Worst Fighting Alliance: Best Alliance Growth: Best Foreign Affairs Team: Best Foreign Affairs Move: Carthago entering the "Dodge This" war Worst Foreign Affairs Move: House Stark's Ridiculous Demands Alliance with Best Propaganda: Most Missed Alliance: Best Alliance Flag (please link): Best Holiday Flag (please link): Biggest Alliance Decline in 2023: House Stark
  5. Just tested it in a different war and was able to get loot from the guy after doing the manual input despite the Max Money Looted saying 0.
  6. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/groundbattle/war=1756009 So in my war against this guy I got their tanks to near zero and decided to save my own tanks by not sending them. When I changed their number of Tanks To Use to zero the Army Value changed to something higher than I'd calculated the soldiers to be worth. Curious, I manually typed my max number of tanks back in and the Army Value was higher than if I had just used the original numbers. 300,000 higher to be precise. Meanwhile the Max Money Looted had dropped. Originally it had been 3,519,405. After manual inputs it was at 0. I will note that in those attacks I manually changed to have no tanks I looted no money despite getting immense triumphs. However our war had been going on long enough to where it's entirely possible the dude just had no more loot to give. Not sure if this is a display thing or if it has some actual effects on the game.
  7. Like, imagine having never seen an elephant and some dude just comes up to you and starts talking about a wrinkly 13ft tall behemoth with big ears that picks up entire trees with its nose.
  8. My issue with the food clause (and bear in mind I'm nowhere near Carthago government) is that it's so easy to violate. It's basically impossible for alliances with so many people to have all of them on the same page. So either some random member or new recruit is inevitably going to violate the condition without knowing it was even a thing. I doubt we'd see the war get started back up over that, but the fact that it COULD is a problem.
  9. Not to mention no farming is basically a guarantee that we'll be at war again. Getting absolutely every member of a large(ish) alliance on the same page is difficult. Whether it be a current member or a new recruit someone would break that term for us without even knowing it existed. A cap on how much food we can produce is manageable. A straight up ban isn't.
  10. And really, it's not a resource sink at all. While there is a loss of resources at first the thing will make a profit in the long run. Thus it ADDS resources into the game. What we really need is a per turn cost upgrade (with an upfront cost as well of course) that upgrades something that can't contribute to the overall economy. Something like our military, which at best redistributes the wealth but usually leads to a net loss for the overall economy since the winner can't gain more than their opponent loses. For instance Bauxite irl can be used to make glass. So, if we want our units to have Improved Sights to make them more lethal we pay something to get that upgrade, add a bit of bauxite to the unit cost, and have the maintenance fee also involve some bauxite.
  11. So, I heard a while back that raw resources shooting constantly upward was considered an issue. Looking at things now . . . seems it's still an issue. To be fair refined resources have risen pretty drastically as well but at least they drop in times of war whereas raws keep chugging on. So much so that even before the Activity Center was introduced all of the raws were just this constant line upward for years. And I think the main difference is what we spend these things on. Almost every time we spend raw resources in this game it's to either make refined resources or to purchase something that will make more resources (I include money when I say this). For instance Metropolitan Planning costs a ton of resources, but eventually you make a profit off of it by saving money. Which means the global economy as a whole has more resource added to it than was lost. There's next to nothing we can spend raws on that will actually reduce how much resource there is so it just keeps accumulating. Meanwhile we can spend refineds on the same kind of resource adding stuff, but we ALSO spend it on military units. These units add nothing to the economy. At best they transfer resources from the target to you (and even then an unarmed soldier still cost SOMETHING to recruit). But in major wars they wind up sucking resources out of the global economy. This is what keeps them interesting. That they may wind up profiting you, but that in doing so they will be hurting another's even more resulting in a net loss. So, what raws need is clear. A way to spend them that will not add resources. Thus I propose that the game implements military upgrades that require raws. As an example bauxite irl can be used in making glass. So if a soldier/tank/plane/ship wanted to be more accurate thanks to Improved Scopes . . . well, they'd have to pony up some bauxite. And if we want to take it a step further we can put some per turn maintenance costs on it as well. Might be a little much, but I feel like markets that would crash to zero if everybody had a certain something would be good for the game. Force people to take alternative paths to success. Force markets to fluctuate more heavily. As for implementation I heard about some perks idea (I think it was) that doesn't let a nation have all of them. And many perks were specifically for the military. So you can presumably tack this idea on as a part of the perk you've unlocked (By which I mean the same benefit as the perk would have provided, but now with the raw as a cost). Upfront each unit would have a raw resource added to its cost (multiple if you go that route) to ensure people aren't just plopping it on just before war and making it super cheap to have. The per turn cost being treated kind of like food and (insert power plant fuel source here) where if you don't have enough the benefit stops. The end result? A more lively global market that cannot see everything rising perpetually at once.
  12. As a part of the last group that hit up, and unwittingly sent Camelot on a downward spiral, you're welcome.
  13. This is in the same vein as something I thought of a while back. Soldiers would have three possible units. Regular soldiers, anti-tank units (good against tanks, weaker otherwise), and SAM (surface to air missile) units (good against planes, weaker otherwise). Planes could be split into fighter planes (better at dogfights don't damage other units as much) and bombers (weaker in dogfights do more damage to other units. Submarines sound cool, but I'd have to wonder their effect on war. After all, you can't exactly airstrike them in any logical way making ships the only unit without a counter from outside units. People could just load up on subs. Land units can be taken out by air, air can be taken out by land, naval can be taken out by air. I would probably just split ships into those with Anti aircraft guns and those that focus more on ships/infrastructure. I do like the idea of splitting tanks into unit killing tanks and infra killing artillery though. Units would end up having different costs and if commodities do become a thing that could be a good way to make some of the less used ones relevant. Depending on how commodities work.
  14. Tis sad indeed that the Swamp was drained, but on the plus side Quack split up after our war with (some of) them ended so we get to claim that we were the ones to break them up. (Even if we had nothing to do with it)
  15. I'd be most interested in more unit variety. As it stands if you have more than your opponent you're just going to win, this is especially true in a dogpile. Specializing your units in a way that can maximize them for their combat type, or let's them hit other areas better could make wars more interesting. Especially if we can't see, without some sort of new spy shenanigans, how much a unit variant makes up that unit. (Don't know how many of the enemy soldiers are AT Crews for example) For instance Soldiers could be split into regular soldiers, AT Crews (cost more, do more damage to tanks, not as good against regular soldiers), and SAM units (cost more, help destroy enemy planes when they do an aerial attack against you, also not as good against regular soldiers). Planes could be split into fighters and bombers. Fighters would be better against other planes, bombers better when hitting infra/ships/whatever. Nukes could have the regular nukes and "dirty" nukes (less infra damage, maybe even less improvements destroyed, but the radiation effects last longer) This could even pair with the proposed commodities to, perhaps, make some of the otherwise less useful ones needed for something.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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