Jump to content

Talus

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Talus

  1. Those who truthfully admit their faults and wish to atone often rise up to become pillars of the community. Having chatted with Anna a few times over Discord, she seemed like a great person. I hope that she can find an alliance where she can use her community building skills for the betterment of Orbis. Welcome back Anna
  2. This would only increase the recruitment cap. You’d still need to put up the cash and resources to buy units.
  3. Ah right. Will update to say that this can only be done once a day. The idea was that they could bounce back with only one type of military. If someone suddenly had full ships but was zeroed everywhere else, then you just airstrike their ships.
  4. Two months is a bit much. Maybe reduce it to 2 - 4 weeks. Rather than choosing the opposing nation's government / religion type, it should match the government / religion of the victorious nation. If the defender wins, then the attacker should adopt the defender's government / religion. Could also have the loser take the victor's flag and national anthem. Rick-roll-pocalypse go!
  5. Problem: A nation's spies can be taken from max to 0 in just 24 hours. Rebuilding these spies would take 15 uninterrupted days with projects. Solution: Emergency Recruitment Redeem a credit to increase the recruitment cap for one type of military to 50% of max for one day. May only redeem once a day. Cost: 1 Credit Complications: What's the point of reducing a nation to zero spies if they can just spend 2 credits to be at max again? Well, you can just destroy their spies again with three successful assassinate ops; I've seen many take out 18 spies per op. If successful, you've just made them burn through ~$50M in cash and credits. Why open this to all military types and not just spies? Spies are the only ones that are a problem, right? Getting zeroed in any type of military is frustrating. This gives players a way to come back in one area. Besides, it doesn't speed up recruitment that much for other military areas. You can get to max for most in three days anyway. This just speeds that up to two days. Isn't this just catering to the pay-to-win whales? You'll still be capped to redeeming 10 credits/month and anybody can buy credits with in-game currency.
  6. I don’t know why you’d want to set that up as your default, but sure... that’d work too. It’s up to each alliance to set up the order of notes.
  7. Let this be an opt-in feature at the alliance level. [ ] Do not require transaction notes [ ] Require transaction notes [X] Require one of the following standard transaction notes [_________________] (default) [_________________] ... [_________________]
  8. I'm not suggesting a modification to missiles, but the addition of a new type of attack called rockets. Think of it like insurgents blindly firing rockets over a border as opposed to guided missiles.
  9. Problems: Zeroed nations have nothing to do other than fortify and fire missiles periodically. If at 8+ MAP overnight, it is easy to waste MAP accrued while sleeping. If wanting to coordinate an attack, your only options are to let the MAPs go to waste or make a 3 MAP attack and delay the coordination. Solution: Add a rocket attack which only consumes munitions and costs 1 MAP. Since rockets have no guidance, you could add a large amount of success variability. They would also only inflict 1/4 of the damage typically done by missiles. Opting for 1/4 instead of 1/8 due to the RNG that would already reduce the effectiveness of rockets.
  10. Customizing images is fun, but they're only visible on a nation's front page. Could we also show our custom images on internal pages? Ex:
  11. Previous strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them. That new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted. New strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them or the war is going to expire. The new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted.
