Niklaus

Tutorial: How to make long term strategies? Hereno-style. Read this.... the bolded part Now read below, again the bolded part... I have nothing more to say. Edit: Only long term foresight I saw in that paragraph was that it would provide "low-risk training exercise" to you. That would be beneficial for you in the next version of the game, given that(i) your alliance survives that long, (ii)mechanics of war don't change much, (iii)your knowledge does not get rusty and (iv)you still play the game.

Brings back some old memories. Glad to see Rose establishing itself again in a new realm.

Read the title. I have many good ones but right now the first one that came to my mind was - "Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses" Confucius

Hello and welcome back to the game!

Investing in farms is good but when you have the money and the income to sustain more precious resources like steel or aluminium, or gasoline. Invest in them. 1 unit of aluminium sells for about 1400$, that is nearly 1200 $ more than the current food price per unit. Also join an alliance.

Its price will fall but not as low as it was before this war because, as the above poster mentioned, people now realize its importance. This also means, people, those who can, will begin to produce it in their own nations.

Congratulations on the treaty guys! Hope it works out well for you

Join an alliance if you haven't already. They have guides to... guide you in gameplay.

I had no good pictures handy I'd give tl;dr version but my wall of text has made me sleepy so good night xD

To be honest, I have no argument to offer that would work for everyone. Personally, playing this game with the outlook Hereno described would make the game dull for me. Changing your 'friends' because the political climate is more favorable for you if you break ties with them would take a considerable amount of fun out of the game for me (not to mention the PR my alliance would lose, the backlash, etc), especially if they stood by you in your bad days. There is already another realm which has the brand of politics you described, if you want to see the disadvantages of this approach, have a look at it. You will find several advantages, too though depending on how your moral compass operates. While, it is fun in its own way, I'd want to see friendships based on something more than just political advantage here where alliances stand up for each other, their first consideration being that they are friends and not whether they are bound by some piece of paper which can be manipulated easily by pointing out its loopholes. I accept a pragmatic view of political relationships as a valid way of playing the game but I don't have to like it. I feel any alliance leader should have the eye to see the practical, pragmatic side of things but the decisions he takes should be taken after consideration of certain other things as well. For instance, if someone stood by you in your difficult times, if you see a tough situation arising from them, instead of doing the easy thing of distancing yourself from them, it would be more commendable and praiseworthy if efforts are made to get them out of it or at least if they have to face their adversary, stand by them. I believe my idea of pragmatic politics is not different from yours, if it is then my reasons are not worth much. Moreover, its one thing to see practical side of things and quite the other to have no scruples while breaking someone's trust (especially if your support matters a lot to them at some moment). It is like taking it to quite the next level. That is what I was arguing against in my previous posts and you will find the relevant arguments in there as well. A relationship's value (speaking in terms of gameplay) does not always need to be something tangible like economic or military support. It can also be the joy and satisfaction gained from playing the game along with like-minded people, who are loyal to you and will stand by your side in case of a rainy day. Usually, both tangible and abstract rewards are derived from assisting an ally. There can be some negative value derived too, resulting from the interaction. Value in what sense? Tangible or abstract? Using the same example I earlier used, helping out a friend who helped you in times of need, even at the expense of your pixels or political capital would be the honorable thing to do even though it may not be the pragmatic thing to be done. After all it is just a game, the stats are just letters and lines of code. They can be recovered. Nations can be rebuilt. But the feelings of loyalty and camaraderie such an action would stir up in your ally cannot be achieved any other way. Edit - We should probably get a new thread for this if we are to continue with this.

The Unnamed War

Thanks! Good to be here. The game's great, Sheepy. Thanks! Thank you for the kind words! I look forward to getting to know you better as well. Thank you everyone for the welcomes and stuff, really appreciate it. Pleasure to make your acquaintance!

I did not use the word 'disloyal' in whole of my post. If anything, you yourself implied it when you declared that you cannot be trusted. If a person cannot be trusted, it would follow logically, such a person cannot be trusted to be loyal. Anyway, that's not what I was meant or addressed in my post, I did not even address the trust part. I warned you, according to whatever little experience I have, that following an approach which focuses strictly on the benefits which can be extracted from a relationship rather than focusing on developing a meaningful relationship itself, will hurt you in the long run. Because you will eventually face some decision which isn't practical as far as your alliance's interests are concerned but what you decide impacts your ally greatly. Then you can either ignore your interests for time being and support your ally and most likely earn an actually loyal friend in the end or you can be practical, see only your interests and decide according to that. Maybe I am ignorant as apparently, according to what you seem to be implying, I cannot understand the difference between being practical and loyal and being Machiavellian and untrustworthy but my ignorance has worked pretty well for me till now so I am going to keep it that way. Or perhaps, you aren't totally driven by self interests and that motto or whatever it is just an exaggeration to look different, to impress someone because certainly, I find it a little difficult to digest that when time comes you will actually betray someone's trust if need be but I am not gonna risk it. Everyone breaks someone's trust at some point or other but somewhere you just have to draw the line. One cannot live simply for oneself, somethings are done just for sake of your relationship with the other person.

