Erev

Hey Alex. Go frick a yak. You obviously have no idea how to handle a game community.

So I had been thinking of something similar to this a few weeks back, but with some changes to make the ground game feel different than the air game. With the air it makes sense to select a mission, do it, and come home. Ground armies are more of a presence though and as such I was thinking something more along the lines of allowing a country to assign specialized support companies. A nation's army could support one form of support company at a time and it is basically their ground specialty and it is active at all times - attack and defense. Changing between support companies would have a small associated cost and take one real life day during which no benefits are received. Options for such support attachments could be as follows. SPAA: Causes air casualties based upon the number of tanks (though not enough to deter planes from bombing tanks if the other side has clear air superiority - just enough to make attacking into an even fight become a bad idea). Missile Artillery: First round strike (basically a free dice roll) on enemy army and additional infrastructure damage. Logistics Company: Lowers the amount of ammo and gas spent during attacks and increases the amount of loot that an army can carry. Maintenance and Engineering Company: Lowers the amount of ammo and gas spent on maintenance as well as nullifies the Fortified effect.

The following nation has proposed an inappropriate name for the black trade bloc. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=114260

Both this and manual banking would hurt micros far more than it would larger and more coordinated alliances who would simply pass the bank to the next awake bank-trusted player.

This seems like incredibly backwards thinking, but lets go with it for a second. Lets say New-B goes in, joins an alliance, and creates and gives out his API key - trusting in the website to keep him safe. Lets then say that what happened above happens to him. What recourse does he have to deal with a compromised key? He can't delete it after all. You are forcing people to pay you money for things that happen to them because of your own security problems.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/profile/9977-jet-whites/ This guy has no matching nation but is still active in the forums.

Going to go with 'no'. Past rewards are earned - if nothing else make them optional to wear for those that got them. Related, make the Community spotlight work the same as the Alliances and Individuals rackets to focus only on the good. The forums vilify the wicked well enough.

Dear Alex, Your post on Monokuma's post about Robot Santa seems to fly in the face of your own posted rules. It is, in black and white, written that both the accuser and the accused may post on the post and no other. This, I feel, is healthy if a bit shouty. It allows you to come into point and counterpoint (until such point at as it becomes 'but *I* think' countered by 'but *I* think")! You need to be able to hear not only the rebuttal to the accusation, but why the accuser calls bullshit. And, yes, I get wanting to protect your mods. They are hard to come by - especially ones that will stick around. Robot Santa, for all their other good, DID go beyond RAW (rules as written) in this case. You removed Blut's warning point but you said nothing of his ten day ban. Is that also lifted? Moderator discretion can be a good thing, but tossing RS a 'dude, really?' message is not out of line here. Please do update the written forum rules to reflect these changes and please do treat the parties involved as they should have been under the rules at that point written.

You could try using your words. It really isn't that hard.

Yup. At most perhaps a direct notification or message when the alliance unembargoes you saying 'this single list of people still have national embargoes placed on you'.

Pretty much what it says on the tin. Let alliances place embargoes and let their member nations opt out if they wish. Let this be against other alliances ir individual nations. A spy intel mission on said nation will let folks know if they are currently following thier alliance embargo or not.

Don't forget the motto: "Sieg Heil Das Fuhroar"

Are you upset there are 100% taxes or that there aren't? I mean, having no well-organized centralized economy would be heartbreaking so I could sort of understand that.

In which case there should be no problem disabling the alliance bank as it is one and the same as their country.

So, it seems to me that alliances really simply need a minimum. A VM player should not be able to take the majority of resources with them. Single player alliances however are also not truly alliances at all but rather a puffed-up ego move (or matter of convenience). You should need at least two people for an alliance and whoever holds the bank should not be able to VM. Admittedly, this does put the onus on the mods for deciding what is personal wealth and what is alliance bank but we can either trust in them or work together to find a better metric.