Dryad

Heya, it says the city is 1 day old when I have it selected as my nuking target, but actually the city is 1485 days old. I have no clue why, this isnt the case for any of his other cities. Edit: if i select a different city and then this one again it will display the age correctly.

Really depends on the winning condition. Holding Fark sphere down military wise is obviously not possible with 15 nations lol, damage is clearly the thing that matters in this case. I'm completely fine with nuking 3k+ infra cities for a while with a pool of hundreds of nations to pick targets from that won't run out any time soon. The sides are completely out of proportion and honestly our 15 nations aren't "worth" enough for them to really justify going into a conflict over that will result in tens of billions in damage received. On the other hand we are just laughing our butts off at the sight of these numbers.

Noctis, Coalition B and Fark have a NAP. You know that right?

???? Wtf am I reading lol. @Raoul Duke No need to disband, I find you guys pretty nice so that would be sad. If you ever need a break or something feel free to ask. @WireItUp You Seem to be confident in your statistics. I hope y'all will help us annoy Frawley to put up stats.

Kek I'm cool with this, was about time someone had the balls to fight back. Good luck, have fun.

Heya I just got navaled 3 times and my opponent now has 2 MAP left, which is different from the MAP bug I was aware of. With 3 navals it should have taken 12 MAP, with only 2 getting registered correctly it should be 8 MAP used, leaving 4 MAP left, but he has 2 MAP left which is neither. I believe I can make sense of this however. Yesterday after daychange he had 2 MAP left after airstriking me once, he then didn't do any attacks until this daychange, so there has been 2 turnchanges after he was already at 12 MAP (at the time of writing this its also just past daychange). I think the obvious suspicion would be that it somehow saved up to 14 MAP since that would have been his amount of MAP if it wasn't capped at 12. I have heard that there is now a check that calculates how many MAP you should have and then sets you on that amount. Maybe it calculated that he should have 2 MAP now, because the algorithm doesnt account for "wasted" MAPs and then set it from 0 to 2. Also, he is on fortress. Doubt this matters but mentioning just in case. Pictures: Link to the war: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=567306

I would actually argue that's the player going into VM hiding the bank. Your argument was that the moment something is deposited it belongs to the alliance, you can make the same argument for players: that the moment it's withdrawn it's the players. I get your point that there is limited information you can read out of the game-state, but that doesn't make the solution that was applied any better. Alex could have asked EM to which alliance bank he would have liked his stuff to be sent, from the game alone it doesn't become clear whether that's the BK offshore, yakuza or Fark (his alliance at the time). Just picking the one that sent EM the stuff is a lazy solution, I don't think it asks too much to shoot someone a message if there is billions involved and I don't see this as being outside the scope of what moderation could look like.

I think the rules could really be improved. In this particular case Alex should have checked where the bank contents belong before returning it anywhere imo, but in general the bank-hiding rules arent great. Someone who legitimately has to go into VM for a year for example needs to find someone to keep their stuff for a year instead of just going into VM even though them going into VM has nothing to do with bank-hiding. Slot-filling is also kinda bad, people have been getting strikes for slot-filling because they didn't do any attacks in the first 2 days of a war when their role was to sit on a person and use all of their MAP in the last 2 days. And oh boi, lets not even get started on censorship and toxicity lol.

This isn't supposed to be a raiding buff, raiding was just one example why someone could want to get rid of their cities. The real issue is that whales are trapped essentially forever with little to do war-wise, if you are wampus then you have an amazing 5 people in your war-range. He can already get rid of his cities if he wishes to, just ask alex to delete some cities and done, the only issue that my proposal addresses is that he would have to pay 20b again to get back up. But the entire "being able to delete your cities"-thing isn't necessary, we can keep it at asking Alex to delete cities if you prefer that, the main idea is the unlocking system of not having to pay again. Some people have played this game for 5 years now. Sax-player for example is now at 26 cities and he has been at that size for 700 days unable to do anything about it. It's a common opinion that you cant raid at that size, what would your proposal be for someone like him to ever get into raiding again if he wanted to? We are obviously not getting rid of war range. Based on those opinions I guess he just can't ever raid effectively again unless he deletes his nation. This becomes a viable strategy I think. I'm not sure how problematic this is. TCW whales were pretty valuable to coalition B in this war, i'm not sure they would drop down to city 20 tiering to fit in. Generally destroying your cities isn't exactly a buff, it decreases your military output. If you can somehow utilize making yourself weaker to your advantage then I think that's actually pretty cool. Idk man, you can already reroll if you want to and have someone send you your stuff, like whats the difference even. The fact that nobody wants to drop cities because they are expensive as hell to rebuild? I guess you can always hire someone to crush some newbie with your resources too if you are really into that stuff. Overall I don't see the big problem. It's also true that your resources aren't 100% safe if you take them with you so maybe that's a blessing for some new players even who manage to steal your stuff. I do believe it will be more common that alliance will use offshores at low city count. But then again it's already possible to have an officer at low score being your offshore. Enemies of that offshore can also follow them down though if they really want to attack, in fact this possibility may make it less secure overall. And most of all, offshores are already basically not lootable anyway so is there even a need for this? That's a thing I guess. I would also argue your side has already lost if your opponent rather has their nations at low city count to fight there because they aren't needed higher. So perhaps this just helps deciding the victor more quickly. But a fair point. Yeah, sure, I'm all for this too. I do still think that some people would want a change in landscape every once in a while. I don't think i wanna be stuck at 30+ cities for the next few years non-stop. I wanna reiterate once more that the main proposal is the unlocking system and that the city destruction is a bonus to get rid of the need to ask Alex.

