Jump to content

Zim

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    210

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Zim

    A DEMAND TO THE HEATHEN NATIONS OF PANTHEON

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    On 10/28/2020 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Kony said:

     

    Well this was an enjoyable read. 

    But well a couple of newbie advice for you, since Pantheon kinda suck at tranning people, and just sucks in general. 

    You need to stop producing food, you don't have enough land in your city for it to be worth it. You better of producing any other ressource like oil, and then selling that raw on the market, and then buying food from the market, you will earn quite alot more. 

    Other then this try to max out your barracks in all your cities so you can get the most amount of troops you can have. 
    If you have a nuclear power plant in your city, you don't really any other powerplants, a single nuclear powerplant is more then enough to cover your need. 
    Then relocate your oil power plant to another city, and buy some oil to power them, if you don't start producing oil. 

    • Like 3

    Stimulus Payments We Received

    in General Debate

    Posted · Edited by Zim

    On 10/9/2020 at 11:08 PM, Corpsman said:

    to the last part, yes. but what isnt profitable? healthcare is. insurance is. law enforcement, charity, military, infrastructure etc. is under government control for a reason. your point is mute and also incorrect. correct me if in wrong but we have the most rich people and an incredible standard of living. that is only untrue in, get this, cities that are usually controlled by democrats.

    Netanyahu is about to be voted out for a reason, sunshine.

    Maybe it better to say that some things shouldn't be profit profitable, like healthcare.
    Let take USA as an example, they spend more of their GDP on healthcare then any other country, but still end up with worse service then Cuba. With both fewer beds per capita, fewer doctors per capita, and higher infrantry motality rate. And that is all the while the USA is spending twice the amount of money per. citizen as the best healthcare system on planet: France. 

    Another example would be fire stations, the world first fire service was private owned. And worked on buiness model of "i see your house in on fire, how much will you pay me to put it out?" And when profit feel short they started new fires on their own. 
    The point is, that businesses that profit of human misery shouldn't be working for profit. It why private prisons have also proven to be a giant failure. 

    For your other point the US does indeed have the highest number of rich people per. capita, but also either the highest or second highest poverty rate in the developed world. USA have a higher procenties of it's population living in poverty then that of Mexico.  
    What's more USA also sucks at social mobility, it is again in bottom half of developed countries, basely you have higher chance of achieving the American dream in over two dusin other countries. 
    As for standard of living, the USA does indeed score higher in this, then it does in most of these list, landing on the 15 spot. 

    Which is better then being near buttom, like with infant mortality rate. 

    The USA really should be able to outperform most countries in these metrics with the amount of ressources they put into it. But they just fall short because the system is just so broken. 

    QoL update: Top-100 leaderboards

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Zephyr said:

    Go to https://politicsandwar.com/account/#4 then set "Default Results to Show in Searches" and click "Update Settings".

    It already is 50 as default, but the leaderboards still only show 10.
    While any changes to settings does seem to change the number of nations, alliances, bank and trade logs it hhave no effect on the leaderboards.
    Can you show us a sceenshort of the leaderboards showing more then 10 nations?

    (ROH) Its 2am again TCM Things i made a vid

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    On 10/13/2020 at 2:23 PM, Hexapolis said:

    Sorry Bud, it's too long (and slow) to listen to the whole thin\g. I recognize that you were exhausted, and I also recognize that there is a lot you want to say but you are trying to keep it brief. It might be best to write a script (general, not word for word) next time to help keep you on track as half the audio I listened to (about 5 minutes) was filled with silence, sighs, and "so, uh..."s which makes it very hard to stay engaged. It you make another more concise video, (or a post) please let me know, as I do want to hear your side of things. 

    Are you aware that youtube have function called "open transcript",  you open it by clicking the 3 dots, there is on the same line as "share". 
    It will provide the video in writting with time stamps. 

