Quichwe10

Well, that's why people are warring. What else is there to do? Even with building options, it'd just be like Facebook dick waving without the war system. So, people turn to the very things in the name of the game, hence, "Politics and War".

I can tell. I lead your alliance. But, even a cursory search through PnW's history and community would show that there's not really that much of a silent majority here that would say that outright removal of the war system would be a good solution. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, people don't play PnW because they want to watch numbers tick up. They do it because of the people and politics, and wars just happen to be part of the latter.

Not always, although that's part of it sometimes.

On one hand, I really should, on the other hand I have Math homework to do. Damnit man, yer giving me a choice between a rock and a hard place. Gimme a mo, and I'll try to figure out if I should be a good leader or a bad leader. Edit: @ShadyAssassin I'm afraid the flower method has told me I need to be a good leader. So.... Yes, I do believe I'll have to defend him if you hit him.

...Jonas. Just... No. Going to be real here, but... PnW is primarily focused on politics. The War part is just politics by other means. People fight for power, for recognition, and just for fun here. All of that, is usually done through war. It's even in the name of the game itself. The big numbers you get on the statistic sheets are pretty and all, but they are there in order to further war, and from there, further politics. Look at how resources are used up, alright? You don't see major price hikes and supply shortages until wars happen. And, if you don't think people roleplay, look closer. People do it all the time. It's just that they roleplay and fight. Sure, there's a little feeling of fun when you see your nation grow, buying cities, infra, land, and watching your nation grow rich. But, when that's all there is, it's boring. The game gets stale, old, and it becomes a chore, rather than a game. Back in the old days under Cromwell, I nearly left the game several times because it got so boring, and really only came back in because of random raid counters that sparked a new interest in the game. All I'd do is log in, check that there's enough food, raws, and uranium to keep my nation going, and that's all. Sure, thinking economically, war's not optimal. Numberwise, it's a massive net loss to you, often costing millions and more in resources and cash. But there's just something more... fulfilling, trying to compete with other people, seeing what you've built, seeing what it can do (sadly, still lacking on ye olde military competence, damnit), and building relationships through tenacity and common struggle. To believe that the best solution to making the game more enjoyable is to rip out the entirety of the war system... I think that you miss the entire reason on what makes this game enjoyable and fun for many people here. If we just removed the ability to actually fight out wars, and just decided to purely roleplay them, well... I dunno. It'd be like trying to play chess without chess pieces or playing a card game without cards but with several magnitudes more in salt content. There'd just be no soul in doing it anymore.

War has its uses, and does add a great deal of spice into the game. While I'm not a fan of continuous perma-war like Knightfall, a good fight that takes a month or two is something I'm good with.

Well, I for one welcome my new ayylien overlords. Perhaps it'll be my ticket out to retirement.

Well that's a bit of a bummer. Well, we'll see what it is then, or when said person sitting on that data decides to release it.

Huh. How does the chart look like post-Great Deflation, anyway?

:thinking: Um. Well, Jesus. I'm not quite sure what to comment on, from the salt, the lack of !@#$ given, or the fact that there's a gmail.com at the end of the username.

....What's the record for shortest time before coup, anyway?

Hm. In general, I believe that there should be restrictions and background checks on people buying guns. Those who have committed violent crime, especially major ones should not be able to buy guns. As well, those who are not of sound mental health should not be able to buy guns without seeing a goddamn psychiatrist first and working out said mental issues. As for actual restrictions on guns and stuff, well, probably no full automatics. Don't really know that much about stuff to be more specific. Just make sure you enforce said restrictions and checks, and actually have it so that people and law enforcement have both the resources and ability to do so without at least much difficulty.

*cough* Take it from me, 0/0 is a pain in the ass when it comes to alliance finances. The problem is that in order to actually get anything building, you need to be able to afford the initial cost to buy said thing, and then tax them afterwards to recoup said cost and make a profit. Without the ability to afford the initial cost, then you might as well let your members develop themselves. As for fighting in wars, well, if you need resources, then you should ask your alliance bank for them. Not even we chose to stick directly with member supply only, and sent out aid as requested and needed. Also, taxing people apparently gets around blockades nowadays, and so if you're being beaten down and blockaded, high taxes that are then returned when your members are on beige is a pretty decent way to staunch losses from getting looted. For the growth program idea, well, while it might work in smaller alliances, or the exceptionally poor ones that have less of a reserve than we do, the amount of resources that you'd get from the pooled income of your alliance far outstrips the amount you'd generate on your own on 0% taxes. IMO, you'd be better off getting funded by the alliance and paying down the debt, as I believe that the impact of a 0% growth program would be relatively negligible as well as taking longer, and would also constitute a drain on alliance finances with the inability to recoup at least the initial cost of said growth program.

Probably depends on if you have ties or not. It took a lot on my side when Knightfall first started, and I'm fairly sure that there was a pretty large sum of backroom politicking with Vanguard and IQ on joining Knightfall or not. However if you don't have any ties at all, from what little I gleaned from Cromwell's days, most neutrality back then was just refusing any offers to get involved. There's probably some stuff there that KT/TGH would also know as well, cut off from the larger alliance web as they are.

....How does one apply for a grant? And how does the foundation judge the amount of need they're in?

As a general reminder about how term 1 of the peace accords affects Grumpy, people seem to be under the impression that grumpy's name is supposed to be changed to grumpy. This however is false, as grumpy refers only to grumpy, but not grumpy, as grumpy is the acronym of grumpy, and the term only affected the acronym. As such, to say that grumpy is grumpy is wrong, and to demand that grumpy change grumpy to grumpy on top of changing grumpy to grumpy falls outside of the scope of the treaties signed by grumpy in order to end the war between grumpy and Coalition A. Grumpy's name is not grumpy, and though below grumpy on grumpy's alliance page says grumpy in accordance to the treaty that demands that grumpy changes grumpy to grumpy, this still does not mean that grumpy is grumpy. All it is is that grumpy's acronym grumpy has been changed to grumpy in accordance to the treaty signed by grumpy ending grumpy's war with Coalition A, and has no bearing up grumpy having been changed to grumpy alongside grumpy being changed to grumpy. I hope this clarifies things up to everyone @Ockey5.

Lmfao. Will try, though I'm afraid the polar vortex freezing my balls off is making me live up to the new acronym. Though, the fact that they've named the storm "Jayden" has raised quite a few questions.

Been a damn rough ride, but good fight guys. Here's to peace.

How would rate the airport beer?

Well, alright. KT's a great one already though, so don't feel like you have to change to emulate others.

I don't get it. Was this your Halloween costume?

Be the benevolent dictator. Might help you start out, but make sure to listen to your people.

I think it was that alliance who posted the long ass transcript from Braveheart as a DoW and didn't have a TLDR.

Are... you talking about the logistics of getting soldiers over to Vietnam during the Vietnam War? I'd likely put my money on the majority of US troops and supplies coming in by navy. There's a really good reason why most of the stuff transported internationally across the world goes by sea. Planes are just too expensive and small to fly in armies.

Damn, I forgot his cancer came back. Rip him man.