Memph

Yeah the bug seems to be you get turns (and income) collected at odd hours (server time).

Except there wasn't any sea battle at all initiated by his opponents nor did Doom lose any ships. But they still broke out of blockade. This is true of all 5 nations he blockaded. The 6th nation he blockaded was also blockaded by someone else so it's unclear if his blockade is working or it's the just his team-mate's. Doom, did your blockade ever work, I mean you got an immense triumph naval attack but did your opponents ever show up as blockaded on their nation screen or on your war screen?

Maybe TSG likes it dirty.

Well, so far the two biggest wars in this game have ended in white peace and pseudo white peace, so I'm not sure what's with the concern about crushing peace terms. As for grudges from other games, I have somewhat mixed feelings, so I'll play devil's advocate for saying it's not that big a deal. If Alliance A decides to smash Alliance B in PW over something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that might seem like a bad thing, but at least now Alliance B will have motivation for scheming to get revenge, which will drive politics and cause Alliance B to take a strong interest in the game, gather allies, recruit members, etc. At this point, even though it started out over something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), things are already starting to diverge. Presumably, this started over Alliance B smashing Alliance A in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You now have two wars between the same alliances, but with opposite outcomes. Members of Alliance A or their allies in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), especially those not playing PW, are going to be responding to defeat, and Alliance A in PW is going to be responding to victory. Furthermore, PW is hardly a mirror image of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). There is some overlap, but there are alliances in PW with no presence in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and vice versa, and even those that have a presence in both games aren't going to have the same clout in one game as in the other. Plus you'll have many alliances here with players from multiple (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances. So players and allies Alliance B will rally to their cause aren't going to be the same as if it happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). So especially as players and alliances become more invested in PW than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), even if there are certain parallels at first, the paths will diverge more and more with time. And of course even if some alliances act on grudges from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), there have already been wars fought that had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), so it's already a rather different world imo.

Welcome to Orbis!

There's an inconsistency. Here it says 1 per day. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/military/ Here it says 2 per day. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/military/spies/

The evidence is inconclusive and conflicting. Darren Wilson could have used excessive force, or he could have acted reasonably. However it's not up to the Grand Jury to decide whether or not Darren Wilson is guilty, that's something that should have been decided in a trial, but there was no trial.

Read my post more carefully. What I was saying was that he was shot during the struggle in the car, then ran away, stopped, then turned around. Witness 14 seems to be saying that Brown, after stopping and turning around, and then being told to stop, raised his hands first to look at his injury, then with his palms facing Wilson took a few steps towards him. Witness 14 was not Brown's accomplice (Johnson) but a resident of the neighbourhood (housing projects?).

The autopsy report seems to suggest Brown was mostly shot while facing Wilson. Many witnesses seem to offer accounts that contradict that, claiming he was shot while he was running away (from behind). There is one witness though (Witness 10) that claims after the altercation in the car window where the first shot was fired, Brown started to run away, then stopped and turned around as Wilson started coming after him with his gun drawn. The witness claims Brown then started to charge towards Wilson at full speed, starting from a distance of about 15 yards, and Wilson started firing a few shots when the gap was down to about 10 yards. Brown then stopped for a bit and then charge again and Wilson fired a few more shots and Brown collapsed. If that's actually what happened, I don't think Darren Wilson did anything wrong and justifiably acted in self defence the whole time. However, there was another witness (Witness 14) that claimed things happened somewhat differently. Supposedly Brown raised his hands when he turned around, palms facing himself, presumably to check out his injury since I think the first shot hit his hand or wrist. Wilson told Brown to stop (while he was already stopped) and then Brown took a few steps towards Wilson with his hands up (palms facing Wilson) and started getting shot at. Then he supposedly stopped and Wilson told him to stop again and he was hunched over and slowly started moving towards Wilson again (like staggering, with hands up) and Wilson shot at him again and then Brown collapsed. This testimony seems to suggest that while Brown was moving towards Wilson each time he was shot he wasn't moving aggressively (unlike Witness 10 who described him as charging). Although Wilson was probably close enough to tell if he was staggering or leaning forwards in a charge motion, the differences between the two would be pretty subtle for the witnesses who were further away. Witness 14 wasn't really sure what happened at the car window, while witness 10 might have been observing with a bias since he initially thought Brown shot Wilson. And if someone is just taking a few steps and you're a witness looking from far away, it might be hard to tell if it's the start of a sprint or a fast walk. Witness 12's testimony seems to mostly support what Witness 14 saw. If Brown was hunched over or leaning forwards, it would be hard to distinguish between whether he had his hands up like he was surrendering, or forwards like a charging football player. And I think if he was really charging forwards that fast he wouldn't have been able to stop after the first round of shots. So I think Darren Wilson probably should have been indicted, and have the case go to a trial by jury, although it seems like there probably wouldn't have been enough good evidence to convict him of anything.

