Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent


About Oppilan

  • Rank
    Criminal mastermind

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Alliance Pip
    The Underground
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    Faroe Island
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    Crime Syndicate

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

1272 profile views
  1. only nukers and raiders will ever use this. If this is a thing, fraggle can unload all nuke without much loss to sabotage. Makes nukers very very OP
  2. If I have a farm, I won't let it grow. I'll keep it at 10 cities and take everything to my nation. Building more cities is bad financially. Idk when it turns from good to bad, but someone keeping a farm will keep the nation small.
  3. Leader shaw is selling bauxite in market, he is not the 0.25 score nation, which shifty mentioned about in first post this page. Leader shaw's score is more than 300.how does everyone conclude he is a farm? Just because he is not growing with so much wealth? Idk, plenty of alliances keep members together even if a few of them are older. When I was in house baratheon (does not exist now), we faced a micro with wealthy and small nations. Forgot their alliance name. They were not growing for recruitment purposes. The one with 0.25 score and with a ton of bauxite, that looks fishy. Edit: am I missing something?
  4. If you lose equal infrastructure per city, it should be the same and not easier. 30 city nation will have age bonus, so that will make rebuilding slightly faster.
  5. You got to play some real pc games my friend. P&W is the only game where players try their best to have uneven match ups.
  6. Pro tip: don't merge with boc. (to whomever it may concern in future)
  7. I've a feeling there is some sort of miscommunication, so let me stop with this last reply. Let Alex decide. I wouldn’t put it as buying votes for money with your riches. Rather, you are rich and that gives you plenty of facilities to help small nations grow, establish friendly relations and move on from there. With that being said, having spent time in IQ, I can say confidently that some alliances don't grow for strategic reasons. Down declares are too heavy and tiering became a norm in places which faced heavy down declares. (a different topic, but addresses your point touching motivation for alliances to push members to certain sizes) Having 1 vote per player will improve participation from all tiers, as for the game number of cities is less important than number of active players. There are many smaller micros at this moment in game than ever before, they can never build to same size as old nations. It practically take years for them to catch up. Having more and more mechanics favoring big nations will just make new peeps quit the game, because many will feel there is nothing significant to do. Especially the most competitive ones checking the game will. For the last paragraph, leave it to econ peeps. They can handle it.
  8. Stats should be nearly correct. However, I differ in the approach alone. I don't think we should group nations into various tiers and compare representation. Your alliance is big and rich, even if you don't have enough votes on your own, you can reach out to help smaller alliances, be friendly with em and get some political mileage. When I hear such suggestions from some old members, my biggest concern is the growing disconnect between new and old players. That's all. I agree with you on first paragraph. A targeted tariffs, like embargo, on alliances, nations and color, should fix that problem. If large traders have so much resources stacked up and small nations are so desperate of resources, then their respective alliances can drop tariffs. It will come down to the relations between those two alliances. This won't be the reason for a direct trade really. Imagine a situation where an alliance like TKR wants to micro manage resource exchange. With so many peeps there, it's next to impossible. At some point, alliances should talk with each other and reduce tarrifs (and set tariffs) according to their advantage. It might screw some broker though, but that will most likely due to politics and not due to the idea of tarrifs itself. Hope that gives an idea of what I had in mind while talking about tariff
  9. Tariff is a tax imposed by government on movement of goods. A direct implementation is, making it as a tax on top of the market price. Mostly everyone buys the top offer, mostly everyone sells their resources based on the top offer available. Adding tariffs based on color will make the market look drastically different with different prices. It will have effect on manufacturing profit margin and affect the net revenue. It creates a huge impact of used properly. How can alliances 'easily' by-pass this? It depends on how it is implemented I say. If the tariffs are applied from one color to another, simply changing the nation color will do. If tariffs are applicable from one color to another alliance, then members need to leave the Alliance to by-pass. If the tariffs are applicable from a color to nation/alliances, much like how the current embargo mech works, then it'll be hard to by-pass. Of course, having a middle man will bypass. But that's hardly the reason to neglect the suggestion of tariffs, since embargo can be nullified with a similar move, yet we are talking about adding more embargoes into game mech. Adding more votes based on cities, will make the game more dominated by whales. 20 city nation will have two times the voice than a 10 city nation, whereas a 30 city nation three times. Unequal votes mean, less participation from New nations.
  10. If min is instituted, say score for example. Small raiders will have 0 political voice, but still end up affected by embargoes. Else, make it like nations which cannot vote cannot be affected by color policies. On the downside, someone can create a small nation to bypass embargo. But it'll be suspicious if a small nation buys large quantity from market and players can report them. So there is that, a check is possible. Still possible to exploit. Adding tariffs will solve the issue. 5% tariff means, $100 offer will look like $105 to the buyer. $5 will go to alliance Bank. High cost will discourage buyer and the offer will not appear on top in market.
  11. 1 vote per player, it'll boost politics and activity, is better. We don't want a game with just old peeps dominating with their old and big nations. Indeed isn't it. In addition, If color embargoes are implemented based on votes, big alliances might want to control theirs and other color. This can give more wars.
  12. Using the voting system to create embargo and/or tariffs would boost activity in general. This is a good update. I'm hoping that this will evolve into something better in future.
  13. TGH/KT =/= Inquisition. They don't have the lower tier support for that strategy. The 'diminished' infra score is not low enough to prevent down declares. TKR peeps are present everywhere, low and high tier. Once TGH/KT peeps lose their beige protection, they will lose any military they hold. Despite you claiming to be a military oriented alliance, I find it funny that you peeps are dreaming. With more cities and a lot higher score, it is very easy to declare and take down TGH than otherwise. To OP @Mad Max, they are either dreaming or bluffing.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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