AwesomeNova

This is why I still come to forums like these, to watch one person angrily throw insults while another person either tries to act civil or throw insults back. Anyways, do you have any like chat logs or screenshots? I’m not entirely convinced.

The solutions that Alex proposed seem good on paper, getting rid of offshore banks, but it limits the amount of money and resources of alliances, especially large alliances like NPO and BK. Many players proposed other solutions to the problem, changes to his solutions, or criticizes his solutions, but he responds to criticism by saying “these caps are subject to change” and ignores many solutions or change. Not to mention that finalized cap on alliance banks will be either too big or to small. But I’m not here just to make a comment. I’m here to do one thing: to propose my solution as a sort of compromise. Disclamer: I have no beef with offshore banks, and I understand that they add complexity to P&W. This is a compromise between his solution and our grievances with his solution. My proposal is to have two alliance banks, an unlootable but capped bank and a lootable uncapped bank. The unlootable, capped bank is similar to Alex’s solution, but with some changes. This bank will have an cap on money and each resource based on the total amount of infra of active nations in an alliance, exponentially increasing similar to how the cost of infra for a city increases-as well as a base cap based on total cities of active nations in an alliance. I know what you’re thinking. “But pixelhugger, if the alliance reaches the cap, when where does the extra money and resources go?” Good question, imaginary player that I conjured up in my head. I’ll answer that with... ...Uncapped, lootable banks. It’s self-explanatory, really. A bank that can hold an unlimited amount of money and resources. However, there is a caveat. In order for an alliance to have this bank, it must have ten members, with 10+ cities in 75% or more nations. Percent of money and resources that are lootable must be higher than it is now, maybe 10 times. All of these numbers can be changed, so feel free to suggest a different number if you have a problem with them. Anyways, if an alliance total infra of active drops significantly in three turns or less, the excess amount of money and resources in the capped bank will stay in the capped bank, not go into the uncapped bank. You might’ve noticed that I didn’t explain the effects of my proposal. That’s because I’m putting them in a separate list for easier reading and to test whether or not people did read my post. Effects: Alliance can do a complete rebuild after wars, since the capped bank will have enough money for it Alliance can have more money and resources than their capped bank can hold, since the extra money and resources can spill over to the uncapped bank Looting and piracy will be a more viable income while not threatening potential rebuilding Offshore banks will be impractical, since the cost and risks of rounding up active newbies or in an alliance, a majority of them with a certain amount many cities, will discourage leaders from ever doing so Offshore banks will also be obsolete for most alliances, as the capped bank will hinder enough for a full rebuild Considerations: If the total amount of infra in active nation drops significantly in three or less, the excess money and resources in the capped bank will stay in said bank Alliance leaders can withdraw from any of the two alliance banks, but they can only deposit to the capped bank, unless the capped bank is full. If the capped bank is full, then the deposited amounts go to the uncapped bank. The uncapped bank can be looted, not the capped bank If you have any criticism of my proposal, please voice it. I’m willing to listen to valid criticism.

This war is on life support mainly due to pride. Coalition A won’t admit defeat because they inflicted more damage than they took in money and doesn’t want to be subject to Coalition B’s demands (I know the demands are a 6-month NAP), and Coalition B won’t admit defeat because they destroyed Coalition A’s military and wants to push a 6-month NAP into the other side, rather than end the war with a white peace. Inspired by @Sir Scarfalot, another reason is trust, or the perceived lack of trust. With the micro slaves, the leaked logs, and the indoctrination, Coalition A doesn’t trust Coalition B, especially BK and NPO, to give them terms that screw them over. It doesn’t matter that these things, the micro slaves, the leaked logs, and the indoctrination, are true or not. It matters that these things affect how Coalition A leaders believe them, and as a result doesn’t trust Coalition B.

Tbh, I wish the war would end like that.

I want this idea to be a thing and see what happens.

@Sir Scarfalot advocated for all wars ending in beige, for both attackers and defenders, regardless of the outcome. This would get rid of beige cycling, as the beiged defender can replace their units and hop back into fighting.

CB’s are excuses to beat the ever-living crap out of enemies, and either side doesn’t want to end the war, since it makes one side seem weaker than the other.

I like both of these ideas because it prevents attackers from denying beige from the defender, and it allows the defender to recover to full military. Wars in the current meta favor attackers immensely, since they can cripple their planes faster than the defenders can even respond.

Please don’t repost to get around the rule of “don’t post on deaf threads.” And if you do deny it, then here’s a link to your other thread:

Disregard the first post. I misread ‘usable’ as ‘unusable’. Sorry.

The description of ground control says that my opponent can only use 67% of their planes, but according to the second screenshot they can’t use 67% of their planes.

Things like social policies are supplementary content that adds to P&W. They’re a lot like the Baseball and casino games on the site; you can play them if you want to, but you don’t have to. Some people, believe it or not, like to rp their nations and like to use the optional rp content of P&W. Telling someone to “go to Nationstates” is like telling someone that their favorite music genre is the worst genre ever. It’s very elitist. I don’t get why people are hostile towards rp elements in P&W. Are they afraid it would turn into Nationstates 2, filled with pixelhuggers?

It’s only worth it if you have 15-20+ cities, but right now I recommend you get either Center of Civil Engineering, Propaganda Bureau, or Iron Dome.

For a whale or upper-tier nation with production and 114-115% commerce, the only penalties to having high amount of pollution are either low disease rate or a slot filled by a hospital. The former can be easily negated by a hospital, and the latter is nothing if you have 20-30+ cities with 2.5k-3k infra. Lower- and mid-tier nation don’t have the luxury of high amounts of infra. While lower-tier can just deal with high amounts of pollution, as their primary source of income is raws, mid-tier nations can’t have high amount of pollution if they have a max manufacturing production and full 100% commerce, which lowers their income from commerce due to the disease from that pollution. With 1.5k-2k infra, they don’t have enough improvement slots to have this build and have the 4 or more recycling centers without getting rid of other essential improvements like military buildings, which is impossible considering many alliances have MMR’s that require a certain amount of military improvements. The Great Deflation severely punished the mid-tier, as it forces them to either have max manufacturing production with maybe some commerce or 100% commerce with maybe some manufacturing production. My point is the pollution for upper-tier nations/whales doesn’t affect them negatively, and I much prefer to have a fourth recycling center than have a dirty number that otherwise doesn’t affect me negatively.

You need way more than 3 aircraft to take on a reasonably strong opponent. While it is possible to attack with 3, your airstrikes will fail because most people have max or near max planes.