Jump to content

Edward I

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Edward I last won the day on January 28

Edward I had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

291 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

624 profile views
  1. Edward I

    SNN-Saxy tiem

    That sounds exactly like what an imposter would say. Who are you really, "Buorhann", where's the real Beerhoe, and when will the KT-TGH-Pantheon bloc be announced?
  2. Edward I

    An Announcement from the New Polar Order

    You caught us, it's actually the next generation of secret treaty: an MADP written as an ODoAP just to trick everyone.
  3. Edward I

    SNN: Tangerine

    Like the narrative that TKR "broke up" a sphere by turning a bunch of traditional treaties into secret treaties and sanctimoniously criticized other people for having too many treaties? It's good to see TKR has started making substantive changes to its foreign policy by turning a traditional mutual defense treaty into a secret mutual defense agreement. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
  4. Edward I

    A farewell, a new charter, and our new government lineup!

    Please, if anyone can tell you getting a name change to stick is a futile, Sisyphean task, it's Leo.
  5. Edward I

    Did you miss it?

    Some people drop their opinions by declaring wars.
  6. Edward I

    If you could...

    "Completely boring and terrible" is a matter of opinion, as is the nature of a "promising player". There isn't a single type of player, so there isn't a single "good" type of alliance. Mass recruitment alliances are essential for games like these to function because of the economies of scale inherent in their structure. They allow players to maintain nations at low or inconsistent activity levels, which is a democratizing feature that is provided primarily, if not exclusively, by large alliances. Similarly, there isn't a single type of micro. Micros are good if they don't represent an obvious opportunity cost to the metagame. They don't have to be special or unique and they don't have to play by the rules of the current meta, but they should at least interact with it in a way that adds rather than subtracts. More players or a greater diversity of communities and alliances is good; social isolation from the main community is bad. The fundamental question here isn't what kind of alliances are good; it's what kind of players are good. If the only people we want in the community or in the metagame are those who prefer smaller alliances, then large alliances are detrimental to the game. If incorporating new players of all stripes into the existing metagame is a priority, then micro alliances that make little effort to be a part of it are detrimental. If an alliance - micro or otherwise - facilitates a style that's "good", or at least acceptable, then it helps PW. If not, then it's harmful.
  7. Edward I

    Where we droppin bois?

    Perhaps he should have talked sh*t about someone smaller then.
  8. Edward I

    'Empire' feature in wars

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

    'Empire' feature in wars

    There's one too many steps in there...
  10. 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)
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
×

Important Information

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