Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Seb

    Nuclear Missiles Control

    it's an exploit when you buy more nukes than your nation can pay for.
  3. Sir Scarfalot

    Changing Beige

    The suggestion I made, and has been agreed with by many on your side as well as mine in fact, prevents ANYONE from EVER being able to maintain "pole position", and your suggestion would make losing "pole position" impossible by ANY MEANS.
  4. Migraine d'al Braskia

    BattleSim: Nuclear Attack Issue

    I only see statements and not proofs.
  5. Today
  6. Gudea

    The current meta and you.

    Sir Scarf is absolutely right. Wars are caused by the mindset of the players. Like Surf's Up, for example. I couldn't see the point of that war in the first place. It didn't seem to have any. It was pointless at best, and counter-productive at worst. Start a war over boredom?! 'Sigh'.....not a good idea. This current war, for example, started over leaked info. The info leak involved discussion of an impending attack on both Blocs involved as combatants in Surf's Up. This resulted in both ChAoS and KETOG Blocs joining forces to strike the plotters first, rather than wait to weaken themselves through further conflict. Offensive Defense. A good idea. It's also a very rational and predictable response. Yup. The root cause the wars in the above examples were both how players were thinking, which resulted in plans made, and actions followed. No way to deny it. That's just the way it is. Player thinking and strategizing IS the Metagame!!
  7. Ryan1

    This Global War Ruined Literally Everything

    When you hit me, you had 7 and either 2200, 2300, or 2500 infra in those cities not to mention completely inconsistent builds. Join a decent alliance with competent gov and learn how to actually play. Beige discipline is a very important part of wars, especially in a dogpile like this. You've definitely seen me around, I'm everywhere in PW. And my nation is Hammonasset, though your history may not go back that far.
  8. Nukes are ICBMs in this game. Literally the base customization page shows you this. ICBMs don't suffer from range problems and don't really care if your enemy has air superiority or a blockade. And you wouldn't launch an ICBM from an MLP like that. It'd get bombed and you would get nuked. That's why underground silos exist.
  9. Akuryo

    The current meta and you.

    No. Nukes are an ineffective tool for improvement destruction due to maps. Improvements being near invincible had been a problem for years, and it's been suggested they should be destroyed more but never really picked up by Alex. I had a 14 city nation in my alliance. 2k infra, 560 improvements total. Got bombed down to 200ish infra. Guess how many improvements he lost? Like 12. He lost 90% of his infra, and only 2% of improvements. Yes it would probably make wars shorter by making prolonged conflict more and more expensive as opposed to the dirt cheap it comes down to now. It's also a band aid fix like we expect from Alex.
  10. Noctis Anarch Caelum

    The current meta and you.

    I dislike this idea most. Already improvements can be destroyed pretty easy, nuke destroys 2 each time. Also piracy already has an increase. Could make nukes have a chance of destroying more than 2 if wanting to make them easier to destroy.
  11. Sir Scarfalot

    How long will this war go on for?

    All that you lost? What's to lose, infrastructure? Resources? Mate if you're not having fun with P&W then you sincerely should re-evaluate why you're playing it.
  12. Sir Scarfalot

    The current meta and you.

    1. That disincentivizes fighting back... as well as fighting in the first place, since beige remains something that's controllable and therefore exploitable. That's an absolutely atrocious idea. 2. That would make it so that upset victories are quite literally impossible. No thank you. 3. Removes the possibility of missile/nuke beiges. frick you. 4. More "frick the whales, boost NPO" crap? You're conveniently forgetting the score range situation which already *very much* renders the marginal benefit lower for each new city. Lest we forget, NPO now has 2/3s of the cities of the average Grumpy member, as opposed to 1/2, and that gap should only close due to the aforementioned exponential increase in city cost. In summary, no, the mechanics would be just fine with no change other than war expiration resulting in beige; the problem is 100% one of mindset and behavior, and also disingenuous suggestions designed by said mindset.
  13. Prefontaine

    The current meta and you.

