Popular Post LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97925 Ruler Name: Deulos Nature of Violation: War Slot Filling The Rule (emphasis is mine): Quote War Slot & Espionage Filling Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule. Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war. Another example of war slot filling would be coordinating with an opponent to remove a bounty. While bounty-hunting is legal and encouraged, coordinating with allies, for example, to remove a bounty while doing minimal damage would be considered war slot filling. Similarly, coordinated transfer of Treasures through wars with minimal damage is another example of slot filling. Evidence: Firstly I draw attention to the following thread which shows a precedent set by Alex for issuing Nation Strikes for nations who are trying to raid "economically". The Precedent: The precedent I am drawing on is that the nation strikes were issued for, and I quote: Quote these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." All of the attacks for which the nation strikes in the precedent were with a greater number of units as a percentage of what could realistically be expected to be there. War Timeline of the offending war: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=687885 Opros started the fight (after declaring war) with two naval battles in order to gain naval blockade over the nation of Florence. These were clearly one ship naval attacks, despite the nation having the capability of rebuying up to 60 new ships daily. Unless Florence had many ships themselves (if this is the case, 0 were destroyed, yet Opros still maintained immense triumphs), these attacks could only have been made with minimal units. These were clearly naval attacks with minimal units as using the infrastructure damage formula provided on the PnW Wiki (see quote), Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships to make between 0.71 and 3.93 infrastructure damage per attack. It is not possible to start a battle and send in fewer ships than 1. Quote Infrastructure Destroyed = MAX( MIN(Attacking Ships - (Defending Ships * 0.5) * 2.625 * RAND(0.85,1.05) * (Victory Type / 3), City's Infrastructure * 0.5 + 25), 0) Later, Opros then launched four ground attacks on Florence averaging a loot of $149,358.90 per attack. Using the loot formula, again from the PnW Wiki and quoted below, Opros would have required between 49,786.3 and 99,572.6 per ground attack. Opros was capable of rebuying 100,000 soldiers per day. Quote MIN(((Attacking Soldiers*RAND(0.5,1)) + (Attacking Tanks*RAND(7,13))*Victory), Defender's Money * 0.75, Defender's Money - 1,000,000) In the preceding 48 hours, Opros had lost around 120,000 soldiers so on the basis of there being two rebuys, should have been capable of having at least 200,000 soldiers at the point where they attacked Florence with ground attacks so therefore used less than 50% of their military power to raid a nation. The recent precedent set meant that a nation that was using close to 100% of their military power in a battle was given a nation strike for "slot filling" as they were sending "minimal unit attacks" so it is my view that this must also be "slot filling" as the number of units used was way less than what the nation should have been capable of sending into the battles. Edited June 28, 2020 by LukeTP Added info on the precedent 2 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Oh please Lol. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 28, 2020 Administrators Share Posted June 28, 2020 The main difference here is that Deulos is not (to my knowledge) allied to the target. It's also worth pointing out that naval battles don't take loot, so there's no incentive to max naval forces if your enemy has none. It seems like he was trying to establish a Blockade, which he did, and then transitioned away from naval battles. The issue isn't about "economical" raiding, it's about determining whether the two other allied nations were actually raiding or they were declaring war on their ally to benefit them (prevent others from taking the loot, giving beige time to prevent new war declarations) by filling their war slots. Because they didn't do what one would typically expect in a legitimate raid, and because they're allied to the target and stand to gain from filling the war slots, I determined that it was war slot filling. EDIT: A pre-emptive reminder that this is a no-discussion forum. If you are not the accused, the accuser, or providing specific evidence, you will receive a warning point for your post. 7 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 Alex, the fact that the "main difference here" is to do with being allied to the target, when there is no (to my knowledge) rule about only attacking targets that you are not allied to, makes that a completely irrelevant point. What If i told you that Agon were allied to THL? Agon would of course deny it, but you have no way of knowing because paperless treaties are commonplace in PnW so it is impossible for you to know whether or not two nations or alliances are allied unless you make it a requirement to lodge all paperless treaties with you. All we are asking for is a consistent enforcement of the rules. Either this is war slot filling, or as a minimum one, if not both, of the nations in the precedent, were not war slot filling. You cannot have one rule for your mates (and their friends), and another rule for the rest. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon I Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Alex said: The main difference here is that Deulos is not (to my knowledge) allied to the target. It's also worth pointing out that naval battles don't take loot, so there's no incentive to max naval forces if your enemy has none. It seems like he was trying to establish a Blockade, which he did, and then transitioned away from naval battles. The issue isn't about "economical" raiding, it's about determining whether the two other allied nations were actually raiding or they were declaring war on their ally to benefit them (prevent others from taking the loot, giving beige time to prevent new war declarations) by filling their war slots. Because they didn't do what one would typically expect in a legitimate raid, and because they're allied to the target and stand to gain from filling the war slots, I determined that it was war slot filling. EDIT: A pre-emptive reminder that this is a no-discussion forum. If you are not the accused, the accuser, or providing specific evidence, you will receive a warning point for your post. Since I am the accused, allow me to ask this. Where is the rule on not dropping out of an alliance to declare on an alliance. If you are going to implement this rule, fine, but give us a warning since we never knew about it. A strike is too much for a rule that you are making up on the spot, and since I have gotten a strike, I’m not longer going to participate in the name of the game: war. Also, I’d like to note that this went from being about me using minimal soldiers (which was a mistake and the government chat logs prove that) to an issue of being allied to the nation which, as far as I know, is not against the rules. Edited June 28, 2020 by Dillon I 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 On the basis that the precedent no longer applies, I consider this matter closed. 1 Quote 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.