    Walk The Plank (ROH)

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, Epi said:

     

    Arrghs been killed before. They only had 7 members left not so long ago. That said neither should aim for destruction.

    And damage is damage. Pirates suffer it too, they just lack the capacity to recover quickly.

    It was 9, and it have been over two years Epi.... hardly a short time ago, and the Arrgh dark age was caused by an ingame update to the warsystem, combined with a split in government that followed. No other alliance was at all involved in it. You should know by now that Arrgh only stumble when the game itself works against it. 

    "lack the capacity", your funny epi, so long an Arrgh member can rebuild to 750 infra he have recovered all that he need. And most Arrgh members are far from poor, it amazing what one can earn when one don't need to pay any taxes and can raid indiscriminately.  

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

    Game Development - October

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

    Meh. I've seen C37's hit down to as low as C23 with current scores. And I'm sure that they could reach lower for the smaller guys who like to stack taller infra than it makes sense to do at that given city count.

    Perhaps it's not to the extent of 2:1 as it used to be pre-changes, but the recent increase to military score made smaller guys more reachable. And also, bearing in mind that pre-changes the soldiers were dying a lot more quickly (or at the very least, with less effort involved for the defender). And no, max soldiers on that specific 37cv23c instance just cleaves through the rather normal 2 factory MMR.

    The point of the score system is there s to limit the number of nations one can go to war with, to does nation that is able to put up a fight with you nation in it's current state. 
    In "it's current state" is something you seem to be ignorering, destroyed nations need to have a lower score then built up nations, so they have a chance to build up agian without the risk of being sat on by nations they unable to even touch. 
    That was the reality before the last score change for a rather breif time. If anyone had sat on an alliance doing that time, it would be like NPO last time turned up to 11. 
    And i don't think anyone would like a repeat of experience as it is. 

    Raiders out of a need, take advantage of this because of the long rebuild time and cost of other units raiders are dependent on infrantry to turn a weekly profit. 
    Without infrantry raiding will die out.

    And i would also say that nation score depending on ones military build is one of few things that give this war system some flavour. 15-20 citied nations that have built every unit to the max, defiently need to be able to be drunked on by people that have 5 citied advantage, so the war system dosen't just turn into who have the biggest stack automatically wins. 
    Yes nations with 30 cities can technical declare on cities as low as 15 of what i have seen. But the 30 citied nations infra is at or bellow 500, they have no units not even soldiers. Meanwhile the 15 citied nation have 2000 infra or over in every city, they have maxed out tanks at close to 19.000, max planes at near 1100 and max ships at 225.

    This scenario can happen, but will it? no because it would be stupid for the bigger nation to do so. A double buy from 30 citied nation can produce 15.000 tanks, 900 planes and 90 ships. It fall short on standing military of the 15 citied guy, who wouldn't even have brought units for the day. Units take time to build up and just one day change of brought units will bring the 30 citied guy out of range of the 15 citied guy again. 

    I say the score system is near as well balanced as it can get.

    Just an extra comment, who have just two factories? tanks is only usefull when you have them in numbers, i thought it was common knowledge that if you want to invest in tank, you need to do so heavily. And how infra did the 23 citied nation have if he wasen't maxed out military? Because it does get to a point where it really is the smaller guy who is at fault. 

    1 hour ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

    Carrying out an attack that costs you more than it does your opponent is economically unsound. The severity thereof may vary, with planes vs soldiers being the most extreme and one which will never be economically sound to do (short of being able to roughly wipe out the totality of that count with a single airstrike, which would be obviously dumb to try to gun for). How much this matters vary from person to person. NPO didn't care (among the cost of others of their practices), which is why they nearly went broke just two months in and had to cheat to keep afloat. Just an example of how much it actually matters.

    If a war's being waged for economic reasons, then this matters substantially more and it becomes counterproductive to that war's reason to perform that attack in the first place.

