Niklaus

Idk. The problem you are stating exists in almost every nation sim. All that can be done is minimize it a little. It's gonna stay there.

If it ensures longevity of the game, why not make the gamble? Reduce the damage for defenders perhaps. To take out some of the immediate sting. A system could be worked out tbh

On deeper thought, incentivizing warring would be a lot better than penalizing peaceful alliance. Any thoughts on this? Grillick, Saru? Others?

Also depends on what you consider it to be proactive. Some alliance will consider maneuvering their way out of a conflict as being proactive. Or initiating indirect wars.

Oh well that is kinda part and parcel of pol sims. It would not be a problem in a tournament or war edition of the game. Here people have to think long term. Only incentive is some economic gain through war. Has to be substantial, say large loot amounts or some sort of xp system they have in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

Sorry I lost you there. Elaborate for me plz? Particularly the bolded part.

By using that logic almost any unjust action can be justified. Say I am #1 nation. I have grown as an independent. Promising non-interference in others affairs while they leave me in peace. I choose to change that one day and attack random high tier people Ofcourse I may be eventually rolled by overwhelming force but that kind of enjoyment by others derived would not be result of political game, it'd be sort of enjoyment you get through usual raiding activities. But as I said, I focused only on the example used. The problem was something bigger. So my solution does not work.

That would be a failure of the treaty web/politicians not of the game. Neutrals have advantage through game. I did not realize GPA was used as an example. I thought they were used as an actual and sole case. I retract my suggestion then.

A problem was mentioned - neutrals growing to the point of being unchangeable. I proposed a solution that also takes care of the paranoia of some. Not the best solution, I will admit but that's why I am not vehemently supporting it and making an actual suggestion thread about it. Also, if a threat does not exist now, doesn't mean it may not exist in the future. it might or it might not. Civil war or not, a few crazy super tier nations are more than enough to be a huge pain in the neck.

What solution would you propose to solve the aforementioned problem of super alliances which don't fight? Either let neutrals grow in peace, as they do now or impose restrictions. I don't have any vested interest in supporting either method. Punishing neutrals for their style of gameplay is kinda harsh but I just did not see any other way to avoid the problem mentioned in this thread except just to learn to live with it. Maybe we should just do that; let it be as they are right now and see where it takes it game, hopefully, towards a brighter future not its end.

I meant it as an alliance option, not on individual nation level with a time restriction, say 25-30 days to change it and cooldown period of 30 days when the nations would not be able to engage in wars even after the alliance switches to normal. It helps to avoid a special kind of scenario where a neutral alliance violates its neutrality to declare on the world. And that is, if it is implemented without any income cuts. If it is implemented with the income cuts, it also slows the neutrals down. Again, as I said, not a very well thought out idea. Just wanted to lay it out there. Maybe a better solution would come out of it.

Add neutrality as an option in-game? Put in added costs to revenues of neutrals, whatever seems fair, in exchange of limiting their ability to fight wars and to be declared upon. Seems like a fair trade. Haven't really though this through. It just popped into my mind.

Someone mention sacrifice? Vampirism people. Only true path to your deliverance. Embrace the darkness.

Pink mushy material between his ears. Helps to form coherent posts. He has it buddy. It's obvious you don't.

Yeah, you managed to hold my attention span for more than a few milliseconds by your incessant lulzy posts. Great achievement. Should I get you a medal or something?

That should you show up as a warning or something when someone makes an OWF account

Moreso, how can you even say that without contradicting yourself? If you can be yourself, make posts full of vulgarity and logical fallacies and still expect people, rather demand people to just suffer through it all because apparently it's their problem why not extend the same privilege to the community at large? If you have a problem with his attitude, her attitude, their attitude or my attitude, well, my friend, by your line of argument, it's yours and only yours to deal with, nobody else's. Edit: Before you decide to dismiss my posts as illogical or irrational, you better make sure you can tell me how because then I am gonna be genuinely curious to know the limits of my rationality and logical faculties.

Let's analyse your post... The Problem you stated - People intentionally try to look down on others, show contemptuous attitude and try to show off their superior knowledge. They appear arrogant and consider other players inferior to them. How you reached that conclusion - by reading posts made by others. They had elements showing that the posters had those traits. Let's now analyse your post for those elements... 1. Called people "pompous asshats". - Vulgarity. Contemptuous attitude. 2. Stated repeatedly that you have better things to do - implied you live a more meaningful life than others 3. Implied, rather declared, that others don't have a life - implying they don't have one 4. Called others "flies" - again shows your contemptuous attitude towards others. See it checks all the boxes. How was your post, hence your attitude, any different from what you were complaining against?

Actually, I had plenty of them. I just didn't want you to flatter yourself for having gotten a reaction from me. I guess I should change that now.

Scrutiny is the cost of neutrality, not discontent. Any discontent results from the way a neutral alliance chooses to conduct itself; whether it bears true faith to its principles of neutrality or not. It may also result from envy but it's not exclusive to a neutral alliance. Every powerful alliance becomes victim of that. Personally, I don't have a problem with neutrality per say. However, I do find its arbitrary violations to be disappointing. Anyway +1 respect for the members in GPA who actually follow neutrality for what it actually is and are choosing to stand by what is its true form.

Nvm not worth it.

That's a relief!

I like you Kurdy. You will make a great leader for all the rosies To Angelus, I commend your sense of responsibility and readiness to give up power for the sake of your alliance. To rest of you silly flowers, congratz. Good to see you back in action, Keegz. <3

@Grillick: 1. PB's nation has nearly 700-800 citizens, solidiers inclusive. Consider the Vatican city with population of nearly 1000 or the Pitcairn Islands with population of nearly 80. Both are counted as countries. 2. Technically, it's going to be a nation even with 0 population as it lists on the all nations page. Realism doesn't necessarily apply here.

I found that part hilarious as well. Apparently, they can choose to define anything they want as they see fit, from a nation to neutrality.