Sam Cooper

Village are you going to consider the fact that there are more people in favour of increasing the range than against it? but the way this poll is posted there won't be any change because the votes in favour are scattered between 4 different options while votes against any change are consolidated into one option. And why is "no cap" even an option when it is so impractical that you cannot implement it even if it somehow wins the poll?

reminder that you have to dm for a qualifying bid, Arrgh reserves the right to reveal or hide the identity of target (not bidder) for any given bid. Current highest bid is 450m on Singularity. My discord status will have real time updates.

It would help if we get the military reset notification 10-15 minutes before the reset rather than after the turn has passed.

But are you really dealing with a problem if you are just replacing it with another one and arguably a bigger one that will affect a much larger number of players? This problem as you already understand is simply driven by the game mechanics and the other changes that have been proposed will hopefully give players better alternatives than to seek beige through 'unfair' means. You have already fixed most of this problem in idea 1 by not giving much beige in offensive defeats, I believe that's the idea that will go through since #2 has major issues. I don't see why you need another policy on top of that specifically to guarantee a time period for alliances to counter raids, what justification do you have for this generosity? Why do we even have this fundamentally flawed half baked policy thrown on the table with a 'deal with it' attitude without even a council discussion like we had for other issues? Without a doubt you understand the problem but you definitely do not understand the implications of the proposed solution, read what dryad and doom have said already, wars are fought very differently on an individual level it is extremely important to time your war declarations right or you can run into issues like having 12 MAPs but no units left to use them with or not being able to make deposits for multiple rounds, this essentially turns raiding upside down making it unviable to just to make things a little more convenient for moderation and give undue benefits to other players. I can talk more about it but this should have ideally been done in a council thread, I am extremely disappointed I have to speak about it when it is already on the table and only question I am asked is how long do I want to give people to counter me for every raid. It is very concerning to hear this was the best solution that was picked and I can only imagine what the other proposals would have been, you might want to consider including people who fight wars more often and under different conditions (not just large scale alliance wars) in the discussions.

sure pascal, any war mechanics that doesn't benefit you is an exploit and should immediately be rewritten to make sure you are always safe and secure, sure.

multiple things: 1. every single alliance, including the ones that made you propose this, ask their membership to declare some wars just to gain more beige time when they are losing, what you are declaring to be against the game rules since forever literally has been a major part the milcom strategies in a 'losing' war, it is simply a byproduct of the war system that you have created. 2. how many reports do you get of this specific issues compared to the number of wars that are declared? what's the ratio? is it large enough to justify this blanket policy on all wars? 3. are we going to see a similar policy for slot filling? I can propose some policies that will match the theme-: 3a. if you have 2 defensives already, you can't be hit with a third defensive until you have declared all your offensives and it has been 12 turns since you declared your last offensive. 3b. you can't be hit with a defensive war at all unless you already have at least one offensive and waited 12 turns. (you'd love my genius) 3c. for every 2 offensives you declare, you can only be hit with one defensive and it has to be the alliance being hit, this would ensure all parties being hit get a fair chance to counter. You didn't address my concerns at all so you are either not understanding the implications of this change or have been arm twisted by larger alliances into doing it anyway, I'll make one more attempt to explain: Here's what my active wars look like I know TKR nation is going to beige me in about 6-7 turns, my experience allows me to predict with above average accuracy so why am I being put into a perpetual cycle of counters for declaring raids before a war ends? let's say I hit an Eclipse before TKR beiges me, Eclipse reaches out to TKR and requests them hold beige to let their counter be ready first so they don't miss the 6/8/12 turn window. Would you call that unfair coordination? are you not creating another problem to solve one? only change you have made here is who gets affected by this; as always, pirates. so who is the underdog here and what fairness does this policy bring to the game? Instead of fixing the war system where tiering is supreme and individuals don't matter you are desperate to save these big babies from first minor inconvenience they encounter, it took mere 13 days from Alex reaching out to me about this and this being put into an official proposal.