    Carrying out attack of that nature might be economically unsound if you still going lose the war, but if the enemy have the advantage of ground then airstriking it would be solid tactic, if what ressource and infra lost by defeat is worse then cost of munitions and gasoline in airstriking is doing. 
    And TKR is recent anti-pirate tactic is literally to target infantry, even the opponest have other units that more economically sound in attacking. But TKR isen't going to try lose less then their opponest, which is already lost fight when fighting Arrgh. 
    But rather it an attempt to lower the income we pirate get from other raids, or atleast that is the idea. 
    As for NPO it was really not that much of drain on to airstricking soldiers, specially when by the third month after they joined, the majority of alliance on our side stopped putting up much of a fight around then. 
    War for economic reason is normally also fairly short, with atleast one side trying to end it after the first blitz, so it hardly goin be drain in does wars. 
    The longer wars, the more expensive ones is nearly always because something personal have happened, the politics part of the game. 

    1 hour ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

    Staying power is a thing. However, at the end of the day, they're still a meatshield unit which is expected to be recruited and to die quickly. Which is why they max out in three days, as opposed to five. A certain degree of turnover is expected from them. And this, alongside what I had said earlier, is why I can see why people would care to tweak the casualties rates a bit. This tweaking isn't actually that significant in practice either, since it's not 10% flat out (as in, going from 25% to 35%), but 10% modifying another %. So it ends up being an increase from 25% to 27.5% as Ava's post illustrated. A practical 2.5% increase won't spell the death of soldiers as a raiding unit.

    Them dying a bit more quickly isn't something that I personally care much for. The main thing I'm interested in (and would like to see go through) is them killing a few less tanks, which I find to be a more proper change for an ostensibly meatshield unit, and because they do kill a fair bit of tanks as it stands.

    It because you don't care abount infrantry is the problem, do you know who cares? Raiders! this nerf target raiders specifically, no one else care as much as us about soldiers! And we get nothing in return for yet another nerf. 

    Raiding have constantly been nerfed since the Purple Spy War in 2016!
    Do you know that doing Arrgh dark age there was only 9 people left, does was basely only keeping on the lights. And there have been more then one moment where Arrgh was the only raiding alliance left in this game. 
    Constantly being screwed over by the game it self, does create some very strong and extremely adaptive players, but it have also killed 5 times as many players. I gething freaking tried that after every new war update is a wave goodbye to so many new people. 

    With every update becomming a question of how many are we going lose this time, rather then questions about the changes themselves. 

     

    oligarchy is inefficient, change my mind.

    in General Debate

    Posted · Edited by Zim

    On 9/25/2020 at 5:19 PM, The Soviet Union_ said:

    Yea, oligarchy would be inefficient and prone to corruption just for the reason that the country is essentially ruled by an aristocracy. I believe that eventually the oligarchy would fall and one individual would rise to power. 

    While i am not a great fan of oligarchies either, i am up for playing the devil's advocate here. For oligarchies i do believe what you just said is true, or atleast for the oligarchies that is pretending to be a different type of government. For open, honest oligarchies who's system is built up around the fact that the rich rules you can get a different result. 

    Most prominent example is the Republic of Venice, who holds record of the longest-lived form of government ever. 
    By me bringing them up in a discussion about oligarchy, you can well guess what type of goveremnt they where. 

