Search the Community

I left temporarly to help out a freind in need of money which i had to use there alliance bank and it says on the info Dylan minister of foreign affairs ☺ and lusaka i said if they declared war on a another nation in your alliance i would drop it . Not attack a nation thats hes been fighting for 3 days .

You can get some fairly cheap guns true, but the point still stands, if you can buy a 75 dollar gun but can't afford a 20$ license (although I believe license's should be free, just making an overall point here) something is seriously wrong with your budgeting skills or you don't have a stable job or a job at all. In which case you should focus on more quintessential things, like food. And yes, the 2nd amendment is meant for fighting against a future tyrannical government. The founding father's didn't make it so we could go hunting, they made it to fight a possibly corrupt government. That is it's purpose. Does this mean we should be able to own nuclear arsenals? Don't be silly. Some claim we can't hold them back with what we have, but again, people have done far more with far less. Let's assume even 5% of the population decides that the government is seriously !@#$ed up and we need another revolution, that's still 16M people. Al-Qaeda would have a !@#$ing orgasm if they had that many people, even at their peak.

Syria already belongs to IS and FSA has absolutely no political agenda or voice in the war. This is why they lost popularity immediately. They have no goals other than removing Assad. They have been overshadowed by Al-Nusrah who seeks the exact same thing as IS under a different leader.Al-Nusrah has already destroyed Syrias army to the point that Assad winning is a big gamble. I would say that the Kurds (with American support) are the only formidable force fighting IS. The issue I see is that the commonly accepted solution is aggression. Which will not work. The Khawarij have carved out a state in what is basically their homeland and Khawarij culture praises martyrdom to the point where it is not just expected of all men in their society to die a Martyre, but nearly a requirement. Their culture is the basis of what we call Islamic Extremism. But they have also accomplished all of this through propaganda and lies. Claiming to be Sunni or "original Islam," to gain support. I fear the only end to this will be with a sea of blood because their entire culture is based on death. I am sad for the Arab world.

The more military intervention in the middle east there is, the more inspiration there is for pursuing extreme ideologies. Every innocent life taken fills a family with spite. America can not stop extremist ideologies through force. Attempting that path only fuels the problem they are fighting. The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for about 13 years now and during that time extremist Islam has only grown (a lot). So how would you "finish the job" when an entire coalition of world powers still can't after 13 years?

I guess I just feel as though there should be more options. A single suggestion, just hear me out. The Ability to add soldiers to the alliance "Bank", or some other way. Basically, a promise that, should a nation in the alliance go to war, there are extra untis from other nations to back them up without those nations actually getting involved or fighting. It would be a completely voluntary thing--you wouldn't necessarily have to put soldiers into this "Bank", and it would be up to the leaders of the alliance and/or the nation that would be providing them if the recipent is worthy, so to speak. Maybe a limit to the amount of soldiers a nation could draw out as well, I don't know. I would probably limit it to soldiers though, so that people aren't just trading tanks, planes, and missiles around willy-nilly.Other than that, I concede that there are plenty of ways to help, and I understand why the system is the way it is. I just think there's probably a better way, though I can't think of one. So, I'll shut up for now and let it go.

Forewarning: I didn't read this whole thread and only wanted to throw my 2c in on a couple of posts here, which I've quoted. Also, don't hate me if I disagree with you. Reminds me of the US Civil War. The south was better trained, Lee was a better general, but Grant had more troops and was willing to let them die. You should check out the Hegemonic Stability Theory - It's a really interesting idea. Basically it states that the reason other nations don't spend so much on military is because they don't have to -- we do it for them. We are the "police" who keep everyone from fighting each other. Theoretically, if we cut our spending and let everyone try and take care of themselves there would be a lot more conflicts. So long as one nation has a big enough military that no one else can mess with them, they set the 'rules', and we can pretty much force everyone to play nice with each other (granted I'm not talking World Peace here, we still have conflicts, but we haven't seen a WW3 yet since we've been the dominating superpower). In my opinion we need to be the giant presence we are around the world - without us things could be a lot worse.

Being penalized for cheating is not based so much on activity from the same network, it's based on suspicious activity. Things like sending all your money away, fighting against the same opponents, etc. Now these things on there own may not necessarily be grounds for cheating, as it's important for players to work together. But it's a big red flag when a new nation is made and sends all it's money away in the first 15 minutes and then never logs in again. In a circumstance like that, it doesn't really matter what network that nation logged in from, it's still cheating regardless.