Why do you see this as a negative thing though? The cities wont be destroyable by force, you would have to destroy them yourself and even then you could just rebuild them for free since this proposes an unlocking system that makes rebuilding not cost anything. I don't see any similarity to NPO forcing to hand over billions in tech in CN.

Hey Currently, the only way to get rid of your own cities if you wish to do so is to ask Alex to delete those cities for you. I think that isn't ideal, but more importantly (imo) there is no way for whales at like 30 cities and above to get rid of their cities if they wish to do so, without forfeiting billions of dollars as they have to pay once more for all deleted cities if they ever wish to rebuild those. https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=5 You can see in aboves graph/link that the bigger you become the less players at similar size you will find, I think that this is problematic because by growing you will essentially isolate yourself from the rest of the game in regard to the war system with war ranges letting you hit less and less players the bigger you become. I think it's fairly easy to see why this can be boring and makes it unappealing to at least some players to grow. Not only this but there is also opinions on raiding being best at around 10 cities as well as opinions of raiding being best at 2 or 3 cities. There is good reasons why someone could want to decrease their size. I think it isn't great that every time you may feel like changing your playing environment by decreasing your size you have to accept potentially billions in rebuild cost. Thus I would like to propose a change to the way cities are purchased etc. The idea is the following: Instead of building cities and paying for them at the same time as you do now, there could be a concept of "unlocking" cities. Essentially, buying cities could be split up into two seperate things: 1. unlocking the city and 2. actually building the city. Unlocking a city would in my proposal cost the same amount of money that it currently takes to buy that city, but just unlocking a city wouldn't build the city. Having a city unlocked would mean that you could build the unlocked city for free. This would then make it possible to ask Alex to delete cities without having to pay the amounts for already unlocked cities once more when you get to build them again, I do however also want to propose that destroying your own cities just becomes possible. More on how this could work with balancing in mind: First on building and unlocking cities: My idea would be that just like now you could build a city every 10 days if no credit is used and that to unlock city N you would need to currently have N - 1 cities. That would mean you couldn't stay at like 3 cities and unlock all cities up to 20 while raiding at city 3 but would actually have to unlock them as you grow up, the only point of this after all is that you dont have to repurchase a city once again if you choose to destroy it. Secondly to include destroying of cities: My proposal is that destroying cities would reset the city/project-timer to 10 days but that you wouldn't need the timer to be up to destroy a city, this way you could destroy basically all cities down to 1 city if you wanted to which is then the same as rerolling except you dont need to pay again to build cities again. Note however that in this particular case there is currently no city timer before you reach city 10 and that this needs to be addressed to ensure that you cant repeatedly switch between having 10 and 1 city. You could also not use this as a tool for downdeclaring the same way a decommission of military can be used, if destroying cities causes you to have to wait 10 days again to buy a city. Of course, in order to destroy cities your military cant exceed the maximum capacity of the city count you are going down to. To give an example on how this goes: Let's say you currently have 20 cities and decide you want to go back to raiding at 10 cities. You would destroy 10 cities and could raid at that city count. At some point you may get bored of raiding and choose you want to grow again so you would start building a city once more every 10 days (so this would take you 100 days to return to 20 cities) and once you have 20 cities you would also have to unlock cities again to grow further. I believe that giving people the freedom to decrease their size with little cost won't cause a lot of balancing issues, but would make the game a lot more flexible with people not getting trapped at too high a size to war most of the game and gives a much more attractive alternative to rerolling, allowing you to change the way you experience the game instead of being bound to one playstyle and I believe this to be positive.

Ironically it's not a very good strategy long term to make a major part of the game develop an actual grudge against you.

The way it's intended isn't that you have to login every 2 hours to buy your military for that turn but that it would stack up. I.e. if you buy military every turn but then skip a turn then the turn after the skipped turn you could buy military for both of these turns. And this would stack up all the way to being able to buy 24 turns worth of military equalling the double buy at current daychange.

Emperor Sphinx of Tsardom of Slavia ordered an airstrike upon the nation of Wippelandia and eliminated 12 Resistance. The attack was an immense triumph. Emperor Sphinx's forces lost 0 aircraft, while The Päällikkö Wip's defenders lost 0 aircraft. The attack destroyed 388.02 infrastructure in the city of Wiptown and 8,729 tanks. not only at the lower tier ? I agree these changes wouldn't have a big impact on the war. Tank cost should be reduced imo, I'm not sure if plane cost should be increased however. If this is supposed to be a nerf to planes then I'm not sure this will have the desired effect as the side losing more planes will have higher cost rebuilding them and thus it becomes more difficult to challenge established plane dominance, on the other hand if plane cost was to be reduced then they would become more "spammable" and perhaps would make it easier to fight back similar to how the held down side doesnt mind spamming soldiers.

