Roberts

I think Ogaden put it succinctly. There has never been a raiding micro that failed due to too many wars or other raiders. There has been innumerable micros to have failed because a brand-new player to PnW wanted to make their own group, stay in it with 1-3 people, not have adequate military on-hand, and be absolutely shocked that raiders find them. To address your point in a constructive way, I've personally been advocating for the new nation tutorial (or maybe even nation creation!) to push new nations into established alliances along with a brief message basicall

Politics and War is a national/political simulator but the majority of us treat this as an arcade game with communities. In the interest of furthering the cause of actual nation simulation, I have established a new discord server primarily for light roleplay and model-UN-style interactions between nations. If you've ever had the urge to roleplay out a treaty or trade agreement or are just bored and want to stir up some political drama without the full consequences of doing so in the actual game - feel free to drop on by. https://discord.gg/pQh9w6vTfp The "official"

Which is why many of us older players are taking every opportunity to tell the newer people that a NAP isn't a standard, it's a bad habit.

Just want to plus 1 this. A NAP was a poorly-thought out last-resort option that only came about after almost a full IRL year of hardcore warfare. It's not a magic protection spell to stop getting rolled. You just gotta git gud.

I actually think replacing military buildings with DEFCON status could be a solid sweeping change. Allowing nations to always have the ability to build military units regardless of whether or not you've built arbitrary buildings. Each defcon gives you access to a larger daily rebuy amount (like 33/50/66/75/100% of your daily rebuy based on city count) at the cost of a flat upkeep fee per city.

Thank you for your thoughts on overall political meta but I want to focus specifically on this line. I understand the mechanics do not and cannot incentivize warfare as a means of profitability. That is an oxymoron and frankly if people wanted to fight 24/7 they'd be in Arrgh. Mechanics can be made in such a way that will alleviate barriers to interesting things happening though. For example, if wars take too long because damage output isn't high enough - we can increase the infra damage done per attack. This will also help the game in another way by providing further money-sinks, wh

I love SCP stuff

Good luck!

Congrats and good luck Sam!

Goodbye, Raoul.

Not to get political but everyone points to everyone else when asked how to prevent stagnation. This is a strictly mechanical post though and in my time on the dev team I've had quite a few seasoned gov from across Orbis talk to me about how they believe the mechanics are partly to blame - specifically the war mechanics. I'm not the decision-maker though, this is a discussion post and I'm merely trying to initiate discussion. The problem with projects is that every feature in PnW cannot rest on a project. We are almost at 30 projects and have a few more scheduled for releas

Get this man on the dev team STAT

Finally the best people leave the worst bloc

War is not necessarily the end-all be-all of politics, but if mechanics are incentivizing whaling up for 8/12 months with 3k infra per city and staying quiet... Then that is directly impacting people's desire to start trouble. If it's cheaper to start trouble, it's easier to start trouble imo.

Then you can play with me

Hello, I've seen quite a few dispersed suggestions recently that all seem to address, or attempt to address, the current issue of political stagnation - which many people seem to agree is caused by mechanical incentives. I'd like to open the floor for people to discuss what's going on and what possible solutions could be introduced here. Some initial thoughts I have but may be wrong: Reducing infrastructure cost up to 2000-2500 infra, while maintaining current cost of anything above that? Basically a much sharper curve to give people the ROI they want but in

Everyone is just now waking up from the NAP. Give it another month I guess and pray we don't sign another game-killing NAP afterwards.

Just in general I’d say that alliances have really grown to neglect the Public side of FA, dismissing it as superfluous and unnecessary. Sometimes you may even hear someone argue that it’s advantageous to not post treaty announcements or DoW’s but I really think it has the opposite intended effect. At best it displays a level of cowardice and at worst it can feel isolationist entirely. As for comparing and contrasting, I really like your examples. I agree that without a good balance in all areas of FA your general FA strategy becomes tenuous. People forget that this is a polisim where the

I told you if I got bored this would be a multi-part series. If you missed Alliance Edition you may click that and read. Last time I covered some things that I would consider generalities but that I've noticed the community at-large has neglected. Now I'd like to take a dive into more specific areas of alliance functionality, starting with the area I've spent the most time in: Foreign Affairs. So firstly what is Foreign Affairs? Foreign Affairs, as it pertains to a nationsim, is any particular alliance's efforts, either implicit or explicit, to influence other alliances. Often this i

I don't have time to drop an entire rant on this right now but "spheres" are an imaginary concept created by the lazier elements of the PnW FA community. Camelot and Rose are allied and connected via treaty. Camelot is dropping a treaty with Atlas, a separate group, while Rose is maintaining their new tie (for now). I get the practice of labeling groupings as spheres but it's not meaningless to sign or drop people "within your own sphere." Let's not dumb down politics any more than they already have been.

tC’s only cost is dealing with Mal... a price too steep for anyone tbh

This thread shows that it depends on who you ask. A lot of raiders use the term whale and farmer interchangeably. Others will just say the whale tier is the mega-tier of PnW. I think it has to do with a multitude of factors though. If you're a c35 but with 500 infra raiding people you aren't a whale. If you're at c27 but have 4k infra per city you could very well be a whale. So cities aren't the only thing. Whales are generally the inflated nations in PnW who have a higher city count but also a higher-than-normal infra count. Other typical things include staying at a high

I might be more inclined to join in the moral outcry if the people being hit had been more participant in the community. Isolationist styles of play are detrimental to the overall meta and KT forcing these guys into the spotlight is basically doing both them and the community a twisted sort of service. If they ragequit from going to war then it was likely they had one and-a-half feet out the door already.

Ayy lmao

There's a reason almost all of Arrgh's older members end up retiring. Raiding is a lot of work, managing and facilitating raiding is even more.