Samdoo

What stops an alliance from claiming every category? even though they don't follow it It'd be cool if as a community we could turn colors into these tags, you can only choose 1 tag that way.. and colors would actually mean a bit more and help create a more clear political atmosphere. I'm fairly certain colors have became just become cosmetic, letting them become political would be nice. If you need to change colors you could.. and if a group holds "suspicious" elections on the election color, there could be inside color action and lots of exciting color politics, we just don't have right now.

Its to the right of the page under "account" there is a link to the "donate" page from there, you will find the advertisement which costs 1 credit. You can as well can buy a credit being sold on the trade market (there may not be any of the market). OR go to the donation page and purchase a credit for 5 USD, then use the credit to run an ad. or just follow this link and have 1 credit. https://politicsandwar.com/donate/advertisement/

I knew it the Kitty Kat Klub is a real thing.

Umm the score change removed "the arrgh tatic"- This actual tatic was a nation with 10 cities UPDECLARING on a 7 city nation. there is no way this can happen anymore. Due to the massive score increase of units. The war you are showing is someone down declaring on you. The nation that attacked you can easily be attacked by other nations in the NS. Nations with full military have their NS boosted, so it increases the number of people that can fight you. (having a partial military, is still pointless but that'd be a different compliant.)

I`ll explain this using power plants where we visually can currently see this case of buying resources is cheaper than what your nation produces. (We are simply going to avoid pollution cause its just simpler.) Before the 1000 infra point, coal power is just more expensive than oil power. coal and oil cost the same number of resources to operate but they don't cost the same. You'd figure that everyone would figure out that producing coal and selling it and then buying the oil to power their nation would be a good decision. Ironically this is probably one of the hardest changes to get someone to do even though it can be done through logic and not math. Now once a nation hits 1000 infra, everyone everywhere always says to switch to nuclear power. Well oil power and nuclear power cost the same in terms of resources so why switch? The switch being done is to free up a slot. This slot limiting ability is what creates the demand for one to not produce their own resources.(typically not seen unless a nation is at full military.) Raw resources are aimed at newer players which is actually really good for the game and follows slightly with what we see. and as long as 50% of the player base is newer and the older nations are warring and not able to make raw resources, the demand here would be visible. The fixed low cost makes them a great incentive to new players. The raw resource production in the game is at a stable equilibrium with the manufactured resources. As long as 50% of the nations in the game have full iron mines we would never see the "demand" for iron as no shortage would take place even with 100% of nations producing steel. Even if someone creates a false demand, like we have seen people do with gas/uranium a few times a year, The market place is fixed back to normal in typically under a day. I'd love to see a slightly more active market too but realistically it would be done with manufactured resources. This could lead to coal and iron prices raising and create falling steel prices, but the stable equilibrium in the game would be gone. This would make the mass buying events fairly painful to the economy and may create false demands leading to a lot of people getting upset if they moved countries or changed factories. This would be helpful because limited raw resources would be in higher demand. (This would likely lead to a multi-issue, which the game has done a great job of avoiding so far.)

I feel like I`ve heard this compliant before... hmm should probably set your nation fortress and "find better allies". Or do you mean to say a defensive nation can't react to being attacked..You are a touch late to that party, many people agree that one battles damages are much too damaging and never biegeing is quite boring. The score change was to stop this nation from being at this power indefinitely, which will be the case. It does further punish a partial standing military (still waiting for this compliant about a full mill nation getting wrecked, this is still the case.) The change made is working how it should have, doesn't mean other issues we are pointing out are yet to be addressed and maybe they don't need to be addressed.

A naval defensive player is thing now.. and well demand for steel just doubled.. Hopefully the price balances back out.. or maybe resource prices will finally skyrocket.

This wouldn't stop the 800 infra raiding nation... I could see this helping out in the mid-tier a bit.