  12. Environment: Browser: Chrome 83.0.4103.97 OS: Windows 10 Window Width: 1080 Description: When mousing over trades, the buy/sell buttons bounce around. When my browser window is wider, this is not a problem. However, I keep my browser in a rotated monitor whose width in that orientation can be at most 1080. Having the buy/sell buttons bounce around like this makes me frequently misclick and is clearly not desired behavior. This appears to happen with the two smallest Bootstrap window sizes. Repro Steps: Open a resource trade window Horizontally shrink window until at one of the two smallest layouts Mouse over the trade amount for each trade row Observe that the trade row bounces around Trade _ Politics & War - Google Chrome 2020-06-15 16-19-45.mp4
  13. The cost of radiation cleanup increases as the number of cities increases. So (ballpark) the cost of a smaller nation to restore their city might be equivalent to $1M while the cleanup cost of a large nation might be equivalent to $10M. Meanwhile, the cost of building the nuke might be equivalent to $10M. Would need to tweak the numbers, but the idea would be that nuking a small nation would be a net loss for the attacker. That would match the current design which makes nuking low infra cities a waste of resources. It seems that many people dislike the idea of disabling cities. I think that's an interesting mechanic which actually helps larger nations deal with being nuked. The biggest factor to improving nukes is getting rid of improvements, so if you wanted a lighter change, then Gideon's suggestion of destroying improvements equivalent to the amount of infra destroyed would be a good compromise. Sure, that would be a valid strategy just like the previous war strategy was to do mass air-strikes to establish air superiority. So how would you counter someone who wants to nuke you 4 times? The attacker is already at a net loss since they spent the resources to buy 4 nukes. You could nuke back to get even or you could stay conventional and rebuild to 800 infra/city. Anyway, if you all want to leave nukes as super missiles, that's fine. This suggestion was based on commentary in the latest PNW radio show with Alex where people complained about the impotence of nukes, the no-beige meta, and a desire to delete/destroy cities. I think this would be an interesting way to address all three issues, but it's clear that the community would prefer that nukes remain a loser's weapon. Whatever Orbis. Might as well take nukes out of the game.
  14. I do wonder about whether the cost and damage associated with nuking allies would be enough to justify these wars. I do see how an initial flurry of nukes would encourage whales into delaying the rebuild of their disabled cities so that they can fight in the trenches again. Imagine a 32 city nation getting nuked 12 times which grants the option to fight the rest of the war down in the 20 city range again. Their cities aren't deleted, so they could rebuild once the alliance war is over. The new nukes primary impact is shifting city tiers. Drag down the enemy alliance's whales into the grinder. The enemy can opt to stay and fight in the grinder or spend resources trying to climb away.
  15. Even now, nuke turrets is still something that happens occasionally. Some people like to just sit at depleted NS levels and lob super missiles to harass their opponents. The current game meta is, "Nukes are for losers and defeating a nation is bad." That's just silly. This would be a step toward fixing that. As for making them a better strategy than conventional war, that would be true if you had unlimited funds. Remember though, that even if a nation gets nuked, they're down but not out. Their remaining cities are still very much capable of waging war. The nuked nation will just be dropped down to fight a lower city tier of enemies.
  16. Yes, they should both be the most powerful and most expensive units in the game. Their counter is VDS, spy ops, the cost of creating them, and their 12 MAP cost.
  17. If your nation gets nuked 32 times, I kinda feel like you should be out of the game for a while. The cost associated with doing something like that is insane. So your 32 city nation is unable to make money for 11 days per nuke and oh no, maybe you lost a farm and a market. There's a reason that people consider nukes to be a loser's last ditch effort. Shouldn't a nuke cost more than a naval attack? Right now nukes are just super powered missiles. If people actually want to keep their wimpy nukes, then sure we could add different warheads to the nukes. The current nukes could be tactical nukes and then these improved nukes could by Tsar Bombs. I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to use the old style of nukes though.
