[Fortify rebuff]

21 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

you can fortify multipe times (n)

 

each time you forify you gain x% buff, but that bufff deacreases each time

Ah, I get it now. Your idea isn't actually that bad. One fortify equals (e.g) 5% more casualties of enemy, 2nd fortify could do +10%, third +5%, fourth +2%. I actually like this idea now.

[Combine Nukes and Missiles]

21 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

snip, but the guys second post

A missile without a warhead makes the missile do nothing. A warhead isn't always nuclear, it could be just the explosive of the missile.

[Beige timeout date]

I'm not beige, so I can't find exact evidence, but doesn't the game do this anyway? I thought it showed turns remaining in beige with the days next to it.

[Surrender]

9 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

snip

This idea seems somewhat useful. A quick way to end a war if someone is being rolled and wants it over and done with. It seems like it wouldn't get used much so I'd put it on low-priority but besides from that it seems okay.

[Combine Nukes and Missiles]

I'm not even going to try deconstruct this post. Just, no.

Could we get a delete on this one, admins?

9 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

you can launch a missle wihtout a warhead, (so same as rn)

THIS IS NOT HOW A MISSILE WORKS, AND NOT HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW.

[War Morale]

You say that the attacker starts with 0'WM'. But you also say that if the attacker gets a bad victory, the attacker loses WM? You have also never stated how the attacker gets WM in the first place. And why should a phyrric victory mean a lose in WM, it's a victory nonetheless. This idea needs a bit of a clean up.

[Fortify rebuff]

Uhhh, what? Could you word your suggestion a bit differently, so others can understand better, please?

[Cease-Fire]

1 hour ago, Ryan1 said:

you need werk on english my frend

He has a foreign name, just because he isn't from an English speaking country doesn't mean you can tease people for not speaking fluent English.

9 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

snip

I kinda like your idea, although it seems that it would be somewhat difficult to code into the game. And if there was to be a global nuclear war and a game-mandated cease fire was put into place, how would the game know who was involved in the war or not? What about smaller nations and micro wars not apart of the global war? Seems a bit obstructive to me.

[War Offensive]

So... basically what you're saying is, for 12 MAPs you could have a ground attack, air attack, AND naval attack at once? For only a small price of one extra MAP, AND with an x% buff? Seems kinda overpowered for me, also it'd take a fair bit of proccessing power to calculate all the different attacks and unit loss, money gain etc. Might be a bit hard on the server.

[A farewell, a new charter, and our new government lineup!]

Big lmaos and many guffaws were had reading this thread.

I'd like to thank everyone before my post, big xd

[Did you miss it?]

Trash Detection test?

I'd take it but I'd probably overload the test and break it xd

[If you could...]

I'd like to add something, if I may.

I think micros are good, and I believe it's never the alliance's member count or size that is what harms the game; it''s always the leader. I suppose you could liken the statement to "It's not guns that are the problem, it's the people behind them".

Also micros are an essential part of alliance growth. Did the big, good alliances just get made at #1, or best at the game? No, they grew first. Kinda like how people named Bob were, as unlikely as it may seem, not born 40 years old. They grew first.

[a question for the game dev]

But yuo see komrad, how else express superior USSR? babushka throw shoes at you blyat

[In recognition of hostilitie the knights Templar had towards the center of offbeat powers]

I really don't want to steal the other people's jokes or look like I'm bandwagoning - but honestly

[The Rise has begun]

GG, big no re when Polaris doesn't protect you lol

[Make it an option to use resources]

What if fortify made the aggressor do only 5 resistance damage, instead of just losing more units? Perhaps make the maximum victory you can achieve a “Moderate Victory”? I just don’t think that fortify is useful if all it does is make the enemy lose more troops.

[Training target-nation for new players.]

