Arawra

Very rarely are you countering pirates at your same city count or remotely close to it. 50k per airstrike means 2 airstrikes cost 3,600,000 in munitions/gas to kill 500,000 worth of soldiers. Additionally, if all the units you build are soldiers and are complaining that you lose all your units in 5 minutes, then that sounds like your own doing; Pirates are not the center of war changes, nor should they be. For those that build normal, diverse armies including planes, soldiers, tanks, and ships, it will take 2-3 defensive wars fought over several days to zero them out, even in harsh downdeclares, source: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177550&display=war

This is incorrect. As a c22 with max soldiers and 60% tanks, I kill between 20k-25k soldiers per GA, which is nothing compared to the cost of 1. gas and munitions, 2. construction of the tanks and soldiers, and 3. tanks lost from GAs. It also barely helps in counters against downdeclaring pirates. Airstrikes are not much better; Mine kill 40k-60k per airstrike, averaging out to about 50k and costing ~400 munitions/gas. Tank casualties in GAs should be reduced, and soldier casualties from tanks increased. Soldier casualties from soldiers are so low that a 5% increase can be done with or without and not matter. For planes, a 20% increase would be good, which in the context of the numbers I posted, makes 1650 planes kill between 48k-72k, averaging out to 60k. Edit: I guess I'll tack this on too: the 10% increase to ships killed by planes is good, but the minimum ships killed needs to be increased by a lot; 1650 planes can kill as little as 14 ships in an airstrike which is just terrible.

Mate you were raiding people and then abandoned your alliance and hid in vm when CotL came knocking, and you wanna call yourself a raider? You're pathetic, a disappointment to pirates, raiders, and your alliance. Check yourself before you start slinging mud again bud.

mfw bad raider tries to tell #3 raider how2raid

1. Those are irrelevant facts as explained in previous replies (not just my own). 2. Incorrect assumption. (the second time you've done this, btw) 3. You go beyond just acknowledging its positive history and "continued positive use." Reading the highlighted portions, it's very clear in your wording that you consider the swastika a positive symbol. That entire paragraph portrays the swastika in a positive light, using time as a way to compare the two usages, mostly ignoring the negative impact that occurred in such small time span, seemingly in an attempt to defend its existence in the game; Which if allowed, would give plausible deniability to any [fascist] that wants to claim the symbol is strictly religious/cultural. 4. You wanted me to respond when I did not originally want to, if anything, you wanted me to be your patsy. In any case, this will be my final reply here, if you wanna talk on Discord, by all means.

Please, prove us wrong. It's a win/win regardless.

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.

It was your final response that I disagreed with. The swastika is not primarily a positive symbol, and using time as a metric to measure positiveness is a straw man, the impact of the symbol's use, and what it represents, matters so much more. I reckon the reason swastikas are not explicitly mentioned in the game rules, is because they fall in with "nazism," which is stated to be against the game rules. If you think icons, gestures, or the like cannot change in meaning, then you are sorely mistaken. Tip: including facts to an argument, does not in fact, make the argument correct. You wanna hear a fact? Over 50 million people died in WW2, thanks to the people flying the swastika on their banner. You are correct on one thing, there is no debate here. And the other 3 quarters? You can also read the above.

Their GDP per capita was $0 at the time of posting, I've searched and found another example: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=232188 Keep in mind that when these nations were displayed on the leaderboard, they did have a GDP per capita of $0, which means you could be number 1 in the leaderboard for simply creating a nation, and to me that sounds like a bug.

Congrats on retirement, and well wishes to ASM~

If you're asking "will I debate this with you in this thread", the answer is no. Your attempt to straw man and portray the swastika as a positive symbol is actually vile.

Problem: GDP formula, or GDP per capita leaderboard are bugged. After viewing this thread, I went to check the GDP per capita leaderboard via the home page, and the 3 nations displayed are all 1 city, newly created nations This strikes me either as a bug with the formula, or the leaderboard itself, in any case, it should probably be fixed because of incident threads like the one posted above. Extra information: Nation links: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=243712 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=243709 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=243710 Note: All three of these nations have a GDP per capita of zero, that may be where the bug lies.

You read my mind #JusticeforKilo

When's the Camelot treaty announcement going live?

The 60 day wait in conjunction with the minor score requirement is already sufficient, really.

Vein best magical fairy princess gratz

woot woot, congrats guys!~

110 days sure goes by quick, huh

Awesome, congratulations both!~

I like Atlas because they helped me beat up a raider one time. and like, Jordan, Max, and the crew are cool, I guess.

GG, good luck with the rebuild guys!~ and thanks for the memes

Congrats guys!~

Games I had in mind were Clash of Clans, Brutal Age, etc. Phone games usually, but popular ones nonetheless.

If a group of friends want to lead an alliance together, more power to them, as long as they keep the alliance exclusive to themselves then there's no harm done. However, once they begin recruiting your players and not fulfilling the responsibilities I outlined before, that is when it should become concerning to the community and you. They become a bane once they begin preying on the new, naive players that cannot discern good alliances from bad (score and ranking are not good indicators). Those players get lured in by the same promises made by every alliance, except that these alliances cannot provide and are either blissfully ignorant, or intentionally deceiving. I think the best way to help alliances succeed, is to force them to spend some time in a decent alliance first and learn the game. A city and/or age restriction could be used, as could a restriction on alliances below a certain member/score threshold. Perhaps if you ever add a recruitment bot into the game itself, you could restrict alliances below 10k score and/or 5 members from using it. Some warnings about the difficulty, stress, and time commitment of leading an alliance would also serve beneficial. A lot of players probably come here and think leading an alliance is as simple as clicking "create alliance" like it is in other games.