    Venice is a 1300 year old city, that was founded not soon after the collapsed of the westen roman empire, where a bunch of citizens from former roman cities had gotten tried of always being invaded, so they decided to all get up and move out into the middle of a lagon. 
    Where they first settled on a bunch of small unstable islands, that had habbit of disappearing and reappearing when tides happens. It didn't take the Venetians long before they decide they needed something more stable to build on so they started to burry long wooden pilings deep into the swampy ground. 
    And with some amazing luck, the wooden pillars instead of rotting, became petrified, turning the wood into stone over time. Which is still what is holding up the marble covered buildings of Venice to this day.
    Ups went a bit of course there, but as much as Venice itself was built out of necessity, so was it government. Being smack in the middle between two massive empires, byzantine(easten roman empire) and the Franks(what would become France) the early Venice struggled with securing it independence and security. 
    As different factions within the cities wanted to turn towards one of the two empires, with another faction wanting to persevere Venice neutrality at all cost. 
    These three factions did everything they could to stop the other two from gaining an upper hand. The result was the ground works of an inconceivably well balanced government that ruled with almost no hiccups for over 1,000 years. 
    Venice became an republic, who elect it leader, the Doge. Who did serve for a lifetime, with only aristocrats and a bit later on the merchants class being able to vote. 
    And while Doge was just one individual, he wasen't all powerfull, he was overseen by tribunes with veto power Assisted by an assembly of noble citizenry and several small councils to help with legislation and administration.
    For a medieval government this amount of civic engagement not to mention thorough checks and balances is nothing short of jaw-dropping, that made the Republic of Venice
    able to last from the 8th to the 19th century surrounded by seemingly endless war. Yet it maintained one stable and Independent government until it's end. 

    And it did more then just survive, it thrived, the marble didn't come out of nowhere afterall. 
    The answer to this was of course trade, Venice created one greatest trade empires ever. And it's goverment had a large hand in making that possible, as every aspect of maritime trade from routes and cruise to ship construction and cargo was all being governed by goverment councils, called Signoria. 

    And it worked because the Signoria was made up of merchants. Additionally, the State Treasury itself acted as a bank providing loans and even commerce insurance to support merchants as well as publicly funding the construction of ships in the artisan alley, which fun fact
    Developed mass production techniques that went unmatched until the Industrial Revolution. The artisan alley could turn out one full ship in a day. 
    The adjective of Venetian was practically a synonym for efficiency in the late Middle Ages, something the city held onto until the arrival of Napoleon several centuries later. 

    • Like 1

    Game Development - October

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

    Spies

    • Spy Casualties reduced by 60% from spy attacks. Losses from failing an offensive spy op are also reduced by 50%
    • Spy Satellite only increases damages from spy vs spy attacks by 20% instead of the base 50%.
    • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more difficult. If your odds of success were 75%, they are now 70%
    • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more likely to have the identify of the attacker identified. If your odds of being identified were 70% they are now 75%

    I would say this is all around great changes to the spy game. Spies do really die to darm quickly compared to the time it take to build them up.
    Now it might actually be worth it for raiders to keep more then 1-2 spies around, then constantly have them reduced to zero after a few weeks of trying to build them up. 
     

    22 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

    Soldiers

    • 5% increase is casualties from soldiers fighting soldiers. (combine with tank bonus later)
    • 33% reduction in tanks killed by soldiers.
      • Soldier only attacks/defends kill too many tanks.

    Tanks

    • Tanks ability to kill planes after gaining ground superiority reduced by 40%
    • 15% increase in casualties to soldiers by tanks
    • 5% increase in casualties to tanks by tanks.

    Planes

    • 40% 25% increase in tanks killed by bombing runs.
    • 10% increase in soldiers killed by bombing runs.
    • 10% increase in ships killed by bombing runs.

    Ships

    • 10% increase in ships killed by other ships.

    I have a less pleasant opinion of this however. Soldiers already dies like flies, i have honestly never heard a complaint about their staying power, it mostly their lag of staying power i get complaints about, specially against air strikes. 
    Even thought i see this as being fairly fair, because of the higher expenses required to airstrike, compared to the price of soldiers. 
    Honestly all this nerfing of soldiers, just seem like another set of target nerf against raiders. And while we have gotten used to the fact that every war update seem to be a nerf for us raiders specifically, it somehow dosen't make this less annoying to deal with the fact, that this game seem to be pushing farmer as the only relevant playstyle. 
    I honestly would beg you to leave soldiers well enough alone, if you at all can remember your test days. 

