Shakyr
-
Posts
464 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Shakyr
-
-
I seem to have hit a limit at 999,999.99 Food. If I buy 1 Food off the market, the counter doesn't increase and the Food is lost somewhere in the ether. If I then sell 1 Food, the counter does decrease (even though I just bought 1 Food).
Checked my logs and it seems I hit the limit yesterday at some point. Which means I've lost at least $1,200,000 (rough market equivalent for 12,000 units of Food), because of this bug/badly implemented feature.
-
So I guess the next update, you'll be putting a cap of 100 nations on all alliances? I mean you wouldn't want alliances to get to powerful, right?There was no political motivations, other than to help topple (or at least reduce the support for) the current alliance power structure.
Or maybe you'll introduce a cap on nation income. After all, obviously (going by this change) some nations earn too much, making them (and their alliance) too powerful.
Obviously you were not paying any attention at all to Treasure Island and the implications behind it, over the past few weeks. It was immediately apparent to myself (and probably a fair few other players), that they would end up gathering alot of treasures.That was when I checked out who actually held the treasures and was shocked to see how aggregated they have become in so few alliances.
-
2
-
-
EDIT: nvm, it turned up after 1am
-
Damn, we should have requested that greatkitteh only be allowed to post once per day;~;
My posting rights.
Oh well ^^
-
2
-
-
The initial demand is never the one you're actually after, it's just meant to be a starting point. That's why it's called a negotiationGlad to have peace and I guess paying $30m in reps is better than paying $400m in reps which is what Chola and The Coalition originally demanded of Alpha for honoring an allied treaty request.
If they're going to nuke us, cause harm to every nation on Orbis (thanks to the radiation update) and drag out the war, even when it was pretty clear that they couldn't win, then yes, we will ask them to pay for it. Regardless of how or why they entered the war.You asked for reps against an alliance you declared war on... I think it's a pretty big deal.
-
See you all on the battlefield in a few months
o/ peace again
-
The following is hereby forbidden to the occupied nations under Chaos Law, failure to comply will result in summary execution:
Possession of naval capabilities.
You're doing them a favour with this restriction, ships generally just suck. Tell them they can't have any aircraft, instead
-
1
-
-
They should choose their allies better, considering these same allies dragged them into a war that they could not win. But that's a discussion for another thread (or likely already been a discussion in another thread).Colour change for an alliance that entered to defend an ally? That's a bit harsh.
-
Curious how you could accidentally change location, when it requires you to actually click the button "Change Location", to do so.
Did you try to redeem credits for a Location Change on the following page? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/edit/map/
-
1
-
-
'grats on peace
Good luck with the rebuild and see you next war, as either allies or opponents!
-
Well if they want a new home, I'm sure some alliances might take a new member or three ...RIP GPA, may your members find new and suitable homes.
Best of luck with the rebranding, GPA ^^
-
I personally use 50 concurrent requests, just to be nice. While it'd run quicker if I could use ~500, I figured that might be a bit too high
-
Ignore the numbers in my post, it wasn't relevant how large or small the amounts are. Also, to small alliances, 10-20 mill is a large amount for their Alliance Bank, just saying.Unless you're a brain dead illiterate you should be able comprehend what I'm saying. I have that much faith in you.
But for you're actual response. 1m is hardly an Alliances bank. We're talking in the range of 750m+. Though you're correct to a degree that would be a loop whole. but saying that, for a nation holding the same amount as a bank would not only be rare. It would also be targeted for their funds regardless, No?
In order to implement your idea properly, each incoming transaction for a nation that was from an alliance bank would have to be be placed in a "buffer account" (with a timer for x days, per transaction) and kept separate from the main funds for that nation. Any outgoing transactions to alliance banks or for purchasing resources would be from the main nation account only. Any purchases of infrastructure, land, improvements or projects would come from the main nation account first, then pull from the buffer (oldest transaction first).
I would also put a cap on resource trade prices, of +/- x% of the current average. This would put a halt to using resource trades to transfer large sums of money between nations directly.
-
1
-
-
A nation holds $2 million, receives $1 million from one alliance bank and then sends $1 million to another alliance bank. Which $1 million did they receive and which $1 million did they send out?i wonder if some form of tracking system could be implemented. and then "Freeze" those funds. in Bank to nation scenarios.
for example. X money is sent to nation. from bank. that money is marked as being received from bank. and is then unable to be sent out again until x days pass. lets say 7 days. (can still be used by receiving nation so not to interfere with loans/rebuild)
This timer would only apply to sending to nations. so the Nation could return it to their own bank in case of a mistake. but prevent them from moving it around to another beige nation and abusing the beige system.