I am guessing they will use them. When it is time to rebuild. No need to use more force than necessary. Though now with entry of DEIC, I may prove to be wrong. But still I doubt they will be asking their allies to enter the war this soon or enter the war at all.

Should have posted this a while ago but I just couldn't get around to writing this. I also lacked the will but now I would like to get involved in the community a bit more. For that, you guys must first know something about me so here it is. My name's Niklaus, nickname Nik. Formerly known as Socrates in-game. I quit PW a few months ago and returned only this month. When I returned my original username was taken so I chose to go by this name instead. I have been playing nation simulators on and off for about 3 years now. I started in PT, learnt the basics about technical aspect of these games there. Entered PN, spent my noob time there. Stepped into the actual politics part of a nation sim for the first time there. Major part of whatever I know of how alliances operate, as far as the political game is concerned, comes from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which I started playing towards the last days of PN and still play, although not as actively. During my time in PW, I started in Guardian, was a member of The Endless for a while before I left the game and currently am a member of The Seven Kingdoms. In real life, I live in India. I like volleyball and cricket. I also do programming (vbasic, a little bit of html and php) as a hobby, not very serious about it though (just know the basics). I like making graphics, too. So this is it. A watered down version of who I am and of my history in games like these. Now tell me about yourself and feel free to ask any questions you might have.

Keep using that approach and you will soon run out of your human 'tools' (*) to use. Some people use it and I despise them, especially the fact that they try to cover it up by putting up some sort of persona of a well-intentioned human being. At-least, you are better than them in that regard but the consequences will be same for you, just quicker. Coming to the main topic - I am not seasoned enough in politics to lecture anyone on any sort of political move (war being one of them) they make, after all leaders of an alliance know what's best for them and their alliance, but I think if EoS wanted to use all its resources, it would have been better to do so at the start, not in this way, with allies slowly coming in for help, one after another. In my opinion, done the way it has been done makes the pre-empt war take a direction similar to what would have been the case if EoS had been attacked first, with allies coming in defense later on to help them out. But I guess as long as it serves their purpose, doesn't matter the way it is executed.

Ok, I now understand this fully. I kinda like it.

What if a powerful nation of some alliance leaves it and becomes a "none"? Wouldn't he have a upper hand in such an institution?

Hard to implement? No, I don't think so. Prone to misuse? Yes, it's possible but not very likely given the size of our community and proportion of trolls in it and lack of incentive (no monetary gains) to misuse such a system.

If it has been tried here before and failed then definitely it should not be implemented again. As far as the discouragement of person's thoughts or ideas is concerned, I believe it can happen with current system as well. Just instead of a negative vote, it would be a post disapproving a person's view. The rep system would just provide another way to express your disapproval of something.

I think that can be solved to some extent by limiting the number of downvotes and upvotes per day. I have seen this system work well in other communities (as a matter of fact, in the community I am talking about, I was against its implementation initially but later found it working better than the just "like" system). The problem you talk of may still persist though but it would be quite limited that way. Besides, we can always switch back if the things get too serious.

I think it's a good idea to promote quality posts but it can be easily misused. If I may, I have another suggestion/idea which will achieve the same goal just without the bonuses. Institute the reputation system with positive and negative reputation options. It will ensure that good posts are noticed and praised by the community while poorly thought out posts are disliked. This will give incentive to people to make better posts. I am not sure if this has been suggested before, I think it has been but anyway putting it out there for consideration. That being said, those who make quality posts get their reward in other forms already (influence, respect, their views are taken more seriously, forum likes, etc). The biggest reward, in my opinion, is the effect of their post itself. If it makes a difference, even if it changes one person's viewpoint or brings home a profound thought or lesson forcefully, that is a reward enough in itself for most. I believe we don't need to monetize this.

Some additional information regarding my personality type: ENFJs are the benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity. They have tremendous charisma by which many are drawn into their nurturant tutelage and/or grand schemes. Many ENFJs have tremendous power to manipulate others with their phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship. But it's usually not meant as manipulation -- ENFJs generally believe in their dreams, and see themselves as helpers and enablers, which they usually are. ENFJs are global learners. They see the big picture. The ENFJs focus is expansive. Some can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously. Many ENFJs have tremendous entrepreneurial ability. ENFJs are, by definition, Js, with whom we associate organization and decisiveness. But they don't resemble the SJs or even the NTJs in organization of the environment nor occasional recalcitrance. ENFJs are organized in the arena of interpersonal affairs. Their offices may or may not be cluttered, but their conclusions (reached through feelings) about people and motives are drawn much more quickly and are more resilient than those of their NFP counterparts. ENFJs know and appreciate people. Like most NFs, (and Feelers in general), they are apt to neglect themselves and their own needs for the needs of others. They have thinner psychological boundaries than most, and are at risk for being hurt or even abused by less sensitive people. ENFJs often take on more of the burdens of others than they can bear. Famous ENFJs:David, King of Israel U.S. Presidents: Abraham Lincoln Ronald Reagan Barack Obama

ENFJ Extravert(22%) iNtuitive(12%) Feeling(25%) Judging(11%) You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (22%) You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (12%) You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%) You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (11%)