Jump to content

Talus

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Talus

  1. Note:
    This does not address any specific problem, but is a potentially new game mechanic influenced by the gas price & farming crisis happening in many parts of the real world.

    Proposal:
    Farm output is increased by some percent by consuming gasoline. If a nation runs out of gasoline, then farm output will be reduced to some minimal level.

    Impact:
    * Gasoline is not used during peace time and this would make the resource important through war/peace cycles.
    * Depending on how much gas farms would consume and the cost of gas, producing food could potentially become less profitable unless the price of food increases.

    As for tuning the mechanic, we could either have base farm output remain at current levels with gasoline giving some productivity boost or if we don't want to increase the availability of food then we could reduce farm output unless farms are supported with gasoline.

    Netherlands farmer strike: Tractor protest sparks Dutch traffic jam | The Weekly Times

    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 5
  2. On 8/20/2022 at 6:26 PM, Borg said:

    Trade confirmation

    • Trade confirmation doesn't really help, because it is identical and appears for every trade, so after a while you just automatically accept
    • Only have the trade confirmation when you post for the wrong price (and it's not a private trade) (e.g. selling for less than a current buy offer)
    • Have it the prompt really obvious e.g. Red alert style, "You are posting a trade  for less than you can sell on the market. Consider adjusting your price above $XXX or accepting an existing offer <link to trade page>" -> button "Post offer anyway"

    Alex actually asked about this in Discord back when I floated the idea - https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/32131-only-show-trade-pop-up-if-posting-more-than-1-stdev-from-average-ppu/ . People panicked and insisted on keeping the alert.

    In case the idea gets shot down again, here's a simple script that reverts back to before the trade confirmation nag pop up was put in place.

    https://gist.github.com/trs4ece/737bc841db0a50faf62c6b457c3474a6

    • Like 4
  3. Quote

    {ruler_name} of {nation_name} has sent your nation $0.00, 0.00 food, 0.00 coal, 0.00 oil, 0.00 uranium, 0.00 lead, 0.00 iron, 0.00 bauxite, 0.00 gasoline, 0.00 munitions, 0.00 steel, and 0.00 aluminum from the alliance bank of {alliance_bank_name}.

    Proposed changes:

    1. If the amount of a resource sent is zero, then do not include that resource in the message.
    2. Include the note/reason that the resources were sent.

    So if Alex were to send me $5, instead of the long message above, it would look like:

    Quote

    Alex of Mountania has sent your nation $5.00 from the alliance bank of Admin Alliance for posting a good suggestion.

     

    • Upvote 6
  4. 19 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

    I'm going to say no to #1, because unlimited gather intel ops is/sounds overpowered. Especially during a global war. As it stands, you have to weight whether gathering more recent intel or wiping spies/military is more important to your tactics and imo that's a good thing.

    In the 300+ wars I've fought, it's very rarely made more sense to Gather Intel rather than do a destructive op in a war. If unlimited gather intel is too op, just raise the cost of the op and/or decrease the odds of success.

    Or as @BelgiumFury suggested, you could just limit the number of Gather Intel ops to something like 1/day or 2/day if you have the intelligence agency.

  5. Proposed changes:

    1. Gather intel op does not consume an offensive spy slot.
    2. Gathered intel is automatically shared with the alliance.
    3. Alliance intel can be shared with other alliances depending on the treaty.
    4. When viewing a nation for which your alliance has intel, show the extra information along with a timestamp for when it was last gathered.
    5. When attempting to perform a spy op on a nation, display success percent based on spy counts from the last gather intel op.

    These changes will help put other alliances on the same playing field as those who have created their own intelligence sharing platform. It will also get rid of the issue of slamming the server to calculate spy estimates.

    The number of spies a nation has is supposed to be a secret anyway, right? So why do we even show "Greater than 50%" or "Less than 50%" odds at all right now? Basing odds on the last gathered intel makes far more sense and would also make the Gather Intel op more useful.

    • Upvote 3
  6. Darn. Was just coming here to post the same. I was also paying out $25 every 180 days before. Guess it'll just be $4.97 every 180 days instead. Not sure that this credit pricing adjustment will have the intent that you wanted it to...

