Felkey
-
Posts
520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Felkey
-
-
I have a similar issue where it lets me hit submit but every time it tells me I did it incorrectly.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
No! no! no! no! no!
Did I say forget to say no?
Stone age for everyone!!
-
1
-
1
-
-
Along with some of the game suggestions that have been asked about like adding "Tech" to the game. Thats why I came here......to escape that.....that....that miserable hell of a place. I swear, if this place starts going the way of that shit hole......I'll build myself over 100 nukes and let them loose on those who've !@#$ ed it up! In other words, this ain't !@#$ ing that other place so whatever baggage you have that you might want to bring over from there.......don't!
Yeah pretty much... Keep !@#$ing tech out of this...
Back to the Stone Age with us!
-
1
-
-
I'm the friendly team she speaks of and I offer adult beverages
-
1
-
-
OK sorry then, I asked someone who said it didn't so I was confused
-
1
-
-
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-
1
-
-
Don't be a dick. That is what drives players off from games. If you don't have anything nice to say then keep it to yourself.
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?
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
How am I supposed to know what you will and won't accept? I put it on the table, after seemingly positive response it was rejected. Fine. Just what is your point in all these posts?
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.
-
1
-
-
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?Why are you constantly hitting me on these matters when I already told you I took no issue with Pantheon recommencing, simply on how they did it? This thread's purpose on the Pantheon end was to recognise their war dec on us, the rest was background.
As for your talk of derangement. In a normal state such a deal is fair enough, after all the benefit I get is the anti raid attacks stop and that leads to a positive meaningful effect. In a state where the slots simply refill it is pointless to me.
-
1
-
-
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?The issue was not them recommencing. It was them recommencing without providing a time for fighting to recommence. To make it more easy I'll use BK and RW in an example.
BK and RW enter a state of ceasefire. Which would you see as acceptable.
1: When talks break down a date is given where fighting will start back up.
2: RW just takes the chance to blitz BK while they are abiding by the ceasefire still.
They wanted all raids to stop including those in progress so yes, there was something being given in return.
Yes. Overlord Kastor, master of Arrgh is a valid CB. Asking someone in an alliance if they'd ever help their friends, being told yes and thus taking it as an aggression. Certainly all solid reasons.
-
1
-
-
Stab in the back? Clearly you wanted something off me and I had little reason to give it. I provided something that would make it worth my while and it was rejected. Oh well, I don't mind. The sneak attack however was deceitful as we were in a state of ceasefire.
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.
-
1
-
-
I'm not seeing the relevance. I parodied his statement on illegals, not Muslims or whatever else. Though Muslim is not a race it should be said and there is no evidence on the white supremacy nonsense. If that was so Trump wouldn't have enjoyed healthy support from minorities (for a Republican).
The Roz has not whined, he has admonished. They are fully within their rights to do a anti-raid measure yes. When they coordinate their attacks in conjunction with alliances declaring on us and conspire with TKR then its clear its more then simply countering raids. Them abruptly throwing away peace (due to getting a response from TKR no doubt) is fine too. The trickery, which their leader has admitted to as being wrong, of sneak attacking my ships while we were in a ceasefire state is wrong. It would be as if before a ceasefire or NAP ended one of the involved parties blitzed the other, you'd raise hell over it I'm sure, and this is no different.
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.
-
1
-
-
The posts are in this very thread. The fact you are just lying to shift blame from Yui on to the members who did the deed is most odd yes. The members only stopped attacking after being told to not do so by Yui. Likewise they only began attacking again once told by Yui. Thus Yui is responsible for them hitting.
So this is where reality goes to die...
-
1
-
-
i think you have a misunderstanding which may change your opinion.
