Jump to content

Cjfly

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  • Leader Name
    Cjfly
  • Nation Name
    Acanadian
  • Nation ID
    48064
  • Alliance Name
    R&R Respublica Romana

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Cjfly

Recent Profile Visitors

633 profile views

Cjfly's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

1

Reputation

  1. So what your saying is plundering isn't enough so you want double destruction on every win then plundering and double destruction isn't enough so you also want a 99% win odds or else you would never declare war and people wouldn't play the game. "That's Crazy". I'm not saying it should be a 50/50 scenario cause the aggressor would always have the upper hand in coordination & planning since they are hitting first but the current balance should be somewhat fixed to allow the possibility of a defensive turn around. This is why we are in our current situation with players doing nothing to beige or war slot filling to get longer beige time because they can't do nothing but waste their time trying to counter.
  2. So you prove my statement that 99% of all wars are won by aggressors as you could only point out the 1 war to make your point out of over 6 yrs of gameplay. So here is my point, I am still 100% correct while you are still 100% incorrect. Pls ohhh Pls tell me were i said Aggressors always win??? or did you take something outta context which i assume you did since i did say i was never an aggressor but somehow won 5 wars and since you love following my comments you would know for absolute that i stated 99% of aggressors win wars or are you just trying to troll me in several different discussions to get your point across that you favour unbalanced military combat to the aggressor so you can feel better about yourself at night while you stare at your parents basement walls????
  3. This is a web base game so in terms a Turn Based System. So no way should a turn base system allow the opponent to take out an entire force in 2 turns all the while it takes you 15 turns to regain those losses and still your opponent can keep taking out that specific forces reinforcements every turn. So right now being able to create 4 spies per turn and having 3 spy operations is absolutely fine since they are achieving there goal at the moment into lowering your spies but to achieve a better spy operation then just destroying spies. so if you have 3 spy operations one should initiate 2 spy ops to lower your spies and the 3rd to actually cause the damage they want and since its a turn based system one should be able to at least recruit the losses they received that specific turn. timing in a turn based system is everything so if one times 5 mins before update then hits right after update that is totally different and should be acceptable. No forces in your military line should be able to be wiped out in 2 turns but at this point its 95% plausible to actually take out ones entire force 5 mins before update and they won't be able to counter due to update restrictions and auto scripting.
  4. @lightside So you think just cause you say your part of something without any real consequences/game based mechanics then you must be part of that something. Hmmmmm, must be nice to still be in Grade 9. Just because you don't have real in-game consequences based on your so called system does that mean it actually exists????? NO, therefor the politics part of the game is non existent due to the lack of real in-game consequences for ones actions based on REAL POLITICS. This is what politics is all about, Placing a penalty for those that renig on a signed treaty/contract now if you cannot enforce those penalties then you have no politics. Hence the reason why we have the UN in RL as they enforce global law (what the masses agree to) and since with an in-game system we will never achieve such cooperation since there isnt any consequences to not achieving this goal (unless implemented with in-game mechanics) then one must implement an absolute in an in-game scenario thus enforcing the political system in place.
  5. @lightside In the Political system you talk about you actually mean the war system since there is no actual real politics implemented within P&W's game mechanics????
  6. Although I do like most (if not all) of your ideas, in these suggestions. How are we to play a game that labels itself POLITICS & WAR when all politics based with inside this game is cosmetic & or you need to use 3rd party to even pretend it exists, all wars won is granted to the aggressor??? Are we to just turn a blind eye to the actual intent of this game and intent i mean by the actual name of the game, Or are they just false advertising???. This isn't simnation or even sim city and there was a lot of thought put into this game, just the implementation has fallen apart. Shouldn't we suggest and request that they at least implement a workable/usable/balanced and fair game play based on Politics and War before we start suggesting Nations content and turning it into another Sim City. Don't get me wrong, Nations right now are at a balanced/fair playing field unlike the politics and war aspects of this game and shouldn't we all be more focused on trying to balance them out before we start tweaking nation aspects.??? Everyone wants more projects/domestic policies/war policies etc,etc but we have yet to achieve a balanced POLITICS &WAR.
  7. @dtc justice being blown up is part of any game and with all the wars I have been apart of in this game i at least get 50% of the damage considering the aggressor gets at least an extra 25-50% damage just for winning a war and since the aggressor if 3 attacks at once will almost always win, so not a real loss to me since I never instigated and cause just as much damage but my statement is just as it stands. NO person should in any fact have an over whelming advantage over the other & with the current Politics & War the advantage is given to the aggressor at an astounding 99% success rate. The only tactical advantage as of today is you hit someone with 3 accounts and they have no chance so P&W encourages alt accounting/auto scripting then complain when people report such abuses. So apparently suggesting properly balanced mechanics and algo's is considered being salty in your eyes or are you just salty that someone unlike yourself has higher then a grade 9 lvl education that also plays this game????
