Search the Community

Prior to the new war update, wars declared on or by applicants didn't appear under Alliance->Wars. Now it does. I didn't see any specific reasoning for this, so I assume it was unintentional with the update Proposal, either: 1. No longer show wars declared on or by applicants in the alliance wars page 2. Allow one to toggle on/off viewing applicant wars on the alliance wars page Again I assume based on my knowledge of PHP this would be like a 3 minute fix/change.

Should they still be contributing to a city's pollution score? And if so, in what amount compared to one working at 100% capacity

A lot of alliances like to offer awards/badges/stickers to their members to display on their nation page for completing various things and participating in wars. Proposal: Add a "alliance awards" section to nation pages Allow alliance leaders/government to issue alliance awards, with a custom description and upload their own small img I'm thinking this would be a relatively simple thing to program. But I also think it's something that would become widely used especially among top alliances. You could maybe make it so they can only have a max of 5 awards or something like that, since undoubtedly someone would go make an alliance and give themselves 10k awards for the sake of it.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60967 Just to show a real example [again], this is a guy who declared on my nation when I had zero military. This one nation's total standing military exceeds my maximum military in every category right now. This came with two other similar nations in my defensive slots. Being in an impossible situation isn't engaging or fun gameplay. Even for the winning side, beating down on a dead horse isn't fun or engaging gameplay. It's half of why wars are so short these days tbh. Thus feeding further into the issue of city-gaps (between new and old players) and resource inflation (not as much stuff is consumed during wars). During this global, it was also insanely easy for the largest nations (the ones who "need" to take damage) to escape the fighting entirely after the first round. I couldn't even reach people at my own city count usually just to throw nukes or missiles. The score formula is woefully unbalanced and the recent change made it worse imo. It's never quite made sense in the first place and I know firsthand how hard it is to tweak in a way that makes sense, but I think changing city score was a mistake that actually served whales more than harmed them (unless they're raiders). Generally speaking, I think standing military should boost your score way more than anything else. When you over-rely on cities and infra in the score formula, you unintentionally give the top percentiles a place to hide from everyone else. You also unintentionally make a problem PnW already has worse: Losers stay losing until the winner decides to give up or give too much beige.

Wars tends to be catalysts for invention, change, and adaptation. WWII has always stood out for me, specifically the unification of the country following the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the adaptation of our women to fill the industrial jobs of the men on the front lines to both take care of their families but also to increase war production. My suggestion is that when a nation is involved in a defensive war, it provides a boost of morale or national pride, which then correlates to a 12% increase in the number of tanks, planes, ships, and soldiers they can produce over the course of that war. Furthermore, I'd suggest that the bonus increase to 16% for a second war, and 20% if all defensive slots are filled. For me (at C40), this means with three wars I can create an additional 40k soldiers, 2000 tanks, 120 aircraft, and 24 ships per day. A well executed double buy for my nation would be 480k soldiers, 24k tanks, 1440 aircraft, and 288 ships. After figuring these numbers, I see there is room to expand and contract to find a balance. I don't think it need to apply to missiles, BUT I absolutely think it should apply to nukes and that the same 24hour protections should extend to the second nuke as well. I think you could realistically push the bonus to near 30% if the numbers I'm running in my head are good. Its not much, but its a starting point, and frankly, greater production means more resources removed from the game so it might help with commerce as well.

I would love to see this implemented in the game. I am proposing beige time changes if you lose a defensive war. The changes would be for every defensive war lost by the defender, the defender during the war would get 3 days of beige time to recover from losses so (for 3 defensive wars lost by the defender, 9 days of beige time to recover). However if the defensive war is lost by the attacker, the attacker would get 2.5 days of beige to recover from losses so (for 3 defensive wars lost by the attacker, 7.5 days of total beige time to recover. I think this is fair because the defender could have heavier losses than the attacker so they would get extra time to recover.

