KiWilliam

Personally I always hated *those game mechanics* and would rather RNG be reserved for war only. Without over complicating it even more, getting the short end of the stick of RNG in yet another avenue of the game doesn't sit well with me.

short gud

A bloc is a multilateral treaty among 3 or more alliances. A sphere is (traditionally in pnw meta) a major alliance and their allies+allies of their allies who coalition together; or (more in the micro realm) 3 or more alliances that hold multiple treaties among each other and other allies or allies of allies, without a formal organization, that have coalitioned together at least 2 times for the purpose of defense, political bargaining, or offensive war. A bloc inside of a sphere, is not a sphere, but a bloc. A bloc which brings along their outside allies along with their bloc mates outside allies, act as a sphere. Rectangles can be squares, but only a square can be made up of 2 equally sized right triangles. There's nothing acute about flying off the handle here people. Don't sweep this under the rug. ||I bite my tongue hearing people talk about "bloc" level treaties. God they drive me up the wall. We have a name for those type of relationships already.||

1m NS posts are so Two Thousand Eleven... || ❤️ ||

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the pun play on words.

If we went down that route, it should be all policies or none. There should be no sacred cows. And the point (I presume) is to not allow personal political ideologies that one might use when choosing their policies, or when role playing (if one likes to do that) affect their material nation. I would be strictly against anything like this being implemented. If anything I would like to see role play sections be further delineated and marked different from other parts of the nation page so as to not confuse new players.

I love both of these jokes :)

Just to reiterate; I think just calling the war "The Hollywood War" or "Hollywood vs Bollywood" is 100x better than "Brawlywood". My severe disgust for the name aside; that name was never (someone please feel free to come out and correct me) used during the war or by anyone to refer to the war. It was designed as a "clever" play on the name of one coalition. But it's not cute or even informs about any of the other aspects of the war (back to your point about context as well). I hate it. Knightfall 2 is also terrible but I feel is better than Brawlywood. If it was even "Rose Strikes back" or "Brawlywood Strikes Back" that at least gives some context; even if those are awful terrible names. It's also everyone agreeing this process and these names are bad, yet we're going to go through this process, and act like it's democratic and that people who go against it are wrong. Dial Up war is Dial Up war because that's what it was called at the time, by the people who participated, by the people about the war, and by everyone now even 2 years later. Dial Up War is also different from The Long War. Which also has a bad (but not so horrible I won't use it) name. I usually refer to it as "that war" or "the NPO war" or "the long war". But the fact that people understand what I am referring to in a conversation is what matters in a conversation. No amount of peer pressure or fake veneer of democracy and "community consensus" is going to make me not call a spade a spade. It's the break down of these processes, spurred on by many things (this could be its very own interesting conversation), that leads to people just calling wars "Great War X". I thought I was done posting about this, but this whole thing has struck a nerve.

Fair. If we're just talking our personal opinions though; it's a dumb name :P And I actually agree with the very brilliant meme above, Knightfall is also bad. The only similarity is that TKR was "brought down" but that's almost a stretch, in my opinion more of the attention was on GG. That said, if votes are being split (FPTP) we get all these other names to lose against the stupid one that's winning.

