Mack g
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Mack g
-
-
Nation Link:https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12021
Ruler Name:Thalmor
Nature of Violation: mass war declaration with no attack for the process of baiting beige.
-
It took 3 aa's to beat one?
-
Great to see this!
-
o/ GOONS
o/ BK
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Changeup said:
Tanks are currently one of the military units used more sparingly used in alliance warfare. They're expensive and their value goes down even more with Air Superiority. My suggestion is to be able to add Anti-Aircraft guns to tanks.
Cost: Anti-Aircraft would cost an additional 20$ on top of the standard tank cost. Munitions usage would increase 20% over the current levels. Upkeep would go to 60/90$ instead of 50/75.
Effects: Currently a tank has about 40 army value (calculated by buying one tank and looking at the increase in army value). With anti-aircraft, a tank would have 50 army value.
How many planes could it take out: I'd say for every 15 tanks with anti-aircraft, one plane is taken out if I have less than 1000 anti-aircraft tanks, I'd be able to take out around 65 (maximum) planes per Immense Triumph ground attack. For a moderate success, it goes up to a 20-1 ratio (50 planes) and for a pyrrhic it goes to 1-25 (40 planes). This changes as the amount of tanks increases. See the ratio chart below:
Adding anti-aircraft would not affect the maximum amount of tanks you can have. While anti-aircraft tanks are effective for taking out planes, they are less effective on the ground than normal tanks. This will likely lead to most nations having both anti-air and regular.
This would be a monumental change and would add a whole new dimension to alliance warfare. It would completely change the way tanks are used in the game and could make coming back against someone with more planes then you far easier.
Comment with suggestions and feedback!Your numbers are ridiculously flawed. Anti-air tanks would destroy balance even further. Id be more inclined to allowing a special missle project to directly attk planes... Than this unbalanced suggestion.
-
1
-
2
-
-
This sounds like socialism to me.
-
16 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:
Think if you looked at the numbers again this would be a good idea, the numbers I would use are the following
This would be for one city within an alliance.
Cash 100,000,000
Coal 1,250
Oil 1,250
Uranium 625
Iron 1,250
Bauxite 1,250
Lead 2,500
Gasoline 2,500
Munitions 2,500
Steel 2,500
Aluminum 2,500
Food 30,000
Now the reason I picked these numbers are pretty simple, Based it on my own nation, and Alliance I have run and been Econ within, these are enough to fight a war and also be able to maintain a good rebuild.
This means for someone like NPO they would be able to hold
Cash 259,500,000,000
Coal 3,243,750
Oil 3,243,750
Uranium 1,621,875
Iron 3,243,750
Bauxite 3,243,750
Lead 3,243,750
Gasoline 6,487,500
Munitions 6,487,500
Steel 6,487,500
Aluminum 6,487,500
Food 77,850,000
Now for those who say about raiding, well think about how much more loot will have to be stored on nations, clearly this is better than an alliance bank ignoring the mistakes of this war and some offshore banks, but this means most alliances will hold less, so the nations within that alliance would need to hold more.
Now this would be the cap of an alliance bank, but would love to see a project that will improve those numbers by 10% but of course the cost must be huge, maybe the cost would be based on the number of cities within the alliance something they then have to pay every time someone joined and they go over the city caps, so as NPO has 2595 cities, if say a total of 2500 cities leave in order to buy the project to make it cheaper, the second NPO goes over 95 cities they have to pay the extra in order for the project to work, so if the 2500 cities rejoin they then have to pay X times 2500 cities just to get the project to work.
hope i explained that well if not sorry lol, in my mind i knew what i mean lolDisagree with those resources numbers. Were a teeny micro and needed 20ish k per resource per nation, or this war would've ended within a few weeks for us. Keep in mind that a nation being bombarded with all 3 def slots filled and at least 2 offensive needs considerably more resources to weather the storm.
-
How bout fixing the war system instead. Make beiging a way to win a war, rather than players having to avoid it because it rewards the loser.
As far as offshore banks... That adds a tactic to the game that players deserve to capitalize on if they deem necessary. Everytime you try to fit everyone into a cookie cutter scenario... You hurt ur game and this community. Let us think for ourselves and quit constricting our gameplay.