The verse is saying that Allah said that to the angels, not commanding the Muslims to do it. That is downright bull%@#$. Talking about people who claim to be Muslims but refuse to follow any of the tenants of Islam(basically they say they are Muslims then proceed to undermine it). Also talking about the Qurish tribe(who they were fighting). Earlier in the surah Taking a few lines from a couple thousand ones, removing the context, then editing it is hardly a fair way to prove your point. And look! I can do it too!

The idea that guns will be useless if there ever is need for a revolution or the gov. uses the military against us is quite simply silly. There are terrorists in Afghanistan fighting against our military using homemade bombs and old Ak-47's, and for the record I'd rather go down fighting with an AK than with a kitchen knife. Is the US system perfect? !@#$ no. Is the answer to ban all guns? !@#$ no.

"What laws and regulations should a country adopt in regard to the use and ownership of firearms?" The answer to this question is similar to the answer to most legal questions. As with any proposed law, you should evaluate the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. Firstly, you should consider how the law will impact the people who live in your own country but nowadays it is impossible to ignore the effects of a law on people in other countries too. It is difficult for many people to imagine a reality different to the current one. What can help is looking at the models provided by other countries, especially those countries with similar levels of economic and social development. While it's true that each country has its own particularities, they are invariably much less significant than what they have in common with similarly developed societies. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't make a case for "exceptionalism", only that it's much easier to make the claim than it is to back it up with anything substantive. The final thing to consider is inevitability. For example, it was clear to all but the most myopic of South Africans that apartheid was not a sustainable long-term option. While recognizing that any change can be traumatic for some, is it worth fighting against the tide when you know sooner or later the change is going to come? Usually it's better to grasp the nettle, to recognize that the transition may be uncomfortable but the longer terms benefits easily outweigh the immediate mental turmoil. Once you accept that, you can then look at the details of implementing the change.

Why? FA wise, Iraq and Syria are perfect. They are busy fighting themselves and thus no real power can exist. All we have to do is send drones and hit the Baathist officers of the ISIS and then ISIS will become just another rebel group. Maybe supply the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds with some military assets so they can go "liberate" the Kurds in Turkey and Iran.

Wrong quote. You quoted some FS108 It is called cops abusing power. In some parts of the world, they can write their own warrants. Another thread. Because it is "child abuse" and it is very bad. Not. I've been spanked. It isn't CA. Just everyone is afraid that they will be abusive. Kind of like people fighting to not allow the 9/11 museum to say that the terrorists were muslims. They are afraid that they are too anti-muslim.

Lucky. I'm fighting my uncle over owner ship of my grandfather's, which he took before we even had the funeral. (This happened 16ish years ago, but I was never old enough to have an arguement until now) I like milk. Almond milk is pretty good. The person below me has recently gotten ripped off.

I lead The Asian Alliance into world war bloc 2 and surrendered after my little guys were getting farmed by the abundant amount of ANON nations that just joined and were pumped up by the ANON leadership. The Asian Alliance was the biggest alliance in the RVL (Rum and vodka league) which was fighting ANON (4chan alliances) and he was most likely part of ANON. Most of the bloc people here today on P&W are former ANON members.

I didn't really get into anime until during/after college (blame a high school gf that made me watch crappy girly anime), but I've seen a few I really liked, a few that were ok, a few that turned out to be too embarrassing/fanservicey to watch with other people (I'm looking at YOU, High School of the Dead), and some that were way too kiddy for me to get into. If it has giant fighting robots, I'll usually be into it. Probably my top three are TT Gurren Lagann, NG Evangelion, and Hellsing Ultimate. Some other ones up there are most of the Gundams, Baccano, Cowboy Bebop, FLCL, Excel Saga, and Samurai 7. The last two I watched were Kill La Kill (pretty good, not AS great as TTGL thou) and Attack on Titan season 1 which was fun.

It's true. I've been told to avoid boarder towns because I'm white and blonde. Children are in even more danger than I am. Come 21st birthday I'm getting a handgun and applying for a conceal and carry licenses so I can keep it in my car. Though last I heard Mexican civilians are fighting back (and at times winning) against the cartels. Problem is this is making them more violent to try to show power and regain control. Some parts of Cali are bad (parts of Fresno, LA, etc) but those usually are gangs or small scale.

