Them

Never seen German quotation marks?

Yep. Sheepy should get rid of the GUI too, for the added challenge.

Because difficulty arising from bad design is not a feature—it's bad design.

I think the real question is as to how a student in one of the best econ programs in the US didn't see this coming.

Hi John. Nice to see that you've joined the ebil anti-IQ OWF circlejerk as well. Enjoy the kool-aid. The stats currently displayed on Ripper's spreadsheet make some questionable assumptions about infra cost. I think he's updating the damage for individual nations, but the alliance performance sheet seems the same. Considering that the bulk of the difference in damage dealt and received for BK is in infrastructure, assuming constant infra costs for all belligerents heavily skews the perception of the war. Also, when have we decided the victors on damage stats alone? BTW, the in-game stat tracker gives $2.8 billion for infra destroyed and $2.4 billion for infra lost for BK (2/6 - 2/23) if Sheepy can be trusted. If you want to use the WWII comparison, TJest was certainly made incapable of causing damage through conventional warfare, hence why they collapsed. What is that but a military victory? If you can look past the cultural victory memes for a moment, there is nothing contradictory in the idea that TJest outperformed and outdamaged IQ, yet lost. (Ask the Germans about their K:D ratio on the eastern front) Nobody is denying that IQ underperformed both as the hegemony it is seen as and in general. IQ made mistakes, yes. They could have taken efforts to minimize money lost to looting and have been better at denying TJest nations the opportunity to rebuild. However, this was not an equal war, as everyone seems eager to reiterate. Good performance does not equate to victory and victory does not equate to good performance. A point could be made to argue that IQ not pursuing individual TJest nations after the alliance's disbandment ended the war in a de-facto white peace, but the fact that TJest disbanded remains. If you consider the war to be between IQ and Partisan's merry band of whales, TJest's disbandment is of little significance. Everyone went their merry way and nobody tried to stop them. However, if you see TJest as a political entity, it is undeniable that they lost the war. In the end what does it really matter? TJest didn't attack IQ to win and both sides left equally satisfied. Take your cultural victory and take your white peace, but drop the "damage ratios decide victory" narrative.

Does damage refer to infra damage, damage done to defending units, or both?

Yeah...I really doubt that's an accurate reflection of the damages taken. Your spreadsheet uses $6009 per level of infrastructure, but most combatants had at least 2k infra at the onset of the war. Assuming that infra-bombing stopped at 800 infra, that's $11313 per level of infra, or nearly twice as much. TJest still outperforms IQ (to nobody's surprise), but the money looted pads a smaller portion of the damage sustained.

Unprovoked? Did you even watch the video?

I'm fairly certain that you fought in the last war, so you should know what the IQ policy towards Beijing is. This isn't a traditional alliance war, but the SOP generally hasn't changed.

I won't argue on the merits of Sheepy's game as a whole, but baseball is better implemented, better balanced, and better coded than the nation sim part of the game and that's pretty fricking sad.

Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq! Roq!

Cutting some of the cash costs from infra and cities and replacing them with manufactured resources should fix most things. Doing so would make resources more valuable in a post-war rebuild. Last war I used up all of the cash in my warchest, but only ~10% of the steel.

The initial part was obviously an bait to show how ridiculous some things you say are and this is my third time saying that I don't agree with publicly denouncing your colition partners. Is it that far-fetched to defend an idea that you don't completely agree with, but think has some merit? The terms do matter in this case and I'm sure I also stated why in my first post. I'm not ignoring UPN's contribution to the war effort, but suggesting that they didn't want to join the war or are in it merely due to a sense of obligation, as well as insulting their cause for fighting comes pretty close to doing so. I'm not butthurt. I'm trying to explain why some people on my side are.

Yeah, I've heard the "peace terms get worse over time" thing a few times already. Also, although it might piss the other coalition off, initially demanding reps will have them believe you to be more willing to compromise and they might accept more favorable terms for your side. Nobody will take "we cut through all the nonsnse and are giving you the only terms we will, leave them or take them" as a sign that negotiations are worth it. Even if the Inquisition is essentially offering the same thing, they've still attempted to make an effort at yielding to your side's demands.

I didn't frequent the forums then (and I still don't really now) so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember NPO opposing a mutual decom to be part of the CB in NPO's First Time. They made similar arguments with saying that max military was their "peacetime build" and whatnot. If it worked for you then, I don't see why the reasoning is not valid here. Of course, that alone doesn't make a solid CB, but acting like it is immaterial isn't right either. Edit: This is in response to Buorhann's post to Roquentin, for clarification.

