Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Curufinwe

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    Still seems applicable. Or, you know, you could check out Epi's explanation. But I like my response more, personally.
  3. Noctis Anarch Caelum

    The current meta and you.

    Long wars aren’t a problem, ability to keep fighting even when losing keeps people in the game. Making it easier for alliances to pin nations down constantly until they quit or accept absurd terms would result in just that. Main reason I’ve heard against really harsh terms in this game is people can just keep the war going rather than accept. So I don’t see reason to make it harder to put up a resistance against superior odds & think it would result in many just calling it quits when it’s game over & they can’t do anything.
  4. Mad Max

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    no, if you can't separate a game and personalities in a way that allows you to enjoy the game, the people around you, and what you've done it it, you should prob not be playing games like this. There are plenty of people who share the mindset that - yes - they are here to frick around, like me. Not only could I give 2 shits about my nation, but I could also give 2 shits about pretty much everything else in this game. I'm above it. If more people were, this place probably would be a little less toxic.
  5. Inst

    The future of Orbis in 2142

    Inst has 50 trillion to his name, and was recently banned for trying to RMT it back into real currency for the approximate value of 1.5 million dollars. Of course, due to the collapse of the dollar, this is enough to buy you one Big Mac.
  6. Today
  7. Shadowthrone

    The future of Orbis in 2142

    Gotta keep protecting their meta.
  8. Noctis Anarch Caelum

    Nuclear Missiles Control

    Point is he wants to restrict the number way below what is financially supportable. Would be capped at 101 on the infra suggestion, similar numbers with others. So his suggestion is cap way below what someone can financially support if they want. (What people can afford wouldn’t be the limiter anymore and many of his ideas wouldn’t even address nations stockpiling nukes past what they can afford to have without negative income.)
  9. Inst

    The future of Orbis in 2142

    I still like how adroitly the old hegemony has made this about a possible new hegemony that hasn't even formed yet and doesn't want to form for the obvious reasons (ends up getting rolled).
  10. Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=172069 Ruler Name: Abu Bakr al-Baghadi Rule Violation: Terrorism-themed nation
  11. Micchan

    Change in ground/nalval/air control

    We don't have to change everything now, the test server exists to try these things I suggested the expiration beige so you know I agree with that, but this game needs many changes, not only one
  12. Sir Scarfalot

    Change in ground/nalval/air control

    That is a fair point I suppose, but it'd be a fairly big chang; I'd prefer it if we just got the expiration = beige change and see how thigns go from there.
  13. Sir Scarfalot

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    Apparently so lmfao
  14. Micchan

    Change in ground/nalval/air control

    I don't see the typo Yeah but if I have 1000 planes and I'm fighting 5 nations with 500 planes but I have ground control on all of them I can survive or at least I will not end soon in a situation of no planes, but if I lose ground control in all wars just because of one attack now I can't resist to 5 nations airstriking, so losing ground control is very important, same for air and naval Let's use Russia as example because big country with many borders They have an army fighting in the finnish front, one in Belarus, one in Ukraine, one in Georgia, and they are easy winning them all, then China attacks in Manchuria and wins, why all the other armies should lose the other fronts? And as I said before it adds more tactics to the game, more thinking, more coordination, more fun
  15. Prefontaine

    The current meta and you.

    If you were actually reading, you'd see I'm asking the community if they think the way things are is a problem. Since this is an opinion based problem, or non-problem, there's little need to address it if the community doesn't feel it's an issue. As I stated in the OP, I'm not saying either is good or bad, that's for the players to decide -- thus the point of this thread. Kindly read the thread instead of making assumptions. Thank you.
  16. Buorhann

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    Wait... BK + Cov + Citadel is a microsphere?
  17. Akuryo

    Nuclear Missiles Control

    He's not talking about you, which I thought was obvious, but apparently that's an overestimation of your mental faculties.
  18. Sir Scarfalot

    Change in ground/nalval/air control

    Now that's one heckuva typo. How'd you even pull it off... Anyway, I'm not sure about that suggestion. Thing is, immense triumphs only clear the ground control, it's not like the remaining fronts somehow gain ground control from it. And if there's that much triumph, then really it should count pretty much across the board.
  19. CandyShi

    The future of Orbis in 2142

    The heat death of the soup will only occur after billions/trillions of years. long live soup
  20. Deos

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    "To Coalition B Leaders: You threatened us one too many times. Attack any one of my members and I will leak classified OPSEC to your enemies."" >they're literally in your coalition but keep dancing around the point. Don't need to be directly treatied to BK to be part of your coalition and clearly imply you guys as the reason they disbanded, so yes, there's a big difference between an alliance on your side who is treatied to an ally of yours disbanding and blaming you guys and some random alliance disbanding and blaming you guys. sO, oKAy
  21. CandyShi

    Drugs should be decriminalized.

