Darzy Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) Hello, to anyone who may read this. This game seems to be called, 'politics and war' to describe how the game should be played, using politics, and war to continue that politics I guess. However, not everyone really plays the game this way, for example, until recently many people outside of certain fighting alliances have sat and simply grown their nation. That being said, many of these people have been criticised for this playstyle, with the critics citing the name of the game as 'politics and war' not 'politics and peace' or some other form. However, with an economic approach to the game clearly being allowed or even it could be said, encouraged, one would think that, 'Politics, Economics and War' would be a more apt description of this game if one were truly desiring to briefly summarise the game in a few words. If the game were truly about politics and war, it would be much more military focused I believe, with say, 6 barracks 6 factories 7 hangars and 4 drydocks cap for example, so that people could demonstrate their true dedication of their resources into military might. Instead, there exists a 5/5/5/3 setup which every nation takes into war, backed by their AA bank, showing a more economic approach to conserving resources and managing stockpiles that allow every player, not just the military madmen, to be putting their entire nation's effort into war. Now, net damage is generally a good way of separating the two types of people, however, my point is, if the game really were 50% war as the name suggests, then I don't think it is a problem with the people who choose not to war, but the lack of factors in game that make it 50% war instead of 33% as suggested above. My point basically is, many like to blame people for not all loving 'politics and war.' However, if there exists as many un-warlike playstyles as war-like playstyles, those other playstyles should be given a voice too instead of being rejected due to the name of the game being too simplistic. I do understand this is much, much less catchy. (P,E&W?) However, I'd just like to understand and hear others' thoughts on why the economic side of the game was not featured in the title. Edited December 13, 2018 by Darzy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) The creator, Alex, has said that this game has not really developed the way he intended it. There was supposed to be a focus on military and the way nations grow in the game now was not intended by the game creator, however, humans like to hoard. So the more people got anal about their pixels, the less fighting happened until now when people are so scared over the loss of their pixels that the number of major wars in a calendar year can be counted on one hand. I actually think switching the name at this point would be par for the course, but of course, that would create a ton of problems with search engine presence and other things so it won't happen. I hope this gives you some context. Edited December 13, 2018 by Balish 3 Quote Listen to J Kell's new single: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracodogs Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 i reaally would like if our polices had a affect to our nation maybe throws some npc or more quest like side quests so more action would happen like beat this npc and get some resoures or money or new reasearch stuff and more stragety for the wars like troop place ment and more feature it would be great if that was in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan1 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 You know, I kind of like the idea of raising max military improvements. However, if Sheepy did that he would probably need to slightly lower infra costs so it wouldn't be too expensive to max military. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracodogs Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 whos sheepy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaxon Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, dracodogs said: whos sheepy The one true god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 7 hours ago, Darzy said: My point basically is, many like to blame people for not all loving 'politics and war.' However, if there exists as many un-warlike playstyles as war-like playstyles, those other playstyles should be given a voice too instead of being rejected due to the name of the game being too simplistic. I do understand this is much, much less catchy. (P,E&W?) However, I'd just like to understand and hear others' thoughts on why the economic side of the game was not featured in the title. There was supposed to be much more of a military focus, as Balish said. When the game was still in official development (and after), the game's economy ran into many balancing problems. The economy side of the game doesn't follow what Sheepy used to say he wanted, or at least that's how I see it. The mechanics didn't necessarily work in balanced ways, so changes had to happen along the way. A good example would be The Great Deflation. Sheepy explains his vision in the first post. (Almost everyone hated it at the time and I'm sure some people still hate it.) The current major problem: wars are too infrequent. However, people disagree with how to go about making wars more frequent. Some people want to reduce the amount of resources to go to war, so people won't need to spend months building up warchests. Others want to make damage from wars less expensive so people won't worry about losing their pixels. Either way, it will likely need another fix later on to solve another problem caused by it. 1 hour ago, dracodogs said: whos sheepy The game developer, Alex, used to go by the name Sheepy on here. Many people, myself included, still call him Sheepy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzy Posted December 14, 2018 Author Share Posted December 14, 2018 Thanks guys, your thoughts have been duly noted. 10 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said: A good example would be The Great Deflation. Thanks for showing me this post, gives me a whole new perspective on how this game has formed over time, especially considering that it only happened about a year and a half ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 (edited) 855 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ocelot Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 On 12/13/2018 at 5:23 PM, Darzy said: However, with an economic approach to the game clearly being allowed or even it could be said, encouraged, one would think that, 'Politics, Economics and War' would be a more apt description of this game if one were truly desiring to briefly summarise the game in a few words. Calling it "'Politics, Economics and War" would be like calling pepper "spicy pepper". 1 Quote Post tenebras lux NationStates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.