  7. If you want a game where those who have the luxury to sink hours a day finding targets reign supreme, go play Cyber Nations. Politics and War is unique in that it enables those of us without that kind of time to also thrive in a nation sim game.

    If there are concerns about some bot abilities taking away from the spirit of the game, bring that up to the API team and they can consider making restrictions. A blanket ban on bots and all this techno phobic ranting is not in the spirit of Politics and War. If they did not want to allow automation, they wouldn't have added an API. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 2
  8. If I were to create a poll for how many actually read the pop-up that appears when creating a trade, I'm guessing that it's less than 10% of us. It's about as useful as those EULAs that many games make you scroll through and click I Agree.

    Rather than always showing that pop-up, instead only show it if the PPU for your trade offer is more than 1 standard-deviation from the average ppu. If you don't readily have that calculation available, then just use the same logic that prevents brand new nations from posting trades that are far from market value. Make sure that the pop-up displays as a warning window rather than the informational one that we see now. You could include the color red and large verbage like "WARNING" along with details about why the trade was flagged.

    • Upvote 3
  9. 18 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

    I think most c20+ nations would have this. If not 20 (if a war happens to happen at the end of a month like this one for example.)
    Could always lower other warchest requirements if you can buy tanks / planes for a credit anyway.

    This would only increase the recruitment cap. You’d still need to put up the cash and resources to buy units.

  10. 3 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

    I have quite possibly not seen a worse suggestion in the history of this game.

    This would literally shatter every piece of meta we have, I dont think you realize how broken it is to be able to full buy every unit after being zeroed out of nowhere.

    Because just FYI, it is so incredibly broken. 

     

    3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    I love it, but it would also break the game, this is super pay to win, imagine you just spent 2 days with 2 other guys grinding down 2 guys militaries.  you log off for 30 mins, come back on, and all of a sudden, you are now losing because the two guys just dropped 6 credits and completely rebuilt and counter attacked, now the only way to counteract that is to drop your own credits.

    The amount of money sheeps would make would be glorious for like a month, and then most of the game would just quit.

    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.

  11. 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!

  12. 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:

    3fo87e.jpg

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    • Downvote 8
  13. 33 minutes ago, Malakai said:

    What if the default item in the text box were "emergency drop" or something like that which auto-filled with each deposit transaction?

    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.

    • Upvote 1
  14. 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)
        [_________________]
                   ...
        [_________________]

    • Upvote 3
  15. 18 hours ago, Flavee said:

    Decreasing the map from 8 to 6 might help.

    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.

  16. Problems:

    1. Zeroed nations have nothing to do other than fortify and fire missiles periodically.
    2. 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.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 2
  17. 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
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  18. On 6/10/2020 at 8:31 PM, Harold_Duighan said:

    Now, I know some people don't particularly care about micros, but I just wanted to ask about what if micros get nuked? The smaller nations generally wouldn't be able to handle something as massive as having an entire city be destroyed by a nuke, even temporarily. Which means they are completely vulnerable to getting decimated even more by random people looking to pillage them. Even if people tried to "balance it out", it would still be able to do damage to the weaker nations that can't handle something like that. Depending on the costs and materials needed for the "cleanup", the "cleanup" could potentially devastate them even MORE! I just find it as a bit of a bad idea because overpowering nukes would mean that conventional warfare would die and that anyone with a nuke could suddenly be able to destroy an entire nation's progress. I may be a micro, but I still think its a bad idea.

    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.

    On 6/10/2020 at 2:24 AM, Gideon said:

    Hmmm I think that would be a bit much. Maybe tie the amount of improvements lost to the amount of infra destroyed by the nuke? If the nuke destroys 800 infra that would be 16 improvements destroyed. I think that would be enough. 

    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.

    On 6/10/2020 at 6:18 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    So if you made nukes destroy the same amount of improvements as infra destroyed.  If you were in a war, knowing nukes did that, how would you fight?  The answer would be launching 4 nukes.

    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.

    • Downvote 3
  19. 1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

    If the city that gets nuked doesn't count for score, then nukes would actually become a really viable method of contracting score for downdeclares. People would legitimately coordinate allied nuke bombardments for that purpose alone.

    Rules notwithstanding of course.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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