Majima Goro

how's ur sister?

Signing a treaty with someone in your sphere is kind of like incest if you ask me

Sir, the treaty looks ugly af Please change it to look better

That was how it used to be kek(except the banning/muting part) Till some people who got mass-downvoted decided to !@#$ about how it was bad that people could be downvoted and how it was cancerous and toxic to the community. Btw i think some accounts(like mine) still have negative reps from downvotes Btw while we are at it, can we get a sad reaction? Something like this:

He is on fortress war policy This means if you declare war on him, you start with 5 initial MAPs

@Sweeeeet Ronny D Aight, I'll make this fair game for all of Orbis telling everyone how to calculate spies for any individual. First, we need to understand that when calculating spies, we approach it as an inequality. While the formula for odds can quiet easily be found here, using it only is going to be troublesome. Since the odds are shown as Greater than 50% and Less than 50%, we need to use this as an inequality equation as: Final Odds > 50% , Final Odds < 50% where Final Odds = (Safety Level * 25 + ( Your Spies * 100 / (( Enemy Spies * 3 ) + 1 )))/Modifier As you can see, there are a lot of variables out there which you can find value from in the link provided. Lets set the odds with these values: Safety Level = 1 Modifier = 1 The equation now reduces to Final Odds = 25 + ( Your Spies * 100 / (( Enemy Spies * 3 ) + 1 )) We are hence left with only two variables which are Your Spies and Enemy Spies If we fix final odds at 50, we get something like this: 50 = 25 + ( Your Spies * 100 / (( Enemy Spies * 3 ) + 1 )) We can solve it as: y = (4x -1)/3 where y = Enemy Spies x = Your Spies As you can see, this is the equation of a line, meaning it has infinite solutions. But we are only interested in finding values of y between 0 to 60(since 0 is the max spies your enemy can have, 60 is the maximum they can have). To do this, we fix x and then solve for y. This may or may not give you an integer answer but the number you get is pretty much close to what spies your enemy has. To fix the value of x, we use the value of Your Spies for which the odds just jump from Greater than 50% to Less than 50% or vice versa. Let's take an example for this: Putting x = 10, 15, 4, 8, 25 and solving the equation: y = (4x -1)/3, we get Y = 13, 16.67(17), 5, 10.33(11), 33 Now you might ask me why we get decimals for spy values. The answer is that we assume a 50% odd at times where the odd might actually be 55% or 75% or 45%. You can fix these errors using trial and error methods and such but that's that. Also, this equation doesn't take into account the modifiers to odds due to special policies like Covert or Arcane. Anyway, I hope this helps Orbis by making the game more fair for everyone unless you suck at maths. If you liked the explanation, please consider donating to BABAI WHALE FUND to turn BABAI into a whale!

Dont be low tier then Duh

I got a question for Roasis How do you suck this much?

Score changes should be made. That's one of the biggest problem with war system atm. Other than that, air superiority halving tanks is definitely a big problem, given how ground control is pretty much useless without tanks. Maybe make air superiority base on the number of planes the opponent has?

Aight cool I'll make em myself.

No, I think the anger is because due to some sort of rounding up in the background, even 3 times as much force isn't enough to get IT at times. A fix to it can be to multiply the initial value of units by 100. I'll show how this can work Example 1: Opponent = 1 ship Me = 2.6 ship Current Roll System: Opponent = Round(1 * 1) = 1 Me = Round(2.6 * 0.4) = Round(1.04) = 1 Proposed Roll System: Opponent = Round (1*1*100) = 100 Me = Round(2.6*0.4*100) = 104 Example 2: Opponent = 1 ship Me = 2.5 ship Current Roll System: Opponent = Round(1 * 1) = 1 Me = Round(2.5 * 0.4) = 1 Proposed Roll System: Opponent = Round (1*1*100) = 100 Me = Round(2.5*0.4*100) = 100 The multiplication by 100 should in theory take care of most stray decimals for values just over 2.5, maintaining the mechanics that 2.5 times can result in a draw roll while making anything above 2.5 times result in a win. In fact, a higher power of 10 like 1000, 10000, etc can get even better results to minimize such grievances.

@wintercrest is it possible to divide the graphs further based on city counts? Ideally, it should be C1-10, c10-c15, c15-c22, c23-c28, c28-c35, c35+

It is implied actually Lets say you have x ships and I have y ships Since a roll has a minimum value of 0.4, the least possible value of my ships can be 0.4y Since a roll has a maximum value of 1, the least possible value of your ships is x The minimum value needed to win a roll for me is if 0.4y>x => y > x/0.4 => y >2.5x Or in other words, if y is 2.5 times larger than x, it is a win for me in the roll and subsequently all other rolls.

