Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LukeTP

  1. You say this like every war in the last few years hasn't been boring.
  2. I don't see the point of these projects? Trade is currently unrestricted except for embargos. What is the benefit of the additional trade routes? What is the first trade route?
  3. If there's one thing i've learned in my time playing PnW... people decide who they are going to attack, THEN go and find a CB afterwards. Once one side has decided to war the other, the reasoning for it is kind of irrelevant. Everyone won't just suddenly stop and go "actually, the CB was complete rubbish, let's have peace".
  4. Yes it was all speculation. I think he's a bit busy fighting the war he had started at the moment though to come and talk though.
  5. Only logs of a DM conversation he had with an ex-leader (Sphinx). I like how the words of one person who no longer had any influence in the game (words that hardly anyone else were even aware of) has generated 26 pages of discussion. 🤣 I can't wait to see what Sphinx logs people are going to wheel out at the start of whatever the next war is.
  6. This is quite possibly my favourite part of the war so far 🤣
  7. Last I checked, i'm not a whale. I have 26 cities. Even if I assumed for a second that c27+ is whale territory (which it isn't...) we have 5 "whales" in VM, one is Sphinx who is dealing with RL stuff right now, one has been VM for as long as I can remember, and the remaining are also dealing with RL stuff, one had been planning to be in VM right now for more than a month... so please, tell us more how TCW has 7 whales wardodging...
  8. Literally the only thing TCWsphere could do was nuke. That sort of war is no fun for anybody. That said... MOAR NOOKZ
  9. I know they weren't. Why would they be given that you've already demonstrated that you can't stick to the terms you've agreed in the past? Why are who doing it? There aren't 100+ nations hitting you... your entire alliance only has 69 defensive slots to begin with.
  10. If you are so flattered by it, why are you begging for terms to be presented (for you to ignore again) so you can peace out? You thought you could raid with impunity and then were countered, hard, then countered the counters saying that raids are allowed. Then when you agreed a NAP with Terminus Est, after finding out you couldn't get away with that, you broke it within 8 hours. You clearly don't understand diplomacy. Half of Orbis hates the other half (IC at least) and yet they managed to make a NAP last 5 months (so far), yet you couldn't even last ONE DAY of the 4 week NAP you negotiated. Let's be real here, it's not 100+ nations. Most of us couldn't even dream of hitting the majority of your alliance.
  11. Don't flatter yourself, no one said you're a global threat.
  12. Sorry, your bait post? Deulos posted it? Or are you actually the same person? "A Epic FA moment" [sic] - there's a difference between laughing with somebody, and laughing at them...
  13. Good news everyone, war's back on as Deulos wasn't being serious... just like when they tried to negotiate peace first time round...
  14. Agon aren't really any good at foreign affairs from what i've seen. They have Error 404 babysitting their embassies too and that hasn't helped them at all...
  15. I didn't realise that Agon spoke for Terminus Est's Foreign Policy? Imagine being a small, insignificant alliance like Agon (#79), and trying to decide when somebody else (#18) will no longer attack you. By the way, I see no fewer than 8 new wars declared today by Terminus Est against Agon.
  16. On the basis that the precedent no longer applies, I consider this matter closed.
  17. Thanks for doing the right thing.
  18. Alex, the fact that the "main difference here" is to do with being allied to the target, when there is no (to my knowledge) rule about only attacking targets that you are not allied to, makes that a completely irrelevant point. What If i told you that Agon were allied to THL? Agon would of course deny it, but you have no way of knowing because paperless treaties are commonplace in PnW so it is impossible for you to know whether or not two nations or alliances are allied unless you make it a requirement to lodge all paperless treaties with you. All we are asking for is a consistent enforcement of the rules. Either this is war slot filling, or as a minimum one, if not both, of the nations in the precedent, were not war slot filling. You cannot have one rule for your mates (and their friends), and another rule for the rest.
  19. I'd just like to know what the rules actually are... I'm even more unclear about what they are after this whole fiasco than I was before, and they were already a confused mess. There seems to be a huge scope for "moderation discretion" which seems to be closer to "if i feel like it" than actual discretion.
  20. Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97925 Ruler Name: Deulos Nature of Violation: War Slot Filling The Rule (emphasis is mine): Evidence: Firstly I draw attention to the following thread which shows a precedent set by Alex for issuing Nation Strikes for nations who are trying to raid "economically". The Precedent: The precedent I am drawing on is that the nation strikes were issued for, and I quote: All of the attacks for which the nation strikes in the precedent were with a greater number of units as a percentage of what could realistically be expected to be there. War Timeline of the offending war: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=687885 Opros started the fight (after declaring war) with two naval battles in order to gain naval blockade over the nation of Florence. These were clearly one ship naval attacks, despite the nation having the capability of rebuying up to 60 new ships daily. Unless Florence had many ships themselves (if this is the case, 0 were destroyed, yet Opros still maintained immense triumphs), these attacks could only have been made with minimal units. These were clearly naval attacks with minimal units as using the infrastructure damage formula provided on the PnW Wiki (see quote), Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships to make between 0.71 and 3.93 infrastructure damage per attack. It is not possible to start a battle and send in fewer ships than 1. Later, Opros then launched four ground attacks on Florence averaging a loot of $149,358.90 per attack. Using the loot formula, again from the PnW Wiki and quoted below, Opros would have required between 49,786.3 and 99,572.6 per ground attack. Opros was capable of rebuying 100,000 soldiers per day. In the preceding 48 hours, Opros had lost around 120,000 soldiers so on the basis of there being two rebuys, should have been capable of having at least 200,000 soldiers at the point where they attacked Florence with ground attacks so therefore used less than 50% of their military power to raid a nation. The recent precedent set meant that a nation that was using close to 100% of their military power in a battle was given a nation strike for "slot filling" as they were sending "minimal unit attacks" so it is my view that this must also be "slot filling" as the number of units used was way less than what the nation should have been capable of sending into the battles.
