Jump to content

Herb

Members
  • Posts

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Guitar and music in general.
  • Leader Name
    Herb
  • Nation Name
    Sehnsucht
  • Nation ID
    173328
  • Alliance Name
    The Rohirrim

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: 2002thY#7789

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views

Herb's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

52

Reputation

  1. TKR has abused me throughout the years, destroying my startup alliances, making me reroll on numerous occassions and overall, they've been a nuisance to my national- and alliance sovereignty, not to even mention of my mental health.
  2. Good day to you, dear E.I.C'er. May your journeys bring success to you.
  3. I don't think global wars are meant to be made into equal bloc A vs bloc B match ups. Alliances have different interests and act upon them, which makes the game more interesting. Spheres are tied to the game mechanisms and the politics between alliance leaders. I think minispheres bring a lot of diversity to the game and more political chances. Diversity and small is fun. People won't go paperless, because they want to stay safe and protect eachother's pixels. Given our current system, paperless policy can fit Arrgh and like-minded pixel-burners, but if everyone were to be paperless, there would be people still teaming and there'd be unfair global wars still, bloc A vs bloc B, but with a tad more work required to keep the blocs together. It would be a confusing mess, especially within the sea of micros, trying to figure out who is teaming with who actually.
  4. That'd be amazing and would be glad if it happened. Alliance-wide embargoes are a good idea, hadn't thought of them. Definitely a good idea.
  5. Yeah, that is a great idea. Anything to make the game more fun.
  6. It's a nice idea, but I think it is too far from P&W's fundamental gameplay. For future reference, if you want to create more conversation and get more replies, write properly and make sure the readers can easily understand what your idea is. Takes a little bit of thought into it, but yeah, the guy should write better in the future.
  7. P&W has a lot of competitive mechanisms, but all of the roleplay mechanisms are useless and affect the game hardly if at all. I'm proposing an addition to the war declaration and peace offering system that would give more incentive for alliances and nations to declare wars and add immersion to the game. "War type" would change to "War objective" with multiple choices. Nations With the "Show superiority" war objective, you will do 50% of potential infrastructure damage and take 50% of potential loot. (Ordinary) With the "Raiding" war objective, you will do 25% of potential infrastructure damage and take 100% of potential loot. (Raid) With the "Destruction" war objective, you will do 100% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. (Attrition) With the "Adopt government" war objective, you will do 25% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent, their government type will change to your choice for 252 turns (3 weeks) until it can be changed. With the "Convert religion" war objective, you will do 25% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent, their religion will change to your choice for 252 turns (3 weeks) until it can be changed. For the new war objectives, "Adopt government" and "Convert religion", and any other similar war objective with an objective beyond damaging or raiding, the attacked nations have the chance to peace out after the war has been going for 24 turns (2 days) and the attacking nation's war objectives would come to effect in the nation. The original white peace is available at any time as well. Alliances I propose alliances have an in-game mechanism to declare wars, they would have some of the nation war types, but also some alliance-only war types. I also suggest a new war stats display for all alliances, showing who have beat them in war and who are they superior and inferior to. It would be located in the wars-tab of the alliances. With the "Show superiority" war objective, you will do 50% of potential infrastructure damage and take 50% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent's alliance in a war, their war stats will display that they are inferior to your alliance and lost a war to you. Defeating someone you were inferior to will change your alliance to be superior over them. With the "Demand reparations" war objective, you will do 50% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent's alliance in war, your alliance bank will receive 3% of each enemy alliance member's resources and money. With the "Limit influence" war objective, you will do 100% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. With the "Adopt government" war objective, you will do 25% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent's alliance, their members government types will change to the winning leader's choice for 252 turns (3 weeks) until it can be changed. With the "Convert religion" war objective, you will do 25% of potential infrastructure damage and take 25% of potential loot. If you defeat your opponent, their members religions will change to the winning leader's choice for 252 turns (3 weeks) until it can be changed. In an alliance war with the casus belli "Show superiority", "Demand reparations" and "Limit influence", members of the alliance war would be unable to declare war with "Adopt government" and "Convert religion" war types. Declaring war to an alliance would account in for active treaties: Declaring war on an alliance with a mutual defense pact with other alliance(s) would show