    I’m not going to disagree with you when say the government is controlled by monopolies (kinda is). However I’m going to go the opposite route of other people here and say that there should be more restrictions on drugs use in a way that can harm other people. I don’t give a damn whether you drink, smoke, get high, whatever in your own home. If you die because of drug use I don't care. (Ok I might care, but it’s not the drugs fault, you made the choice to do drugs. That’s your choice) What I DO care about is if your drug use harms innocent people around you, like if you’re driving under the influence of drugs (which is already illegal). Going a step further, in my ideal world it’d be illegal to smoke in public areas. I don’t want your second-hand smoke affecting my athsmatic brother, thanks. In addition, if you’re planning to actually give birth while pregnant (that is, you’re not going to get an abortion) I think it should be illegal to do any recreational drugs at all. Other than those conditions and other “harm others” conditions, I have no problem whatsoever with drugs being decriminalized
  22. Noctis Anarch Caelum

    Drugs should be decriminalized.

    At this point it’s our gov controlled by corporations committing the real crimes against its citizens. So who are the real criminals? Those who feel entitled to liberty as the country as founded upon or those undermining our country to profit the Big Pharma drug monopolies & private prison industry locking up peaceful people with rapists and other dangerous individuals? Personally I find it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to ban substances on a whim using the interstate commerce clause to try excusing the unconstitutional grab for power.
  23. Noctis Anarch Caelum

    The current meta and you.

    Making it cheaper to rebuild infra might actually help those who war more often to catch up, since they could buy their infra higher between wars & it not be a complete waste if they’re expecting it wrecked. Another way to make the advantage of bigger city nations not as big without cities constantly decreasing in how many military building you can have would be double how many of each you can build in your first 5 cities. Would allow newer nations a better chance, since a nation with even twice the cities could only max out at 50% more units rather than 100%. As nations get to higher city counts; the first 5 allowing double the military buildings wouldn’t have as much of effect; although still let lower city count nations have a better chance. Since the first 5 are already treated differently in build time; could also double how much NS they give & military units produced. Think something like that would do enough to put the top tier players in range of more people w/o those people being at a greater disadvantage than those they can reach already.
  24. Sir Scarfalot

    The current meta and you.

    You don't even need the battle sim. Spy round: 6 operations and 180 spies simply beats 2 operations and 60 spies. Outside of implausible scenarios, the spy war should be won within the first three-five attacks, leaving the c28 crippled on the spy front. Even if the c28 sees it coming and knows who to hit, they can only at best cripple two opponents; the third gets to strike back from full spies. At that point, the c20s simply need to wait for the next day's spy operations to refill before attacking aircraft with their next set of operations prior to the blitz. Round 1: 3 c20 declare on c28. Assuming all are on max planes with full buy to spare, then c20 will have 20/28ths of the c28's planes. However, the 3 spy attacks destroy somewhere around 8% planes on the c28, so it's more like 20/26. First strike advantage goes to the attacker, since they can declare at any point in the turn, so oustside of extraordinary scenarios (hackerman meme), they're going to be able to aggressively dogfight without hindrance. This gives them a 42% advantage, which means the trades are actually in their favor (28ish/26). So, with 3 of them doing the same dogfight, that cuts down the enemy's planes by more than three times whatever each c20 lost. At this point the c28 has only bad options. They can get GC... which renders the air battle now only a bit less in the favor of the c20s doing aggressive dogfights (GC is a 33% advantage, while being the aggressor in a dogfight is a 42% advantage, let alone the casualties). The c28 can fortify, which is even worse (25% advantage vs 42% advantage). The c28 can ground battle and fortify, but that opens up the option for yet another round of dogfights before the c28 can take advantage of the 42% aggressive bonus that they should have been doing with the few surviving aircraft they had. Now, if the c20s refuse to build anything other than aircraft, then the c28 can harass them with ground and naval battles, possibly even beiging them. The problem with that though is that when that happens, the c28's defense slot is open and ready for another c20 to come in and fill the slot, while the losses on the c20 that got beiged can be recovered due to the beige. This scenario exists regardless of which beige ruleset we're under. The only difference between my suggestion of all wars ending in beige versus the current system of the c20s having no intention to win the war and thus expiring (which is rulebreaking under the strictest definition) is that under my system, no matter who wins the conventional war, be it the c20s or the c28, neither side can maintain permanent blockade and ZM on their opponent. Under your system the winning side would be able to do that and the loser, be it the c20s or the c28, would thus be able to be rendered unable to compete and have no incentive to peace. Under my system, *both* sides get the opportunity to rebuild and thus iterate the war for another round. This would actually shorten large-scale global wars, since rebuilds and subsequent destruction of said rebuilds both require an expenditure of resources; holding down someone in ZM does not cost the ZM'd nation anything and thus they have no incentive to peace at all.
  25. Micchan

    War Stats: Global War 14

    I get errors, sorry we could not find etc. when I select this war, not always but like 50% of the times, high traffic?
  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.