Moon Man

Tonight I will bed PaW my last farewells. I have played this game for a number of years, from when the game was in beta to now, sporadically. I originally came from BLOC, which was a similar game that had quite the terrible moderator. With that being said I had some fun times with this game. I used to enjoy going on the forums, but the moderation IMO was completely crap at times, although some of the terrible mods like unkajoe have been thankfully let go. However, I always felt like the rules were a bit harsh, but again that may be a result of my time in the BLOC as well as Worlds at War game forums. The game itself I feel was a bit better then those, however the war mechanics have some issues and I felt like the limited improvements per city put a clear advantage towards those players who played longer vs newer players.My biggest issue was with the credit system, which IMO feels like pay to win. I have had some good times with this game, and I will be sad to be leaving it in some aspects. The discussion forums on topics outside of the game were pretty fun and engaging at times, and I have had some good fun trolling in the forums. I also enjoyed RPing as Moon man, but alas I feel like I have had as much fun with this as I could. Having recently graduated from college, I do not have the same amount of time that I had for these sort of browser games. I used to play this during my more boring lectures, but now I have a full time job to worry about. As much fun as I had with this game, it feels more tedious than entertaining at this point, more or less as a pixel collecting simulator only to have it destroyed and rebuilt every month or so with no real feeling of reward. The combat system is quite broken, boring, and terrible, and I feel like alot of the players that I remember playing with originally either left or got the b& hammer. I'll still be on discord if anybody wishes to speak to me. But either way I wish everyone here the best. Maybe if they make this game significantly more interesting I will rejoin

What were you doing (or trying to do): Find nations within my war range What happened (describe thoroughly please): When I selected war range under the search category, it brought me to 5 nations with a score of 0.00. They were obviously not within my war range, as my nation has a score of 2,333 Link to page:https://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=15&keyword=&cat=war_range&ob=date&od=DESC&maximum=15&minimum=0&search=Go Any other relevant information:This is the default search for war range. It used to not be broken like this Screenshot: (if available)

here are my thoughts. Trump did what he needed to do, that is not do anything completely outlandish. Hillary may have slightly edged out Trump, but that is to be expected when the moderator asked 15 personal questions to Trump and only 2 to Hillary

This is entirely unfair, nukes are the only weapon that is of any use whatsoever to somebody who has lost air superiority. If the enemy has air superiority of your nation, they will destroy your remaining aircraft and then quickly destroy your infrastructure, tanks, ships, and eventually your ground units. This is the only way to at least make their nations hurt. I would propose using nuclear weapons only as a last resort, and that only nations within an alliance be allowed to have nuclear weapons

That is unrealistic, just because you have a non proliferation pact irl doesnt stop radiation. What he should do is let you destroy nuclear stockpiles with ground troops or ships

can we also add chemical/bio weapons? They would be cheaper than nukes, but could damage food production/population of the country it targets plus some that are nearby potentially? That or have nukes with multiple warheads

I think that the effects of radiation are not intense enough as it is. If you reach negative food, I think that your cities should have a scaling amount of income not being obtained. For instance, if you have a 100 deficit of food per day at 0 food, the amount of negative money should be like -40% or something and scale linearly so that if you have -10000 food per day at 0 food, you only produce 1% of your income you would normally obtain

Why dont we just do this then? If you are a kid playing at school, you are probably not supposed to be doing that anyways

isnt there a rule that states that non english names are not allowed? Things like this wouldnt be a problem if that rule was enforced

I understand that this is a particularly hard issue to address, but I would think that there has to be a better solution than what we currently have. I think that having a verification system for people who play on a university could be done by using a .edu email address. Have them use their school email for a one time verification process, but they could still keep their current email address for everything else. It would make it so that it would be more difficult to multi, while saving those who may play at a university that does not have IPv6 or whatever. I think that some general brainstorming is in order though

It has come to my attention that many people have had difficulties with the way that the rules are currently implemented in terms of the IP limit per nation. I currently go to one of the largest Universities in the United States, and I am typing from there right now. While I understand that colluding should be discouraged and reprimanded, I have a feeling that many people are unjustly having their nations deleted. In order to fix this, I would recommend the following. 1.) allowing a defense of playing in on the same IP as multiple people so long as they are not interfering with one another or any such thing. I know that there is a rule like this in place currently, but this only accounts for two people. I would say that allowing multiple people would be better. What is the problem if they are not working together anyways? 2.) checking the IP to see if said IP is from a college or University. If the IP is from a college or University, it is very likely that everyone there would be on the same IP address. Some people live on campus, and may want their friends to play as well. If you do not have a system like this up and running, than you would be alienating a large amount of potential users. 3.) Giving the accused a chance to prove their identity. If someone is accused of having a multi, put their accounts in a sort of limbo. If they can prove that they are two different people (ie: verify with a facebook account, other social media, skype, etc) than let them be. These are just some thoughts, what do you think about this potential solution? If we continue being so aggressive with the IP rule, people will not want to get their friends to play the game.