There are three rolls If all 3 are in your favour, it is an IT 2 is MS and 1 is PV 0 is a failure When a large army attacks a smaller one, usually more than 0 rolls are in their favour meaning you get atleast a PV However, when a smaller hits a larger, usually less than 3 rolls are in your favour meaning you dont usually get a IT. You can get a MS or PV or a failure more likely. However saying this never happens is BS since it has happened a lot to me, so much so, I've even got ITs with 2/3rd their armies. Plus defenders also get the advantage that if the roll values are equal, defender takes a victory.

This statement is half-true half-false. Since the servers cannot use decimals(0.1, 0.5, etc), the numbers are bumped to their nearest integer. If I'm not wrong, the multiplication of the 0.x factor happens on the raw number of ships you use. Based on it, a 1 ship can have a max values of 1 ships(rounded to 1). You'd need atleast 4 ships to secure a IT(3×0.4=1.2, rounds to 1, giving opponent the victory in offensive wars you declare). Basically, you need to figure out what numbers you need to get to minimum value to get guaranteed IT.

Game is designed to buy buildings one-by-one Thus no matter whether you click a lot of time or one time, it will only show you that you bought 1 for the price of that 1 unit only. Quiet possibly you got charged 3000 but just didn't notice possibly.

Currently, someone getting air superiority over their opponent reduces the strength value of tanks to half of what they should be. This means 1000 tanks would be worth 500 tanks. While this reduction does nothing to the number of planes a tank can kill, i.e, 1 tank still kills the 0.005 tanks or something of that value, it does straight out reduce combat value to half. Personally, I think the value should be somewhere b/w 1/3th(33.34%) to 1/4th(25%) reduction in strength, given how the current meta is max army. I am curious to know what the rest of the people think of this - would people want the value to stay same, go down or go up? There is a poll either up or down this post. Vote on it and let us know your views on this.

OK Btw did anyone realise that OK looks like a stick man but sideways?

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=949156 This just happened again Did 6 Ground Attacks I had wasted a lot of MAPs waiting for DC to buy units.

I am to assume you wasted MAPs as in had 12 and still didn't do attacks for some turns?

Gather around my friends and plus ones…. First our children grew up and hell has frozen over. Now something truly no one expected. It is by command of the joint alliances of the The Immortals, Camelot, Aurora, The Fighting Pacifists, Rose, and friends; that I present to you the Neo-Inquisition! We, the neo-Inquisition, come together in full manifestation of our friendship and solidarity. Committing ourselves to these accords in agreement with full promise of mutual prosperity and strength; with a greater understanding to be shared between us. I Mutual Defense A direct attack on one signatory is considered an attack on all signatories. II Optional Aggression All member alliances shall reserve the right to support each other in every dogpile. III Support We stand together in the shared security be any means. Information, aid, and diplomatic resources are all encouraged of each of member alliances. Our support for each other shall not be limited to a list. Yet we agree this agreement shall take precedence over all others. IV Sovereignty While unified, we remain sovereign. V Admission A prospective alliance may petition any signatory for membership. If sponsored, admittance will be a unanimous decision of the conclave. VI Withdrawal NO! BAD! BAD! (Request to all involved alliances to put their signatures at the bottom)

There have been multiple reports of people doing more than the number of battles their wars would allow. When first discovered, it was caused by each battle happening at a fixed time interval after you pressed the Battle button. This allowed you to use multiple devices or tabs to spam the Battle button to send multiple simultaneous requests, allowing you to do multiple hits for same amount of MAPs. This Glitch was fixed however by introducing a random delay between when you actually press the button and when the request reaches the servers. However, there have still been reports recently about multiple battles occurring despite the above glitch being fixed. I've tested to see if that glitch still can occur and I can confirm that isn't the case. However, this does happen in wars regardless. Timeline: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=256054 As you can see in this timeline, I was able to do 5 ground attacks one after another. This is usually impossible to do since at most you can have 12 MAPs which allow you to do 4 ground attacks at most. However, it is quiet clear from both the timeline and the resistance loss(58 resistance lost) that this did occur. While I cannot say for certain whether the resources looted in the hits actually were looted or not or whether units were lost on either side or not, I can confirm that the opponent did lose 50 resistance. Now on to the circumstances of why I think the glitch occurs. @Dryad theorized that the glitch only occurs when you have 12 MAPs and don't do any attacks still, ie, you save MAPs past 12. While ingame, it doesn't look like you have 12 MAPs, it is possibly still being stacked past 12. This theory has ground since in most cases the glitch is reported, people are trying to do attacks with 12 MAPs back-to-back, possibly having wasted a few turns with 12 MAPs on them. For this war as well, I waited for 12 MAPs and wasted a few turns to build military before the hit. This somehow gave me extra MAPs to do more than 4 ground battles. While Alex claims that no units or money is lost in these scenarios, it still costs resistance, which leads to unfair battle advantages, leading to possibly a different winner in some scenarios.

RoH, RoH, RoH your shipsGently down the streamMerrily merrily, merrily, merrilySekret treaties is my wet dream

I 100% support whatever he is saying.