War Hawk
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by War Hawk
-
-
15 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
At that point you're just describing the effects of the current score range mechanics; if anything the numbers your example gives are unrealistic without changes to the system. Best I could ever do is hit a fully mil'd up and high infra 5 city nation if I remember right, and that was with 12 cities during the 69 day war. Oh, and that battle that I'm thinking of was pretty close too, since he'd had so much support from his allies' downdeclares against me anyway.
tl;dr: We don't need this proposed change.
(I should note that I'm not fond of any city limitations, but Alex seemed happy with Pre's idea, prompting my alternate recommendation.)
As I previously stated, the formula and numbers I provided aren't formal recommendations, but the numbers of my napkin math aren't very far off.
-
2
-
-
I'm wholly opposed to the proposed static city restriction on down declares. In tandem with the current score restriction, I find the proposition to be too limiting for large nations to meaningfully fight a "losing" war (e.g., the current conflict). A better solution would be a variable, city-based restriction like the following: (Attacker City Count / 2) - 2 = Declaration Floor
(The example formula isn't necessarily a formal recommendation -- rather, a general suggestion of what should instead be considered.)
Examples:
A nation has 5 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 1 city (rounded);
A nation has 10 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 3 cities;
A nation has 18 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 7 cities;
A nation has 25 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 11 cities (rounded);
A nation has 32 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 14 cities.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Eh, it's not exactly an advantage unique to anyone's playstyle and the information is already available, so there's no reason to not make it that much more convenient.
I know - I'm just poking fun at recent suggestions.
-
I should probably add that this suggestion is for personal benefit.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This may be a bit nitpicky as far as in-game suggestions are concerned, but it would be helpful to have an adversary's activity status listed on the war page. This would allow us to verify the activity/inactivity of our opponents without needing to repeatedly visit their nation pages for status checks.
Example:
-
1
-
11
-
Some nations have unit killed totals vastly higher than the "destroyed" totals listed on respective nation pages.
-
1 hour ago, Justin076 said:
I’m coming for you
No idea what you're taking about.
-
3
-
-
Don't worry about updating the individual stats. Nothing will change between now and the end of the war.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ☠ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™☠ said:
Guardian vm'd their bank which is against in-game rules? So much for honorable (or honourable if you're a britbong).
Could this be our VM bank holder?: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13129&display=bank
You caught us red-handed, Shifty. That 2k uranium we sent Oblige (two months ago) is all we have left.
2 hours ago, Akuryo said:-snip-
I'm amazed that you managed to fit so many generalizations and so little information in this disjointed wall of... something.
-
1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:
I'm having serious doubts you have the mental faculty to understand context
>Complain about half-damage nukes in defensive wars
>Receive constructive response about actual utility of nukes
>"I don't give a shit." x5
I mean, I get that you're salty, but that's no reason for you to mix up "I don't understand" with "I don't give a shit." Moreover, if you're worried about the real value of your dealt infra damage (i.e., infra damage relative to the ROI on said infra), you and the rest of NB should have focused more on war and less on the months OWF shit-talking.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:
And I have responded more than 5 times that I don't give a shit, a significant portion was taken away long after it was paid for.
I'm having serious doubts that you understand what "I don't give a shit" means.
Inb4 "I don't give a shit."
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Zoot said:
So, uhm, why is this in Alliance Affairs?
>Kastor
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
14
-
-
-
The only good commie is a Rose commie.
Gratz. o7
-
2
-
-
It should be reached as soon as possible -- i.e., city 5 or earlier.
-
I voted for every one that had fewer than two votes. I hope you guys like affirmative action.
-
I think IQ is due reparations. You've done far more damage to our side than we have to yours.
While I don't think poverty is a legitimate justification for reparations, we could send your starving children some rice or something. We aren't monsters.
-
2
-
-
whale sounds intensify
-
2
-
-
You are confused boy, two different posts, two different situations
I'm not confused at all. Both posts relate to the same subject matter.
-
I didn't even say something about your allies, you are totally free to loan/give your money to however you want
I were in Syndicate, a war won't change my opinion about you, you are cool people, but don't say that you don't have garbage in Syndicate or in your allied alliances.
You absolutely did.
-
Guardian is mostly upper tier tho, you don't even have low tier, it would be a shame if you couldn't rebuild the very few nations of your mid tier
Right, because funding our allies is totally off the table.
-
Good luck taxing more your whales, I am sure they won't complain having to sacrifice themselves for your low/mid tier. Anyway, we will get their level sooner or later, so farm money while you can.
I'm not sure where that's coming from. Most of us "whales" are perfectly fine doing what we can to help our lower/mid tier nations.
-
4
-
Shifty News Network LLC-In My Time of Dying
in Orbis Central
Posted
A rare look at Argos' internal conflict: