Corvidae

It's strikingly sad to see these are the numbers that people look at and genuinely think try to spin a narrative that Quack is anywhere near a hegemony.

Bruh Quack is, by all accounts, just a pole in a multi-polar world. They're only a threat because it suits your narrative and gives the war-hawks a target to beat the drums against. Please refer to this high quality graph and you'll see quack is significantly outnumbered in the game and "the threat" will actually just be a dogpile every time.

How do I upvote something twice

Rose's FA team is more absent than my father still looking for that milk after 27 years.

NPO wasn't bad for the game but Roquentin's NPO was. A lot of former Vanguard effectively took over NPO's "brand" and they ran the same style of diplomacy they did in other games: Exclusionary, toxic, and exploitative (read: Cheating). The same group that was running multi rings in CN started running a scam in PnW in order to "win" this game. Again, read: cheat their way to chasing everyone else out of a nationsim which relies on multiplayer interaction. The toxicity which Pacifica displayed basically put them into the "griefer" category in my mind - I would never willing play another nationsim with them in it, if I could help it.

Happy to finally see this go through. TKARRGH!

Let it also be said that it's what happens when chunks of the game go quiet and refuse to speak or deal with other chunks in a polisim. NPO, and BK to a lesser extent, had a multi-year long run-up to their peak paranoia and bribing a thousand newbies into the game to "win." It involved silence on the forums, an inability or refusal to communicate with anyone outside of their chosen sphere, and a conscious effort to suppress and oppress their members and allies into the same behavior. This is the message of paperless I've been preaching for so long: It's not only the fact that treaties cause dumb politics, but that they section off chunks of less active or less ambitious members of PnW into effectively never changing places - thus contributing to stagnation in FA. The power players may make moves on rare occasion, but the spheres and their attachments remain the same because the only onus to honor or drop treaties is literally "do we like these people and do they make us feel safe/unsafe." Treaties are a bad idea in a game designed for inter-alliance competition imo. The only good treaty is a protectorate for new alliances to help them get up and moving.

You got removed for "attempted poaching" so it sounds like the people removing you were absolute fools and you might just be better off without them. This whole story honestly sounds like the typical experience of trying to bring a CN community over into PnW with little-to-no knowledge of PnW beforehand. They turn super duper serious about any little detail and live in perpetual fear of loss - I mean, poaching? Isn't that basically the primary tool for recruitment in a niche game with only 1,000 active players (or less)? What a joke, breh. Join Arrgh and raid/nuke IRON until the damages surpass your investment.

Completely off topic but remember when you said you were totally retired and I told you that you're about as retired as I am? Told you so.

The problem I'd have with this is that it removes a significant layer of risk for the player. Bulk deals are often done directly bank-to-bank or via discord coordination for a similar reason. There is risk associated with having the resources on your nation. There is effectively no risk when it's in your alliance bank. Example: Nation gets blockaded on the initial blitz of a raid - resources stuck unless it can get out of blockade. Alliance gets raided - it takes 1.5-2 full days of perfect attacks to beige and by that time the bank is long gone.

I like this concept and the thought/coherency put into this suggestion. A few thoughts/critiques: As you pointed out - attackers can attack with fewer units to nullify the impact of the mines. So the mines would either need to add to the "defense" of a nation thus necessitating additional units or risk a failed attack. The problem this creates is that it allows for people who truly lose a war to give a final F-U and increase resource consumption for the victor. A problem we already are trying to solve as, in many/most cases, it's actually more costly to a winning side to continue to win after depleting an opponent's military than it is for the losers being beaten. I feel this would add to this effect in a negative way. A common complaint right now is that, as mentioned above, winners feel like they are punished for winning. Gas/Munis consumption, economic opportunity cost, risk of giving beige time, etc. I don't want to further add onto that. However, even with all that said I really like your idea and am myself a big proponent of fair warfare and giving a "loser" some recourse. I think the current system is unbalanced and needs to be seriously worked over to provide a fair opportunity for everyone fighting in a war - while also providing a clear avenue for victory. Both of which it currently fails to do. We're currently working on a beige-system overhaul (again) and Prefontaine has released the numbers in other threads that will be put into place probably sooner than the beige rework for just general military tweaks. I will definitely be taking this idea with me into those discussions - Likely as an addition/synergy to the Fortify mechanic. I hope this doesn't come across as a dismissal or "average dev team post" - Please keep throwing ideas out. I like to read through them and link/discuss them with the team as we go.