I'll look at the other ones in a bit but what kinda genius came up with this one? why should I be discouraged from declaring wars just because I am already slotted and might get beiged in one of the wars? you create a mechanic, we play by it, it occasionally puts some people in tough situations and now you are going out of your way to rewrite the rules back in their favour.

were you also going to share 50% of HS food production with Carthago under this term? Since you are saying it is for the noble cause of "fixing the market" and is not meant to be another punitive term in your list. Or that is what I understand from this statement, feel free to clarify if I misunderstood.

until you realize it's penpiko saying that.

We left after 2 weeks, on Feb 15th.

unfunny jokes go in Orbis Central, please keep this place clean.

Alliance of the Year: Eclipse Most Improved Alliance: Eclipse Best New Merged Alliance: Paradise Best Rookie Alliance: none Best Alliance for New Players: Arrgh Most Likely to Succeed in 2023: none Most Likely to be Rolled in 2023: Eclipse Most Honorable Alliance: none Best Fighting Alliance: HoF Worst Fighting Alliance: none (too many valid choices) Best Alliance Growth: TEst Best Foreign Affairs Team: Rose Best Foreign Affairs Move: none Worst Foreign Affairs Move: Hollywood + Celstial MDP Alliance with Best Propaganda: none Most Missed Alliance: none Best Alliance Flag (please link): none Best Holiday Flag (please link): Cata winter/christmas flag Biggest Alliance Decline in 2022: Carthago (no one should end up in odd bunch)

Most Influential Player: Vein Most Likely to Succeed in 2023: Vicic Best Alliance Leader: Vein Worst Alliance Leader: Vein Best In-Character Poster: Goober Best Villain: EvilPiggyFooFoo Nicest Player: RedMatt007 Most Controversial Player: Jon Snow Most Missed Player: Redarmy Best Nation Page: none Best Fighter: none Best High Government Member: Hatebi Most Online/Likely To Respond in 1 Minute: Dryad Best War Criminal: Hatebi

>limping over a finish line. You say while claiming victory in a war you ended with negative net. Don't tell rest of Midgard you're taking credit for their win.

Today Arrgh celebrates its eighth year in this cursed game. Since December 19th, 2014 when Ogaden and the original crew first raised the jolly roger, we have seen pretty much everything on our long voyage. By the blessings of the pirate gods, our raids have been successful, our treasure plentiful, and our bonds unbreakable. Through the treacherous storms and rough seas, rumors of our death and the disheartening negligence to pirate lifestyle from the game developers, Arrgh has been the place for rebels, criminals, fierce warriors and the thrill seekers for last 8 years and will continue to be the place to defy all Orbis conventions and traditions for many more years. Our swords are sharp, our guns are loaded, and our hearts are filled with the fiery passion of battle. And we will continue to fight with all our might as such is the way of piracy. Arrgh!!

Thank you TFP for putting up a good fight, too bad TKR missed their chance this year.

Congratulations on your 15 solid years.

Raiding is not really a good universal example, but while you are talking about it, it is not as simple as downdeclaring and you instantly win. If a raider has more cities than you they would probably win regardless unless you use your numbers right, and if you come up with a system where someone can't downdeclare with low infra and military that gives you a thousand other problems to deal with but that's not the point here. Lars didn't put it correctly and it is not just about raiding at all, but I will try to write/make something that might help you understand how score affects you. The "big alliances" don't propose changes thinking of how they can better hit micros, no one does that, the point is to have a system that's relatively fair for everyone in most situations.

I might be lost but I haven't seen any "regular requests" to change city score back to 100.

thank you. post was mostly about after blitz situation when defender has been zeroed, that's the context where I say "ground is useless" and I still stand by that, using ground in occasional downdeclares after your infra goes down is not being useful, that's more like using whatever options you have left and that's not how it should be, and even that doesn't really work because tanks (and score). This is also the reason score changes (and many other things) don't fit in my post, scope is too narrow and those changes deserve posts of their own, maybe someday. I could totally try to be collected and more coherent if I just had slightly more hope, but I don't. also, shouldn't have mentioned raiding, they'll definitely do the opposite now.

