Jump to content

Politics and... War?


Darzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Darzy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Balish
  • Like 3

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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".

  • Upvote 1

Post tenebras lux

NationStates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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