Contention: Alliance mechanics are way too simplistic in their current form and do not accommodate any form of sophisticated government. Arguments: Coup mechanic: The coup mechanic in its current form legit ruins any chance of most governments forming. The people that occupy the two top ranks legit hold all the cards. I agree that a coup mechanic should be there, however there has to be some form of checks and balances. A vote perhaps? Something! If people wish to have rotating presidents and prime ministers, as soon as they reach power they can legit kick everyone out and ruin the alliance. The coup mechanic doesn't allow nuance in power structures. Alliances are very much operating like irl countries and the fact that one person (at the top) can come in a destroy the alliance in turmoil is imo stupid. Branches: There should be government mechanics such as executives, legislatives and perhaps a judicial branch that can be turned on and off depending on what the alliance requires. Not everything is straight hierarchy, and branches are needed. Each branch should have customizable powers according to the alliances needs. Eg. executive could remove people from positions, but cannot kick. Legislative can touch taxes etc. Judicial can kick players from the alliance. And so on. And if an alliance wants an absolute power executive that can be accommodated too. Dual control systems: In Accounting this is a common practise, its called: Dual control systems. This is where one person prepares and initiates the transaction, while a second person reviews the details and approves or authorizes it. This could really help in preventing bank robbers. Alliances can appoint EAs and allow them to interact with the bank, but also have that check and balance of a second person to approve of transactions. This could also apply to other systems within the alliance. Locked permissions: Our current government hierarchy has locked permissions for some reason. Four of the nine positions in the Control panel have locked permissions that cannot be changed. Two of the ranks at the bottom don't even display on the front page and are pretty much useless. Please fix. More permissions and information: With these new branches and positions, comes the demand for more permissions and information needed to decision makers. Alliance embargoes right now are useless. Anyone can opt out of their own free will. Sure, choice matters, but the government should at the very least know who has opted out. An expansion on tax revenues would be good, along with simple laws etc. Conclusion: The alliance mechanics, if expanded, will bring about more nuanced and sophisticated government structures and hierarchies. In its current form government are fairly limited ingame.

Basically how about when buying infra you can like buy different quality infra. Like level 1 infra is the same population and resistance metric as the current, level two can house more people and is more resistant to attacks, etc etc. Someone also suggested random events some point in this forum - maybe upgraded Infra is less potent to event damage. To implement just make everybody's current infra level 1 and put forward the option of upgraded, ig. Maybe level two infra gives you like an extra improvement slot every (set) amount of infra or smth. Idk. Hell, maybe the credit purchase option that goes to buying infra could buy like a level of infra that can ONLY be bought with a credit. To make it not PtW you could just make that upgrade very slight but whatever.

Could be useful for direct extensions (offshores) of alliances I guess

a better population system by adding houses (might work like infrastucture and land) or maybe like the military, mining etc. idk but it could improve the population system

A random thought occurred to me recently. It seems like gas and munitions are only useful during war time, but to help with the stagnant resources, what if they had some consumption by the the general population itself? What I'm proposing is that the population of our citizens consume gasoline each day with that number rising according to how many people are in your nation. Similar to how they consume food and power plants consume uranium. The idea behind this is that it simulates the gasoline the population uses via travel whether it's private, or public transit. We are a world that runs on fossil fuels, so having a steady consumption of gas each day would lead to a need for more gas producers and give gasoline a use other than war. Maybe projects can be introduced that reduces this consumption, or buffs added to green technology or something. I think the same thing should happen for Munitions, but mostly for the police improvements. Each police station reduces crime, but consumes a small bit of munitions each day to simulate actual law enforcement resources. Again, projects can be introduced to reduce this consumption. With these types of ideas, more resources would be consumed and move a rather stagnant market. It would give incentive for, again, people to produce these resources and help add value to resources that are otherwise useless outside of war. Aluminum and steel are already pretty important, but Gas and munitions rarely see any use outside of war and projects. Having gas/munitions consumed daily based on population factors/needs would get those markets moving in my opinion. I wouldn't make the consumption game breaking, but like how power plants use Uranium could be a solid thing to consider. Just my thoughts.

Suggestion TLDR: some form of way the game can notify an owner, or other high ranking alliance members that a new member has applied to join the alliance. As the IA gal for our alliance, it is my responsibility to open up a interview area and run interviews in the discord for new members. Occasionally, an applicant doesn't join the discord, and so we will message them in game, asking for them to join the discord, to then complete an interview. What I am suggesting is a simple settings option for an in game notification, or even possibly even the option for an email notification as well, when a new applicant has applied for membership. This way we don't have to check the alliance page multiple times a day, and get a simple notification instead.

