Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Altheus

  1. Honestly, it's a terrible idea.

    We've been here before with Cybernations trade circles and all it does in that game is generate a lot of stress for the poor sucker in each alliance that ends up having to organise them. They're just simply not fun and will do nothing other than widen the gap between haves and have nots.

    • Upvote 2
  2. On 1/25/2021 at 5:36 AM, Kurdanak said:

    Welcome! It would be neat to see IRON (as well as other old CN communities) really get established here and properly adapt to P&W. Great opportunity for a fresh start as well, if needed. I don't know of the events of CN past 2013 in the slightest, but with NPO being non-existent here and any sympathy for them being mercilessly stamped out (and rightfully so), I'm not too concerned about that type of conduct making a resurgence from any cross-over alliances. Best of luck in bringing more players over to the game!

    Yep i agree with that. Although a lot of alliances once big enough to be sanctioned in CN have already made an appearance in Orbis at some point. UPN, WTF, Fark, Polaris (NpO), GATO, R&R, Legion and now IRON are all here and ODN, VE, Ragnarok, GPA, GOONS & NPO have in the past. That's also not including any communities which have come across in all but name, of which there have been many

    • Like 1
  3. 631299827_Announcmentflag.png.6a517d923b15ee90f1fff7912b216ee4.pngimage0.jpg.2643fffd1e29307fb003341e30c19905.jpg


    The Greater Unitary Republic have been one of UPN's longest standing protectorates and have grown fantastically well over the last few months. Therefore we jointly felt that it was only right that we acknowledge the changing relationship between our two alliances and upgrade our previous protectorate arrangement to the following funky new MDoAP


    Treaty of Curacao

    By signing this document, all the signatory alliances agree to the articles stated below and enter into this agreement with full knowledge of its contents.

    Article I - Article of Non-Aggression
    Neither alliance shall engage in hostile actions against the other. Hostile actions are defined as assaults, declarations of war and acts of espionage. Both alliances also agree to not engage in hostile actions against any alliance that either alliance is obliged to defend, unless they are doing so due to a mandatory outside treaty.

    Article II – Article of Intelligence & Communication
    Both alliances will share any intelligence that is to the benefit of the other alliances wellbeing. This includes intended new mutual defense treaties with third parties.

    Article III - Article of Mutual Defense
    If either signatory is attacked by a foreign party, the other is obligated to immediately offer military and financial assistance. If the attack was the result of the defender having declared war on another alliance, then this article is optional.

    Article IV – Article of Optional Aggression
    If either alliance declares war then the other alliance has the option to also declare war on the same target.

    Article V - Article of Withdrawal
    Section 1) 120 hours of notice must be given to the other alliance before Article II, II & IV can be dissolved. After this period Article I remains in place for another 30 days.

    The signatures below immediately enter this document as alliance law and materialize the good relations that exist between the alliances that have signed below. Once entered into law, it shall remain there until it is dissolved through the process detailed in Article V.

    The Greater Unitary Republic
    President: Pegleg
    Vice President: Luis I of Brazil

    Secretary of State: Padisah Abdulhamid
    Secretary of War: Sir_Kotsos
    Secretary of the Treasury: Omen Khan
    Secretary of the Interior: Marcus Liddell
    Secretary of Trade and Commerce: Generic

    The United Purple Nations
    Prime Minister: Hansarius
    Chief of Staff: Noreen
    Minister of Internal Affairs: Matt
    Minister of Foreign Affairs: Cora
    Minister of Finance: Axley
    Minister of Defense: Sealteam
    Minister of Communications: Altheus

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 4
  4. On 31/12/2017 at 4:29 PM, Sketchy said:

    Well Treasures were intended to be a replacement for color stocks (I'm not sure what the rationale was, I was away for like 2 years). Until recently treasures had a flat 2% bonus each, but a group of alliances merged into "Treasure Island" and stockpiled like 15+ treasures and made billions so Alex nerfed them to be completely useless, rather than trying to find a replacement mechanic.

    So I doubt rebuffing treasures is on the table since they'd just be "exploited" in the same way so I doubt Alex would do it.


    I suppose a simple concept could be something along the lines of a "Victory Bonus".

    Each successful victory(beige) gives your alliance 1 victory points, and subtracts 1 from your opponent's alliance if they are in one.

    Each victory point would be worth 0.001% Income boost for the alliance. So, 1000 victory points, or 1000 successful beige's would equal a 1% income boost.

    Those numbers would need to be tested to make sure they are balanced, short term and long term.