You havent seen the bad ones. I was at a girls dorm in college visiting a friend. They share bathrooms with alot of other people, and lets just say it looked like someone was murdered on the toilet seat. As for the gender debate, I believe that transgenderism is a mental illness. I do not think that those who identify as transgender are bad people, but they need help. There is a reason that the suicide rate both post and pre op is incredibly high. If they go through with treatment, they still are not actually a woman, just a man with a few parts removed and plastic in its place. They can never become pregnant, and FTM transexuals can never impregnate a woman. I believe that allowing people to have these surgeries take place is bad for the person in the long run, as it is harming them based on their own delusions that they are something they are not. If I believe that I am a dog, no doctor would be allowed to give me an artificial tail and allow me to only walk on all four legs.

When in the gender choices area of the profile, I was unable to find any other choices than male or female. What about trans people? What about non-binary people? This might be offensive to someone and I recommend that you allow people to select the gender that they identify with.

I'd say Trump, because he is still less corrupt than Hillary. She was paid like $7,000,000 by Soros and has like $200,000 private speeches/dinners. Trump has also exposed many flaws in the primary elections in multiple states, while Hillary is about as establishment as you can possibly get. He has a good anti-immigration stance, and is the only one that will keep us out of war in the middle east. Hillary on the other hand will import third world immigrants, flooding the job market, just so that the democrats will remain in power. Her actions resulted in numerous deaths in the benghazi scandal, has covered up rape victims for her husband, and is yet another identity politician. The only reason people care about her is due to her husband's legacy and the fact that she has a vagina. While Trump is far from perfect, he is much better than this terrible woman. I also have a feeling that when it comes time to vote that Trump can pull out a metaphorical Trump card on Hillary due to his previous business relationship with her and her husband. Cruz is literally in bed with Goldman Sachs (when he is not in bed with his numerous mistresses), copies off of Trump's stances, and is way too conservative for his own good. Bernie is not going to win anyways, so he is not important. Nobody likes Kasich, not anyone's first choice, only won his state's primary.

You cant just go and make abortions only legal for one race. Even if you do not like the race, this would more or less ensure the destruction of the white race. I'm not one for white genocide conspiracy's, but this could be considered white genocide if implemented. If the same was done to black people, this could be considered black genocide. I have a feeling that this whole thread is a troll though. But who would you consider white for the purposes of this? How would you be able to test for whiteness before the abortion is done? Race is very hard to determine through any sort of testing, and would be a problem for mixed race individuals. What if someone was majority white (looks so white you would think that they are fully white) but they actually had 1/128 black blood in them? Would you consider Eastern European people or other non Aryans (such as the Poles or the Irish who have been Oppressed throughout history) to be considered white for this? OP is either a good troll or an actual racist if he believes that the destruction of one race/ethnicity will benefit any country

By that logic, wouldnt genocide be legal so long as the state is doing it and the state made a law allowing it?

isnt murder an illegal activity?

OP, how would we meaningfully restrict the age. Im 20, but even at 8 I knew to always say I was 21 to get past any age restrictions. I mean you could require a facebook login, but that could easily be circumvented by creating a fake facebook account and would cause a loss in players. You could also require a valid credit card number, but who in their right mind would do something like that, I sure as hell wouldn't. The only other option that I could think of would be to have a moderator personally interview every new player. While this would pretty much eliminate robots, trolls, underage players, and other undesirables, this would be impossible to implement due to time constraints. basically what you are proposing would be impossible to implement, and that's not even looking into whether it would make sense to implement in terms of player retention or revenue generation for this website.

In some way though I feel that this needs to be fixed

im confused at this. why do we have an obfuscation of the odds? if the odds are not correct, why even have them?