    As for tanks, while i have seen form distance the damage max tanks stacks can do to planes in the "global" war 15, as a raider i have had bit different experience with their use. The double buy or tanks flashes at day change as they see most use by us, is tanks damages to planes is frankly underwhelming compared to the old system of grounding 33% of enemy planes. 

    Even thought it have been very nice for my stats that planes now can be touched by tanks, it haven't been to nice to my wallet. 
    For the air buffs, i am mostly fine with it, planes really should be the top dog of warfare as it take the longest to build up. Even thought a 25% increase might to big of change.

    To be frank the better solution might be to split planes into bomber and fighters. 

    And for navy i agree that for damamge need to be done, to many battle the lose just love 1-2 more ships then what the winner loses, even if there is over 20 ships different in strenght. 

    22 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
    •  

    Treasures

    • Treasures can be directly traded between players.
      • Treasures cannot be traded while either nation has an active offensive or defensive war.
      • A nation with a treasure already in it cannot trade for another treasure. 


    Yeah this have been needed, since old way of trading treasure became basely illegal. Even thought they do need a slight buff in value, if alex still want us to go to war over them. 
    Arrgh haven't been hired to steal treasure since before NPO last time. 

    22 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

    New Project

    Someone give a good name for this project

    • Effect: This project provides two project slots.
    • Cost:
      • Cash: $50,000,000
      • Food: 100,000
      • Aluminum: 5,000


    This project seem extremely pointless, is this just something for whales to waste money on? Either this need to give an extra project slot, or it need to also reduce the cost of future projects beside the extra slot. 
    So it actually worth getting, but that will probably also mean an increase in price. 

    But all around a mixed bag of an update, even thought the soldiers nerf pushes this a bit to much into the bad and why i choose  to downvote this. 



     

    • Upvote 3

    Help, cannot power cities.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    @The Soviet Union_ Hello, it seem you have already found the solution to your problem by looking at your nation link.

    But else there is mainly two reasons why cities don't have power, the most obvious is if there nothing left to power them. Coal plants need coal, oilplants need oil, and Nuclearplants need uranium. 

    The second is that your cities have more infra then your powerplants is able to power. As an example a oil powerplant can power up to 500 infra, the same as a coal powerplant. 
    if you only have one of these in a city, and you build your infra to let say a 1000, your city won't have any power at all. 

    So if you only have one powerplant, but more then 500 infra then you need to build another powerplant to get your city to have power again. 

    Looking at your cities, Moscow and Putingrad only need 1 coal or oil powerplant to work, as they both bellow 500 infra. 
    But Hurticitgrad need 2 oil or coal powerplants as this city is above 500. 

    As some extra advice i would suggest you to switch to nuclear power when you afford it. As one nuclear power plant can power up to 2000 infra in a city.

     

    • Upvote 2

    Pirate Economy

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    Well it's mainly benefit the micro tier raiders, higher citied raiders have to go for quality targets over quantity to meet ends meet.

    What more it is frankly ridiculous expensive for what you get. It cost over 150 mil with current market prices, and keep in mind we currently on a 6 month low when it comes to the market. 

    It aren't going be your first project, i tell you that much. And frankly there is so many project that have higher benefit to us pirates, even in the low tier. With a far lower cost to boost. 
    That it going take quite a while before one care enough to invest into it, rather then i don't know buy another city. 
     

    Are swastikas ok here?

    in Moderation Support

    Posted

    40 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

    Europe, Russia, US, Canada, and plenty of uninvolved nations know about the atrocities. You also have this misconception that population matters as a metric either; seeing that you ignored the rest of what was written, I will emphasize again that 50 million people died because of those bearing the swastika. Perhaps you should address the main point of the argument, instead of trying to pick at details that don't even matter.