I disagree with that assessment Lambda, but I'm sure if I list out the reasons why, you'll have a rebuttal, so I'll try to end this now. This is a stupid discussion. I don't mean it doesn't have it's place: this is an interesting conversations to have amongst friends or people in RL. But no one's ideas will be changed from this thread, it'll just create fighting and induce trolling. The internet is not a good place for actual debate.

So, you are not against guns, you would just like to see the guns to be under the control of the government. The bolded part is completely wrong. The right to bear arms was made to protect the people against it's government. As you may or may not know, the British empire banned the import of gunpowder and guns in the colonies 1774 and began confiscating guns in the colonies in 1775. No guns in the North American colonies would equal no defense against the British empire. After fighting against the British, the founding fathers realized a defenseless populace would result in no defense against a tyrannical government, thus the second amendment was born. Of course they would have no knowledge of a handheld machine gun, but whether or not they would believe such weapons are needed for defense now is unknown. If we ban cocaine/meth/LSD/etc., there would be no more of those drugs, right? Oh wait, those are illegal but they are still around. If we ban alcohol, there would be no more alcohol, right? Oh wait, we tried that but there was still alcohol around. See my logic here? Even if you ban guns, kids are still going to be abused (emotionally, physically, and mentally), neglected, starved, etc. Guns have killed about 700 children over the past eight years. Atleast four children die every day due to abuse/neglect. So you don't have to do the math yourself, that is atleast 1460 children a year. Source Now, I'm not a gun toting redneck republican. I'm one of the farthest things possible from being a republican (or a redneck for that matter). However, I do firmly believe in the right to bear arms, for one reason only: an unarmed populace is at the mercy of its government. There is plenty of examples of this throughout history, especially in recent history. Hitler banned guns, Stalin banned guns, Mao banned guns, and it just so happens these men have killed atleast a combined total of 51 million people. You also can't ignore the fact that these men also took knowledge/education away from their people, but lets not get too far off track

Hello we are The Bloc Party, we are the current surviving and growing members of the Great Dispoa/Goonocolypse 2.0/ Heidiocolypse, We are currently ranked #12 in the alliance list for some reason, De-Facto Leader:(See: Autistic SupaMan) President MrZeronicX of The Grand Republic Monarchy ofNitrzolorion Current Heir of Every Problem(See: Protector of The Faith) Fox Overlord Cxcxxxxx of the Fox Republic Nation of Foxtasia "Qualified" Officers:(See:Autistic Slade) Grand Diplomat Machine Explosion, Of the Military Nation Reringo Speech Master Doctor Hyde of the Freedom Loving Nation of Nova Mull War Chief Mighty Bjorn of the Fighting Nation of Eretz Yisreal Druglord Karth of the Illegal Nation of San Batista LL We mean no harm to anyone except unlucky small alliances, Well atleast not until Operation Falling Equniox Trinity, We have 46 members and still growing, Our game was also in Beta, until the three things listed above happened, Why Politics and War? Well two members of >BLOC are creating their own games with hookers and blackjack so we're going to be playing this game until they are done, Maybe even longer if we decide to pull a long con. If you have the time and wish to read around 30,000 words and laugh,cry,cringe,and become clinically insane here is our current history, https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jnqpyfXwFE9HT1HGBAsuE_SJ7S6KKonR5Je_dPOHS4/pub and a slightly cleaner version if you wish: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jnqpyfXwFE9HT1HGBAsuE_SJ7S6KKonR5Je_dPOHS4/edit Any question about our alliance or just listin to us talk about Operation Falling Equinox Trinity and Operation Iconic Thunder of Vengence then this is your thread!

