Felkey

Ok maybe not that friendly... But still, free drinks!

This is the first time I've had an issue with it on my phone which is what I almost always use. Anyways requesting the desktop site did resolve the issue for me.

I have a similar issue where it lets me hit submit but every time it tells me I did it incorrectly.

Why do people keep trying to make us (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)... Tech, events, nukes breaking units... Just some of the most recent (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style suggestions.

No! no! no! no! no! Did I say forget to say no? Stone age for everyone!!

Yeah pretty much... Keep !@#$ing tech out of this... Back to the Stone Age with us!

I'm the friendly team she speaks of and I offer adult beverages

OK sorry then, I asked someone who said it didn't so I was confused

I noticed an icon next to my basic information bar. It says I have redeemed 1 credit this month for bonuses. However I bought 5, sold one to another player and am currently holding the other 4. I have not actually redeemed them yet. Link to nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=55922 Thank you Felkey

I don't take these things personally. Not to continue to beat a dead horse but could we also just cap the number of fortifications per war? That way if used say during the middle of a war it could still be used to prevent beige (therefore as tywin pointed out, it still has a purpose). But you would still have to have some fighting capacity to protect yourself the rest of the time. It's a bit of a middle ground?

As a relatively new person myself, I would love to see this be implemented (Just too bad it couldn't have been done in December ). Waiting 10 days to buy cities to become self sufficient is rather annoying although I am a rather impatient person in general. I just hit city 4 a few days ago and that was with me buying every 120 turns on the dot. For those who join alliances quickly they get the money to build their cities and the infra and improvements right away. So at 2 cities there is really very little to do except save because your cities are often in good shape the instant you buy them. Meaning you kinda just sit there for 10 days

My point is you're a fool to think Yui would actually accept your terms. So why even offer thm in the first place? As far as I am aware Yui has never given any indication that she is the type of person who would betray an ally. Also in her very first post in this thread of yours, she said she told you the terms were not agreeable and that the anti raid measures would continue. So your argument is irrelevant.

The talk or derangement is because you seemed to honestly expect us to war slot fill for you (an enemy) against the best interests of a close ally. Why on earth would we choose you over them? Then you complain because we end the ceasefire after you asked us to betray said ally. What kind of sane person would actually expect you attempted tactic to work? So I ask again are you really this deranged or are you just playing at it?

No shit, who doesn't want raids to stop. That's not really an argument. And judging by your recent actions you also wanted our counter attacks to stop. Peace for peace is a wash but you also wanted us to war slot fill for you. You wanted far more than an even and reasonable trade. Please tell me are you really this deranged or are you just playing at it?

Really? Is that why you were the one that wanted us to slot fill for you? Asking us to betray allies is more than enough of a reason to resume military action. It is you who in fact wanted something.

You asked us to stab our allies in the back and now are throwing a hissy fit because we wouldn't accommodate you. Then again, I'm not surprised you feel this way after reading your numerous responses. Continually referring to yourself in the 3rd person, especially with regards to unwarranted, smug superiority and delusions of grandeur are probably signs we should have you committed.

So this is where reality goes to die...

I know you can get looted at the end if you go to beige but what I meant was a scenario they use the fortify to prevent beige in order to protect their resources and by extension cash. I'm not really sure this fixes the perma roll though as a defender now chooses to keep themselves out of beige so they don't lose resources but they still get ground down so it's possible to hold someone in a state of constant warfare. I mean if I was attacking endlessly and not giving an opponent a chance to breathe, I would make peace contingent on them surrendering the resources they have denied me as reparations. I do like what Odin suggested about regressive effectiveness though. Could we explore that more? That way it can still prevent beige if used strategically but not if used as a spam tool.

What about the regressive effectiveness of fortify that Odin suggested? Seems like a good idea to look into. It could still prevent beige in a closish fight but not if just spammed from early on. Preventing beige when used strategically is fine but simply choosing "I don't want to go to beige" seems too powerful to me. Could they also cap the number of uses per day like they do with spy ops?

"This is to add a more visual component to wars, and encourage people to want to win wars." This is from the very first bullet point in the changelog. Win wars. For the side with an advantage it encourages it but for someone who is on the disadvantaged end it encourages them to do otherwise and gives them the ability to drag it out while keeping their resources in tact. If someone wants to keep their cash safe as well they can simply put it in the resource market and sell as needed so that is safe as well. Sure infra WI burn but with resources that are perfectly safe, it can be bought back if you keep a good stockpile. The problem with fortifying is you can barely dent it. If someone did 3 naval attacks a day and their opponent just fortified 4 times they net a grand total of 2. If the point is to discourage raids of actives it has some level of success but all it does is switch the priority to inactives. Leaving an alliance bank essentially undefended as the inactive won't be the one fortifying so it still affects more than just inactives. That's why I think it would be interesting to explore the idea of limiting fortification to casualties only but causing more casualties over all. Or as Odin suggested a regressing level of effectiveness, so that if some spams fortify they will still lose in the long run. That way it can still be useful when used properly but so it's not a spam tool. If rebuying is an issue then you could always play with those caps as well. I believe someone in another thread said many of this game's mechanics/caps were designed for the 5-7 city range so why not rethink them.

I like how those complaining about the size and age of my nation are TEst members so far (the ones who currently have the most to gain under the current system) When you have a legitimate complaint please make it. I also like how you assume that a browser based game is so complicated it can't be understood to a reasonable degree in a couple days. And not making enemies of the world isn't an in or out, just common sense and restraint.

You'll notice I said looting resources, you know the fun stuff you can't really get if your opponent doesn't fight back and does nothing but fortify. Also, 100m is relative depending on size of nation, same as in any game. And I'm not so sure pissing off everyone to the point where most of the world is rolling you would be considered knowledgeable either... No, that's definitely not the right word... .

Oh hey a silly troll. There are multiple threads however, if you bothered to read the full statement instead of complaining about how long I've played the game, you would have noticed that instead of complaining I pointed out what I and others feel are legitimate flaws in the system and offered an actual suggestion of what could be done about it. As this is a different suggestion than what has been offered before, it should have a different thread and not get piggy backed onto another person's suggestion. If you don't like it offer actual constructive criticism instead being the actual whiner and complainer in this thread. Secondly, while I may be new to this game, that does not mean my opinion does not matter. Additionally, I have played other games such as this on and off for years and it is not as if the mechanics of this particular game are so overly complex that they need years or even months of study to understand. They are rather simple and straight forwards if you take a few minutes to think about what you are doing. So please, if you actually want to have a meaningful discussion, by all means, have it it, but otherwise, have a nice day.

So as we all know if an inferior military opponent chooses to do nothing but fortify it is impossible to bring their resistance down to 0. This poses several problems as the intent of this system was to force wars to end more quickly so that way attackers could not just air strike infra indefinitely. However, this system has simply switched the ability to drag out the war to the defender and has taken away the rewards for being a superior military force such as looting resources and treasures. I do like the idea of a point system however, but with all do respect to you Alex, I think you went about it in reverse. Instead of having a resistance system there should be a point based victory system. In this system each type of attack, ground, air, naval, etc will give the attacker points based on strength of victory (phyric, moderate, immense) and losses by an attacker will give nothing (could possibly even lose points should you want to make that happen). Instead of adding resistance and 10% casualties, a fortification if you wanted to keep it in play could cause increased casualties (say 15% or 20%) or increasing their defensive battle odds in some way, thus making it more difficult to achieve the higher levels of victories but not impossible to win the overall war. This way an inferior military force can still attempt attacks if they want, then fortify afterwards to make their odds a bit better against their opponent. Thank you, Felkey