-
2
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Dumb said:
We have never fought for IQ, and when we ceased our wars with kerchtog we were hit by IQ. If you see that as switching sides then git gud
IQ is gone weirdo
-
2
-
-
20% of their bank needs to go bye bye for cheating
-
1
-
-
Sphincter says wut?
-
20 hours ago, AwesomeNova said:
@Sir Scarfalot advocated for all wars ending in beige, for both attackers and defenders, regardless of the outcome. This would get rid of beige cycling, as the beiged defender can replace their units and hop back into fighting.
I like this. Though i think the military buy back is also a problem. If it didn't take so long to buy back military... Beige wouldn't matter.
-
Currently, beiging is bad. If you want to win a war, u dont beige. Why? Because if you beige an opponent it rewards them with time to rebuild, restock, and regroup. They can exit beige at any time and declare a new war with no negative aspects.
My suggestion:
Change the beiging system, so that it becomes the focus to win a war without hurting the winners.
Instead of x amount of days without being attkd. Cap it to 12 turns of non attks, after which time the beiged nation can be attkd but cannot start any offensive wars until beige ends... And cap total beige time to 4 days which can be reset Everytime a nations res drops to zero.
So, recap....
4 days of beige when an opponent beats you, the beige cap can be reset Everytime your res drops to zero and your bank is looted. The first 12 turns you get a reprieve and cannot be attkd. The next following 3 days you cannot start offensive wars but can continue to be targeted with defensive wars.
-
1
-
5
-
5
-
-
So.. down dec should be between 6 and 10 cities with a hard cap.
A 20 city nation for example cannot down dec a 10 city nation as it would have 100% more cities than the 10... Instead could only down dec a 14.
However a 30 city could down dec a 20 city nation as the 30 only has a 1/3rd of the city count as the 20, and its capped at 10. So a 40 could down dec a 30, a 50 could down dec a 40 and so on.
-
Basically your trying to swap tech for cities. In another nationn sim most of us are familiar with... Theres a tech gap. A 50k tech whale nation cant be targeted by anyone outside of the top 250. So the whales stay above the world in a small % of players who can actually be targeted and the rest can only look from the bottom of the mountain. the whales can down dec people completely out of ther league.
However, with a city down dec cap and erasing the up dec... Those large nations can be targeted by anyone but can only down dec 5 - 6 cities.
-
5 - 6 cities down should be the cap. Otherwise the double buy is retarded. The idea that a 20 city can down declare a 10 city nation and there is no way that a 1 vs 1 the 10 city can win. Is poor game design. 6 city down dec cap for the win
-
A 34 city nation definitely shouldn't be a le to hit a 20 city nation. So on that i agree. Should be a cap with the war ranges. Like an ns rating as well as no nation can hit lower than 5 cities below itself but can up declare 10 cities or something.
-
1
-
-
Ah Kastor. I remember when you were but a pup. Starting aa's... Convincing hapless morons to put their hard earned cash into the bank... Which you would then rob. Rinse and repeat. I think the funniest thing about this thread, is the notion that you matter... And more importantly that anyone even cares about your opinion ?
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Redarmy said:
Thank you for educating us. I learn something new everyday.
Your welcome red... U and i are old CN buddies.... SRA 4 Lyfe. Nice to see you, join InfoWars discord when u have time.
-
Its called a coalition... Ever heard of it? CoS was in the coalition withT$ and NPO to hit TKR last war. At that point in time... T$ wasnt allied to NPO and CoS wasnt an ally either. However, tbey were in a coalition to fight the same enemy... Read your thesaurus sometime.
-
15
-
-
Suiciding is a very effective way to win the end result. Its not meat shielding. Itcreates a tactical window... Not everyone can handle.
NPO is Love... NPO is Lyfe.
-
1
-
1
-
10
-
-
Just ip ban everyone involved. Problem solved.
-
Barbecues are for chilling
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
We have been in this thing from the beginning. Had 20+ members at the beginning. Helped our coalition mates chew down planes on every target we engaged, played our part. Every other micro tucked their tails and got out. We stayed in. Fought non-stop for the first 3-4 months, then its been sporadic the rest of the time... But ya, make jokes. So funny.
Make me