Regular nations can buy projects, how about alliances? These would be expensive but it would provide some kind of alliance benefit instead of the current nation benefit. They can be bought by leaders. Here's some ideas - "Bank Vault" - Reduces the amount of money stolen from an alliance bank when someone loses a war. "Treasure Pirate" - increase the range an alliance member in an alliance with this project can get a treasure with. "Bank Collection" - When a player wins a war, they steal slightly more from an alliance bank. This amount of slightly more taken is put into the alliance. Idk.

Probably a terrible idea but how about alliances can spy on alliances and see alliance banks and shit The amount of spies in an alliance/people in the alliance would be used to calculate spy value. They can spy on other alliances to see banks and total alliance spies or smth.

A full explanation of how it would work. The idea came up during casual discussion in RON, and it was recommended that I drop it here so it doesn't get buried. The feedback I've gotten so far has been generally positive, but I'm curious to hear more about my proposal and any similar ones that have come up.

In politics and war you can also add educational improvement. Education can increase income or production. It can also lower death rate. And in the projects of moon or mars landing in addition to title you can also add astro mining as moon or mars has lots of resources . You should also add helicopter or transportable plane in military. Helicopter is a good tank killing weapons. Transport plane used in military for paratrooper or transporting stuff in war zone. It should give additional boost to infrantry similar to munitions that give a 75% boost.

I suggest to add Malay and Indonesian language in this game because now many players from Southeast Asia are playing this game, If this is done, it will make it easier for us to understand this game more especially for new players from southeast Asia.. I can help translate to Malay, I don't want compensation or anything, I just want to make it easier for new and old players from Malaysia and Indonesia

NEW GAME MECHANIC: civilian happiness Basically this will be effected by crime, disease, pollution and wether the city is powered or not. This can also come with some new structures like parks, bars and other structures to increase it. What the mechanic does is if it is at 100% then production is increased by 50%. Cities will start at 50% happiness. Thank you:)

Can we both remove the ability to unleash espionage attacks against beige nations and also in turn remove the ability for beige nations to unleash espionage attacks (as this makes things fair) It's meant to be a safe zone to recover from wars and warlike activity, but currently it is not.