First, wow; I am constantly impressed by what you are trying to do with this game. Second, despite that, I would like to suggest a few change Before you read anything please take a look at the at the attached jpg file; it's a map with the nodes named for easy reference (since I forgot to include a key, dashed lines are continent dividers, arrows are connections while red dots are nodes while blue dots are hubs, even in South America where I, for some reason, named them differently :/ (Also, f*** photobucket and its insistence on reducing my file sizes to 60kb) Anyway, back onto topic First, capturing nodes. Your current plan, I believe, encourages stat padding rather than war, so as to allow alliances to throw more score onto their nodes. In addition to that it means that a small, well coordinated alliance cannot take control of nodes because they cannot throw enough points at it, even if the alliance they face has 90% of its membership only checking in every ten days. Instead, I would propose that they can be captured through war, and indeed make the entire war system based around these nodes and hubs. This can, I believe, be done through implementing a system of 'war goals'; an alliance can, at any time, declare an IG war on another alliance, and then it can add a war goal to capture a connected node; for instance, if alliance X controlled the Canadian Node and alliance Y controlled the Greenlandic Node alliance X could declare war on alliance Y and then add the war goal of capturing the Greenlandic Node. Wars would last until the engaged alliances agree to end them, while war goals would last for either seven days or until the 'war score' is equal to or greater than one; if the war lasts seven days then it ends in status quo ante bellum, while if the 'war score' passes 1 then the attacking alliance gains control of the node and the the defending alliance has their nations redeployed to the continental hub (I'll go over what that could mean later). Once a node has been captured it new war goals cannot be declared on it for 100 hours (so as to allow defending nations to be deployed - once again, more on that later). War score is calculated by the following equation: (# of defending cities occupied)/(# of defending cities not occupied))(If (# of defending cities) = 0 then the attacking alliance automatically wins. (More on what occupied means later) An alliance would defend the node it owns and attack from them by deploying nations to the node; to encourage forward planning deployment wouldn't be instantaneous and instead would take three days; in addition to that once a redeployment is started it cannot be changed until the nation has arrived at its destination (you better watch out who you put in charge of your nation movement; a turncoat could suddenly order all your nations redeployed and leave you without defenceless) Nations can only be deployed to nodes that their alliance controls and that are on the same continent that they are on (though they can attack over continental boundaries). Nations cannot, however, be redeployed from nodes that are currently war goals (so as to prevent heavily occupied nations being withdrawn to pull the war score down) Hubs act slightly differently; Hubs can be contested by any alliance that controls 10% or more of the total score within the hub. Contesting a hub means that that alliance can declare war goals on nodes neighboring the hub; score is simply taken from the nation score that we have now. If you contest a hub you are able to attack from it to the neighboring nodes; if you do not contest a hub you cannot. Now, onto what this means for wars on the national scale. First, there would be no size restrictions; any nation can attack any nation, assuming their alliances are at war, though they may only use ground troops if they are in neighboring nodes or hubs (other attacks, such as air attacks, could be launched from anywhere to anywhere). This will of course need some balancing, but I don't believe that it will need much due to the occupation system; I would suggest a slight modification to the barracks would do it; using the following formula to determine the maximum number of barracks a nation can own. 30 + (# of cities) * 5With a maximum of 10 barracks in each city; and change their effects from to This would mean that a small (small by a couple of months time standard) nation with five cities could own 50 barracks, allowing them to maintain 50,000 soldiers while a nation with ten cities could only own 80 barracks, allowing them 80,000 soldiers; since under this proposal each city would need to be defended individually the smaller nation would have, in a sense, an advantage, given that they can deploy 10,000 troops to defend each city while the larger nation could only deploy 8,000. Now is probably the time to explain occupation; a city would be occupied if the number of successful attacks less the number of failed attacks reaches 10 attacks (whether this little section will work will depend on how attack mechanics are implemented; it may need to be rethought depending on how they work). The last nation to successfully attack the city occupies it and can deploy troops to defend it as they would any other city that they owned but aside from that it does nothing and has no effect; neither the occupier nor the occupied can gain revenue or resources from its ownership nor does it increase the maximum number of barracks either nation can have. Occupied cities can be liberated in three ways; the alliances fighting agree to peace, the nation is redeployed or the alliance successfully liberates it through force with the same mechanic under which it was occupied in the first place - if another alliance successfully occupies it then it is returned to the owner if the third alliance is not at war with the first, or occupied under the same mechanic if the third alliance is also at war with the first. For this to work attacking and defending would need to work in a certain way; I see this as a nation could either deploy troops to an attacking pool or to individual cities as defenders; if deployed as defenders they cannot be used to attack and the reverse also would be true. Their stance could not be changed until either 24 hours after the nation last launched an attack or 24 hours after the stance was last changed, whichever is later; newly trained soldiers are automatically equally distributed as defenders in the nations cities (the exception to this is when occupying a city, after which 20% of the attacking troops are automatically assigned to defending that city) This would mean nations could not use troops in attack and then immediately switch them to defence, meaning that nations will have to either try and balance attacking and defending or alliances will balance attacking and defending, using smaller nations with their higher troop density to hold a region while using larger nations with their higher troops numbers to seize enemy cities while allowing their own to be captured. As for what the nodes will do I would suggest having something slightly different; rather than giving each hub an effect I would suggest taking the idea of alliance wonders and making it dependent on hubs; at each hub you own you can construct maybe two alliance wonders (if the node is captured then the wonders are captured with it, though I would suggest that if that means they have duplicate wonders then only one wonder gives them its bonus) It would give alliances more freedom over which hubs they seize, allowing them to choose for strategic reasons, as well as meaning that you don't have to attempt to balance out the effects of each node, while still providing a massive incentive to controlling them. While this does not quite slot in with your idea of ensuring cooperation between alliances I believe that it will still result in such cooperation; I doubt that an alliance working alone could defend more than a couple of nodes, meaning that they will have to cooperate or have to split their forces and lose all of their nodes to alliances that do. As one last note, I'd suggest removing the cap on number of nodes that can be controlled; I believe that under what I have proposed above the number of nodes a single alliance could control would be limited by realpolitik; maybe an alliance could seize a chain of nodes, but as I said above I doubt a single alliance could hold more than two nodes that border non-controlled regions (and that would require them to the same size as their nearest two rivals put together, possibly larger depending on how many connections the node has) Edit/ I sincerely hope this is legible... I really couldn't be bothered proofreading it