It ranges anywhere from $5 to $20 depending on the seasons and how much land you have (unless you have some stupid amount of land like 200 or 2500 but most have around 400-1200). So still very low. Of course this doesn't include the opportunity cost of not using that improvement slot for commerce or something.

Also some resources are more expensive because they cost more to produce. Food costs about $10 to produce, uranium costs $1667 to produce.

So... it seems we're experiencing a bit on an oil crisis.

I'll buy all of it at $115.

My impression from world war alpha was that at least some of EoS enjoyed war, so I would have thought Casey would have more support. Why did most of EoS' gov go to Rose instead of UPN?

Not really, because food production increases per improvement slot if you have more land, which presumably big nations do. Plus many big nations are maxed out on commerce if we're talking about the top 100 or so.

Food's falling pretty fast...

It should be tied to how successful the attack is though, sending 2 soldiers at an opponent with 80,000 shouldn't have the same effect as an immense triumph.

They are very expensive though. Phiney spent over $12 million so far to do about $ 5 million in infra damage to your nation. Admittedly a lot of that cost is for the project and not the missiles themselves, and he still has the project and can continue to fire additional missiles in his war with you or in future wars, but still, it's not obviously worthwhile to get them even if you can afford to. The main thing I'm hoping for is that ground and air forces will still retain some purpose for wars at higher levels, since it makes wars more interesting.

Nation ID: 732 Post Count: 100 Link to Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=732

lol... But there's still a relatively valid reason for having multiple buy or multiple sell offers. Like lets say you need a little steel in the short term, more in the long term, and steel is expensive. Lets say the lowest sell is $2000 and the highest buy is $1500. You put in a buy at $1510 instead of clicking the $2000 sell because that's a pretty big gap and you'd like to avoid paying $490 extra. But you don't need much in the near future, so say it's a buy offer of 50 at $1510. Now in the long term you want more steel, and you're hoping steel prices will go down while you're offline, so you stick in a buy offer of 300 at $1200, a pretty good price and one you'd be willing to pay to secure a more long term supply of steel. There are several offers from other people between $1200 and $1500, so you're hoping these might all be accepted by people looking to unload steel. And just in case some alliance decides to unload their whole steel stockpile or something and steel prices really crash, you put in a buy offer of 1000 steel at $900 even though you won't need that much for your nation because you're confident that you'll be able to sell it back at a profit.

Rebuilding will mostly just take cash though, the number of improvements destroyed is pretty small, and I don't expect military will be SI's first priority for rebuilding.

On the flip side, if you do make the change ElPinchazo recommends, I guess what a small nations could do is donate for a large nation and have the nation send him tons of aid in exchange. Of course that means small nations with big friends are at an advantage, haven't really thought about whether that's good or bad.

I guess it's something to do with daylight savings time ending. Also related but not sure if it's a bug - you get your income at odd hours now instead of even hours (but the game goes down at even hours still).

There's various possibility as to how, but I agree there should definitely be some way of countering missiles. The game's missiles seem to be based on surface to surface missiles so gaining naval and ground control is another possibility (and gaining naval control is typically difficult without air control).

Well so far I haven't seen any evidence of small alliances being used to fight proxy wars for the big ones. I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but honestly I'm not even sure what the point of that would be from the big alliance's POV. Aside from a couple wars with raider alliances, the two main wars so far have been between 1st page alliances. The big war at the end of Alpha was also between major alliances. The way I see it, you want the game to have a decent number of major alliances, if we could have twice as much as currently that would be nice, realistically speaking there probably won't be more than that and doesn't really need to be. You also need to be able to create new ones as old ones die or merge. How to create new alliances? I guess it's possible for a big alliance to experience a sudden exodus, either with the members leaving to form a new alliance or join a new one. Examples would be Guardian members splitting off to form Endless with HSN or EoS members joining Rose, although neither of those events lead to more alliances. You can also have a couple people leave to found their own alliance, but usually people are attached to their alliance so this doesn't happen often, and that also means these new alliances are typically pretty slow to recruit larger nations. If they're going to become relevant in global politics, they need to recruit players that are new to the game. One big question is how do you get these new players to stick around. In more established alliances like DEIC, GPA, SK, Guardian, I think it's tricky, the new players aren't going to feel like they're contributing much militarily, and there's already going to be a solid leadership so it's going to be difficult for them to play a role politically. Also I think as a new player, it's probably going to be more fun if you screw up and learn from your mistakes, raid some people, piss off a major alliance, discover new strategies on your own, compared to just having an experienced player give you some intimidating Walls of Text telling you what to do as soon as you arrive to a game that's supposed to be fun. I remember when I started playing these games in 2007, there were about 50 of us, mostly high school kids from the Age of Empires III forums, that joined a new (2 month old) game. We were pretty clueless at first, but during the first few months, screwing up and learning new things was a major driver of activity. Anyways, what makes you think a new player that wants to create their own alliance will join an existing one if prevented from doing so, rather than just quit?