this isn't true. under the old system - yes. uranium, coal, iron, lead, bauxite, oil were immune from looting. however in the new system it is NOT immune (shout out to mage)
the issue with the old system was nobody would 'win' wars. they would just perform a ton of overpowered air attacks (which did not loot the opponent) doing as much destruction as possible without ever giving the losing side a loss which sent them to beige and theoretically time to recover and fight back (5 days whenever a beige happened). i think what he meant by 'winning' wars was incentivizing them to go to beige to get this recovery time for a comeback, not simply do a one dimensional air attack every time. under the old system it was very easy to get perma rolled with the bottleneck being the downdeclare range
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17829-12162016-coming-winter-update/?p=297371
alex posted this a few weeks after the 'winning wars' quote you referenced. he directly stated his goals are to improve player retention. with your suggestions in mind what i think it would do is it would blend the two systems together working against this ideology. you would be able to do maximum damage with air AND get a large amount of loot. the player would be receiving the maximum amount of damage (via planes or ships), and with the occasional ground attack that could steal an entire day's worth of income if youre in the right score range you'll be put at 100k cash, have your infrastructure lowered to the point where you can no longer buy maximum units (not that you could buy maximum units to begin with), have 10% of your infrastructure removed when beiged (furthering this infra cap), have a large sum of your cash and warchest stolen as well, and only 2 days of beige to recover. the only way you would be able to buy back to full strength would be if you had 3 people beige you simultaneously as it takes six full days to build up your planes (the dominant unit in this game). however youre probably strapped for cash as its now been stolen. youre probably not at a high enough infrastructure (it burns really quickly in this game) for max units. and now you've had ALL of your warchest stolen, not just the war materials. your post above suggests that there is now a 'safe' resource to invest in. there is not.
there would literally be zero safe haven for any form of wealth aside from credits which have a redemption limit. additionally if youre blockaded you couldnt trade out your resources anyway so it wouldn't even matter. ships are much more valuable in this way system so blockades will be a very common thing. it would take the stars aligning for a comeback to happen since the buy times to full military take so long, and are so expensive once you realistically get to 50% or so of your opponents military (which happens pretty much in the initial blitz of an attack).
i get what youre trying to suggest. it isn't realistic/sensible that someone could just fortify endlessly and prevent a beiging. but there should be some form of limiter allowing a losing nation to come back or at least attempt a comeback. in the current system (even with fortifying) there is no realistic chance of a comeback barring a huge enemy blunder like not having enough gas or munitions once you are in a 2v1 or 3v1 type scenario. the math just doesn't support it. ive brought this up for well over a year now (and i think the post youre talking about is one where i casually mention that the math worked for like 5 cities but not 15 i did a few days ago)
so if the end goal is to retain players (which is what his goal should be as increased number of players should yield an increase in credit purchases) than enabling a system where not only do nations get bombarded into zero infrastructure but the people doing it also get paid handsomely isn't a very sustainable system in my opinion. the incentive to perma roll people should be due to personal reasons not financial. and what you are suggesting is giving a financial reason to perma roll people. if that happens you will have the war profiteers come in and farm not only the inactives (which is what the current system is like) but also the actives once the dust settles and one side 'wins' the game as there would be no feasible way for them to come back. i could envision farming active players would serve to drive people out of this game as people typically dont like seeing years worth of works evaporate in a week.
there have already been a number of changes alex has made to prevent this 'active' player type farming by people in positions of heavy superiority. these were primarily by people that played in an atypical way that put them in a vast and uniquely superior niche. your tweak of the new war system would basically ensure someone gets not only max damage but also stolen from a large amount. at least with this system there is the tradeoff - they can fortify and see their infrastructure burn as long as their aggressors wish, or they could take the beige and attempt to recoup. with your version, once someone is beaten down, there is literally no reason to fortify if the beige is inevitable. all it would do is allow for more of the infrastructure to be destroyed before the beige happens making the smart thing to do is to not do anything (except hope someone comes in to bail you out i guess) and get to beige as quickly as possible. that or go to vacation mode
i wrote a lot more but im starting to digress so ill just cut myself off now
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.
-
1
-
-
Makes fortification more of a useless feature then. The % increase in casualties is barely worth it, doesn't really make a difference. No one will use fortify if it actually doesn't save you beige.
I mean it's a trade-off between eating more damage in infra against losing resources. Seems okay to me as it is.
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?
-
1
-
-
"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.
-
1
-
-
Look at this hot shit! 15 days old and he knows the ins and outs of this war like the back of his hand! Time to pack it up and go home, guys, we've been bested!
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.
-
1
-
-
i've looted almost 100 million since the war change. superior military force confirmed
but seriously - i think we should do as this post says. afterall he does have 3 cities, has played the game for over 2 weeks and is in the most knowledgeable warfare alliance (if we are talking about knowing where the vacation button is)
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...
.
-
1
-
-
How cute.....your first post ever.....and you waste it on complaining about the war system. Instead of replying to one of the many threads that are currently out there already discussing this very issue, you decided to start your very own thread.....well I'm sure it will get addressed now.....and even fixed. Play the game a little more than 15 days before !@#$ about the mechanics of it.
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.
-
7
-
1
-
-
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
-
5
-
1
-
Captcha Issue
in Tech Support
Posted
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.