Howdy there folks! I've been doing some brainstorming and have come up with what I believe is a good idea to implement alliance bonuses. This might be a new idea for some of you, but it's something Aquinas suggested and we've been kicking around ever since. Here's the idea: There will be 30 bonuses, 6 on each continent. Here's a crude paint drawing: (It's turrible) Based on what continent your alliance is located on, you'll start in one of the blue dot areas. I'm not entirely show how those will work, but every alliance on that continent will stake some claim there, and I'm thinking it will be a color competition, if there's more reds than blues (or stronger reds) then they'll get a minor bonus on that continent. Anyway, the alliance leaders will be able to move out and stake some claim in nearby bonus locations. They'll do this by allocating a certain percentage of their overall score to a dot, and if they have the majority out of all the alliances staking a claim there they'll get it's bonuses. Bonuses won't be applied immediately, I'm thinking I'll have the game update them each hour so that they aren't constantly being swapped around. Each alliance will be able to control a maximum of 3 bonus locations. (The bonuses provided will vary, some will be better than others and more constantly fought over) Alliances won't be restricted to their own continents, they'll be able to move out and take over locations that are connected (i.e. SA alliance takes Brazil bonus then West Africa bonus). I'm thinking I'll get rid of the idea of alliance governments being a factor because it is pretty pointless. Alliance HQ will only be necessary for decided what blue dot you start out on, and the alliance colors will determine what color controls the blue point on the continent and likely to receive the bonus you'll have to be that color nation on that continent in an alliance of the same color (if that makes sense). Now you're saying, "Okay Admin, this sounds nice and all, but what makes it so important?" Well, young whippersnappers, here's how it makes things fun. With 30 bonus locations and a maximum of 3 held by each alliance, they makes a minimum of 10 alliances competing for bonus points. Bonuses won't be anything gamebreaking major, but they'll be important enough that you'll really want to be controlling at least one. The stronger you are, the more you'll be able to control, and also the weaker your opponents are the more you'll be able to control. This should encourage a lot of competition between alliances, they should be fighting over these bonus locations. It will also encourage cooperation, alliances of the same color and continent will try and work together to secure themselves a bonus. Things should be more fun this way, a little more visual and a little less all text, and make things more fun and dynamic. Instead of having wars because "so-and-so spied on us!" they will be for legitimate reasons. When will this be implemented into the game? I don't really know, but hopefully soon. This and the war system are priorities, and then we'll really see the havoc begin. Now, shoot me your feedback and tell me how you'd really think it would work better/needs to be tweaked/etc. etc.