TheNG
-
Posts
962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by TheNG
-
-
Did you just take the same 6-7 people and nominate them for all the best individual categories? C'mon, add some variety.
For example, I nominate myself for these categories:
Most likely to commit major wire fraud (online)
Most likely to not post pictures in Jodo's propaganda contest
Most likely to suggest dumb categories like these to prove some point
Also, DEIC isn't the best alliance already? Looks like someone isn't getting their corporate sponsorship.
-
1
-
-
http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5009-treasures-and-deleted-nations/
This has already been brought up. Sheepy has confirmed that the treasures will respawn when the timer runs out, but until then the treasures won't be available.
-
1
-
-
man this is a shocker, I never saw it coming. It also appears that my predecessors are following in my foot steps and are signing treaties with the #1 alliance in the game. My prediction for the future: VE gets attacked, TEL doesn't join and instead sends money and resources, not that TSG did that or anything. /me looks towards upn and dic nervously
edit: lel spllin
Whaaaaaaat? Of course not, what would ever make you think we would declare war on the #1 alliance in the game with a shady CB and expect their allies to do little. I believe the alliance you're looking for is Guardian.
Also, dic? Just because Ashland mangles our name doesn't mean everyone has to do it.
-
Well, for those who still can't see them or can't be bothered, the screenshots show this:
Lottario says:
After attacking ANOTHER one of our members, we should just declare Xenodolf and his alliance permanently fair game for attack/destruction by any of our members.
Valakias says:
They say, forgive an offense, and you will have forgiven many more... lets see what the council thinks.
Harminator says:
I second this. Burn him to the !@#$ing ground
Spyro says:
GPA members wanting war? Doesn't seem very neutral, if the mistake can be corrected financially then let it. We should't give people reasons to target us for not sticking to our neutral traits.
-
Yeah, well I wear a suit.
Yeah, but not this suit.
I can carry your messages.
-
2
-
-
That "Rael Skylance" guy has the right idea. Why don't they let him run the whole thing?
Then again, Reagan never was very good at taking advice, I suppose.
-
I'm not too sure where in this thread you see a bloc being formalized.
Oh, I don't know. The largest alliance in the game, allying two fairly powerful smaller alliances in mutual defense, it just seems a little bit bloc-like. Call it what you like of course, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
Anyway, congrats to all involved.
-
1
-
-
Anti-Biotics will soon be little effect against viruses and diseases, as viruses evolve in ways to protect their selves from it. Getting Vaccinate might soon be our only option.
You're confusing how these things work. Antibiotics are only effective against bacteria and are used after an infection, to treat it. Many bacteria evolve rather rapidly, which is why there is such a furor regarding new antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and the need to develop new treatments.
In contrast, vaccines are only effective against viruses, and are preventative, used to confer immunity before someone gets sick. If you get a viral disease, getting a vaccine won't do anything, only symptoms can be treated and your body must beat the infection on its own.Thus getting vaccinated is our only real serious defense against many quite deadly viruses. And although some viruses, like the flu, evolve rapidly, many of those which we get vaccines for do not. This is why we don't have to get yearly measles shots, for example, and why many vaccines have changed very little over the 50 or 60 years they've been used.
-
All of the alliances in that list, with the exception of GPA and UPN are alpha alliances which no longer exist. VoC has changed its official name to The Dutch East India Company (DEIC) although VoC is still a valid acronym to use. PPC has been superseded by The Covenant (TC)
-
1
-
-
Also, I have no idea what "VoC" is, so you're being a hypocrite.
We used to be famous, and now they've forgotten us. I knew we should've stuck with the long, unpronounceable dutch name.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This is normal, it's a declaration of war (DoW) thread and the resulting discussion/arguments.
To be fair, I would say its more akin to this:
"Discussion"
-
7
-
Perhaps a good balance would be the old 20% chance to block missiles, and then if the missile isn't blocked there is a 50% chance to reduce damage by half, or some other amount.
-
And what is the alternative? That the offending nation be forced to watch as his or her nation takes missile damage despite obvious superiority? Talking from experience, it is nerve racking to be in an alliance based war that you are supposed to prolong due to orders. Whether or not your enemy has missiles makes no difference during planning, even if you have none yourself. Against nations with missiles, I sustained more damage than I could possibly dish out with repeated airstrikes. So we are to pretend that having clear occupation of an enemy nation allows for them to repeatedly fire missiles? This fix seems like a fine patch against turtling, which unless you disagree, should not be part of your war strategy.
No. Talking from my experience however "nerve racking" it may feel to step into the second round of a war and blast someone with planes for 5 days, trust me, its a lot less fun to log on once a day, scroll through the war notifications, and then log off because there is nothing at all you can do. For a good two weeks to boot. When that happens to you, then you can be nervous and complain about how you are so inconvenienced.