a warning message showing the alliance's allies and treaties. Declaring war to an alliance while you have a MAP / MDoAP with other alliances will give their leaders an option to join the war, located in their alliances war tabs. It expires in 24 turns (2 days), and declining would be dishonoring a treaty and would instantly annul all treaties with the alliance in question. For optional defense/aggression pacts, your allies leaders get an option in their alliance's war tab to join an ally's war. Declaring war manually on an alliance that is at war with your OAP or ODP ally automatically joins you in the war on your ally's side. After 84 turns (1 week): - Any alliance leader can cede in to the attacking side's war objective peace terms and get their alliance out of the war. Negotiating peace alone is a cowardic act and would annul all treaties with allies partaking in the war. - Biggest 3 alliance's leaders from each side can negotiate peace for their entire side, if all 3 of them vote for it in their alliance's war tabs. The leaders can propose a white peace as well. Other alliance leaders can join a conflict and choose their side on it manually or start separate wars without being involved in a war. After an alliance war ends, alliances sign an automatic, uncancellable non-aggression pacts for 84 turns (1 week), as a minimum time to prevent non-stop wars. ------------------ What I could see this bringing would be more fun, more dialogue and coordination between alliance leaders, having more fun declaring wars and bringing new kinds of wars in to the game. Imagine a religious war in Orbis, i.e Knights Templar vs. an Islamistic alliance. Some people could even care about the mechanisms to a degree, losing a religious war could instabilize an alliance and cause unrest. This game generates some amazing stories. I think this would create some more amazing stories out there. I would be happy if even 1% of this all would be implemented. TL;DR new war types, ability to cede to peace terms and get quick peace & alliance wars.
  8. These are nothing but BLATANT lies of the rich businessmen! Do not swallow his slimy ooze of a face lift! THESE kind of men are behind the starvation and cash-ins of countless global wars! Read in for the truth!
  9. Yep, you saw right. It's another global we're neck deep in, as coalitions send their men to be killed one after other. But do we ever stop and think about this? No, ideology-crazed leaders are already posting their declarations of war as we are reading through this. How easy it is to plunge into a global war, there's no moments thought and nobody tries to stop em'. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a connection. As nuclear bombs are crazily dropped upon unarmed cities, the global production of food takes a toll from it. We naturally assume, that since the food production has gone down, we are naturally obliged to pay more for our citizens rightful food. THIS is what THEY want YOU to BELIEVE! They lobby the big alliances, they feed HATRED into their hearts with DOLLAR BILLS ON THEIR GAZE! The food entrepreneurs are always stockpiling during peacetime, and rub their GREEDY hands together when the time of war, oh yet again comes. Article by yours truly, Herb of Sehnsucht
  10. This has been a huge update in a recent while, and we all have been shook by it. This derives us to a new era of uncertainty; "What is the meta for military now?" The stock market has already reacted strongly, and aluminum is expected to fall heavily, while steel is set to be triumphantly rising. I am bringing my dime into the conversation, as an old raider and a current man of living peacefully. Alliances are wondering what minimum military requirements to enforce now. Planes took a hit, but they aren't completely useless. With enough of a land army, you can obviously 'zerg rush' your opponent's airforce down, as someone with a ground control now has the ability to kill enemy aircraft with tanks. Values are referenced below. It'd be fair to propose that 3 - 4 hangars per city provide sufficient airforce for defense, since they are going to be less used in the entire length of the war. Instead, tanks and soldiers have gained a huge emphasis on warfare, and keeping enough of them might be enough to overpower your opponent's airforce. 3 - 4 tank factories are good for defense and don't bloat your score anymore. Ships can be airstriked still to a bad effect, but they take less damage from naval battles. 2 to 1 drydocks are sufficient for defense. Barracks? 5. They're cheap and they're the main component of your army, you need some meat bags to rush forward. ? ========================================================================================== New nature of Warfare We can expect the initial phases of battles to include devastating airstrikes, until the fight breaks down to infantry. Ground control will be everyone's first priority, a raider's, a defender's and a war fighter's. Airforce no longer has the top spot. Gathering tanks, and rushing to beat your opponent's ground army could become the new meta. We'll see how this affects raiders. While their old threat, airforce is obsolote, their ground superiority could change as many others will focus on ground armies aswell. Thank you! - Herb of Sehnsucht What do you think of my column? I could write more in the future. I could be completely wrong or someone could have an entirely different point of view. Please share and comment your opinion!
  11. Damn steel sellers! They had lobbyists convincing Alex for this! Steel prices are skyrocketing while us poor aluminumers are suffering yet again. ?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.