Alastor

Welcome to Orbis! A quick overview of things if you've never played before First things first, you'll want to find a community. Most of the game is played through player-to-player interactions. There are no NPC's in Politics and War (PnW) so all of the drama, politicking, wars, and economics are purely player-driven. You'll want to find an alliance to join - preferably one that is already firmly established and can provide economic and military aid to you. Typically a top 30 alliance is a good place to start for a new player - they can also provide more in-depth guides for how to maximize your economy and military. Secondly, you'll want to keep a standing military. As peaceful as your intentions may or may not be, a strong standing military is the only way to guarantee a thriving nation in this game. Players that lack a standing military are often subject to "raids" which is where other nations will declare war upon you to steal your "loot" (aka- resources and cash). You can also utilize raiding to supplement your income as a new nation - raiding is particularly cost-effective when you are new to the game. Lastly, remember to have fun. If you mess up or get raided or someone kicks you out of an alliance for being a newbie; don't sweat it. Typically as a new nation you can plenty of mistakes and it's not a big deal because it costs so little to rebuild you. So if you lost a war don't worry about it. Join an alliance and request aid and you'll be taken care of.

/me waits on the daily leak

This has basically been the response to most suggestions to changes in the war system over the years. ”You’re mad that you’re losing” or as Roquentin pointed out earlier - “git gud”. Changes need to be made, balancing needs to happen regardless of whether or not one side or another gains marginal benefit.

Valhalla? Reported for ooc attacks.

Warfare has been simplified into CN-style log in once a day to click one button then forget about it. This isn't a debate for saving public face this is an established fact that BOTH sides are running these pseudo-bots. And you are mis-remembering. I've personally raised issues with the war system multiple times over multiple years and I know others have as well. edit: you are correct about the laughing and "git gud" part though. I encountered a lot of that response lol. I said I suspect some players. I didn't accuse anyone of large-scale usage. There's been a couple of bans recently of people that have re-raised my suspicions that multi use might be more common than we expect. This shouldn't be a partisan issue that offends NPO, this should be something that raises concern among your people as well as everyone else. It certainly wasn't directed at you specifically.

Both sides, including your alliance, have scripts to automate warfare while being minimally "legal" within @Alex's ruleset. I would even suspect many people are utilizing multis. So no, it doesn't really take much effort or coordination anymore. I agree with @durmij though. The war mechanics themselves need to be reworked so that people can't be blitzed so hard. A persistent browser game needs to be able to allow people to log in within 24 hours and defend themselves. If 3 aussie nations/late-nighters get the jump on me overnight, my airforce is gone the next day when I wake up. Casualties per attack, daily buying limits, unit cost, score calculation, resistance, and war declaration range all need to be revisited and reworked.

What's your definition of 'working'? GOONS is a brand new alliance here in PnW. You guys really don't need to entrench yourselves with one side over a war that you joined late. I personally broke down the data for Col A leadership at one point showing how the nation builds of major coalition B alliances were self-sustaining at worst and likely still profitable. Even as a third party who's only here for the math - I can confirm they did not actually expect you to go broke. Not sure if that helps smooth things or not.

Utilizing the public forums of a nationsim in an IC political way? The nerve of some people.

We wouldn't have to debate authenticity of logs showing the potential peace terms if you guys would just present your peace terms.

whatcha thinkin

Pretty simple. Given the recent war and the recent additions to what we can spend credits on (VIP party) as well as buffs to credits (rss and cash being raised). Also given that the mass purchase infrastructure tool is now a thing. Add an option that instantly sets one city of your choosing to 2000 infra for one credit. This would allow players to "rebuild" up to ten cities a month after suffering significant infrastructure damage. Note that this does not "add" 2k infra but it sets it like the mass infra purchasing tool. My math: 1 credit = $15m redemption 0 -> 2000 infrastructure with no projects = $15,195,553.00 Given that it's a rebuilding tool, I think we can forgive the extra $196,000 that this gives a player. My alternative suggestion would be to spend 10 credits and get every city you have set to either 1000 or 1500 infra but that seems OP.

Echoing Durmij: A project isn't the way to go about balancing planes. Balancing the war system should come from... you know... balancing the war system. Lowering casualties and raising daily buy limits would probably help even things out imo. If people can't blitz and wipe you before you log in, that would be a good first step. That being said, I like the concept of a project that kills a percentage of attacking planes based on ground control and land. I think it needs to be capped at like 5% of attacking planes in a perfect scenario though.

I was just about to ping you. How do you feel about this war and these terms and the way peace talks are going?

Maybe start mass dm’ing nations because no one from that side reads these forums.

@Kastor are you going to run these this year

I concur. I think adding Grey as an additional color would be cool. Changing inactivity / protected status to its own mechanic would be good.

This sounds like capitalist rhetoric.

This was basically Auctor’s platform for a long time. The point of a nationsim is to act like a nation. Not a person. It’s almost a role playing game. Diplomacy has to have the chance to be conducted and in the age of “personal” politics we’ve seen unprecedented levels of insular communities. GPWC was created with the intention of never communicating with the rest of us and they’re 1/5th of the playerbase. A personal example - my discord account got banned from BK’s server like 4 years ago because I left the alliance. I still don’t have access there. The relationships you’re referring to will never change if you insulate yourself and dig a trench against your neighbors.

Official petition for @Prefonteen to change his forum name At this point y’all should really just have an arbiter handle peace negotiations. We need some real world legal machinations here.

House Stark still kept the MDoAP though... This is all a conspiracy between NPO and t$ to lower their infra to hit BK.

You're holding up surrender negotiations on your own terms because people are mad at you and trying to organize a response post-war? Do you think that will result in more or less people being mad at you?

Some small QoL for team colors. 1. votes for bloc names stay if you get beiged or go to gray- they only get removed if you go into inactivity / get removed from the game or if you manually change your color. Basically involuntary color changes do not affect your vote for a community/cosmetic thing in-game. 2. You automatically fall back onto your chosen color post-beige rather than being dumped to Gray. Gray should only be for inactives and not a chore for people losing wars to swap back. 3. Every 90 days the name of the color bloc resets so you have to re-vote. Maybe cause some mix-up every now and then. 4. Double the color bloc income bonus. Brown team right now makes the most money at 45k per turn bonus. That's really a negligible amount and should be scaled up (like the daily login bonus has been). Maybe create some jocky-ing for colors to increase income. 500k a day isn't much when you consider that the nations pulling up that "average daily net revenue" are probably making double-digit millions per day.

I put him on ignore tbh. He just flames people and never actually contributes to conversation.

It’s been suggested before, and while this probably won’t get much traction, no offense, because you’re the one suggesting it, I do think this is a good idea. People change their behavior for that little endorphin rush of seeing people upvote their posts. It’s science at this point in the real world. I would rather have true conversations than “sick burns” and dumb gimmicks. Plus people abuse it by downvoting previous posts by certain users they dislike so it’s not at all an accurate picture of who a “good” poster is anyway.

Good read but I'd recommend slightly larger font and a darker color for us old folks. Grey-on-white in size 8 is very hard to read. I like your avatar pic That may be the intent and maybe even the best course for the revolution but I think the kinder, gentler parts of human nature which may have initially lended themselves towards sympathizing with the workers will work against a permanent revolution. People want quiet, peace, and they want to settle down and not worry about the politics of the world. They crave the sweat of an honest day's labor and they crave to see the fruits of their labor in the end. The fruits in this metaphor of course being a better life post-revolution. People tend towards bursts of violence but I believe they also tend towards longer bursts of peace.