Kastor

“We’ll raid you out of existence unless you play the game our way” ignore all these people threatening you. If people attack you defend yourself. You do not need a protectorate you just need to be able to defend yourself. Recruit nations, grow, prosper, have fun playing the game your way. hope it all works out

BUMPING because I’ve made similar threads and have yet to get an answer @ss23 @Alex please respond

Look @Alex, these are really getting out of hand. The other night in order to declare 2 wars I and run attacks I had to put in 3 captchas in order to get through. Not to mention MAJORITY of the time when I go to trade I get them. It’s ridiculous that one needs to identify themselves 3 DIFFERENT times in 10 minutes. ESPECIALLY why do I need to put in 1 to declare war and then ANOTHER ONE to run attacks on the SAME TARGET I JUST DECLARED ON. Please fix this in some way, it is by far the most annoying thing in this game. I understand that we need to catch bots, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of ACTUAL players. and yes, my opponent was able to run 2 attacks on me in the time it took to do the captchas. I know other players have been upset about this too. thanks for reading alex and others o/

Having already fought against them, I doubt it, their hits seem pretty clean and reasonable. You guys probably just suck, KT is just better than you.

You can’t complain about people show didn’t show up. There was a poll, an outcome you wanted didn’t happen. Do not criticize the vote.

Control points would be cool, it could be an extra 0.01% of your income for each control point that you have. The more you win, the bigger the boost. This could be interesting. Treasures need a buff, I think we all know it we just don't know where it could be. 30 treasures are entirely too high. We could do a resource cap, with a deteriorating number for each resources after that just gets lost after. OR a hard cap where resources don't go higher, if that was the case, the cap would have to be high enough that alliances could do long-term wars. So if we go with the hard cap, we could do: (manufactured) 800 per city 500 per project So if a city had 20 cities, and 6 projects. You would get 16,000 Resource space, and then GRANT your alliance 19,000 resource cap. You could then get projects that increase the resource size. First Project- Add 500 to every resource cap per city. It would increase your cap to 1,300. It would increase the cap to 29,500 2nd Project- Add 500 to every project cap. It would increase the cap to 34,000 3rd Project- Add 250 to each project and city. 11,250 for the project. 31,000 for the Cities. 42,250 total. An alliance of 50, 20 city nations, with 6 projects each would base have 800,0000 from cities and 150,000 from project base. 950,000 total. Obviously these numbers would need to be buffed a bit, maybe doubled to allow enough to build up. The best play is to find the sweet spot where you have a lot of resources but want more to be fully comfortable. WHAT WOULD THIS SOLVE: -Bank hiding would cease to exist. The caps would be tied to cities and projects, meaning you could no longer hide your bank. -Wars would increase. There would no longer be any incentive to sit because your resources would be useless, you would use them to build, or fight, not sit and stockpile. -Nations become more important, now alliances need nations more to project power. This would mean more people in and more activity within alliances. Also it would potentially create more alliances with the renewed activity, which is always good within the game. BAD/DOWNSIDES -Potentially too many wars. -Game would become get to cap and fight. -More treaties and pacts to form together to protect -Resource prices would go higher. Only things I can think of would be positives/negatives. However I think if we tested this would be more ideal than the stockpiling for months/years we see.

There is no cultural mentality of pixel hugging. Every time we have this conversation, everyone literally screams that they want more wars and more fighting, the reason that we don't is because its too expensive. Also, this comment irks me, you insinuate that doing anything would not cause any change because its the way players are, if that's the case, why even comment? You just slow down productive conversations when you come in here and say absolutely nothing. Kindly, please stop doing things like this, you give nothing for the conversation.

But there should be a game reason. for example, in real life, nations would fight over positioning or military balance of power. This may be too difficult with the current premise of the game, however the real issue is Treasures and resources. Treasures aren’t enough of a buff to go to war over, and resources are unlimited. Treasures should supplement the cost of war, so nations will want to fight over them, or buy them to avoid war. Perhaps a LONGER guaranteed buff(60 to 90-120 days, and more per day to make it worth the war it will cause. If a buff will give out $15.5b over the course of 120 days, that’s enough to start a big war. Resources shouldn’t be unlimited, you should have a finite number before they start to deteriorate. For example, the base hold is 1,000 per city per nation, a 20 city nation would be able to hold 20,000 steel, after, they would lose 3.5 a turn everyday until it went back to 20,000. this is just spitballing numbers/ideas, obviously it’ll have to be a number that is reachable easily, and need to be defined.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately, there is no real incentive for war in this game at this point. All of our reasons for war have been OOC based. I believe this stems from all major alliances adopting the same policies(no raiding top 50, switching to color, maintaining peace, etc) There are no mechanics for the game to successfully bring out war by itself. To negative those who would come into this thread and say “to keep your enemies from growing to fast, to stop a whale-tier alliance like Grumpy from dominating a tier” when have we, as players, consistently and fundamental used that without ulterior motives being at play? All in all, the game needs more features that would force or give reasons for alliances to go to war. Something needs a buff, or resources need a cap or to expire over time through degradation or something, to make alliances feel urged to do things. what were other’s thoughts on this matter?

Hans lol

I don't even read your posts, I just downvote it.

y'all petty.

Alex isn’t a player, the Fraggle award I forgot about, so I guess she wins ^.^ Second

I am officially the first player in the game to get an achievement named after them. Also....can you please help me get it by....denouncing me ! https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=83628 thanks ^.^

You don't dictate what is "aggressive" or how a coalition is formed. You are not the world police and you do not dictate the rules. The CB is sound, you were an emerging threat to the stability and balance of power in Orbis. With anti-hegemony policies from various alliances you should have expected to get challenged before you grew too big to challenge. Just because you exist, you can be a threat, thats why there are no neutrals in this game. You had several chances to drop the Syndicate treaty and you refused. You can't be the #1 and #2-3 powers, allied with tons of satellites, and not expect people to perceive you as a threat. Stop grandstanding.