Placentica

It says a lot about your alliance that you backtracked so quickly. Why do you feel you were wrong for placing the embargoes?

Hahahah, this is a gem I hope doesn't stay hidden.

Awesome, nice work!

Solid statement and fair action. Proud to be a member of Guardian!

I dunno I thought it was a pretty respectful callout. It could've been much worse. I didn't know Hereno had just given up on his alliance and wasn't even fighting back.

That is astoundingly good against even someone smaller than you. Against an opponent 4x your size it's probably going to go into the record books. Well done guys.

A percentage of my income disappeared for a day and I prayed to you about why you had forsaken me. But you were no where to be found! Then I talked to your prophet [Prefontaine] and he proclaimed he had taken my money for the use of all your blue nations across the lands of Guardian.

Excellent idea and I agree it needs some changing.

Thanks for doing these stats!

This game is way better than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but yea, same concepts. War system is much better.

I was expecting this thread to reach a 100% consensus by page 5. Color me shocked.

lol, I did laugh. Taking anything personally in a Orbis comes at your own risk.

I don't think we'll have a spike like we did last war until we have a prolonged and evenly sided global conflict.

Not sure how you can judge this, but Rose's leadership should get a medal for pulling off what they did to get to where they are now.

I do think something should be changed. I like the idea of not allowing a missile strike unless you can get two successful ground attacks or maybe two successful air attacks, blockade, etc. But there needs to be balance so someone can't have 0 troops/planes and still launch missiles. And the missile defense wonder really isn't a good solution since it's defense rate is so low and it's high cost. You could make it where ground control decreases effectiveness 33%, air control decreases it another 33% and blockade another 33% and if you control all 3 a missile does 0% dmg. Or some combo of those numbers, 25+25+25, for 75% off max dmg.

I like this idea too.

Those trades were 11/2-11/4. And for amounts that were staggered. It happens that there were a few too many and they were deleted a long time ago and you've corrected your mistake as well, so thank you. I wonder if you even would've if I hadn't suggested it here though. I did mine without being prompted since I never like to have too many trades up of one resource. The one from Oct. 28th is a lower value trade in case lead dropped to that rate, which it would sometimes. I have no issues with staggered buying. Your trades were 3% value difference - nothing basically. The obsolete data being used "against" me is a value change of 55% - big difference and there were trades in between each one of them.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I'm sorry man. You clearly don't realize or didn't take the time to check and see that I'm not even doing any both buy/sell side right now. Old screenshots, not looking at current trade data - you need to actually do some research before you just think this is September or something, lol. This doesn't help anyone whether they are active or not as much. You either have the top offer or you don't. Having 5-10 other trades up at lower prices for thousands of units of one resource just means they sit there. It only cleans up the trade market. And if the suggestion doesn't happen it will only cost us all more time looking through trades that are clearly not going. In the end I'm surprised some people are so against this. I'm glad at least Diablos sees why this is alright. And by all means, if you think it gives you an advantage to have 5-10+ trades up, Ashland, get to it and put them up bro.

No you know that's false. Your steel trades have been up for quite a while. His screenshot of my iron trades showed them being up for two days, not a week and you know this. My trades were long deleted, lol. And I personally would love it if there was a limit to trades because when I had a few more up than needed, I would be prompted to delete them. And the screenshot isn't even what I'm talking about since there is clearly movement in the trades whereas your trades are all right next to each other. So it's not even apples to apples. Staggered trades are fine, but you had about 5 trades within 3% of price change only.

Did you even bother to check the current iron trade screen? Before you post an old screen shot at least check before you make yourself look stupid. Secondly, these are staggered buy prices. Lastly, when I realized I had that many up, I cancelled them. The buyer doing all the steel buys hasn't cancelled them in over a week. This is a suggestion thread, not a thread where DIEC tries and fails to make me look bad. I know you guys have this scary obsession with me. Do I need to get a restraining order?

I like this idea as well.

Welcome! If you have any questions feel free to PM me ingame. Always like to help!

No you meant peace for SI, and they answered you.

https://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=26&display=world&resource1=steel&buysell=buy&ob=price&od=ASC&maximum=100&minimum=0&search=Go Stuff like this is getting a bit out of control. One nation has 8 buy trades for steel. I know some people don't like how I trade, but at least I delete old trades that are only a few dollars different. In general I try not to just clog up the trade market with useless trades. My suggestion is to have a limit of 2-3 buy and 2-3 sell orders max - or 4-5 trades max per resource. It wouldn't be too restrictive this way, but would make nations clean up old trades. It would still allow for staggered trade offers (100 at $1300, 100 at $1100, etc in case you want to buy at different amounts) while getting rid of all these duplicate trades all because a nation is too lazy to delete them.

Why did you just quote yourself. You losing it man?