  21. Alex, I really fail to see how even if Dillon's strike is warranted that Sidd's can be. It looks like you've looked into Dillon's case and decided that based on some (at best) circumstantial evidence that the OP admitted they had taken completely out of context, that Sidd is guilty too. Sidd would have required between 296,221.16 and 592,442.32 soldiers in order to loot the amount that they were looting. They have a maximum soldier count (assuming they are running a 5 barracks setup) of only 425,000. If you go down the middle and say that Sidd was getting a rand value of 0.75 then they needed 444,316.74 soldiers to loot that cash. The statistics are on Sidd's side. This really looks to be a case of "looking after your own" (your own being a member of your API/QA team who was annoyed that TCW/THL wouldn't let him and his friends raid them). The fact that the majority of the game, including the allies of the people who raised this report in the first place think this is wrong, is testament to how wrong this decision is. There is nothing in the rules that says you are not allowed to attack your own alliance teammates so that entire point is completely moot. Can I suggest that if this is truly against the rules, you make that clear in the rules because this currently looks like a biased decision?
  22. There should be no bias in moderation decisions, end of story.
  23. Alex... if this is true, I am extremely concerned as if you have had the same thing reported to you by two people, one being a random member of the community, and one being a member of your QA/API team; and you make the decision that the report by the random member of the community is unfounded, yet the report by a member of your QA/API team is correct and justified; things no longer become about whether someone has broken the rules, and more about who is reporting a rule breach which is a very sad state of affairs. The quotes from AntMan lead further evidence to support my point quoted below. This needs to be cleared up now...
  24. I would like to provide some additional evidence. Firstly, a quote from the rules with my emphasis: There is currently no reference to "allied nations" within the rules. If it is now a "rule" that you cannot attack allied nations, you must immediately outlaw all paperless treaties so that you can properly police this moving forwards. The game mechanic of not being able to attack nations protected by you, or that you have an MDP with, is clearly designed to prevent accidental declarations on allied nations. It is not a rule. Secondly, some maths. I have included the third nation who was attacking the same nation for the sake of comparison. Average loot per ground attack: Dillon = $340,099.68 Sidd = $888,663.49 Opros = $149,358.90 Prior to the wars taking place, Dillon was not militarised for ground combat, whereas Sidd had some militarisation, and Opros was (though to a lesser extent). The formula for calculating loot is very simple (taken from the PnW Wiki): Judging by the amounts that were being looted, it is clear that the amount being looted was not based off of 75% of the defender's money, or the defender's money less 1 million, so therefore it was on the dice roll formula. None of the four nations involved had any tanks to speak of. In order for Dillon to loot an average of $340,099.68 per ground attack, assuming he was getting a generous roll and the RAND was coming out at 1, he would have required an average of 113,366.56 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 625,000 with a daily rebuy of 125,000 available) to loot that amount of cash. In order for Sidd to loot an average of $888,663.49, and again assuming a generous roll of RAND = 1, they would have required an average of 296,221.16 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 425,000 with a daily rebuy of 85,000 available). In order for Opros to loot an average of $149,358.90, and assuming a less generous roll of RAND = 0.5 (to show them using more soldiers and therefore not be slot filling), they would have required an average of 99,572.60 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 500,000 with a daily rebuy of 100,000 available). If we used the same assumption that we used to make Dillon and Sidd look worse (RAND = 1), then Opros required only 49,786.3 soldiers per ground attack). On the basis of this, and the starting positions, Sidd and Dillon both raided in line with the situations they found themselves in, Sidd being partially militarised, and Dillon not being militarised on the ground, and their loot stats in these wars stack up against that. Opros, who is the only point of comparison for this set of wars, clearly was fighting the war with a much lower % of their daily rebuy than the two nations who have been punished as a result of this report. If Sidd and Dillon have broken the rules by slot filling as they did not use enough military units in their battles, then Opros has surely broken the same rules (and more severely) yet has not been punished? EDIT I should also mention that Opros initially used what could only be "one ship naval attacks" (what is more minimal than one ship) to blockade Florence. The amount of infrastructure destroyed was 0.71 and 3.93 in two separate attacks. Using the formula taken from the PnW Wiki, Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships (depending on the dice roll element) in order to destroy those infrastructure amounts. END OF EDIT Error 404 (Borg's alliance) and The Commonwealth have been in a dispute for some time, and this report was only submitted three days after the relevant wars ended, and the resolution of the dispute was clearly not to Borg's liking. It seems that Borg has therefore (successfully) used this game report as a means of "getting back" at The Commonwealth and while it may not be "against the rules", just like what Dillon and Sidd did was not "against the rules", it was clearly against the spirit of 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.