Jump to content

Bojack Horseman

Members
  • Posts

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Bojack Horseman last won the day on May 12

Bojack Horseman had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    The Knights Radiant
  • Leader Name
    Roberts
  • Nation Name
    The Revenge
  • Nation ID
    60967
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Rockefeller

Recent Profile Visitors

2088 profile views

Bojack Horseman's Achievements

Veteran Member

Veteran Member (6/8)

2k

Reputation

  1. "Don't declare counters or the nukes come out" "Raiders got involved, so there will be no separate peace" "We feel comfortable going for months in a war we started" "We'll hit uninvolved parties because otherwise our stats would be slacking" "we would be doing better but foreign powers are secretly plotting against us" "The game is against us" I'm starting to have flashbacks.
  2. https://tenor.com/view/titanic-its-been-a-privelage-gif-8487203
  3. The Syndicate has been home to several legendary government members that were all masters of their craft (and probably took PnW too seriously). Shiho definitely fits right into that same pantheon. Enjoy retirement, hope to see you around.
  4. This single change puts control of the economy of the game in the hands of a select few people (alliance gov). The functionality of embargoes already exist and are utilized to varying degrees of effectiveness, a coordinated embargo could be issued. Now it just takes a single active member in alliances of 50-100 members to take chunks of the market out of reach for other players. It's too much control over individual nations to give to alliance leaders imo.
  5. Monsanto is a new company designed with one purpose in mind. We're tired of seeing food prices bottom out. The farmer that feeds Orbis and sustains the backbone of the world's economy should not have to settle for pennies on the dollar for their high quality grains, vegetables, meats, or other edible products. The goal is a cooperative firm that amalgamates food producing nations together in a powerful union to stop the exploitation of farmers. Separated we are weak, but together we are strong. Resource flipping is also a lucrative position within the Monsanto group. Even if you don't produce food, but have an eye for profit - we are looking for people to help us with our goals of fair food markets. In time, with the growth of Monsanto, we will begin subsidizing the food needs of our non-producers as well. If cooperative market regulation interests you, or if you enjoy making money, feel free to stop by our discord server. https://discord.gg/mXEseTeDZk
  6. Yes sometimes life will frustrate your well-laid plans, but your immediate reaction to a poor turnout is to ping your supposed audience to admonish them for being "too lazy" or even too busy to play the game(s) you wanted to play... I type this as actual life advice. It's ok to be frustrated but you are exhibiting classic lashing out behaviors that indicate a lack of emotional maturity. Life doesn't have to be a battle, buddy. You win more flies with honey.
  7. Speak for yourself, my nation will be over 16,000 days old
  8. Both of these are not incorrect per se, but specifically regarding the proposed changes I think (merely based on my experience in this last war) that harming planes ability to kill other planes while choosing an alternative attack (other than dogfight) is going to harm planes ability to remain a unit of use. Already there are problems with the casualty rates of planes v. tanks and planes v. ships being impractical or subpar in terms of resource/MAP usage. If planes are bad at killing tanks and bad at killing planes (again not including dogfights) and bad at killing ships... Why am I using my planes? I'd rather do a dogfight or two and establish air control and then only use ground while keeping my plane count maxed out for defensive air control purposes. Some people I've talked to, including heads of milcom in top 15 alliances, are saying this is basically already the optimal strategy. The idea behind wanting all units to be strong is that it's extremely easy to overwhelm people in one arena of warfare. Ground, Air, Naval, Spies. So if all units are relegated to supporting the ground units, we're basically back to where planes were in NPOLT but with tanks now. I'd rather see a more interesting rock-paper-scissors style of warfare where people have options and choices, limited as they may be in PnW.
  9. I think both of these changes would be bad changes. Air is losing / has lost its place in the meta and doesn't need to be further weakened in this way. Good stuff, feel free to go crazy
  10. Do you really want to look back 10 years from now and regret not destroying alliances in a nationsim browser game?
  11. This echoes my sentiments exactly, tbf. I genuinely can't believe you're sitting on tE's AA. Partisan would roll in his grave.
  12. These threads are pretty dumb but it's always fun to see different perspectives on alliances. Whales rating whales, raiders rating counters, pixel-huggers rating randoms no one else thinks is good at war...
  13. S tier - pound for pound, each of these alliances will shred your alliance. Damages will make you look you're inactive, the forums will likely turn against you, RON might post a few articles about your joke of a milcom. A tier - Consistent alliances that are considered leaders within the community but not necessarily revolutionary or scary. B tier - Potential A or S tier alliances when given the right coalition or opportunity. Singled out or on their own may not be holding their own weight enough to be considered A or S. C tier - Activity, econ, planning, or panache prevent these alliances from reaching their full potential but are generally respected within the community. D tier - Basically like C tier but missing even more. FA may not be there, milcom may be AFK, etc. War performance reflects the lack of a government lineup fairly consistently but they aren't the worst. E tier - Why do we have an E tier? This is where I put alliances who are activity-challenged, too new to really tell where they land, or generally have consistently poor war performances and a bad PR record. These alliances could use a makeover (or are too new). F tier - This is where it may get mean. These alliances are consistently garbage. They create FA incidents (not the interesting kind, but the embarrassing kind), may try to separately surrender from a hard war, are generally bastions of inactivity only held together by their allies, and are likely home to multis. If you're in the F tier, disbandment or merging with someone more competent may honestly benefit the game.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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