Had the idea for a new set of achievements based on war/domestic polices that grant an upgraded version of their respective policy upon their completion. Format: Achievement name - Unlock requirement. Upgraded war policy effect. Thoughts. War Policies Destructive - While on the Attrition war policy, win a war using only Missiles and Nukes. Super Attrition: All attacks do 15% more infra damage, now includes Missiles and Nukes. Receive 20% less loot from ground battles. Thoughts: Pretty straight forward damage buff. Including missiles & nukes lets both sides of a war get more of a use out of it. Slow and Steady - While on the Turtle war policy, win a war after 50 turns have passed. Super Turtle: Take 15% less infra damage from all attacks, now includes Missiles and Nukes. Lose 20% more loot in ground battles. Thoughts: Counter to Attrition, same idea. TKO - While on the Blitzkrieg policy, win 3 wars within the same turn. Super Blitzkrieg: For the first 24 turns (48 hours) after switching, deal 15% more infra damage and causalities in offensive Ground Battles, Airstrikes and Naval Battles. When declared on, attacker starts with an extra MAP. Thoughts: Blitz is the worst war policy in the game and sees virtually no use as is. If you get slotted right before a turn change while on this policy, you can be airstriked 6 times over the course of a few minutes. Increasing the damage to units done by a flat 5% and doubling its active time may make it more worthwhile. King of the Castle - While on Fortress, win a war after fortifying 3 times. Super Fortress - 24 turns (48 hours) after switching, decrease infra damage and causalities in defensive Ground Battles, Airstrikes and Naval Battles by 15%. When declared upon, both parties start with 1 less MAP. Thoughts: Fortress is already the "Meta" war policy. This buff actually decreases the motivation to run it at all times during peace time, as switching to it shortly before being hit now lets you "parry" a blitz if timed well. Blitzkrieg still has the inherent advantage, as perfectly timing your switch to Fortress before a blitz would be rather hard (and can be waited out if done too early). You could instead wait to switch only after you've been hit, though this means you're taking the full 15% extra unit loss in the initial blitz. Lot of potential for interactions with Blitzkrieg. Opulent - While on the Moneybags war policy, win a war with more than $100,000,000 on your nation. Super Moneybags: Decrease loot stolen by 50%, take 5% more infra damage. Thoughts: Slight increase from its usual 40%. This is already a fantastic war policy, doesn't need much help. Swashbuckler - While on the Pirate war policy, win a war without possessing any units other than Soldiers. Super Pirate: Now takes 50% more loot. Improvements are twice as likely to be destroyed in defensive ground and naval battles. Thoughts: Same as Moneybags. Nice little buff to raiders hitting targets not using Moneybags. Tactical - While on the Tactician war policy, win a war using less than 30 MAPs. Super Tactician: Doubles the chance of destroying enemy improvements in ground and naval battles. Defensive spy ops are 5% more likely to be unsuccessful. Thoughts: This one is already insanely good. Instead of increasing its upside, this just decreases its inherent downside to a third of what it currently is (15%). Divine - While on the Guardian war policy, remove 2 status effects (Ground Control, Air Superiority or Blockade) within the same turn. Super Guardian: Halves the chance of losing an improvement in a defensive ground or naval battle. Lose 10% more loot in ground battles. Thoughts: Similar to Tactician. Can't halve or third both of them without getting a janky number, so Guardian gets the short end of the stick. Still pretty solid. Saboteur - While on the Covert war policy, launch 3 successful sabotage operations in a row against someone you're at war with. (Doesn't have to be the same nation.) Super Covert: Offensive spy ops are 20% more successful. Take 5% more infra damage in defensive ground, air and naval battles. Thoughts: Simple 5% increase. The spy war polices have a solid niche as is. OPSEC - While on the Arcane war policy, gather intelligence 5 times in a row without getting caught. Super Arcane: Defensive spy ops are 20% more successful. Take 5% more infra damage in defensive ground, air and naval battles. Thoughts: Same as Covert. Domestic Policies (Upgraded domestic policies effectively receive the buff they would have from Government Support Agency for free. Combos with GSA) Market Forces - While on the Open Markets domestic policy, build the maximum of each commerce improvement in all cities. Fueling the Fire - While on the Imperialism domestic policy, have a combined total of 40 raw resource and manufacturing improvements in a city. Diversified - While on the Urbanization domestic policy, have one of each improvement available in a city. Litter Picker - While on the Rapid Expansion domestic policy, have a city reach -250 pollution. Researcher - While on the Technological Advancement domestic policy, have 5 hospitals in all cities. Conquest - While on the Manifest Destiny policy, build the maximum of each military improvement in all cities. General thoughts - These achievements should be mostly accessible to everyone, regardless of size. Brand new nations may struggle with Opulent and some of the domestic polices that require around 2k infra, but thats about it. On the other hand, a lot of the war related achievements are highly non-meta and can't be easily grinded for against inactives by larger nations. - All achievements aim to be offensive/proactive to get, even for defensive war policies. - Due to the policy swap cooldowns, it'll take about a month and a half to get all of them if done perfectly. This gives people a reason to log in/do things in-game for a while. Also lets you prioritize them depending on which ones you want first/think are the easiest to get. - I tried to give most of the achievements adjective or cool sounding names. They should be something you actually want to display on your nation page. - Unlocking every achievement could give you a special one with a GIF background called "Achievement Hunter". This could be entirely cosmetic, or grant a brand new gimmick war policy. Maybe something like "Neutrality" which has no positives or negatives. You could also go in the opposite direction and add a war policy that switches to a random war policy every 12 turns. Call it "Chaos" or "Indecisive", something like that. Neither of these would be particularly good, but they could be a fun little reward. - This doesn't really use any brand new mechanics, just ones already in place. Should be relatively easy to implement. I'm far from an expert on stats, so some of the numbers may need tweaking. Feel free to comment any suggestions/changes you'd make. This could also be implemented as a purely cosmetic thing without the associated buffed war policies if people think they'd be too unbalanced.