    Well to be fair, this game is still allowing the use of symbols that have been used by nations, that have a far greater death count than Nazi Germany. 
    As an example you free to use the flag of the British empire, even thought their death count might have been as high as 150 million people, that was rakked up doing the centuries of colonial rule. 
    And communist symbols used by the Soviet Union and China is still also being well used, it not long ago we had a new alliance based on Stalin's SMERSH agency. 
    Plus giving Germany the blame for the entirety of the European theaters death count is also a bit to much. Most historiens assign 
    17-21 million deaths to Nazi Germany, still an absolute horrific amount without a doubt, that our brains have a hard time to process. 
    But we still have comparable atrocities which we are free to use symbols from. 
    We even had more recent atrocities, that we can use from like that of the heavens gate, who's only reason it didn't kill more people was because it didn't have the means to do so. 
    As i see it, the main reason Nazisme is singled out, is because it can cause legal trouble in some places. Rather then the horrific actions commited by Nazi Germany in it selfeves. 
    And why also terrorist organizations have been singled out by the rules, even thought their death count and crimes against humanity is no where near that of Nazi Germany. 

    • Upvote 3

    Nazi names used

    in Game Reports

    Posted

    https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=239517

    Nation name: Dirlewanger Brigade
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade

    Leader name: OskarDirlewanger
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

    Basely he have named his nation after an SS-division, one of the worst on record. Guilty of countless war crimes, and crimes against humanity. That was established when Germany was emptying it prisons for suitable soldiers. And lead by one of the most, monstrous men of the entire war.

    • Thanks 3

    New Content discussion

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    @Cjfly The majority of wars in the past 6 years, have ended in a white peace, with no officiel winners. And while it is true the aggressor often have the advantage (if this wasen't the case, we would have alot fewer wars) it not sure condition for victory. I have personally found "endurance" to me more important factor, the lenght of which an alliance is willing fight or is able to fight in some cases is what determined wars, more so then who attacks first. 
    And is also the reason why most wars simply ends in a white peace. 

    Another factor that have influence on who wins a war, are the politics part of the game. Like how able are alliances able to get help. Doing NPO last time, it was constant inflow of new alliance on both sides joining in, that would quickly change which alliances was being dominated. 
    Politics is also what determind different alliances positions before the first attack is made, like the current ongoing war, it rather clear the victor was decided before the first blitz. Simply because one side was out maneuvered. 
    But this is the top of the political aspect of this game. For most players the politics they will be dealing with is internal alliance politics. Stuff like your alliance goverment system,  manage relationships within your alliance, being able to stand out and maybe try to get selected for a low gov position yourself. 
    Then you suddenly have real influence on the top politics of this game, that excist between alliances, and can influence route your alliance have to take. 
    But all the while you still have to manage internal alliance politics. 
    At the end of the day politics are just about making decisions as a group. 

    And the consequences for playing this game of politics is the same as in real life politics. Like let go with your example: breaking treaties. This can both create bad and good will, often it will do both in different factions. But beside creating bad will, nations will often be able to get away with breaking previous agreements. It will just get harder to make new ones, And depending on the vitality of the agreement broken it might lead to actions taken. From embragoes, to war. 
    The UN is powerless to actually stop a nation from violating an agreement, afterall so long one security council against it, nothing will happen from the UN side. 

    Plus you welcome to try and create a form for UN in the game, but it will be as powerless as the real thing. 

    • Upvote 2

    Just Saying Hello

    in Welcome & Introductions

    Posted

    Hello @Sabb Alborz
    Yeah you correct if you attack anyone while under immunity(beige) you will lose it and can get attacked after that point. 
    You earn more immunity by losing wars, even thought at your size it very few people that go for active nations as there is so many inactive(grey) nations around that don't fight back.
    If you should decide to go raid, look for the ones that still have power in their cities, as that is sure sign that they have money. 

    By the way i would also suggest you to join the discord of any alliance you like to join. It kinda became the main way alliances communicate internally in this game. And most alliance prefer new players apply thought their discord first.   

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept