stetonic

I play several mobile/android games and the amount of money people spend on them means they really aint dead

I hope this answers your question http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/technique/how-poach-egg Unless you ment this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

Its the 1930's warning you not to be dicks

I don't think adding new units that work within the same guidelines as the units already in play.Is the same as changing the way the whole war system works.Most games add new units at some point during there lifetime either with expansion packs or updates but i doubt there are many games that would change the war system a year after it had been around.Or castrate the power of weapons.When that does happen its called a sequel. So unless Politics And War 2 The Second Coming Of Orbis is about to be released the game should not be changed in such away

What declare war fire a missile do 300+ infra damage and take out an improvement in the first few seconds of a war.What happened to the tactical sportsmanship of blowing up someones airforce or ground units before you start killing his population. Kastor you are pure evil

But if missiles where 6mp you could declare a war and fire one straight away at least with 8 you have to wait abit

If you add up the cost of a missile compared to the damage it does.Plus the cost of the iron dome why should the missile hit almost everytime

I suggest that players should stop suggesting that the game mechanics are at fault Also i may have hit the wrong part of the forum when i posted but iam sure a mod can fix that for me

Why is every other suggestion about trying to change the game mechanics.You don't need to alter how everything in the game operates or how the war system works.The point of a game that has any sort of strategy in it.Is for the players to work around the game mechanics and formulate a strategy that works If 1 tank blew up 100 infra then yeah the game mechanics are at fault but you didn't build any tanks and your enemy did and he blew up 100 infra.Then that's your fault.So you cant complain Every time there is a war its Planes damage Ships or Missiles dont do this and all the other stuff that gets thrown around.If you want the ability to change mechanics and win everytime go play a single player game on the PS4 and cheat The game needs new units and buildings added to it not the ones that are already here getting changed every 5 minutes.

If a nation has for example 10 cities with 1500 infra per city and you hit 6 immense airstrikes with a very large airforce and do on average 300 infra damage per city.That works out at about 21 million to replace.Now if that nation kept zero military 365 days a year.The income he would gain for not having one would pay to replace that infra over 15 times.So unless you plan on attacking him to beige 15 times a year why would he care about you attacking him once or twice during an alliance war So this idea is bad.Just leave the war system the way it is.I thought the idea of 6 ground victories added to the role play part of you have occupied there country. These figures are approximated dont go picking the exact amounts apart down to the last penny

Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year. These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

Yeah if there where less guns there would be less mass murders The thread was about a shooting which involves a gun.Unless this killing was done with a banana At least i can go to the cinema or send my kids to school without them being shot by some nut who got dumped by his girlfriend.If that means i have slightly less freedom then its not much of a price to pay

Yeah the us has mass shootings almost weekly and you dont do anything about it because you have the right to bear arms because 200 years ago you had the need to raise milita's to counter act a corrupt gov.If needed and now you have people who would start a civil war if you took there guns away.Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle sat around your house.If you want to shoot go to a range and borrow a gun

Maybe you should stop giving every tom dick or harry a gun.Just because you made it law over 200 years ago

I was not knocking his idea or him.I even said i liked his idea.I merely stated that it was a bold move for a nation who for most of his time ingame has avoided war.To now want to have an update which would increase war activity. Some players may suggest his idea would benefit him.By all other nations fighting around him.Which would make it easier for his nation to climb the rankings untouched and maybe his nation profiting from more war. He even suggested the other day that war range should be removed.Seems strange how now that he has 19 nukes he wants to have more war activity

Thats why i said its a bold move for a nation who upto now has chosen the path of peace.Rather than the more enjoyable path of destruction

I do like the idea of earning points for winning wars and the idea of nation perks but this idea is coming from a player.Who is in an alliance that do not engage in war and if i remember rightly you left DEIC before a war to join GPA.So for a nation who values his pixels so much its a bold move to suggest something that encourages war.

So an alliance Ansom was part of went tits up again.How many is that now?

Didn't notice you had left and don't really care.That you are back

You DEIC traitor.May your crops fail and your manhood grow limp. Anyway enough of that.You have been a great team-mate over the last year and good luck with your new alliance.Hope it goes the way you have planned and if you ever need anything just give us a shout

A spy can destroy a missile at a high cost and a low percentage but a hacker could delay a missile launch.Which could give you the extra turn or 2 you need to finish the war.It could just add an extra element to the war system

You have missiles ingame that destroy 300 infra and kill 30,000 people and you dont think thats a modern touch to the game.Now thats sci fi compered to what any 1 real life missile can do.You claim cyber warfare is Hollywood.Anyone with top level hacking skills could delete you from history with few clicks.Thats not Hollywood thats truth. All governments now employ a unit that is assigned to cyber threats.They spend millions upon millions trying to protect vital services from attack and any guy with the right skills can do untold damage to a countries infra.While sitting in his bedroom. As for the idea it would be a new project and yeah 2 nations could counter act each other.It would work the same as spying.In that if your tech centre was more updated you could defend against the attack.Same as if you have more spies you defend better.

As P&W is set in the modern world.It should have a modern tech system.If we introduced satellites and a tech centre.It could be used to enhance military operations and could also be used as a defensive tool. You could use a tech system to hack an enemies missile launch control.So it would delay the launch of a missile by an extra mp or 2. Or an enemies air power during an attack due to you hacking there air control/defence systems.You could also hack the Iron Dome so your missiles have a better chance of hitting. Cyber warfare is a major weapon in any modern military and governments count cyber threats as one of the biggest threats against a country.So i think this would be a great addition to the game and it could be taken in many directions and add many new things to the game

How does being sent to beige during an alliance war give you an advantage.You are more than likely involved in 3 defensive wars.So 1 of your attackers sends you to beige to stop you declaring against anyone else in his alliance.While the other 2 attackers just beat on you for the rest of the war.So even tho you are beige you still can't rebuild.As you are still getting a kicking. Maybe you should be involved in a major alliance war and see what its like to take a beating before you try and add a rule that just makes it so the losing nation has to take an even bigger beating and not be able to at least get some hits in on smaller nations involved in that war.When he gets of beige

So what should we put a cap on next.Any suggestions