1) no just no. think of this war. ground battle win, (enemey air-froce reduced.) blocaked them.. the planes are pretty much worthless and you just won on all 3 fronts in 1 battle. Take 80% of the nation you attacked income from attacking them. 2) you mean up to 4%.. 25 ships is max in a city, and that would be 100%.. needless to say this would need to be under 2% to even be considered. (pirate is at 40%, anything over 40% would just be insane.) 3)No again, A double cash starve for attacking someone once. The same issue with air being 90% of the way you deal with ships. An idea.. I`d like is during and after a blockade on a nation, there is a tariff placed on the nation. Any incoming/outgoing money is "taxed" and removed from the game. (if your nation didn't actaully have a war chest, you`d be punished) If you`d blockade a nation raiding you, their raiding income would take a hit. The tariff would decay by the time a nation would leave beige. You need a ship to spot a blockade honestly.. currently if your opponent has 0 ships the blockade just ends. This makes ships just unneeded since you can air raid out of this situation you couldn't really see. your opponent should need 1 ship to break the blockade. Ships should get a higher % improvement chance that ground attacks. (like notabely higher) ships can destroy more infra than planes.. but planes just wreck ships. and why bother to train ships to take out improvements if ground attacks work just as well and are way less cost restrictive.

This would cut all micro alliances.. New players like micro alliances, and some micro alliances are actually relevant. If all members in an alliance over the member permission are GRAY.. the alliance is automatically disbanded.. It`d mean sheepy would have to leave beige manually twice a week or risk losing his alliance. It`d cut out about 100 alliances rather than us waiting 40 days for an alliance to delete.. It'd be only about 2 weeks and It`d remove inactive alliances in about half the time.

one update time will always suck for someone. 24 update times makes planning against an attack quite nearly impossible. an update time of choice (between A and the update with fewer people would have the surprise advantage. Since the other update would be able to make sure the player attacked can't buy on their update BUT, if your choice between A and B had like if a player on update B attacks you, a player on update A can't attack you (for a period of less than 24 hours, or else raiding would get sticky, the goal is to just stop a double update attack on someone.) That'd be pretty cool, I`d realistically want at most 4 update options a player could choose. (or else there would be constant surprise in pnw).

Fortress didn't work.. the nation attacking me started with 6 MAP as did I. Oh.. and there will be a massive steel shortage on the test server very soon. Since there is an iron shortage.. and well everyone isn't running full steel mills. Yea... that 2000 steel(i think) gone in about 8 days. Don't worry we all still have plenty of aluminum though.

So in what manner would this discourage everyone from being in the same alliance? Currently an alliance with 80 members gets more of a treasure bonus then an alliance with 20 members. As it stands the alliance with 20 members is selling the treasure to the alliance with 80 members for more than what those 20 member would have made. Currently treasures aren't doing the design concept it sought out to with creating more war. (if the current design was used.. there would be 2 sides with pure politics that obtain treasures from buying them off of other colors, with a few members.) Treasures used to give diminishing returns in color stock where more alliances on the color, the less the bonus, but this was majorly abusable. Treasures effecting the nation they are in is nice, but the cost to get the treasure made them worthless. Alliance diminishing based on # of people might be a fun concept and give a good middle ground.

Or.. We could just decrease the damage per battle. You're suggesting a timer based version of risk.. go try it yourself, you get a friend.. you set up a game of risk, or settlers of catan if you have the old school turn based strategy games. (the set-up would be resource acquisition) your friend plays 12 turns by himself, (waiting 5 minutes between turns or something to limit his plays).You come back and play 12 turns , and then play 3 turns yourself. The timer function just doesn't work well in risk. Moving pieces would have a timer.. this is not a turn based strategy it is a timer based. And a map.. with pieces moving. would turn this into a flash style game rather than text based.... I enjoy this game more because of the text based honestly. (makes it easier to play on your phone too.. or when you`re away) People playing D&D with dice.. would be more strategy then we currently see being used. We have people trying to play D&D with tooth picks and complaining they aren`t rolling dice. A majority of the community is playing sim-city and avoiding war or fighting with toothpicks and not dice. There is as well a bunch of games that have this timer based turn style game play(I`d even message them to you if you'd like, and if you want more RTS.. i know of those games too.) P&W is unique in the fact of turns stacking, this map style of game play is not friendly to turns stacking. This change doesn't fit the community playing the game. It creates a whole new game (cause its a new combat system) and a whole new slew of problems.(such as putting a timer into a turn based game, this is an issue due to unit movement on a map.)