  14. hope

    The current meta and you.

    i agree in the sense that the MAPs every two hours dont need to change, especially since most people in this game log on once a day or smth however, the real problem will be convincing Alex he needs to change the game since he obviously has no desire to update anything that isnt regarding how much money he can get out of us also lmao, remember that one time he said he would make the game better looking and it turned out to be some fricked april fools joke? we're all fricked
  15. Dad

    The current meta and you.

    Here's a simple band-aid idea since I know Alex likes those. Simply increase the base chances for all improvements to be destroyed, and on top of that doubly increase the chance that military improvements are destroyed. People will be forced to either ditch commerce improvements for military ones more often during war, or be forced to rebuy infra, both of which are expensive and impact the nation/alliance's ability to sustain itself economically. Of course, that doesn't address many of the core issues raised here, but it would probably help a little.
  16. durmij

    The current meta and you.

    This avoids the beiging problem rather than addressing it. It would be better to retool beige than try something like this. The tug of war is so obvious I can't believe it wasn't implemented from the start. Maybe decrease the length of the "rope" over time to make it easier to close a war as it ends. War length is another really obvious one. Currently, someone can hold you down for a whole business week. Capacity isn't really an issue compared to the obscenely high damage potential towards units as opposed to everyone else. An overall reduction in damage is more appropriate in this situation. Addressing the op, the fundamental problem is that the game mechanics are completely at odds with the goals of a large scale conflict. We can't expect players to change to a different meta that isn't supported by the mechanics. Yes, the current political scene makes long wars more likely, but when a single player can comfortably squat on two to three others for five days a cycle, long wars are all but hard coded. Without a change in the core mechanics of what war is, we can't reasonably expect the players to change their tactics away from what the mechanics lead too.
  17. Inst

    The current meta and you.

    I'll also bring out the political difference here. Much of KERCHTOG has highly active players, but as war continues, their activity advantage peters out as a truly high level of activity can't be sustained indefinitely. Core ex-IQ, on the other hand, tends to have medium-activity players who tend to benefit as the war drags on because they have stamina for a prolonged fight and the activity difference comes even to their advantage as the war goes to 3 months. So while there are intrinsically issues with both war archetypes (is the DoW equivalent to a victory announcement? Are future war cycles going to be 3 months of exhausting war and 3 months of peace?), fixing it to one side or another becomes a political decision.
  18. Miller

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    I think you're confused as to what I'm confused about.
  19. Frezasan

    Attrition wars don't beige

    Once again, big coming from a war dodger Removing beige completely is a horrible idea, for example ina blitz situation the alliance doing the blitzing automatically ‘won’ the war and has nothing to worry about other than nukes. Removing beige completely would render the game of its ‘strategy’ as the only thing to do is to perma airstrike units/infra and alternate targets with your fellow gamers. However what could be added to stop players from completely recovering from a blitz is to reduce the beige time. I personally don’t really care if this gets added but by far it’s a better solution than what this fellow suggested
  20. Frezasan

    War Declaration Restriction by City Count

    A lot coming from a filthy neutral
  21. ArcKnox

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    TGH is anti-cro magnon and proud of it.
  22. TheNG

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    "unga bunga?" Glad to see KT and TGH are still keeping their old traditions alive. But since you agree, now just get your allies to sell some of those units and come play with us, so we can have a real party!
  23. Dio Brando

    The current meta and you.

    So much this. SRD really hit the nail on the head here. Even in the short term, that level of speed requires alliances having players that can not only be hyper active, but be consistently hyper active. And that's just not what the vast, vast majority of people can give to this game. Eventually, you end up with short term curbstomps that you can't feasibly win/enjoy. Which is... not fun.
  24. Sweeeeet Ronny D

    The current meta and you.

    we did a speed round before, it was during the testing phases before the "real" game rolled out. The problem with bumping up maps like that, is you go to sleep, and wake up completely rolled.
  25. ForgotPants

    War Declaration Restriction by City Count

    This is a pretty bad idea considering the fact that Nation Score decides almost everything war-related in this game. Changing this will require drastic changes to economy and war.
  26. Sweeeeet Ronny D

    Nuclear Missiles Control

    let them stockpile their nukes, it just artificially inflates their score.
  27. ArcKnox

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    >unga bunga hiding low score good, hiding high score bad
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

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