7 days would allow enemy nations at minimal 2 days to attack the nation and blockade them. which would hopefully dissuade alliances from abusing beige nations.
PS: Learn to use caps, punctuation and the enter key properly. Your formatting is horrible.
-
Next time you post some fancy scroll image, make sure the font is actually readable
Enjoy the peace for a few months ^^
-
They haven't learnt that by now, I doubt they will anytime soonSounds like these nuke hounds need to get better allies. Lest we forget, the "hegemoney" was the one to get attacked. If you couldn't win the war, don't wake the bear.
-
1
-
-
Definitely a suggestion I could get behind, so long as it remained something we could control.
-
1
-
-
Personally, I think both should disallowed.
If you sell off too much military, you can deal with the consequences. Likewise, if you buy military, you shouldn't be able to sell them straight away either.
Whether that is for the rest of the day, or just the rest of the turn, that is something that should be discussed. I'm in favor of the latter, as it allows people to make strategic moves across a turn end, but still restricts military purchases in the short term.
-
That has always been how my brain automatically reads his name, so you're not the only oneokay Placenta
-
1
-
-
Rose is a top 10 alliance and war is a lost cause for themif not apart of a top 10 alliance or large boc, war is just a lost cause as the game current stands.
Most nations need only two things, food and power. The rest of the resources don't matter and they can ride out a spike in trade prices, during a war (if they're patient).War affects every nation, no matter how it's fought. From conventional warfare to nuclear- all nations get affected with rises in all goods trade prices. From steel to even yes food. Yet i hear it's affecting smaller nations, blah blah blah.
Smaller nations will typically not have large stockpiles of food, as the common tactic starting out (until now), is to have farms to cover your food requirements. If they're not in an alliance, or it's a small alliance just starting out, they're screwed. Larger nations (well the sensible ones) will have stockpiles to last them weeks, if not months. Or they'll have the income they can spend on overinflated prices for food.
You're just pissed because your entire war strategy is low stockpiles and nuke everything. Learn to live with the consequences.This radiation effect seems to round-a-bout way of trying to nerf nukes without actually applying anything in game.
-
2
-
-
Out of curiosity, I ran a quick check and there are only around 50 nations that are currently over the limit. Guess that's because everyone has used up most of their nukes
Terminus Est - 9 Nuclear Knights - 6 Valyria - 5 World Task Force - 5 Seven Kingdoms - 4 New Pacific Order - 3 Rose - 3 The Knights Radiant - 3 Alpha - 2 Pantheon - 2 The Fighting Pacifists - 2 Cornerstone - 1 Green Protection Agency - 1 Guardian - 1 Order of Storms - 1 StarWars - 1
-
2
-
-
Suggestion: Make your forums public, except all of you members use code names.
Mr. White / Mr. Green ect.
Just be careful what IP/Location information is leaked, if you're going that route.hrm, let me look into that I kinda like the idea
-
1
-
-
You missed my point. If they want to maintain full strength, they would only be able to decomm a day's worth of purchases. If they decomm any more than that, they would not be able to immediately rebuild back to full strength, ie they are weakened.Hmm, not really, no.
You can wait with full military until day change, erase two days worth of tanks, planes and soldiers, declare, buy one day's worth of tanks, planes, and soldiers, and after reset do it again, and use 7 MAPs with full military forces. Granted, you cannot rebuild losses after that for a day, but shedding of roughly 2/5 of your military score is huge.
In your scenario, they would be understrength after their attacks, by not only their losses from the attacks, but a full day of military purchases. This would leave them less able to effectively counter an attack on their nation (and mean they would have to replace those losses too). If they took enough losses, they might even be open to the nation they originally attacked, being able to get Ground/Air control.
So yes, it is a potential tactic for downdeclaring, but it comes with risks.
By the way, only 7 MAPs if they're using Blitzkrieg.
-
They are limited in what they can decommission, by the daily purchase limit on military units.
So yes, people can decommission all (or part) of their military, downdeclare and then start rebuying their military. But that leaves them potentially weakened, until they can regain full military capacity.
Resource Stockpile Limit
in Tech Support
Posted
I've also lost money in this, because I'm having to dump Food onto the market at below rate, just to get rid of it and make room.
I'm kinda glad though it was only Food, not something like Steel or Gasoline.