But since you talk about damage, lets talk about that. As I recall, you were one of my opponents in the Marionette War. I launched two missiles into your nation, and you did roughly equal damage with 5 days of airstrikes. However, I had 5 other people doing the same exact thing. So, at the end of the war, you lost 600 infra. I lost 3,600. You were set back a couple days, maybe a week. I was set back a month and a half. I had missiles, and none of my opponents did, yet I still lost. Badly. The defender in a situation like that (as pretty much all wars are now) is always going to come off worse.
Besides war isn't supposed to be a free ride. Sheepy has said since the start of this game that wars are supposed to be costly for both sides. If you can't handle losing a little infrastructure in a crushing victory then don't fight a !@#$ war. Join GPA and be a pixel hugger there. But don't come and whine about how you deserve a free ride just because you attacked first and got nervous about taking a little damage.
There's no pretending, I simply don't believe it's true. This patch is all public, formulas are available for everyone. If you don't think missiles are as viable now, then don't buy them. This should discourage you from just stockpiling missiles as a way to fight back, instead get an air force or a navy or a ground force. If you look at the second change I made, and run those formulas, you can now take up to 75% of your opponent's cash in one battle. That could very easily flip the tide of winning/losing a war, and make stealing money a more viable tactic than just lobbing infrastructure at each other.
I'm sorry, but the willful ignorance here is astounding. No one who thinks this is a good idea has ever been in a situation where missiles are the only option you have left. Trust me Sheepy, no one wants to missile turtle in wars. You can build all the ships and planes you !@#$ want and they'll still get mowed down in a 3v1. Then what? Your change would give aggressors a free ride, have three people pile on to someone, wipe out their conventional forces quickly and then they are basically immune to taking any damage. They can do whatever they want to the poor guy for however long they want. Missile turtleing is a bad tactic, but it gave attackers at least a reason to consider ending a war early, and when you designed the war system how it is, it was a valid option for those with nothing else but waiting two or three weeks until the war ends. Now attackers can go in and destroy people without fear of taking any damage at all. I thought this was Politics and War, not Politics and One-Sided Beat Down Simulator 2015.
If you really think this is a viable solution to anything, you are only deluding yourself.
As for the ground battles, it is laughably inconsequential. Nobody at high levels goes to war for money. They go to war to do damage to the other guy. Thats why nobody does ground battles, 1000 score nations don't need more money to fund their war effort, and all stealing 75% of on-hand cash will do is help raiders going after inactives and new nations. Nobody will do ground attacks in real war, they just aren't good.
But with all that said, I do really like some of these other changes, and they really needed to happen. But I can assure you that change #5 is not good for the game, and will only serve to unbalance the war system even more. Getting beat down isn't fun, I know people who quit or considered it after the largely conventional Marionette War. This will just make a bad situation worse.
-
1
-
-
Regardless of damage or anything else, the score missiles provide should definitely be reduced. A $150,000 missile provides 10 score, which means most of the top nations have 200-300 score just from missiles, which is ridiculous. Back in alpha, before the big tank nerf tanks provided way more score and you saw the top people building thousands of tanks just to boost their score. Missiles have become the new tanks in this regard, and I would suggest chopping missiles down from 10 to 5 score. It's a more balanced amount that justifies the cost but isn't way too much like it is now.
-
1
-
-
I love how DEIC got to 6 by having the next 8 alliances drop in score.
-
2
-
-
So Arthur James is basically god and annihilates everyone else here with sheer might. Who would've guessed that all this time he was secretly so OP?
-
This already exists. If you go to the "alliances" page and search for a color, (let's say blue) it will bring up just the blue alliances organized by score.
-
1
-
-
Mines don't require power, so they'll produce resources with or without it. But your city is unpowered because the power plant can't power it all, as Ashland said. You could either get another power plant to power your city, or you could get rid of the power plant altogether and go full resource production.
-
Hey, thats my line.
-
That's correct, as stated in our Axiomatic Preamble's sections on War and on Transparency. It is most assuredly not fishy - our top secret target lists include absolutely no maritime nations of any... Uhm, wait, no, disregard what I just said.
Let me just place a checkmark next to Sigma in The Big Book of Alliances Probably Going to Attack DEIC at Some Point.
But seriously, no refunds means no refunds, alright?
-
No. The economy is surprisingly well balanced. We don't want to mess with that.
Tanks used to be worth 80 soldiers, if my memory serves. It was reduced for a good reason. Tanks are fine. The costs are fine.
Only thing is what ElSuper said. Ground forces are kinda pointless when missiles are involved.
Not only were they worth 80 soldiers, they were cheaper to maintain and contributed more to score than they do now. They needed to be nerfed and they were, where they're at now is fine. Right now with the preeminence of missiles, tanks serve little purpose in warfare anyway.
-
"It's nothing personal, just good business."
-
This is interesting, I'd like to participate
-
Whichever alliance Jodo is president of.
-
2
-
ALRIGHT ALRIGHT! I tap.
in Orbis Central
Posted
Talking shit about Shellhound? Thats a slippery slope, my friend. One second you're here, and then....
see?
With that said, I think you have managed the feat of criticizing everyone remotely involved in the thread.
/me claps