  18. Problem: Nukes should feel more impactful. They destroy a good amount of infra, but in wars infra is not nearly as important as the improvements that they helped support. Destroying 2 improvements is a slap on the wrist and does not reflect the true devastation of a real nuke. Solution: Nukes destroy 90% of a city's improvements, 90% of the infrastructure, and completely disables the city (improvements and income). To bring a city back online, the nation must invest in Radiation Cleanup. Radiation Cleanup requires a variety of resources like lead, gas, food, and cash. The cost varies based on the number of cities that the nation has. The radiation is too intense for cleanup efforts for the first 10 days after being nuked. Nothing may be done to the city until Radiation Cleanup is completed (no buying infra, land, improvements, etc.) While the city is irradiated, it contributes nothing to the nation score. Balance Thoughts: There have been concerns that nukes do not feel significant enough in this game. Some people were recommending that nukes should destroy (delete) a city and this would be the next best thing. Some people have been asking to delete cities. Presumably this is so that they can drop down and participate in the war grinder or find better raid targets. Rather than deleting their city, they could just leave a nuked city to its green glow indefinitely. This also addresses concerns about wars lasting entirely too long. If a nation gets nuked, their fighting capability is seriously diminished since they no longer have access to that city's improvement contributions. Additionally, the cost of Radiation Cleanup could help burn through nation/alliance war chests more quickly to facilitate a swift resolution of the war. A nation could have a bunch of irradiated cities, declare on someone, and then pay for Radiation Cleanup for all their cities suddenly boosting their score. While this could be done, it would be incredibly expensive and not worth it unless someone just really wanted to fight that person who is normally out of range. Larger nations may be able to shrug off a nuked city more easily than smaller nations since they contribute a smaller amount to their overall military and resource production. However, the cost of restoring the nuked city will be much higher for the larger nation since Radiation Cleanup varies based on the number of cities. They will also find themselves more easily pulled down into the grinder as their NS decreases due to the 0 NS contribution of their nuked city. This style of nuke may be viewed as overpowered, but really nukes SHOULD be overpowered. However, the cost of nukes may need to be increased to reflect their new destructive force.
  19. What were you doing (or trying to do): Viewing a war screen with alliance applicants What happened (describe thoroughly please): Noticed that the alliance flag was a broken image for a NPO Applicant. When I clicked on the alliance name, it took me to a page stating that the alliance does not exist. When I checked the URL, it was https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id= Link to pages: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=194&display=war https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=98616&display=war https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/ Any other relevant information: Checked with both Firefox and Chrome. No extensions are running on my Firefox instance that saw this behavior. Upon inspecting the HTML on my wars page, I saw the following: <img src="" alt="Alliance Flag" class="tinyflag"> <a href="https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=" class="bold">New Pacific Order Applicant</a> The HTML on another nation's war page shows the following: <a href="https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=">The Syndicate Applicant</a> Screenshot:
  20. Seems that the calculator needs to be updated with this information. I thought maybe infra had some impact, so I set the infra level to 1 million on the calculator and it was still showing Immense Triumph.
  21. Summary: While using my 5.8K soldiers to attack a nation with no ground forces, I got 1 Immense Victory and 2 Utter Failures. Details: From reading another post, I see that three dice are rolled with an RNG to determine the outcome, but I don't see how fighting 0 ground forces can result in anything other than Immense Victory. I ran 10 battle sims and all came back as Immense Victory. I'm not statistics whiz, but a 66% actual failure rate versus a 0% simulated failure rate with 10 rolls seems pretty far off. Anything multiplied by zero should be zero, so how was their victory chances anything other than zero? Is the battle sim actually using the same formula as actual battles? Is there something more than soldiers and tanks multiplied by the RNG impacting the outcome? Reference: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=500229
  22. You could add several space improvements like: SDI (chance to shoot down ICBMs) space-based solar power (requires satellite power receivers in each city, but provides clean, high efficiency energy) orbital bombardment (drop cylinders of resources onto the enemy. Projectiles would move so fast that they could not be shot down. Maybe different effects depending on resource dropped) Since objects in space tend to have decaying orbits, we would need to periodically spend resources to either keep the satellites up or launch replacements.
  23. Not sure what's going on, but someone pointed out some unusual activity from Mountainia today https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6&amp;display=trade
  24. Many mistrades are to buy food for 2k+ PPU from clicking on the Create Offer page and then forgetting to change the resource type. An easy fix to this would be to set the Create Offer default resource type to match the resource of the originating page. ie. if a player clicks Create Offer from a screen that was filtering on iron, then the default resource should be iron instead of food. If the originating page isn't filtering on a resource type, then just leave the default resource type to food. I think this would be as simple as appending something like "&defaultResource=iron" to the Create Offer button and updating the Create Offer page to consume that parameter. If this is too much work, then a simpler change would be to just unset the default resource type. Leave it blank, thus requiring players to select their desired resource.
  25. Sorry that your pumpkin lost out to this salty community Samwise. That's some great calligraphy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.