Bambino

I'm not that concerned about new players not being able to do anything about food. You start with 250 food which is more than enough to get you started and to find an alliance. Most alliances have sufficient numbers of benefactors that can give up a little bit of food to keep small nations going until the rad levels go back down to levels that ensure food production can go back up. I will honestly say I think the radiation index is a pretty good concept. It may require some tweaking but overall I find it funny and good. I think I'll turn it around. Do we care about players who center their whole play style around conventional weapons? If an alliance decides to maximize nukes, there are all sorts of penalties to doing that (economic, political, military, coordination, etc), not the least of which is taking no damage while completely curb stomping their opponents. Edit: Bolded my changed

If you really wanted this to work, you should have had people should message you their spy ops and then you post them, that way you are the gatekeeper and no one can prove it was you or someone else (unless they get caught obviously). That or you just keep a list out here of people who get caught being LoEG members so people have a quick reference guide. *shrugs*

So, I personally don't like this formation. Mostly because I think it's unneeded. Nuke radiation clears within 8 days and during "peace" times, it's my guess that only a handful of nukes are detonated each day. Will there always be some background radiation mutating our poor innocent civilians? Probably. Do we need people to go in and impose what they think is an appropriate number of nukes on everyone? Absolutely not. I keep seeing people say that using nukes is the loser's option during a war. They're right. But ya know what? Who cares? There's nothing shittier than sitting there helpless and getting curb stomped for 1-2 weeks and being able to do absolutely nothing about it. Nukes at least allow you to fight back in a some way. It also allows the losers of a conventional conflict to not fall too far behind in the military aspect of the game. The only people this group would be helping would be the winners of a conventional war. I also would disagree with the quantity of nukes. Generally you know pretty quickly on whether or not you're going to lose a conflict. Most people who hang onto dozens of nukes don't launch them every day. They only use them in times of alliance wide warfare. That means if you enter a conflict either knowing you're likely to be murdered left and right or that you may lose, it may be good to have some nukes stockpiled. If you get into say, 4 wars (one offensive 3 defensive), that means you need 4 nukes a day for 3-10 days (corresponding to about 2 rounds of warfare) in order to make your MAPs useful. You also need probably 3 per day after the first couple of days just due to spy losses. Suddenly having 40-50 nukes on hand doesn't seem so unreasonable from a deterrence perspective. I think the concept is interesting, but I personally don't like the idea of some group putting an artificially low cap on the number of nukes due to them not liking a new game mechanic. Or at least as low of a cap as they've suggested. 1/2 city count is pretty insane in my personal opinion. If this was imposed on me, best case, I'd get 1-2 launches in before needing to not log in for a week or two while my nation burns around me. But hey, if people want to experiment, I'm happy to observe.

Well done Roz Wei. Awesome to fight along side you. Kudos to pantheon for taking this like champs.

This picture makes me happy. The pantheon members who stuck it out through this ordeal were beyond classy. Kudos to them taking the high road and being good sports about this whole thing.

I laughed. Good stuff right there.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're welcome! Please note that Duncan the Terrible has been relieved of his airforce and we are in the process of commandeering his tanks. Gotta even the odds if it's going to be 11v2. Most assuredly that's what most of us were like yesterday. BP FTW! Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! The light! it burns us! We must put it out!

YOOOOLLLOOOOOOOO

NO! MINE! OM NOM NOM NOM

Welcome to the party!

Good luck Pantheon. May we meet on the battlefield.

Glad we're in the ocean. The amount of salt out here would have had me worried otherwise.

Posted in alliance news forum. Must be true. RIP BK allies.

Nice!

All hail Underlordgc!

Congrats

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

Already active on the forums (though perhaps not as much as other people) and on IRC. Just looking for another way to shake up the game that doesn't have to be specific to one side or the other. These types of challenges or triggering events would affect everyone the same assuming that the correct prerequiste limitations were put into affect.

Hm, I see what you're saying Dr. Rush. Perhaps something else could be arrived at? Maybe no negative effects but if goal is reached then positive effects for people who contribute more than a certain amount (with that amount being hidden). Guess I'm just trying to introduce some dynamicism at the moment that would shake people from the usual "grow, stockpile, war, rebuild, grow, stockpile....ect". Have people work towards a common goal or attempt to sabatoge those working towards a particular goal. Edit: Or perhaps if you contribute more than x% of the project, you aren't AS affected by the negative effects, enough to encourage people to participate. I dunno. Just some thoughts.

Is there no one that can take over the project for him to help get it implemented?

Hey, I was talking with Fraggle and we were discussing ways to make the game more interesting. One of the ideas that we hit upon is introducing challenges at a global level that either everyone can work on or are alliance specific (ie: each alliance can work on completing it and first alliance to complete gets some advantage). Additionally, certain actions by a sufficient number of nations would result in worldwide effects. These are clearly just brain farts here, but a couple we came up with are: Examples of triggering events might include: - Nuclear fallout: If more than x number of nukes are detonated, resulting in reduced food production for a specific amount of time and pollution levels being raised globally for everyone. - Wartime Stagnation: More than a certain number of countries go to war, economic progress is dampened via reduced incomes for everyone (and possibly vice versa as well) - Alliance / Global approval: If the aggregate approval globally (or as an alliance, doesn't really matter) drops below a certain number, then bad things happen (riots resulting in decreased revenue or chance of destruction of improvements once per day). Event subsides once approval rises back above threshold. Examples of challenges might include: -Rising Sea Levels - Globally, all nations can contribute resources and cash to meet a target; If the target is met, sea levels don't rise and a slight bonus is given to all nations; Target isn't met, everyone loses 10% land (or some other effect) - Food Shortages - Alliances can contribute food to the global food bank in order to prevent famine. Success yields no negative effects; Failure leads to -10 to 20% food production globally - Aliens invade! - Aliens invade and alliances can fight back. Alliances that do the most damage in repelling the invaders gain certain bonuses; If aliens aren't defeated within a certain amount of time, some negative effect occurs globally (encouraging people to participate) If enough challenges or triggering events are not resolved, more serious penalties occur for a specified period of time These were just a few ideas that we had. I don't think they would be hard to implement, but I'm not a coder either. Thoughts? I'd be willing to attempt to help make this happen, but what do people think about implementing something like this?

All members of tC wish to extend their deepest condolences to the families of those killed in this horrific attack. We can only hope that their bodies will be used in a constructive way to make additional capes for the almighty Partisan so he may look dapper as always.

To quote quite possibly the most awesome military general Earth has ever known: "What makes a man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" "I hate these filthy neutrals. With Enemies you at least know where they stand. But with Neutrals, who knows?! It sickens me!" Mensa, be careful though. Remember that you may have a kill limit! "You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shut down!"