16 hours ago, MonkeyDLegend said:

Allow new players (while in first beige). This can be part of the tutorial 

Written by @Ripper &OP

What happens if someone (a particularly stupid someone) doesn’t do the objectives and the beige ends? What if they end their beige early? Would they still be able to use the target nation or have they just simply missed out?

[More complex bounties]

3 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Current system keeps it more simple though & I'm not sure its worth making it more complex. Although I wouldn't complain over more options & see the appeal of more options. Could maybe cost extra on top of the bounty pay out price to add extra customization thresholds on infra damage and other stats; such as a certain amount of infrastructure needs to be destroyed for a bounty collection.

Yes, plus it’d make bounties and bounty hunting a much more common thing to do. It adds more fun in the game imo

[More complex bounties]

I propose that the bounty system be changed.

Agreed, it is good as is, but it definitely has room for inprovement (i.e sorting by war range).

I think that the bounty system would benefit if more bounty types were added. What I mean by this is that along with the usual nuclear, attrition, raid etc. we have the option for bounties that target specific things.

 

E.G

Nation 1 posts a bounty on Nation 2, saying that whomever attempts the bounty needs to destroy XX amount of X (XX meaning number and X meaning different nation variables (infra, tanks, soldiers, ships etc.))

[Baseball tournaments]

I propose we implement a system that makes multiple nation baseball tournaments easier.

It works like this;

A number of nations sign up for a tournament, with the host nation of the tournament setting the joining fee. For this example, let’s say the joining fee was 1 million, and four nations (including the host) are participating.

The current baseball algorithm plays a game between nation 1 and 2. Let’s say nation 2 wins. Then, the algorithm plays a baseball game between 3 and 4. Let’s say 4 wins. Finally, the algorithm runs a game between 2 and 4, with nation 2 winning. Nation 2 wins the four million dollars, or whatever the total amount of money the joining fee was. Of course, the joining fee can change, perhaps even costing recourses instead of money, and the amount of nations participating can change as well.

[Small Quality of Life Improvements]

3 minutes ago, Edward I said:

2) Remove alliance descriptions from all alliances pages except Information (e.g. don't load custom images or text for alliance control panels, banks, member lists, etc.

4) Add a PW wiki page field to alliance info pages

5) Turn the current color bloc names in the Color Trade Bloc Leaderboard into links to each color bloc voting page

I love these three!

[Small Quality of Life Improvements]

Change the objectives tab to "casino" once all the objectives have been completed?

Ability to sort Alliance Member list by "Last Online"?

Ability to sort Alliance Applicant list by "Last Online"?

 

[Ability to sort Alliance member list by Last Online]

Previously I suggested something quite similar, however that suggestion was for sorting through the applicant list. This (no doubt more useful) idea would help alliance leaders.

When it comes to cleaning your alliance, one of the things you must do is kick inactives. Sure, you might wanna tax em for a while, but too many inactives causes clutter. I suggest that we add "Last Online" to the list of things you can sort your alliance members by. A simple change, but no doubt a loved one.

[Friendly practice wars between alliance members]

39 minutes ago, SamohT said:

I get the intention - Military drills.

This is already possible for those who REALLY want to experience and try out the war feature - Join the test server and wage war without consequences!

To learn proper warfare though, you need more than a few friendly wars. The actual blitz, the stress of coordination along with other vital aspects in PvP wars.

If you just want to try out the war mechanics, and learn the very basics, find a shitty micro and run it over - There are LOTS of them!

Maybe have friendly practice wars between alliances? Perhaps only alliances who have a treaty between them? Sort of like a nation RIMPAC (except for full war)?

[Friendly practice wars between alliance members]

I propose that we introduce the ability to declare “friendly” wars between alliance members. These friendly wars will not do any real damage to either parties (military units won’t die, no loss of infra etc.), instead the program will show you what damage you would’ve done.

Besides from no damage, these wars will behave just like normal wars, with MAP production, wins and losses, and resistance loss. It would be a good tool to help alliances train new members about how to properly war.