Of course having some soldiers would always be preferable over having none so their value is not absolute zero but if you're being rolled you can't really hope for an IT with them, not even with tanks because that 50% tank modifier is always there. So they do work in favorable conditions but then they only work in those conditions and that's the disappointing thing about them for someone like me who usually fights outnumbered wars. I don't think old system was perfect and any other change that fixes this is equally welcome but for now I still believe ground is useless in any situation where you aren't already winning. There is a limit to how far up you can suicide planes, if you are sitting at 2400 planes on someone with a doubly buy of ~1000 you can safely use grounds to kill their daily buys, and it's in a scenario when you have established control in the war, which implies you do have a huge advantage with ground.

balanced in what way? from my pov the meta is even more plane centric than it used to be now that ground is completely useless, the victory depends entirely on the blitz round when you can just drag down planes and forget about everything else for first round and finish rest of the units in your leisure time once you have got the planes in control because your target literally can't do anything without planes unless they all magically manage to go 100% which won't be possible from the second day of the war if it's a blitz. "find as many people as possible for your blitz" wasn't about internal alliance activity and that isn't really the point of the post anyway.

POV : You and the boys having fun spamming dogfights on blitz day So.. how long will it take before we realize current meta is not working? and why do we have to pretend there is no way out of this? If we can (partially) undo the city score changes why are we so afraid to touch the changes done to units even though it has caused more damage to war than score? We can agree it is a browser game and it will always have some limitations but even with that why does it have to be this pathetic when it comes to player experience. Literally every single war after the changes follows the same 3 steps like a ritual, find as many people as possible for your blitz (activate those secret treaties), blitz and zero planes and eventually all other units, eat nukes for a month and peace out. I believe every major alliance at this point has been at the receiving end of this where they are pinned down with no other option but to nuke their way out and still I don't hear enough about this. Soldiers are utter garbage because of population resistance and buffed tanks so someone could just have 30k tanks with no soldiers and you can't touch them with 300k soldiers and 30k tanks (impossible to have that to begin with if you are losing) as long as they have AS on you, and you can't remove AS because ground doesn't nerf air anymore, it just kills air after you get ground control, so it takes 10 MAPs before you can do an airstrike after killing negligible number of planes assuming you somehow manage ground control with first attack against all odds, which, again is close to impossible because PnW civilians are trained guerilla warriors and on your best day if the stars align just right you will manage a Moderate Success, followed by a glorious ~12 hours show of your tanks being blown into oblivion until you are zeroed again because that's what you get for even trying to make a comeback. With old meta, if you declare your war before turn change there was a very small but existing chance of getting an IT with ground and being able to remove AS right after the turn with an airstrike further protecting your ground and giving you a chance to make a comeback with both ground and air because who cares about ships. This also made somewhat possible for the whole alliance to turn a war around if coordination, tiering and other factors were in their favour and that was a whole different set of issues to tackle but at least they were not cucked by the war mechanics like how it is today. Tanks are interesting because they are not universally useless like soldiers but in this context it just makes them so much worse than soldiers because they heavily favour the winning side, i.e. the side with Air Superiority. Tanks now dwell on extremes, if you are winning they are extremely useful to you, you can kill soldiers, tanks and planes all 3 units in just 3 MAPs, because who cares about ships. But if you are losing they are nothing to you because you are essentially capped at 50% of your max tanks recruit cap for the entirety of your war, but you can't go max if you are being rolled and in best conditions you will manage 3 buys so the effective cap is at 25%-30% of your max capacity. In any case once you lose planes it's about time you get bored of logging in once a day to drop your nukes until you get bored and agree for a white peace or surrender. We can either undo the changes that caused this or follow my new idea of warfare because looking at the trend I think dev/design team is more likely to implement this than to do anything to fix the issues. So in this new system the blitzing side gathers support for their blitz and posts their DoW on forums listing alliances on their side and alliances they declared on, we look at the alliances on both sides, then calculate the total number of planes they have and declare the side with more planes as victor and we go back to farming on the same day without any war in-game being declared, eliminating the 2nd and 3rd steps because does it make any difference if that's essentially what's happening?

downvote because I was expecting @KindaEpicMoah