Talk about some game changing blitzies!!! its easier to change when someone takes lunch then when someone goes to bed. and countering at 6 pm is much easier than countering at 6 am.. and midnight blitzes could be just as impactful as noon blitzies without the double buy. If you can guess your opponent only logs-in once you can blitz them very hard.. and get a buy from them being inactive. If you'd do this.. You may need to even increase attackers powers (and I already want that adjusted).

How about no.. The fact this is coming from mensa is actually more upsetting. Admin's in erep figured they'd change the entire game and just not play test it.(it was a 6 month period from hell that killed half the community). THE WORST FEATURE WAS MAP COMBAT. Let's analyze it using p&w units for understanding. you could enter the battle field as a solider, tank, plane, or ship. It was designed so any unit beat solider, (making them useless) Tank beat ship, ship beat plane and plane beat tank. (in the ideal) The issue became tank beat all Majorly cause it was cost restrictive and well cause it beat everything (sounds like the steel demand the game is currently facing). It got worse though.. the grid for simplicity was 10 by 10. (it was actually a hexagon which just made this worse) and to move from 1 space to another took 5 minutes. so you'd go into battle.. move, move ,move ,move ,move, move then maybe finally fight and hope your opponent wasn't tank. I don't want sit on a screen for 30 minutes to play RPS.. in real life thats a 3 second battle. Map combat sounds great on paper until you play a 3 hour game of risk( in true turn based fashion, rather than timer based.) And timer based risk.. I`d rather not play that, its simply who can sit at the computer long. (fighting a losing battle 3 times can make you win). If you want a whole new combat system go make your own game.. RPS style is boring and even RPSLS (big bang refrence ) is boring. I`m not a fan of risk.. as that has a long set-up and battles become luck based. We can always just reduce base damage values... and 50% of nations could stop running no mill already.

First I`d like to say thank you to Grealind, He made a score change calculator when the initial proposal was suggested, its on the top of page 5 on that thread. The change is to discourage a nation from purposely dropping their score. It makes it so it's more difficult to raid down and less difficult to raid up (I thought raiders preferred hitting larger nations, not smaller ones anyway.) (this would stop nations like perf from doing what he did to raiders.) I`ll start with your hit on S.O.S which wouldn't have happened with the score change, you would be from 1325 to 2067( new range 1,550.25 - 3,617.25) S.O.S would have moved from 1250 to 1135. He is not untouchable though, now lets say a raider(full military) with 7 cities declares down (his score would be 1320) on this 13 city no military pixel hugger. This pixel hugger is pissed, he just got raided by a 7 city nation and couldn't fight back. (assuming there'd be some coordination to hit a few people that could counter effectively, Cause raiders are great at raiding cause of their coordination) This is where things get really exciting the pixel hugger decides to counter back on his raider. (This never happens anyway, So I'm stretching a bit). He builds 7 cities worth of full mill cause that wouldn't raise his score above the raider at full military. He's wrong the pixel hugger score would increased to 1,812.75(new war range 1,359.56 - 3,172.31). Wow look at this.. the guy is back in your range you are more prepared than him and he can't attack who he thought he could but you can attack him now. This change does effect who can attack 0 mill nations but they aren't untouchable. Now lets talk about something really crazy, lets say the 15th ranked nation doesn't have a standing mill with his 15 cities his score would change from 2675 to 1975. Wow that would be a down declare for you. Thats right this change is very punishing for no military players, as a player with full military and quite small can still raid them and not be punished by the nation they raided. Your strategy does't work but it doesn't mean your play style is gone. This doesn't account for every military in between, This is why we things are being tested on the test server. NON MILITARY PLAYERS AREN'T BEING REWARDED. Yes, you're mechanic is being effected, again the change is only realistically effecting about less than 1% of the player base, You just happen to fall with-in it. I got sheepy to repeat what he said earlier today (ignore the jabber of german) http://prntscr.com/aiceki He ignores complaints from nations that complain about being raided when they have no military. These 90% of whiners you are talking about aren't being listened to. The full military or quite nearly full military (hard to prove nearly full military cause of the anti-tank thought process), getting hit first by one nation, are the ones complaining. These battles are hard to find proof of cause they do happen rarely since the full military build is sadly still rare. You have a point that 0 mill sucks, I won't argue that, you have pushed the culture away from that slowly, This change would speed up per-example I displayed. Glad I could help clarify your mis-conceptions and get you excited about helping players punish players without military (or you could just re-start your nation for more fun)