Neither is "brawling". It's a bad play on words for the coalition name of "Bollywood" which at least is a direct rip on "Hollywood" which was the focal point of the war. Bollywood vs. Hollywood is as simple as a name as can be. And acknowledges what happened in this war. The fact that Bollywood fought Hollywood. What people call the war casually vs. what the wiki says, what's going to be remembered? People during the war called it one thing; to rewrite history to something that was never said before this poll is silly. And if someone can tell me that people actually said or called this conflict "Brawlywood" I'd like to hear that. Just calling it "Bollywood" would at least make sense, and again is a direct reference. Brawlywood is never going to be used to describe this war. It's GW19, (Error)522, or Hollywood (vs. Bollywood) war. Edit: I just want to make it clear, jokes and snide remarks aside (not in this specific case directed at Mr. Scott), I hate the name Brawlywood. I don't care for Knightfall 2, but that's okay and honestly the best name as far as describing what happened. I think the name really should've commented on the axe grinding against GG (esp SRD), or that it was TKR vs. t$. Any other names that don't acknowledge those 3 actors (GG/SRD, TKR, or t$) are really just generic and meaningless. I also dislike using "GW19" except as a tongue in cheek or least bad option when wars have other stupid names. Don't even get me started on the number 19, but I digress. Just dropping a bit of my actual opinion. I think someone could easily come up with a better name if you just let someone that actually understood the war, or read even half the OWF posts. "The HW War" or "HW v BW". I'll digress. This whole process is grating to watch meander along as so many people grind their own axes, without any regard for what really happened, or any consistent process or logic. It feels like watching 2 different parts of your family try to plan some giant awkward birthday gathering and not one even really thinking about the person the party is for works a night shift, so they want to be asleep by 2 in the afternoon, yet you're having people making shitty pre-press burgers on their patio at noon, and they have to put up with it.

So I'm a decently active player of the game, and I missed this poll. Not that such a thing should revolve around me and how often I check the forums, but the fact that you take such a snippet of the population of the game to "vote" for the "name" of something the good majority of the game participates in (the global wars), is just forum poster on head smart. Just have the winning coalition make the name of the wars part of the peace terms and be done with this game. How many people do I have to pay off to slide into a dm to request another round of voting? Is that number 4 people? I could ask my friend(s) and pay 3 people a million dollars a piece to do that.

Not using a more sophisticated voting system just because we're stuck with these forums, and then trying to use this sham of a "democratic" "community" "vote" to force people to call the global war something as stupid as (honestly all of those names are bad), is just evil. Not to mention just illogical. But this is a game for [insert the worst insult that I am legally allowed to say on these forums, while at the same time being accurate, and not so bad that I can't live with the shame of also playing this game]. We should use a republican form of government; and hold a vote for the person who gets to name the war. An elected official will never go against the will of the people; and a single strong intelligent and wickedly funny representative is surely better and smarter and more clever & well informed than the common average Joe Forum poster. Just my 2 cents.

This space reserved for a calm & collected essay of my thoughts & feelings filtered through a politically correct sieve. No Camelot below the rank of Templar should be posting. Also; Kero Kero in heck.

Pantheon was always too strong. I only hope the curse is satisfied after this offering.

I'd ask why you didn't do this sooner but...

Ave Legio! This space to be edited later.

Nice boat.

I don't know if anyone told you but they were already being passed around one of the news servers.

You need to select all then hit bold/unbold. You can do this with ctrl+a (select all) or on a mobile device usually long hold a word and then the popup will give an option to select all (or you could move the little cursors, but no one likes doing that)

Long time coming. Love ya

Respect the NAP. Please don't attack my mental person. I'm not strong enough to think about that quite yet.

I demand a very intense and extensive courting ritual. *Very Intense* Do you not see the subtext? Chains? Medley? Redacted? DM? Aggression? Please save us.

To clarify, I'm saying I think it's a fair game mechanic/you're right it's just like using the alliance bank. So I don't think my proposal is open to any "exploitation" more so than what currently exists :P I was just asking if someone could think of such a way for that proposal to be used in a way I'm not thinking of.

Could the solution to fix possible abuse not just be if you lose a war all your currently standing trade offers are cancelled. Resources & funds are recalled as loot is divided up. You could then have the mechanic where a person hides money for example using the market, but then can't use it during the fight. If the person is not blockaded they have this advantage, but once they're blockaded they're cut off from those funds/resources tied up in the market, and then can only access them if the blockade is broken, or if they lose the war and then they are automatically recalled to be divided up as loot to the winner. So you can risk trying to stop your money being stolen in each individual ground attack, but you tie up your funds you may need to fight, and then if you lose anyway, you're not ahead of your opponent, and if you keep out of being blockaded, and then also don't lose the war, I would just consider that the superior force using its ability to protect some part of the nations coffers. Risk-reward. Any exploits there that I'm not envisioning?

Thanks? I'd like to know what the joke is too.