Jump to content

Edward I

Members
  • Content Count

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Edward I last won the day on January 28

Edward I had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

277 Excellent

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
    Seleucia
  • Nation ID
    15788
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

593 profile views
  1. Edward I

    'Empire' feature in wars

    Yeah, I agree. Jokes aside, 100% taxes circumvent the consequences of most proposals like these.
  2. Edward I

    'Empire' feature in wars

    There's one too many steps in there...
  3. Edward I

    Small Quality of Life Improvements

    1) Add the "Back a Page" and "Forward a Page" arrows that are already at the top of all list pages to bottom of all list pages as well (nations, alliances, trades, etc.) 2) Remove alliance descriptions from all alliances pages except Information (e.g. don't load custom images or text for alliance control panels, banks, member lists, etc.) 3) Remove fields from alliance info pages that aren't changed from their default values (e.g. if an alliance's forum link points to https://politicsandwar.com/forums/ ) 4) Add a PW wiki page field to alliance info pages 5) Turn the current color bloc names in the Color Trade Bloc Leaderboard into links to each color bloc voting page 6) Turn the number of nations column in the Color Trade Bloc Leaderboard into a series of links to all nations on each color (e.g. the number of nations on olive should link here)
  4. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    The difference is that in our case the war was more or less a stalemate. Your alliance members, however, have resorted to zeroing out their militaries and resources and largely aren't even fighting back anymore.
  5. Edward I

    Good Game Grumpy

    The acronym for Grumpy Old Bastards is GOB. It's a common misconception. It's not a separate war, just a separate peace. This has been explained already. Stop asking Frawley to pad your stats.
  6. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    I'm not sure which wars you're referring to, since as far as I know you've always been in Guardian, and this is the first war in years where Guardian hasn't fought in a coalition with overwhelming upper tier superiority. If the only terms you're talking about are reparations, then you're right. The Great VE and Silent Wars were lost by the aggressors, and are the only instances I'm aware of in which anyone received monetary reparations. But peace terms in general have definitely not been restricted to losing, aggressive coalitions. And, in the sense that these terms are designed to address things that can't or aren't being addressed purely by war - terms to deal with VM usage, secret treaties, etc. - they actually represent a continuity, not a break, with the past terms you brought up.
  7. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    Pretty much everything you're talking about is the result of bad mechanics. The ability to grow forever, the ability to build massive warchests, the long wars and the even longer war cycles aren't the effects of peace terms. They are the result of nations' ability to grow forever and to stockpile resources and money forever. If you want to remedy this, hard ceilings on growth, warchest sizes, or both are necessary. Your proposed solution is to diminish wars and, by extension, politics, to a glorified game of king of the hill. The point isn't that the material effects of peace terms are marginal compared to the destruction caused by wars; it's that wars are about more than doing damage to your adversaries. Many of the terms proposed now or accepted in past wars have no material affect whatsoever. You said that the only peace term you didn't mind was an admissions of defeat, but admitting defeat has been a sticking point in past wars. Poor mechanics aren't a good reason to suck the life out of other aspects of PW.
  8. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    I fundamentally disagree. Peace terms are an essential part of the bridge between politics and wars. Without delving into the fact that, yes, TKR has had a hand in imposing terms on numerous alliances in the past, your basic premise is wrong for two main reasons. 1) Wars establish or reinforce grudges and rivalries. The Mensa-Rose rivalry is probably the most famous so far, and it was built in part on peace terms. Rose signing a treaty with Mensa had more significance because of the $1 billion in reparations Rose paid Mensa when it surrendered in the Silent War. A lot of the Article III terms were added because alliances in TKR's coalition successfully imposed similar terms on alliances in our coalition in the past. The Article IV terms are about rivalries in naming color blocs. No one is going to go to war over the name of color, but that doesn't mean that Acadia, TCW, SK, and TKR aren't slightly annoyed that their preferred color names aren't always chosen. These aren't bad things. They make politics more interesting. I don't know if there's evidence to support your claim about driving players away, but there is evidence that public arguments like these are the most politically engaging parts of the game for most players. Consider this: the two topics with the most views and the most replies in Alliance Affairs are this one and Rose's Surrender from the Silent War, which is where NPO and BK had a 30-page argument about the reparations BK was trying to (and did) impose on NPO. 2) Peace terms are the most reliable way to establish and enforce informal rules. The precedent on reparations, for example, is that only aggressors should be forced to pay them. This was the case in the Great VE War and in the Silent War, and was cited as a justification for reparations in both. The terms surrounding Arrgh after UPN defeated them, after Syndisphere defeated UPN's coalition a few months later, and in Article VIII here are attempts to curtail or protect Arrgh's brand of piracy. Arrgh's success - and, by extension, the viability of full-time raiding - is partly built on Arrgh's ability to make major alliances willing to help Arrgh via peace terms. The terms in Articles V, VI, and VII are our coalition's attempt to set precedents regarding war dodging, trade bots, and secret treaties. Article V has a partial precedent in Rose's surrender in the Silent War - Belisarius and Oblige were subjected to additional wars because Rose's opponents felt they hadn't been damaged enough. Trade bots aren't illegal, but we dislike them; so, we're trying to get rid of TKR's bot. Exposing GOB's charade about being "paperless" is in keeping with both traditional and paperless alliances' conception of treaties: regardless of their formality, we feel all treaties should be made public. Part of the reason for the war was the power that TKR-sphere derived from bloat - massive warchests from bloated nations that hadn't fought a difficult war in years; power from maintaining treaties off the books with GOB, t$, or others despite public claims that they'd removed their FA bloat by "cancelling" most of their EMC treaties. If it's somehow unacceptable for our coalition to alter this status quo with peace terms, why was it acceptable for TKR-sphere to engage in these practices in the first place? The solution to displeasure with the current political dynamic is to change it, through force if necessary. The solution isn't to say that we should remove political consequences from wars, especially since wars are fought to address problems other than those posed by unchecked military power.
  9. Edward I

