Blackbird
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Blackbird
-
-
Was pleasure fighting with you.
Nicely schooled at Camelot. GG everyone
-
2
-
-
it's cause you a goon smh
-
What if you don’t need both sides for you to surrender, but you would need:
* 12 MAPs
* you wouldn’t be able to make any declarations for another 60 turns
* you would still become beige for 24 turns
* you would lose 10% loot and 90% military (excluding spies, nukes and missiles)
-
1
-
-
Hello,
What would you all say for moving (or at least adding some kind of count/flag) the Messages and Notifications button into the top bar?
This way, when scrolling down and refreshing the page, you would always see if you have received any new notifications/messages.
I understand that this is insignificant suggestion but perhaps would be nicer to have that option.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Maybe perhaps infra amount available to purchase and apply to a city would be calculated from the infra that city already has?
With an increase to 500 it would give you a lot of savings which wouldn't be fair to smaller nations.
-
Someone has redeemed 4 credits through your nation.
That's not breaking any rules.
Be lucky, someone probably mistyped your nation's id
At the bottom of the page: https://politicsandwar.com/donate/
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Hi,
I'd like to suggest adding an option to select which cities you want the mass infrastructure to be applied instead of applying it to every city.
Maybe something like in the picture below would be great.
@Alex, also, just to put it out there, is there a reason why there is no mass land purchase?
-
3
-
13
-
On 12/1/2019 at 7:32 PM, hope said:
hi epi
this is a reply because i feel bad
@hope this doesnt look good :|
-
2
-
-
Alliance of the Year: Camelot
Most Powerful Alliance in 2019: New Pacific Order
Best Fighters: Mythic
Best Themed Flag for a Holiday in 2019: Camelot
Most Active Alliance: Camelot
Best Government Line-Up: Camelot
Best Rookie Alliance: GOONS
Most Honorable: The Knights Radiant
Most Likely to Succeed in 2020: Camelot
Best Forums: The Knights Radiant
Best Discord: Camelot
Best Alliance Page: Camelot
Most Controversial Alliance: GOONS
Best Alliance for New Players: Avalon Academy
Best Economic System: New Pacific Order
Most Missed Alliance from 2019: Grumpy Old Bastards
Best Re-brand: Camelot
Scariest Alliance: Alpha
Best Alliance Ad: Camelot
-
1 hour ago, Paradise said:
I'm confused I thought you can't declare against alliances you have a treaty with.
He left tEst to declare on T$ member.
However, GRECIA is indeed attacking T$, therefore it isn't really a slot filling?
Someone correct me, if I'm wrong.
-
1
-
-
Just FYI, Terminus Est (GRECIA) is a protectorate of The Syndicate (The Lost Isles).
-
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=570480
GRECIA is in Terminus Est, which is linked to T$, which he has now declared on to fill in defensive slot.
P.S. @Alex, please don't remove my war from this cause I was waiting 3 days for Shakyr to come out
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Clarke said:
In order to stop nations from wasting nukes you want to get nations to waste lots of money on nukes to do minimal damage. I'll admit I have no use for Nuclear weapons in the global war however with this suggestion there is even less use.
This change may be beneficial if a nation has 3000 infra and lots of improvements but once the war gets down to it and nations are rebuilding to 1000 infra to keep fighting then this makes the idea is somewhat pointless as nukes have no purpose in that war if they cost 100 million.
Can you calculate the damages for us to show how they break even?
The difference in my suggestion and current nuke damage is that after nuking someone with whatever (20+) improvements, they will still be able to produce whatever they want as they won't need to rebuild their infra.
Please bear in mind that 90% of the whales that have been nuked at the start of the war and have 500-800 infra now still have got 30+ improvements.
That is what helps those nations from surrendering as they are still able to fight.
And because of this, the whole war gets unnecessarily dragged out...
-
13 hours ago, Clarke said:
$100 or $200 million? The idea is interesting but unfortunately with no disrespect you lack the longtime experience of knowing the value of items. I'd expect to knock out 3 - 5 cities for $100 million tbh.
With this cost increase, I am trying to endorse nations to stop wasting nukes.
Considering if nations can destroy more improvements as well as the infrastructure, the new damage would sustain the endorsement mentioned above.
The 100m or 200m cost is there to force nations on not wasting the nukes, while the damages are still profitable enough to break even (or creating more damage, if fashioned in an agile way).
As I said previously, currently, they are quite useless. Nuclear weapons should be the most immoral defence/offence weapon used only in the last effort.
-
1
-
-
Hello Everyone,
Not sure how good i’m to explain all the reasons behind this suggestion, but I will try to do my best.
I want to make a suggestion for Nuclear Weapons to increase their cost as well as damage.
Considering this cost increase, the nukes would create more damage than they currently do.
That said, one detonated nuclear weapon would still destroy up to 2k infra, but also would destroy the improvements that are included in that infrastructure.The reason behind this idea is that currently, nuclear weapons relatively are quite useless as you can gain more infrastructure damage per cost with planes or ships instead. Adding to that, nations whose military is significantly weakened and resources are lost/looted use them on pointless targets due to the fact that they can't do anything else to the opposition front. And because they have still got that arsenal, the common player still believes in himself in winning said war.
So, here's the idea:
The cost of a nuke should be increased to $100 or $200 million. Upon detonating a nuke, the damage would still destroy up to 2k infra. However, it would also destroy the improvements that require that infra to sustain and work.
Although the actual damage wouldn't increase much, the damaged nation would have to be rebuilt if the player decides to regain their economical and/or military autonomy.
This therefore, would avoid endless wars from happening in future conflicts again and would prioritise smarter thinking and coordination overall.
Let me know what your opinions are, and help spread awareness.
-
1
-
5
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
So, like the British Commonwealth then?
Kind of.
Although Under the formula of the London Declaration, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, British Commonwealth of Nations member states have no legal obligations to one another.
Meaning, it isn't the same as Federal Monarchy.
-
4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
I see "constitutional monarchy" right there though?
It's not the same thing.
In the constitutional monarchy, the head of state is a hereditary or elected monarch.
A federal monarchy is a federation of states with a single monarch as over-all head of the federation, but retaining different monarchs, or a non-monarchical system of government, in the various states joined to the federation.
an example for a constitutional monarchy would be Britain... and a federal monarchy would be one where you have a number of states ruled by a monarch with limited power and numerous smaller states with somewhat independent rulers that are still part of said larger monarchy... an example would be the German Empire or Old Japan
-
Also, Federal Monarchy is missing from the list.
Online status invisibility mode
in Game Suggestions
Posted
Hi @Alex,
I'd like to suggest to implement an option to hide nation's activity status for, for example, 2 credits per month.
That would make raids more difficult, earn you more donations ? and help people visit the game more often who are being watched lol.
Regards,
Your favourite !@#$