Corvidae

Lookin like KT's about to make it 2020 as well

I feel like "no superiority/blockade/less/no MAPs" would be flipping the switch the entire other direction. Blitzes would become useless and the war system would suffer for it.

Space, and birds, aren't real

"None" is kind of surprising. Arrgh on top, as usual. Solid post, nice work.

From a gameplay perspective when you look at successful games you have two "genres" of war games: Strategy Games: These type of games balance their usually-shallow war system with mitigating factors such as army movement, terrain bonuses or penalties, fortifications, and bonus research trees that affect unit stats. "Instant" Games: Games like Clash of Clans where you instantly go into battle have a different set of balancing factors. If you get raided, for example, you lose resources but your army and buildings aren't affected. PnW has some elements of strategy but it is not a strategy game. Your army cannot avoid or mitigate wars. Someone blitzes you, your army takes damage. Pretty simple war system. The problem comes from the lack of balance: Blitzes are too strong. We don't need to eliminate the ability to blitz, but we need to mitigate and balance it. PnW also has an added element of being a persistent game - meaning you cannot pause it. You logging on or off has no impact on someone else blitzing you. So how do we balance it? Reducing casualties: Two or three coordinated nations can cripple a target with an initial blitz. They can also completely zero out a maxed military overnight while you're asleep. Casualties need to be reduced to allow for players to have a chance to respond to attacks before they're completely incapable of fighting back. Increasing daily military buy limits: This is probably the biggest culprit of the "snowball effect" we see in an effective blitz. Not only will you lose 50-100% of your military in a blitz, you can only rebuy 10-30% of it per day. Even in a double-buy situation, you're facing 3-to-1 odds and if your opponent is online at update they'll just zero you again. Refactoring score ranges: Cities, being the determinant factor of military capability, should count for more score than they currently do. Reduce cost of units: Tanks are still too expensive in steel. Navies and Airplanes take too much cash.

Yeah who wants to have discourse in their political simulator forums?

Manthrax already did the whole religious cult thing. Good luck though!

This was exactly my first thought as well. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people around who only care that their numbers grow every once in awhile. "Fighting wars? Too much work, I might lose infra. I'll join whichever group isn't at war. Posting on the forums? Might hurt my feelings, I need my downvote button back to avoid confrontation. Playing the market? Do I look like I have an economics degree?" etc. Luckily these people are ideal squishy, rich raid targets. Arrgh!

Why not just disable certain functions like alliance creation/renaming during war? That way people can’t infinitely shuffle money around to avoid raids but it also doesn’t needlessly punish smaller alliances. Even the 30 day limit on alliance creation can be exploited to hide money. the member limit thing should just be thrown out entirely.

Imperialism right now is extremely niche. Every other domestic policy is useful. It has been my experience that Open Markets is almost always a better choice than Imperialism. THEREFORE: my suggestion is to double the reduction to 10% and see how that fairs.

Ayy Lmao Glad to see Yosonet back in charge of things. As soon as the automation was overthrown it was downhill from there in fakebk.

I honestly miss the old days where there was no karma at all. You wanted to agree or disagree, you typed it out. Get back to simulating politics and stop simulating facebook.

I agree but one guy kept buying in and I won like 50m off a 10m game because he just kept losing.

See it as you will. Steps need to be taken in order to ensure the integrity of the game.

Other people have made this argument better than I will, but people playing politics and war are here to play a game. Tales of "efficiency" and "min/maxing" may have merit, but they often trick new players into a command economy who then go on to be farms for their alliance for their entire PnW experience. Never actually "playing the game." People are much less likely to become engaged with the community if they can never do anything in-game without their alliance giving back their resources and cash - ie. their alliance's permission. Alliances need the ability to tax their members, true. I feel that the game's quality will improve by enforcing a certain degree of freedom with resources though. Players can still deposit their incomes into the bank, but capping the tax rate would explicitly remove the ability for someone to create a tax farm alliance.

I'm quoting Keshav and being facetious about the ten years thing.

ODN didn't deserve to be left holding the bag for Pacifica's cheating and GOONS's doxxing. Congrats on peace ODN.

Stopping before driving the totality of Pacifica from the game? Sounds like something you'll look back on in ten years and regret. Oh wait, nevermind. No one will give a frick about video game decisions in ten years.

Not to continue "toxicity on both sides", but NPO never changed leadership once during their entire time in PnW. Roquentin was alpha and omega of the NPO foreign policy, the NPO grudges, and the NPO directive of isolation. He isolated communities, manipulated the information they had access to in order to foster grudges and hatred, and ultimately formed a suicide cult where they all deleted in a ragequit response to fair moderation. NPO as a whole had the same people in charge the entire time, never changing their minds on anything, allying vast swathes of the game and creating an unplayable political field. The warning signs were there, the people who decried NPO back then were told to give them another chance. Even after the "For Steve" BS war in CN, NPO were given chances. This wasn't a case of "be nicer to both sides" this was a clearcut case of an alliance that should've been rolled out of existence but the warning signs were ignored. edit: I'm hopeful for the future of PnW without the blight that NPO represented. Sorry to their members who were just following orders.

Given the utter excess of new player focused projects and updates, I would be interested in hearing from the community on what kind of end-game content (city 20+) stuff we could add? Things that come to mind just from "real world examples" where larger nations have access but smaller nations likely won't/don't. World Congress - Every nation city 20+ gains membership into a world Congress. Every month, on the first of the month, a vote comes up to provide an 3x multiplier to the income bonus for your team color. The reason we use a multiplier to the income bonus is so people don't all bandwagon onto a color every month like we saw with Treasure Island. At max, this would provide an extra 2.7m per day income. Security Council - Every nation city 20+ gets access to the security council. Similar to the World Congress, security Council members vote once a month to reduce military upkeep for a color bloc by 5%. Nations can only receive this bonus for 30 out of every 90 days (once every three months) to discourage color-hopping. Nuclear disarmament treaty - A national project requiring 25 cities. Nuclear weapons upkeep and production costs double (+100%), receive a 2% flat income bonus. Green New Deal - Project that requires 25 cities. Reduces pollution in all your cities by 100 points. Moon Base - Requires the Space Program and Moon Landing projects. Allows your country to establish a base on the moon to conduct science experiments and develop new technology. Airstrikes do 5% more infrastructure damage, Naval attacks have a greater chance to destroy an improvement, Ground Attacks steal 5% more loot, Defensive spy ops are 5% more successful. I would like to hear people's ideas and maybe brainstorm about the details before we make individual suggestion threads for all the good ideas.

I don't feel like you're addressing my questions, but I don't want to further derail your thread. This project is decent on its own merits.

Raiders, hear me out: This will make all the war dodging raid targets have more non-taxed loot.

Lower casualties and/or raise spy maximum limit. I like OP's idea too.

This is an essential update that needs to be added ASAP for military coordination purposes.

I think the complaint that Bjorn is attempting to articulate is that the people who have invested a lot of time into this game don't want to see catch-up mechanics that make it so "casual" players can catch up to them within a few months. If you're speedy and with cooperative alliance mates, you can hit city 30 within a year already. City 30 is basically the "end game" right now but we have a handful that have gone beyond that. The main playerbase is sitting between city 12-25. We're all rapidly approaching the "end game" where there's nothing for us except watching new players get more and more catch-up mechanics. Again, I'm not opposed to this particular project - but it brings up the repeat issue that the people who actually pour their time and effort into this game are being ignored and told "they have enough".