    In addition to the victory bonus, color bonus could then be dictated based on how dominant you are compared to people on your color.

    Color Bonus = 5% * Your Victory Points/Total Victory Points of Alliances on Your Color

    So essentially, your color has a 5% bonus (or more/less for balancing if needed) which is spread across the alliances on the color based on victory points.

    This way winning against any opponent increases your dominance over your color, but winning against people on your color is more effective. This creates some cold war opportunities and can bypass political roadblocks preventing you from fighting the powerful alliances on your color (which is likely to happen).

    This is the simplest solution I can think of atm, only one without any clear holes I can see.

    You could cut out the middle man completely and just have a color bonus, and increase it to like 10 or 15% or something, and not have a victory bonus. I think having both would be better to promoting war in general, not just color conflicts.


    Can see what you're getting at. If nothing else it would make allliance-wide raiding very attractive (and almost guarantee that neutrals become/stay extinct) People will have different views on that.

    • Upvote 1
  5. On 31/12/2017 at 4:29 PM, Sketchy said:

    Well Treasures were intended to be a replacement for color stocks (I'm not sure what the rationale was, I was away for like 2 years). Until recently treasures had a flat 2% bonus each, but a group of alliances merged into "Treasure Island" and stockpiled like 15+ treasures and made billions so Alex nerfed them to be completely useless, rather than trying to find a replacement mechanic.

    So I doubt rebuffing treasures is on the table since they'd just be "exploited" in the same way so I doubt Alex would do it.

    I think what you can do with treasures is held back by being allocated to nations rather than alliances. I understand the reasons, but any of the obvious fixes to stop their abuse (restricting them from being captured outside of colour sphere, only one per alliance) don't really work whilst their allocated to nations who don't automatically have the same colour sphere or continent as their alliance and can take their treasures with them when they move alliances. 

    But if Alex did change treasures to be held back by alliances rather than nations then we'd need a system for determining when an alliance had beaten another alliance enough to have captured their treasure, which feels a bit artificial 

  6. 13 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

    In order to do that, this needs to be built into the war mechanics. Claims should be taken by conquest, not given at peace.

    Hmmm, that is a good point. At which point Claims start looking a lot like Treasures. Maybe the solution is to increase the importance and interaction of Treasures in regards to colour spheres. You have suggestions?

  7. 4 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

    That isn't it though, you are mistaking economics for politics.This suggestion doesn't bring any earth shattering changes to the way politics is conducted. It essentially serves as a optional substitute to conventional reps.This adds 0 political reasons for people to declare war. The motivation for declaring would be a purely economic one, and a poor one at that.

    Same as before, economics feeds politics which feeds war. Fundamentally disagree that this isn't political. If an alliance is in opposition to another alliance because they have a claim they want then that's fundamentally political.

  8. 6 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

    I disagree. Politics don't need to be expanded on mechanically, they are player driven by nature. The current political stagnation is from a lack of mechanical incentive to do war, among other factors. 

    War comes from politics, if you can provide incentive to declare war for political reasons then you are increasing the chances of player driven wars. Don't make the mistake of treating war & politics as two separate things.


    Although your point of the cost to benefit ratio of war vs. the colour bonus is very valid. As it stands it wouldn't be worth starting a war over. To fix we'd need to either make war less costly (outside the scope of this suggestion) or increase the benefit of the colour bonus so it is worth it.


  9. 47 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

    There is already plenty of political friction. Politics is in most cases the barrier to actually getting to war. What is needed is an economic incentive large enough to justify investing in a war, both economically and politically. Wars are expensive, most alliances aren't likely to start a war over a measly 3% color bonus. 

    And this still doesn't address the fact this system is by default balanced in favor of one type of alliance over the other. You are proposing an uneven starting playing field and then saying "well those guys have to fight to get what the other guys start with arbitarily".

    @ Political Friction. There aren't a lot of dimensions to the political friction though other than being the king of the hill. It'd be good to add more aspects to the political game.

    @ Military Incentive. Yep, that's a real problem although it's out of the scope of this suggestion. Alliances-wide wars are very costly for the benefit they bring. Although you could say the same about any suggestion designed to add conflict. 

    @ Uneven playing field. Well... yes, but unfairness can be a good source for conflict. You could say that it's not fair that all nations can't get nukes from day 1 but it doesn't stop it happening. It's a matter of working out what unfair things are good for a game by leaving ways in which they can be overcome. 

    @ Beige nations. Nations can't stay on Beige and alliances can't choose to be Beige. Hence that's not an issue.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.