I have a suggestion, how about we change the city creation timing mechanic? The amount of cities that one has greatly increases the ability for that nation to be successful in most every area. It is also true that cities are capped at the number of improvements that they can have. This is bad for a few reasons. 1. This mechanic makes it difficult for new players to be able to successfully combat veteran players, even if they are within war range. lets have a hypothetical example. There are two nations, A and B. A just recently started playing the game, and has the maximum amount of cities that he can have due to time constraints, which for this will be 3. Due to these constraints, he already has max military improvements in his three cities, and used the rest of his money to pay for infrastructure and non military improvements. Player B on the other hand has 6 cities with very low infrastructure but with a bit more military military improvements and forces as A. For the purposes of this, they both have the same score. A and B go to war, and B is able to sell the resource generating improvements to max the military improvements. While due to the military recruitment limitations per day, B does not have exactly double the power, B can still gain a considerable amount of units than A. Based on this information, one could argue that B would have a crushing victory against A (absent other events such as alliance involvement and whatnot). This is a significant problem, as it favors old players significantly when compared to newer players. This is mitigated some by the cities score and the max unit building per day, but I argue that this is not enough. To solve this issue, I recommend decreasing the amount of time it takes to make a new city to once every three days instead of once every 10 days. This would lower the advantage for being a veteran player, making the game more accessible to new players and would thus aid in getting more people to play the game. Another solution would be to remove the cap on military improvements per city, but making them increase in cost or something once more than the current maximum amount per city has been achieved. That or make it harder for people to just swap out most of their improvements for military improvements before a war starts. Infrastructure selling should also be curbed somehow, as this is a cheap way to allow veteran players to completely deck weaker players with little chance of survival for the non-infra dropped player. Thoughts?

They do, having only one parent tends to have negative effects as compared to having two parents. My best friend had his mom die at an early age and he is antisocial as hell. My two cousin also had to deal with his parents seperating, and it caused them all kinds of issues. see http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdffor some of the problems with people in these situations.

darth Jar Jar would crush master chief. but in all seriousness, you need to have a specific faction from Halo going against a faction from star wars. Empire vs. UNSC or rebels vs. the covenant?

human caused climate change is yet another myth created by the religion of social justice. Just listen and believe as they claim that the earth is heating up while it is the coldest in my part of the country in recent history. The earth runs in cycles, it has been that way since it was created. Now I do believe that we have a problem, but climate change is not that. Humans are going to get progressively dumber. Instead of the most fit having the most kids, now it is the poor. Whereas in the past they would die out due to disease, now they are living and multiplying like rabbits. We need to stop this problem if humanity will survive. We need to stop giving aid to third world countries until they learn to get their birth rate down. This problem is also happening at home, and it sickens me. I used to know this girl, dumb as a doorknob. Her mom was a prostitute and her dad was a crack addict. Her mom had 5 other kids to keep getting money from social security. Her father is on welfare and cant keep a job, owes the bank tons of money for his house and truck payments, and had to get a liver transplant due to his hepatitis. The sad thing is there are many people in America who are leeches on the system as well, and I for one hate to see my hard earned money go to support crack heads and prostitutes. If this keeps going on, people are going to stop caring about having jobs, and just join in. Sooner or later the country will cease being able to pay these people, and it will result in chaos and famine. I imagine 1/6 to 1/4 of the population dying in the resulting anarchy until an oppressive regime winds up taking over

I never said un consentual incest. My scenario would involve a degenerate heterosexual brother and degenerate sister that want to get married and have a kid. Whats wrong with that by your logic? if a man can marry a man, a woman, or both at the same time, what is wrong with that if we are just going by pure consentual love? There is a surprising amount of consentual incest that goes on, and if we are going to destroy what marriage was actually created to do, than we may as well allow people to do what they want to do. It would be wrong to discriminate against heterosexual incest couples if we are to allow homosexual incest couples, just as it is wrong to disallow homosexuals the same marriage rights as straight folk. And the thing is, homosexual incest is already a thing, there is a gay adult movie star from South America who only does his deviant acts upon his brother. Its not that big of a leap. People said the same thing about gay people back in the day though, people thought homosexuality is deviant. Yes it has happened throughout history, but so has incest. Look at Egypt, consentual incest was common over there. In my world, I would have none of it. IMO marriage's are for raising families with one masculine and one feminine figure. Multiple father and/or mother figures would confuse a child. If you want to have fun with other people, join a swingers club or do your thing, don't destroy what little is left of marriage as an institution. polygamy, polyandry, concubines and cuckubines are not what marriage in any western 1st world nation should be about.