This seems fun. Why don't I also completely ignore the point of a post and take a portion of it out of context to misinterepret for the keks and lels? Why is Rose so disloyal to their allies? Do they believe that it's right to leave a war without telling their treaty partners? Why do they pursue their individual interests to the detriment of their allies? I'll tell you. They're a bunch of self-interested pixel huggers. ____________ Anyways, I don't subscribe to the idea that UPN can only leave the war with coalition approval. It's their sovereign right to do as they please. What I am saying is that the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored and that Inquisition leadership's grievances against UPN aren't completely unfounded. Pangui made a compelling case that UPN leaving eases the pressure on the remaing coalition members to peace out, although the infra cap expiring at the conclusion of the war seems to be intended to have UPN remain invested in the coalition's negotiations. Negotiations don't seem to be going well anyways and I doubt that much could convince Syndisphere to accept the white peace offer or for the Inquisition coaltion to accept defeat. Meh.

While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones.

There's no need to break the game. If the community thnks that downdeclares are a problem, decreasing the downdeclare range to 80 or 85% of score rather than the current 75% should suffice. I've done downdeclares on nations with half my city count while having no military and still managed to get rekt once countered. Between a range reduction and the city score increase from earlier, downdeclares won't be a problem. Better yet, since the community is split here, there's no reason to change the mechanics.

...That was a suggestion? It was in reference to the fact that your actions should have consequences. (and interactions with other RP leaders is influenced by popularity) I don't see the point of RPing in a vacuum.

These are all proposals and I'm not really all that invested in the RP, so take the following with a grain of salt While I have never been involved in the P&W RP, I believe that the Galactic RP run by Curufinwe (hallowed be his name) has some elements which, if implemented, may help fix some of the problems in this RP. The Galactic RP runs more like a strategy game (in some ways, it's a better representation of the "shitposts and spreadsheets" meme than P&W since you're expected to do your revenue calculations yourself) with RP elements than an actual RP and has more rigid rules than the P&W RP, but the P&W RP probably needs some more rigidity to it so it doesn't collapse upon itself. 1. Clear Time Frames A RP generally has multiple events happening concurrently, and the effects of these events on each other is unclear without a good sense of reference. While resolving events in chronological order may be intuitive, there usually exist irregular gaps between the actions of nations and distinguishing priority by forum activity is not a good basis for a fair RP. Rather, the P&W model will suffice for this problem and all actions ordered during a "turn" will be resolved at the end that turn, before the next turn starts. (you all presumably play P&W, so this shouldn't be foreign to you) Assign an order for actions of a certain type e.g. economic actions take priority before military actions, etc. Generally, this requires oversight (from a GM or whatever you want to call it), but that is already something that you should have the current system. You could continue doing whatever internal RP things the same as before, but actions which affect other nations will be handled this way. 2. Clearly Define "Within Your Means" This RP doesn't have to require all the participants to run spreadsheets, but a general descriptor (could be something as simple as a range of 1-5) of a nation's economic and military capabilities in a certain province would be useful to have. If you want to count military units, you'll end up with Logistics, the Gameâ„¢, rather than a RP. For RP purposes, "strong military and average economic conditions in Warsaw province" is fine. 3. Standardize Military and Economy Magic and alien/sci-fi technology is cool and all, but shouldn't be a major factor in conflict resolution, unless clearly defined limits to them are set and balancing measures are put in place so the person RPing Imperial Japan doesn't get their nation blown up by the Death Star summoned by a portal to the 7th dimension of hell. Either you can have everything be the same, with these elements being more of a flair and used solely in RP posts which pertain only to the nation posting (i.e. P&W military customization), or you can have the community decide how to balance it. (maybe nations which use magic gain benefit X at the cost of penalty Y and your "standard" 20/21st century nation will be the baseline) Same thing for Economy. 4. Remove Consent Clause This is just a really lazy attempt at addressing the lack of a functional conflict resolution system. 5. Politics is Actually a Popularity Contest Here, you cross the line between a RP and a strategy game. The appeal of a nation RP, to me at least, is deciding how your RP leader would react to certain situations caused by other RP leaders. However, a lack of consequences for your actions is also not ideal. In D&D (clearly a RP), you'll still get killed by your other party members for being generally incompetent or for the keks and lels. If you want to RP literally Hitler, you're free to do so, but don't expect other RPers to not collectively beat you up for it.

Enjoy your peace.

By the way, does that mean we can use the insanity plead when we're doing peace talks? // The insanity plea holds no value in this context. If it did, nobody would be responsible for anything :vv:

Eh, the population over score increase for older nations only matters (militarily) when you are below 900 infra and can't meet your military unit caps. Otherwise, it's a purely economic advantage and the proposed change will make it a military disadvantage that is difficult to control without taking measures to lower population. (such as increasing pollution, population density, crime rate, etc.) Generally, the increase in score usually won't be substantial enough to affect anything, and the mentality among members of the P&W community seems to be "if it ain't broke, don't change it".

Every war needs an a tale of two cities themed suggestion.

mhmm the jellyfish have no fleet