Jump to content

Erev

Members
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Erev

  1. Hey Alex. Go frick a yak. You obviously have no idea how to handle a game community.
  2. 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.
  3. The following nation has proposed an inappropriate name for the black trade bloc. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=114260
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/profile/9977-jet-whites/ This guy has no matching nation but is still active in the forums.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. You could try using your words. It really isn't that hard.
  10. 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'.
  11. 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.
  12. Don't forget the motto: "Sieg Heil Das Fuhroar"
  13. 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.
  14. In which case there should be no problem disabling the alliance bank as it is one and the same as their country.
  15. 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.
  16. If I managed to blockade and corner some major faction's offshore bank I would 100% vacation mode to ensure no interlopers interrupted the blockade. At a two week timer it only takes three convenient 'vacation cluber' sorts to lock up that faction's bank forever while slowly looting it.
  17. Erev

    Take a l

    NPO Micro - 163 mostly active players. Vs 19 player w/ 7 beige and w/ 7 VM 'non-Micro'. ... I don't think Micro means what you think it means. Also, who are you?
  18. Pretty much what it says on the tin. I can understand needing to go VM during a war of defense - you just can't help that. You should not be able to have aggressive wars while going into VM however. You need to see at least that stuff (and, thus, its counters) out.
  19. Idea: The cost of purchasing and maintaining a military should increase both in dollar and resource amount due to poor infrastructure. That said, we do not want the person launching the first strike to get an additional immediate advantage so this effect should only come into play when infrastructure is very low. Possible Method: At the time of entering the military page (as well as the time of purchase to avoid shenanigans such as leaving it open all day) have the server check to see if the nation's total infrastructure could support only the military and power plant buildings. This gives nations their economic and production building infrastructure space as a 'buffer' before the increased costs kick in. This could be done on an exponential scale from costing just pennies more on a purchase for the first dip in infrastructure to being absolutely punishing (5x? 10x?) if someone is trying to run a war off of zero infrastructure and just the improvements they still have standing cause a ground invasion or a naval attack hasn't plinked them yet. In Character Reasoning: It is harder to keep things functional when you are constantly driving over potholes and taking the long way around cause the old bridge has been condemned Out of Character Reasoning: It puts a more final end to a conflict and makes it so that huge nations with 20+ cities cannot just human wave at their max rebuy forever without help. Please feel free to comment with ideas to improve this. I do feel that such a system will make for a game with a more natural end to conflicts.
  20. I'm seeing an interesting voting bloc here from the folks voting Remnants of the Clover Alliance for best alliance above. I'm on my phone so I may have missed something but it looks like all their choices are the exact same. Alliance mandatory? Multi? Sheep? Who knows!
  21. I would like one mass embargoing please.
  22. Hey! Look! You can be led within a stone's throw of the point! I knew you had it in you! The current coalition setup certainly is a problem - which is a point I've been making in this thread. You've missed that in your "RAARRGH! GOONS ARE POSTING!" rampage but I get that you are easily distractible when it comes to GOONS. I very much agree that infinite coalition wars need to be curtailed and, hopefully, this thread can be part of that so that we can get on with things and declare war on new, interesting people. As for your opinion on my alliance? Coming from you that sounds like a compliment. Thank you!
  23. I mean, you've got quite a bit wrong here above and beyond your misplaced rage. Lets start with the having fun and peace bits. I am, on the whole, having a blast or I wouldn't be here. The trouble which I'm trying to sort out is the world war dragging on. A world war that started before we got here and the negotiations are in the hands of Coalition A and Coalition B. The raiding, the counter war on TLE, accidentally making The Originals all declare war and go i to vacation five minutes later, and war having to do with ARGHH? Those are a blast and I look forward to much more when the world war is finally allowed to die by the coalitions. As for the gameplay bit - I fail to see what aspect of gameplay we are magically turning upsetting. Perhaps you simply can't handle losing? More likely it isn't gameplay at all and you can't really get around being called out for making or standing by those who make really suspect moral choices? Whichever it is, we've already won. I can guarentee that you spend far more time each day thinking about GOONS than we ever give you as a whole.
  24. I mean, how is my way to play any less - or more - valid than yours? But since it seems even more clarification is needed I was refering to world wars and not the game as a whole. Sure, some folks may like to get caught up in an eighteen month long grudge match over a slight seven years prior and sigh happily while sitting on defeated nations for most of it - and that's cool for them I guess. As for me? The ideal is a world war that lasts a few months, some wounds get taken, some reparations are made, and then shuffle things up for the next round.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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