And what are those going to do? Like, i'm all for a lax discord environment, i think every little thing being reported like it does now is complete cancer. But gathering a team to insult Alex and call Goons !@#$ is the least intelligent way to go about it.

Decent cause, awful execution

imagine being wampus and only able to declare on 3 people in the game

I can also see that the first 4 satellites give 1% and then the next 4, bringing you up to 8, give like 1.4% which is actually more than the first 4, and then the next 4 up to 12 give 1.2% which is still more than the first 4 satellites. Then at 14 you have 4% so thats 1% for 3.5 satellites. Whyyy are the first 4 so inefficient if its supposed to be efficient with the first satellites and then decline. Like, the relevant decline really only happens after like 18 satellites. To me this just completely invalidates your argument. Generally though, even if better balanced I still don't see the point of giving micro alliances a harder time even by like 5%, they are already getting destroyed in conflicts, why make it even worse even if it isn't a lot.

I'm very much not excited for a project that buffs alliances with loads of members for having those members. Member count is already an advantage by itself, I don't see how this can have a positive effect on game balance.

People have no tolerance for mistakes lol. You have apparently not cared enough to ask Frawley whats going on with those stats but feel the need to adopt a tone like this.

I think it's a cool concept to be able to customize your military more, however I think there is actually quite a bit of room to improve this though. Firstly I think it's clear that some of these perks are better than others which I think isn't ideal, it will cause people to mostly pick the same stuff. Having equally good perks will cause a greater variety of viable builds. 2 of the obvious picks are Armored Panels on planes and Anti-Air guns for ships, they have their downside of increased cost but are essentially necessary for dominance in the game. Another strong one is the Advanced Chassis for tanks which is a straight up cost-reduction with no downside other than it uses a perk-slot. On the other hand there is some to me sorta unattractive ones such as the soldier perks. Soldiers are basically free atm so adding an actual cost with these perks seems unattractive to me, especially since they will force you to pick them with gas mask in a set, since you dont wanna have half of them blown up by missiles if they get an actual cost to them. The soldier perks are basically not a consideration if you are in a position where your soldiers die frequently, while they are kinda alright if you have plane control in which case your soldiers may survive, but then they just aren't as good as the plane perks. I think some perks that keep soldiers as a suicide unit would be more attractive, for example increased recruitment rate or more loot or something. Then by direct comparison some of these are oddly balanced with each other, take for example in the case of tanks Flamethrowers and Radio Comms. Radio Comms cost only 0.05 alu extra while Flamethrowers cost an extra 0.5 gas which is way more, while i dont think the Flamethrowers stand out clearly as being better. Then secondly to balancing them among each other there is balancing questions about who benefits from this stuff more than others. I already addressed soldier perks. Basically bad if your soldiers die and alright if they can survive, but that also means you are buffing someone with the perks who is already dominant, which is questionable? Then anti-air guns are the most controversial i think. This one will be an absolute killer for whales and not as good for the ones at the lower score side of things. Basically ships add score which is problematic if you are worried about downdeclares, but not an issue if you aren't worried about it. So for anyone low score getting ships this will buff their defense but also put them in downdeclare range of people with more planes, additionally when you consider this perk makes a ship equal to 2 planes but gives 4 times the amount of score a plane does then perhaps this isnt that great as a defense. On the other hand it makes whales a lot harder to take down as ships only act as aircraft in defense so someone with 2000 planes updeclaring on someone with 2500 planes and 300 ships will basically face 3100 effective planes instead in their offensive attacks. I'm not necessarily saying this is bad, perhaps whale-takedowns are a bit too easy atm and this is actually positive for the game, but it's something that needs to actually be given thought before this stuff is put into the game. About missiles: EMP warheads will be stupidly op at the zero tier. Someone shooting a missile at a 3 city nation will straight up disable a third of their cities. On the other hand chemical weapons will be better on the high tier than at the lower.

I think it's important to ensure that there is no risk that an exploit exists that somehow lets you win more often; due to EM winning big in keno at least twice there has been speculation in that direction. If there is a risk of an exploit here then i'd say turn it off, otherwise i think its a fun feature that i'd be sad to see go. If on average the net profit from keno is negative then i don't think it's needed to remove it despite occasional jackpots.

looks great! only thing bothering me is that VIP backgrounds won't display.

Theodosius posted this earlier on the pnw-discord, which i think would be nice; having the resources visible but keeping the new buttons which i think make the menu way easier to access than previously on mobile.

I strongly disagree. They may not have any material impact, but people are emotional and care about popularity, validation and all that other stuff. People have fought wars on the forums using up- and downvotes. You have mentioned before that you are concerned about toxicity in the community and I don't see how a downvoting option helps the case here. Downvotes give people the feeling they aren't welcome and can be very frustrating, people know this and mass downvote people they don't like while they mass upvote people they do like, that dynamic is very dividing i think.