At least this one got people from the prot responding.

I came here to be a little snarky but in truth the Seven Kingdoms had a really cool theme and really cool people. I think you guys achieved something few ever will - universal tolerance if not appreciation from anyone in Orbis. I respect the gumption it takes for an alliance to recognize its end and hang up their robe and wizard hat to move on to other things rather than stagnate. Best of luck moving forward! Let me know if Valheim or Paradox games end up on the SK community list of games.

Why don't you just make a news server if that's what you wanna do instead of trolling people with an inactive server link and this false advert?

Posted 11 hours ago and no replies from the Galactic Empire. So far, so good!

I understand why a lot of people are at this point but historically, and into modernity, authoritarian governments are not a better alternative unless your views happen to be in lockstep with said regime. Even then I think a lot of people would have enough self-awareness to realize oppression isn't the right path.

Arrgh!

I actually think we'd be fine. You'd be shocked at how many of us think of PnW as a game and not our whole lives. Generally speaking I wonder when people will learn that OOC always blends with the IC. We all know facebook posts are public, why haven't we learned that about our discord conversations?

Your sarcasm is noted The numbers can obviously be tweaked if the economic buff is too powerful or the military debuff not powerful enough.

So in general this nationsim lacks any competitive feature. This has been a blessing and curse in many ways. I think now that we're a few years into things, we need something to introduce competition. The problem has been, as with treasures, that any strategic resource worth having would confer too large of a bonus on the winners of wars. So the question was how to make this work without creating a stupidly powerful hegemony as a result. My pitch: Resource X. Resource X randomly spawns in various nations across the globe - much as treasures do. Each nation can possess up to 100 units of resource X. Losing a war loses half of your stockpile of X, rounded up to the nearest whole number to the winning nation. How Spawning Works: X will respawn like a treasure every 6 months. No nation will receive more than 1 unit of X upon reset and it's randomly distributed amongst all active non-VM nations. Benefits of possessing X: Your monetary income and production increase by 0.25% for each unit of X you possess. (maxes out at a 25% bonus.) Downsides of possessing X: Your military takes 2% more casualties per attack for each unit of X you possess. (maxing out at 200% more casualties per attack). Possessing any amount of X on your nation increases the score range other nations can declare on you by 25%. Can you trade for it?: No. Wars only, big boy. Alliance-wide effects of X: For every unit of X within an alliance, the monetary income of their top 15 members increases by 0.025% per unit of X in the alliance (maxes out at 25% bonus, cannot stack with the national bonus from X.) So even small alliances can benefit from collection of X, but large alliances can't go crazy with it. Those same top 15 members will experience the same military debuffs that the possessing nation(s) do. Limited Supply: There will only ever be 10,000 units of X in the game. So either ten alliances can possess the entirety of this effect, 100 individual nations, or many others. I think this creates enough of a supply to be worth pursuing without creating such a shortage than having X on your nation is an immediate cause for war. Emergency stop-gap Measures: In the event of some crazy treasure island workaround forming, or a hegemony somehow forming from this, a nation can only receive 6 months of this effect before it gains an immunity debuff - basically this negates the effects of X for the next 90 days on your nation once you've received a cumulative of 180 days worth of bonuses from the X. The military debuffs will still apply regardless, but the main positive of keeping the X in your alliance/nation for more than 6 months would be to deny its effects to others at that point rather than endlessly profiting from it. So why will this encourage war? Alliances will be able to significantly increase their economic output in exchange for creating a significant vulnerability in their top tier as well as whoever possesses the resource. So hopefully this will encourage wars, raids, etc. to snipe the resource from each other while limiting the effect to the top 15 of any given alliance will prevent a treasure island scenario from occurring. Maybe this is a bad idea or overly complex, but I thought this up last night and figured I'd share.

tbh bounties are a dead feature used mostly by grumpy people and collected sporadically - if at all. I agree with the "combine all bounties" thing though. Idk why we have a list of dozens of 1m bounties. Bounty Hunting could become a feature as prominent as raiding if worked correctly.

You fool. You're not the SAA. Special Antarctic Alliance

How far in-game businesses have come. Stock markets, drama, shareholders, buybacks, runs on banks... Gotta love it.

Just noticed this on the Black team. We have at least one person ( https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=250962 ) on brown who is the only vote for "Arrgh Black" on the black team. Not sure if that's a bug or what. Not the biggest deal just saw it and thought I'd report it.