I love all of the diversity nations use. Lets take a look... who has steel mills. Oh nearly every nation, Thank goodness the game has 50% of players with coal or iron or else steel would really skyrocket. Players react to market changes?? Even with nukes, uranium has tanked pretty much 1,000 ppu in a year simply because people keep producing it. Steel is currently limiting a war to with nations with full steel mills producing enough steel for their nation in about 50 days.. making war cycles about 50 days, I think doing something about resource or steel may increase war, it may even reduce boom cycles.( even though currently its a constant boom.)

The real issues!! It`d be interesting if battles paid less and beiging paid more (this would nerf raiding active players, as now the raider has to worry about someone shipping out the loot, talk about some real pirates.) This is a gov type. This would`t be as much an issue if stomping wasn't the case i think. I'd like more options to beige your opponent, the endless alliance wars aren't fun to watch.. cause like we agree wars are over in 2 battles (even on this scale.)

The one we currently have?? or we could just remove score ranges.... so they could attack everyone, I`m sure that would work great.

We all know the game can`t be in perfect balance.. If you want a perfect game, go play some keno and have fun with purely luck based. Right now the balance is shifting the gameplay and style, to where you build up your nation then get it destroyed and wreck havoc on lower nations, These lower nations in turn struggle to play the game. This style of nation is a very small number but impacts are very large portion of the community (roughly 5% a week, and typically in a negative manner). Untouchable nations are non-interactive in wars, and only effect each other. They can hand other people money or maybe effect the global economy. The nations don`t really negatively effect other nations (getting 10 mill from one of these nations doesn`t effect things in a negative way, to the nation interacting.) Moving an issue to effect less players does make things better. As well raiders, can still do what they are currently doing and punish people not having a military and relying heavily on treaties. I`ve become a fan of nations like fasolt and I`m excited to see what he will do with his larger raiding range. Issues may arise in the lower tier with raiding, if a larger nation pays a smaller nation up to raid everyone else but this score range is quite small and is already its own balance nightmare.

BoC doing some major things.. glad to see leadership has been shaken up.

Ironic as it sounds this balance thing is around about 20 players. (its less than 1% of in-game population.) lets say only 9 ever go to war, Incredibly safely they can attack 21 players in a week.If they are a bit aggressive and coordinating with others(1 player attacking 1) 63 players. In actuality these 9 players( 1 player attacking 3) fight about 189 people a week (which is about 10% of the game population, which is a lot seeing as how 50% don`t make it past day 1.) Its coming down to a few players having a VERY large impact in the game and creating a very political stalemate, on top of this. Sadly.. I think the issues aren't majorly in score, I have to say a few battles are very impactful, these 9 players show it by offering peace after attacking to attack more nations. ( a big reason they have such a large impact as well.). Even with them never beigeing a nation they still make a very large profit since a majority of raiding income is before then. (I`d rather see a bit of an update here where raiding isn`t from the first battle but the last). Now if these 9 nations stop fighting.. I hate to say it, there would be almost no war. The game would be very very boring and duller (honestly outside of a raid everyone is a peaceful circle.) This is partially cause of how expensive war and the fact there is no incentive. You have treasures in the game but they are not impactful. Color spheres are depicted as this economic cooperation but they aren`t really anything. It'd be pretty fancy and cool and add some economic planing to the game if your sphere was the only trades you saw in the global marketplace. The beta is very aggressive and very quick and everyone is very small so war is very common. Balancing this I`m fearful for a very slow game with almost no war in the real server.

A no diplomacy new server.. hmm sounds like a fun time. Yea!! a new start.

This is something I full agree on.. A war is 2 battles, pretty much anything afterwards is a further beat down. It is what allows 1 nation to attack many easily and not have the nation be able to do anything. If 3 nations attack someone and they get beat down cause there was 6 battles that would be nice. Right now you can have someone go in do 2 battles, and "peace raid". Not sure why this point wasn`t brought up more.. Even if the score change was to happen the damage scaling would show up even more. (and we`d all be back here saying damage scaling is too high.)