Fiadon Clevae
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fiadon Clevae
-
-
For days, I've been in vacation mode... so why am I still getting attacked? When I tried to launch a counterstrike, it says that I can neither attack nor be attacked, even though I just got hit again.
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.
How do I delete my account? Thanks.
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.
-
I've hardly ever bothered to read my nation's profile description, but today I did...
The Kingdom of Fairhaven is a nation led by King Fiadon Clevae on the continent of South America. The Kingdom of Fairhaven's government is a Social Democracy with very libertarian social policies. Economically, The Kingdom of Fairhaven favors extremely left wing policies. The official currency of The Kingdom of Fairhaven is the Orbis Note. At 530 days old, The Kingdom of Fairhaven is nation. The Kingdom of Fairhaven has a population of 2,860,680 and a land area of 26,000.00 sq. miles. This gives it a national average population density of 110.03. Pollution in the nation is noticeable. The citizens' faith in the government is at an all-time high with an approval rating of 100%.
-
Are you still having this issue?
No, it stopped at some point yesterday. Appears to be going as usual again.
-
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.
-
A few of my thoughts (all of these assume that the Satellite Surveillance project is implemented as a spy op):
- Assuming this is implemented with the "Satellite Surveillance" project idea as a spy op instead, alliances would end up doing spy ops every other day to see who is doing what. Results in partial loss of income, severe impacts on smaller alliances.
- It would be shit for alliances with fewer people, because say a 30 man alliance can view 30 nations military, but an 80 man can see all of the 30 man's. This makes it very easy for the larger to assign targets, whilst making it tougher for the smaller one. A solution is to make the "Satellite Surveillance" spy op suggested be executable 3-4 times per nation, keep the rest the same.
- It may be an idea to implement satellites as a different type of spy, so you can buy two spies per 12 turns and maybe one satellite per 12 turns. This preserves spy ops as we know them without interfering with their current usage.
- The change to score will mean a 15 city nation can roll a 10 city one instantly. A possible solution, city-based scores. I know this is a massive change to everything, and probably carries some negative effects, but number of cities more often than not determines who wins. Though this is a different matter, deserving its own thread.
This can't be done without creating imbalance between those who can afford to do regular spy ops and those who can't. It impedes small alliances building and would take a lot of other changes to make it reasonable. Until a solution surrounding the issue of score imbalance arises, I don't think this should be pushed
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.
-
I like the principle behind the suggestion but not the proposed solution. At the end of the day most rank-and-file members don't make decisions based on military counts other than which nations to declare war on. Because it's pretty easy for just one player to click through a bunch of nations and share their possible military counts, in practice only one government member per alliance would need to buy the Satellite Surveillance improvement.
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.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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.
-
10
-
I've played 14,768 baseball games over the past 220 days (average of 67.12 daily), never had a problem or been this annoyed with the captcha until now, it's rediculs.
At least before you basically could avoid them if you didn't want to see them, now they are everywhere. And for the couple of bucks you get for winning a game there's no point in spending millions to increase player stats. Eventually baseball will die in P&W as it won't be worth the effort.
Currently it's only worth hosting games, unless you want to literally spend your entire day playing baseball.
-
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.
-
Payout reduction is fine, but upping the captchas again is a bit much. I'm getting captchas every three or so games.
So it's not just me?
-
Reduced the revenue from baseball?
Well, I see the golden age of baseball lasted almost exactly 12 hours.
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.
-
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?
-
...When you click on the image square (the correct one) it goes white and refreshes the image into something else...
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.
-
-
Not really any different from sending steel or aluminum.
It is different in that the aiding nation could have the units returned to them once the aided nation no longer requires them. If you send aid of Steel, Aluminium or Cash Money Finance and the aided nation spends it, you'll need to wait for them to be able to repay it as opposed to them simply returning surviving units (of course this might end up being nothing).
-
You can see throughout the nation activity feed for Harry of Perfect_Paradise that their nation's link does not format correctly.
This error affects other nations whose activity feed mentions Harry of Perfection_Paradise, such as in the image below taken from James Hamilton of Rooseveltania's nation activity feed.
-
This issue has not yet been resolved. I waited patiently, but it got buried in the forum, so I think it needs to be bumped.
-
You won't be flagged unless you are trading/banking/warring with those same nations.
That's part of the problem though isn't it? If we invite people we know, we'll want to be able to help them build their nations faster, to take advantage of our own nation's success. Though if you happen to have ever shared a network, that takes the fun out of that...
-
1
-
-
Personally, I'd shorten "https://politicsandwar.com" to "politicsandwar.com" given that this still correctly resolves to the site. It also makes the address shorter and easier to remember. Might it also be an idea to try colour and size variations between the words in the address to further improve readability, helping the audience more easily identify the distinct words in the address from a glance?
politicsandwar.com
-
4
-
-
They get to see the ad at least once though unless they are ad blocking everything (and not specific urls), but I believe that may also effects flags and such too. Used to ad block a few early on (pretty much all the poor Rose ones like the potato salad), but stopped after a while. Once the Trump ads really started was when the greatness of player advertisements became clear. I can only hope Trump becomes president so we see many more ads in future, the game won't be the same without Trump.
I use an ad-blocker, it is possible to block player ads without blocking other features such as flags.
-
To those who exclaim, "But they paid money for that and people won't see it"...It already is possible to block player ads with an ad-blocker browser extension. That is, it might already be the case that there are many players not seeing the idiotic ads some players are paying money to put up. At least with Sheepy's proposed feature, the players posting ads may be made aware of how disliked their ads are when they're bombarded with embargo notices, giving them the opportunity to adjust their behaviour if they actually want people to see the ad.
I don't think it would result in people willy-nilly embargoing every player that posts ads given that it reduces your trading opportunities. I think players would only be inclined to embargo players that really do just pump out shitty ads. I also think throwing money at the game shouldn't be a free pass to throw up stupid ads. A feature like this that enables the players to say, "No, we're just going to ignore you" may be a good way to help regulate the behaviour of entitled donors.
-
Empty lists and yet a solitary "of" appears under Invited. I'm guessing "of" is used as a kinda conjunction between the ruler name and nation name if the list was actually filled but for some reason it has been inserted even though the list is empty. We have used the invite feature before, so I'm wondering if this has actually resulted from an old invite to a now deleted nation. I dunno.
And now after inviting a fellow alliance member (to test it), the original "of" remains and the member's ruler name and nation name added on a new line joined by "of".
An additional member invited to test it. Also, perhaps it should check if they're already a member and say "They're already a member, dipshit".
-
1
-
-
Typo
in Tech Support
The treasure Ain Sakhri Lovers, has the mouseover description, "A 11,000 year old sculpture. Spawns in any nation, and provides a 3% income.".
I believe the description should read, "An 11,000 year old sculpture. Spawns in any nation, and provides a 3% income bonus.".
-
Cool, though I imagine Sheepy can expect more questions fired back at him in replies now that he's sending new players a message from his nation.
-
1
-
Discord Directory
in Alliance Recruitment
Posted · Edited by Fiadon Clevae
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