Jump to content

Talus

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Talus

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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:
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Sorry that your pumpkin lost out to this salty community Samwise. That's some great calligraphy.
  12. Ah yes, the anthems will auto-play again if users do the following: 1. Go to chrome://flags/#autoplay-policy 2. Change Autoplay Policy to No User Gesture Required
  13. Hey @Alex it looks like it has something to do with a policy change that Google made. Hopefully these links will help: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-policy-changes https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40685142/youtube-autoplay-not-working
  14. Ever since the cookies problem from a few days ago, I have to login multiple times a day now. It's like the cookies expire after one hour even though I check the box to not log me out.
  15. What were you doing (or trying to do): Visit a page with an anthem with anthem auto-play enabled What happened (describe thoroughly please): Nothing played. Video appears with a play button, but does not play. Clicking the play button does get it to play. This happens on all pages with anthems, including alliance pages. Link to page: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=98616 Any other relevant information: This works on Edge. I have tried both in Chrome with plugins and incognito mode (no plugins, cookies, etc.) The problem exists in both. I didn't see any errors in the console other than complaints about mixing secure and non-secure content, but none of them mentioned YouTube. I am using the latest version of Chrome, Version 68.0.3440.106, on my Windows 10 PC. This worked several months ago. Other sites (like Facebook) do have videos that automatically play in Chrome.
  16. The War of Too Many Farking Nukes
  17. Oh, hey Cazaric! Didn't realize this was where you ended up either. Good to hear from you!
  18. Welcome to the party DEFCON 1! It's nice to see an influx of familiar faces. As others have already said, I hope you all will stick around!
  19. It would be nice if we could optionally get browser notifications when we receive a new message or notification. Some notifications could get spammy, so we'd need the ability to filter certain kinds of notifications. For example: show all baseball notifications, but hide trade notifications.
  20. Clearly coming from someone who doesn't remember what it's like to have a crappy stadium. You do know that if the nation you are at war with never upgraded their stadium, they would be lucky to get 1k a game if he plays home games and someone with a 100 rating team spams away games. It doesn't matter how good the away team is if the stadium can't fit enough people and/or the ticket prices are crap. That's the reason I included "Deface the field" as a valid op. And I don't agree with conscripting the players in every war. Getting funds through your baseball team should still be an option. It would be up to the opponent to spend a spy slot to temporarily remove that option.
  21. Blockades help to keep nations from receiving funds, but if they have a good baseball team, then they can just host games to pull in enough money to get by. It might be useful (and amusing) if we could send spies into an enemy nation to assassinate their baseball players, break kneecaps, deface the field, or just generally mess with a person's baseball team.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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