    New Players Joining Alliances

    You understand burning existing micros to the ground isn't a good way to retain players, right? The point of the suggestion wasn't to say there can't be micros; it was that they need to be comprised of a critical mass of experienced players to succeed. If the ranking restriction is unpalatable, maybe a restriction on the number of players or the score of an alliance before new players are allowed to join?
  10. Edward I

    New Players Joining Alliances

    The time interval should be as long as it takes most players to go inactive after creating a nation. The 14-day beige timer is a good starting point, but if a typical new player (who doesn't go inactive) waits longer than 14 days before joining an alliance, it should be longer. Does anyone have data on this?
  11. Edward I

    2018 P&W Award Voting

    He didn't even announce that Kastor was in charge of them this year. There have been no public statements or information from him, so I don't think anyone really knows for sure. It's probably best for him to lock this subforum and force everyone to conduct their unofficial awards in Orbis Central or offsite if we go this route, but otherwise I agree completely.
  12. Edward I

    2018 P&W Award Voting

    And what happens if the panel and the popular vote disagree?
  13. Edward I

    2018 P&W Award Voting

    Not sure I like this (see above for my reasons), but I appreciate the good faith response and the semi-concrete proposal. How? You haven't proposed an explicit process, just said that a panel should be involved somehow. I don't think many people will be satisfied with another instance of "trust us, Kastor's got this" when it comes to the details. Similar to my question above: how does voting/determination within the panel happen? Do alliances with high scores or lots of members get extra votes? Is every leader's vote equal? Does there need to be a supermajority, or even a majority for the winner of a category to be chosen? Or is the panel's choice determined by plurality opinion? If a consensus can't be reached regarding how a panel choice and popular choice are reconciled, you could also do both and not attempt to reconcile them. If the awards are silly and subjective in the first place, the best practice is probably to avoid injecting contrived notions of "objectivity" into them, avoid making them exclusive or opaque, and aim to generate discussion rather than consensus.
  14. Edward I

    2018 P&W Award Voting

    Which issue? Our objections have been almost entirely about the legitimacy and transparency of the official PW awards. Our proposed solution has, consistently, been to move the awards back to the politicsandwar.com domain. Keegoz, intentionally or not, deflected by changing the subject to the "objectivity" of the awards. However, unless he's equating opacity or unaccountability (see: Kastor's refusal to entertain any criticism) with objectivity, I fail to see how moving the awards offsite addresses that "problem". I put "problem" in quotation marks because it's not clear to me that the awards can (or even should be) "objective" in the first place. Objectivity, as the term has been used here this year and last year, rests on the notion that most players aren't qualified to have a say in who receives the various awards. Because I don't think anything other than direct, popular voting for the awards will be legitimate or transparent, I don't think this qualm is even worth trying to address: no mechanism besides direct democracy will satisfy the need to be transparent and legitimate. Keegoz would have a point if the mechanism for determining the winners of the awards was different this year - say, a committee of prominent players, which has been proposed multiple times this year and last year. However, the mechanism for this year's awards is still direct democracy, which brings me back to my original characterization of Keegoz's post. He changes the subject and implies that offsite hosting somehow makes the awards "objective", but doesn't offer any explanation as to how. He also ignores the fact that the awards were conducted on the forums last year, which is why we were silent last year - this year's problems didn't exist last year. If I'm reading this correctly, what I said in response to Buorhann also applies here.
  15. Edward I

    2018 P&W Award Voting

    How, exactly, are this year's awards more "objective"? It's still a direct vote by the masses, the same mechanism as last year. We did. We've said repeatedly, in multiple threads, that we want them hosted on the forums.
×

Important Information

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