  8. Please tell me what treaties we have that are of actual use? NAP/PIAT, That's it. This is Politics & War, Not just War and what goes hand in hand with politics and war "treaties, workable, usable Treaties. What is the in-game process to declare war as of right now on an alliance, that's right, there is non. You just randomly start attacking and hopefully someone posted the DOW in the forums or you're in your discord channel. The formatting was necessary to mark key points and to insure those key points weren't washed out in an attempt to explain or get the point across as easy as possible since missing one thing in coding could be a game breaker or leave it open for abuse. This idea wasn't for the cool look or cosmetics but to actually make treaties usable since they are part of politics & of course limit war slot filling, Beige mechanic abuse since Beige abuse is really only the concern of alliances in large wars. If you have constructive criticism then don't hesitate to respond with it as I will be more then happy to accept it. How is one to respond when you take nothing from the suggestion then you respond with things that have nothing to do with the initial suggestion Like spouting your superiority of word processing, Giving wrong info about current game mechanics oh and trying to quote me as if the entire suggestion was for cosmetic purposes.
  9. I do like the idea of Alliance improvements but I think an initial cost + daily upkeep cost would be more effective as an alliance would pull together and build then would have to stick around and pay a % of taxes/resources in order to keep it from deteriorating. this would also help with alliance banks and minimize off-shore accounts in times of war due to daily improvement requirements and also forcing higher taxes to keep projects especially during times of war and of course a bonus to the opponent if they are able to reduce an alliances funds/resources to a point where they cant afford the improvement and it/they get destroyed. For example: Project #1 initial cost + 2% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #2 Initial cost + 5% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #3 Initial cost + 10% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily So if you had all 3 projects you would need to pay initial cost plus 17% taxes for every nation in alliance & the set amount of alliance funds daily. This is just an example and #'s aren't balanced but would allow even smaller alliances to use these as all they would need to worry about is initial costs and of course getting your members to accept the extra tax rates needed to keep the projects and alliance going.
  10. This would utilize the in-game treaties and make them more useful. It would also help with Beige and War Slot filling dilemma as it would balance it out for at least alliances but also encourage non allied nations to join an alliance for better protection. You would need to enforce all MD's with game mechanics, like NAP/PIAT's are in where you cannot attack all signing parties thus preventing allied/friendly from war slot filling and of course giving the protection they are meant to give. Create 3 new Treaties: 1) Declaration Of War (DOW) :one sided approval treaty that would initiate immediately :Only 1 DOW initiated at any given time for alliances involved (Thus ability to create several fronts with an alliance and forcing Alliances to have MD's signed prior to a DOW or risk splitting alliances into separate wars to prevent them all joining 1 war) :Time sensitive (ex.30/60/? days) unless Peace Treaty Signed. :Defending Alliance including their signed MD's/Prot's/Defensive Aid would get the DOW including the aggressor automatically. The Aggressors MD's join with Defensive Aid/Optional Aggression treaty :Inability for any nation/alliance not part of the DOW to attack nations on either side of the DOW :Inability to leave alliances 2) Defensive Aid/ Optional Aggression :Reliant on a DOW :Would allow any alliance not part of a current DOW or any MD's to sign a (ex,temporary MD treaty) for either defender or aggressor that would be approved by the requested alliance and put themselves & their treaty partners into that war ultimately coming to the aid of one side.(approving spy alliances would be the fault of the alliance that approved the Defensive Aid Treaty so you better know and trust the Aid you are approving cause you can't blame game mechanics over stupidity) :Inability to attack signed partners Like a NAP/PIAT :Inability to leave alliance :Inability to revoke treaty 3) Peace Treaty :Cool Down period before treaty can be manually revoked (ex. 5/10/? Days) :Inability to attack signed partners :Can only be signed if a DOW is active :Can only be signed by Aggressor & Defending Alliance of a DOW. :DOW & Defensive Aid treaties would automatically be revoked :Peace Treaty automatically initiated to all involved alliances once signed All alliances/nations have the ability to war dec anyone at anytime but with these Treaties an Alliance does have the threat of a DOW from another alliance making any attack on an alliance a cautious and strategic one. Preventing anyone else from joining in if a DOW is declared unless they sign a Treaty to join the current conflict/DOW or try and convince their friends to sign and come to the aid would slow rogue alliances/griefers but also is a risk for the aggressor cause who knows what friends that rogue alliance has hidden as a DOW could ultimately backfire. This would eliminate war slot filling and give nations the ability to beige properly and rebuild to make a proper comeback and not get blitzed for mths on end without a strategic way to stop it.
  11. So what your saying is, R&R just invested for 13 rl years, assuming 0% radiation. ?
  12. @BOYCE THE GREAT We got a magic trick for you.
  13. Cjfly

    Credits

    Just did another purchase and it posted them instantly but still haven't received my first purchase. I can forward the PayPal receipt but who do I forward to????
  14. Cjfly

    Credits

    No idea how to post images here or what kind of proof you require??
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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