Jump to content

Fiadon Clevae

VIP
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fiadon Clevae

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Fiadon Clevae
  • Nation Name
    Fairhaven
  • Nation ID
    15085

Recent Profile Visitors

1317 profile views

Fiadon Clevae's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

32

Reputation

  1. Wouldn't the alliance list be easier to reference if it were alphabetised, like this? Alpha Arrgh! Black Knights Blue Moon Earth Space Defense Guardian Holy Britannian Empire Order of Storms Order of the White Rose Resplendent Rose Roz Wei Seven Kingdoms Terminus Est Terran Republic The Chola The Knights Radiant The Syndicate The Teutonic Order Valyria Viridian Entente
  2. Vacation mode prevents wars being declared on your nation after you have entered vacation mode. This means existing wars will remain active until they end. Also when you enter vacation mode your nation becomes inoperable and you are unable to launch attacks, even for existing wars. Not sure you can delete your account, but you can delete your nation (I imagine your account will be deleted after a period of inactivity). On the left side menu under the "Nation" category, "Edit". Then click the red button, "Delete Nation". Enter password on next page, then hit the "Delete Nation" button again.
  3. I've hardly ever bothered to read my nation's profile description, but today I did...
  4. No, it stopped at some point yesterday. Appears to be going as usual again.
  5. It seems my nation's monetary balance is no longer increasing despite my income being in the positive as well as multiple resource sales on the global market. Think it started yesterday. Don't know if this has affected resource production as well.
  6. Thanks for your reply, you make some good points. I agree it seems sensible that cities should comprise a large part of a nation's score given that they put a cap on unit counts.
  7. It is true, under the current suggestion only one member would need the Satellite Surveillance project and the entire alliance could be given a list of the maximal potential military count of nations. I am not sure what would be the most elegant solution to this, but my initial thought is to add satellite surveillance as a type of espionage operation with a daily limit. The daily limit could make sense in that the satellite takes time to position in order to observe a nation's infrastructure. The nation would receive a report in a similar way to other espionage operations instead of revealing this information on nation profiles automatically. The nation being observed would be unaware. I suppose this would mean that no single nation could simply compile a list by themselves or not at least very quickly. Limiting access to such intelligence could help make intelligence feel more valuable. Spy ranges would apply as well, limiting the nations one can use satellite surveillance on and encouraging participation from more of an alliance's membership in order to compile and keep an updated list of intelligence on maximal potential military counts.
  8. The goal of this suggestion is to obfuscate the military unit counts of other nations, consequently introducing additional complexity to decision making at the individual nation level and at the alliance level, and further improving the importance and interest of intelligence gathering within the game. The suggestion: Nation profiles no longer indicate the actual number of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, ships, missiles or nukes that a nation has, but instead are listed as Unknown in the same way that spies are. Nations are unable to see the improvements of other nations' cities or their projects. Add an additional project, Satellite Surveillance. Satellite Surveillance allows the nation to see other nations' improvements and projects. If a nation has Satellite Surveillance, when viewing other nations, instead of seeing Unknown as the unit count, they will see the maximal unit count the nation could have based on the corresponding improvements the nation has. For example if a nation has a total of 5 barracks, you would see max 15,000 on their nation profile instead of the exact number they actually have. Add a nation setting to determine who the nation shares its military count information with; no one, everyone, alliance members, alliance government by tier (possibly allow setting this differently for each unit type, including spies). Military counts should not be filled in automatically in factbooks. Remove military units from nation score calculation. The 'why': Nations should not be omniscient. To my understanding, in the real world many nations' military capabilities are known due to publicly shared information. For example in Australia the ADF publishes reports outlining the number of personnel employed in various military positions, whereas unit counts for North Korea are estimated based on various intelligence sources such as satellite surveillance, border reports, public military parades and spy operations. This change helps simulate the gathering of information about nations through various methods, such as the Satellite Surveillance project, espionage operations, information revealed directly through warfare, and a nation's prideful bragging via its factbook (a kind of equivalence to military parades?). The game should not make the choice for us in disclosing unit counts publicly, it should be left to individual rulers to decide. This change would improve the importance of 'gather intelligence' espionage operations. This change introduces an additional 'risk vs reward' assessment for individual nations to make in determining how they run their nation. A nation may consider maintaining a smaller standing army to save money on expenses while keeping the corresponding improvements to feign strength, but the risk of course is they will be more easily defeated in a raid or war. It permits a little more diversity in approach to individual nation defence, or even an alliance's general defensive strategy; prioritise return from taxes or military readiness. As nations' military unit counts would not be easily observed and nation scores would not bounce around due to military unit counts, it would further enhance the importance of good inter-alliance relations and intelligence gathering in order for alliances to remain informed and prepared for wars. Instead of simply looking at a screen outlining an alliance's military growth as an indicator of military preparation for war, it may be necessary to be more observant of market trades for war time resources, to conduct spy operations, or even plant moles in other alliances or buy information from informants; all offering good provocations for war as well as making intelligence a more interesting and diverse aspect of gameplay. While small nations without the Satellite Surveillance project will be blind to the potential military capabilities of other nations, they will likely be member to an alliance that will have members with the Satellite Surveillance project who can share information with them. Although minor, this is another way in which these changes may encourage improved communication and teamwork for information sharing within alliances. Obvious point of serious contention: Suggesting a change to the way nation scores are calculated is obviously a major point for consideration. I personally am not sure I understand why military units should affect a nation's score. It seems to me a nation's score should be based on factors such as infrastructure, cities, land, population and improvements. If two nations are identically developed, they should be equally scored, regardless of the decisions they've made about military investments. This point is also necessary in order to properly realise the benefits of this suggestion. If the changes were made without removing military units from nation score calculations, the effect would simply be that the specific types of military units a nation has, won't be obvious. Military growth at the individual and alliance level will still be observable and potentially indicative of preparation for war, nullifying the more interesting potential benefits of the proposal.
  9. Currently it's only worth hosting games, unless you want to literally spend your entire day playing baseball.
  10. If you're going to cut back baseball winnings and hosting revenue so significantly, maybe you should reduce the cost of player upgrades equally as much. Also the current frequency of captchas is ridiculous, please revert to original captcha change frequency.
  11. Yeah, it'll be back to 101 people trying to host baseball games at the same time. At least prior to the reduced winnings, it was actually worthwhile playing away games.
  12. This is great news seems though so many of the captchas I've been getting lately have been quite inaccurate, eg. apparently 'store front' is synonymous for 'anything that resembles a building'. Also it often seems to think roads are rivers. How are these captchas even made?
  13. This sounds like you may have encountered one of those reCAPTCHAs where you have to keep selecting correct images which reload a different image in its place, until there are no more correct solutions.
  14. What's with the blank war timeline entries? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=119912 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=119869 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=119879
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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