Post Archive

Region: The Region That Has No Big Banks

History

Pinevilla wrote:Finally someone believes me!

most people donÂ’t still :/

Lemona wrote:most people donÂ’t still :/

We at least Ardeyn does.

Although he is an atheist :/

Lemona, Astravica

New United Common-Lands wrote:If people want too, if are to implement anything then like it has to something simple and something everyone agrees too I guess

I donÂ’t

New United Common-Lands wrote:Good afternoon

GUTEN TAG

New United Common-Lands

Lemona wrote:I donÂ’t

GUTEN TAG

Guten Nacht🔪

New United Common-Lands, Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:Guten Nacht🔪

GUTEN NACHT?

NEIN!

GUTEN TAG!!!!

Pinevilla

Lemona wrote:GUTEN NACHT?

NEIN!

GUTEN TAG!!!!

Ich lieb die Kinder Lemona

Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:Ich lieb die Kinder Lemona

WasÂ

Lemona wrote:WasÂ…

Ich küsse meinen Bruder

Lemona

Hello German weirdos

Lemona

Favenova wrote:Hello German weirdos

Hewo uwu how aw wu

Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:Hewo uwu how aw wu

Very tired

Lemona

New-Union wrote:New United Common-Lands

Don't you think we should implement an rp system, like one nation attacks another and general a random number of loss like 90 thousand and this 90 thousand would be discounted in the military power of that nation And if it reaches zero the nation loses the war, Of course, scientific advances and robots also give an advantage It's because if not the wars are endless and never end

Ew. I hate it when victory can be decided simply because RNGesus says “Well screw you” and rolls the highest number of casualties for you and lowest for the opponent. It takes away all strategy this way. Now it doesn’t matter the strategies. This system sounds really bad leaving an entire war up to random numbers

New United Common-Lands, Lemona

Lkandria wrote:Ew. I hate it when victory can be decided simply because RNGesus says “Well screw you” and rolls the highest number of casualties for you and lowest for the opponent. It takes away all strategy this way. Now it doesn’t matter the strategies. This system sounds really bad leaving an entire war up to random numbers

I submitted a proposal to Ardeyn for us to vote on in parliament that is based on this but itÂ’s not random and is a set amount based on factors like amount of troops in the battle, SA, types of troops, and stuff like that.

Lkandria wrote:Ew. I hate it when victory can be decided simply because RNGesus says “Well screw you” and rolls the highest number of casualties for you and lowest for the opponent. It takes away all strategy this way. Now it doesn’t matter the strategies. This system sounds really bad leaving an entire war up to random numbers
I agree with you

all battles exclude the strategy and tactics of combat

i.e. New Union can just say I destroyed your fleet because I have 21 million in the army and you only have 8 and that's why you lost in the koneret battle

but still, there should be a loss system because you canÂ’t fight when your army was killed

Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:I submitted a proposal to Ardeyn for us to vote on in parliament that is based on this but itÂ’s not random and is a set amount based on factors like amount of troops in the battle, SA, types of troops, and stuff like that.

Uh huh. That still sounds very random. Still takes away strategy. ThatÂ’s why I kind of donÂ’t like Risk. IÂ’ll give an example for when I played with my dad. My dad rolled up to Egypt with 17 troops against my 3. By the end of it all he had 5 left. It was the dumbest thing ever. Same with the Warhammer 40k tabletop game. You can go in with the worlds best strategy but it doesnÂ’t matter when the dice roll ones. Randomness in strategy is a terrible idea. The system has been working fine for months I donÂ’t see why it needs to be changed

Lemona

Elkonie wrote:I agree with you

all battles exclude the strategy and tactics of combat

i.e. New Union can just say I destroyed your fleet because I have 21 million in the army and you only have 8 and that's why you lost in the koneret battle

but still, there should be a loss system because you canÂ’t fight when your army was killed

Yeah there should probably be a loss system but it shouldnÂ’t be random

Lemona

Lkandria wrote:Uh huh. That still sounds very random. Still takes away strategy. ThatÂ’s why I kind of donÂ’t like Risk. IÂ’ll give an example for when I played with my dad. My dad rolled up to Egypt with 17 troops against my 3. By the end of it all he had 5 left. It was the dumbest thing ever. Same with the Warhammer 40k tabletop game. You can go in with the worlds best strategy but it doesnÂ’t matter when the dice roll ones. Randomness in strategy is a terrible idea. The system has been working fine for months I donÂ’t see why it needs to be changed

ItÂ’s not just wait till you can read it if Ardeyn accepts it

Lemona

BFL:ST - Match 10

SC - Inter-Kaltburg FC v. Emo Core FC

1st Half: 1-1

2nd Half: 3-2

OT: -

DC - TeamPizza SC v. Lemonan Citruses SC

1st Half: 1-1

2nd Half: 2-4

OT: -

Lemona, Kaltburg

Elkonie wrote:I agree with you

all battles exclude the strategy and tactics of combat

i.e. New Union can just say I destroyed your fleet because I have 21 million in the army and you only have 8 and that's why you lost in the koneret battle

but still, there should be a loss system because you canÂ’t fight when your army was killed

I want more attention to the battles as a turn based strategy

after all, there were many sieges and battles where a huge number of soldiers lost to a smaller number of troops

New United Common-Lands, Lemona

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sY80ZrzQkrk

Lemona

Lkandria wrote:Yeah there should probably be a loss system but it shouldnÂ’t be random

in general, more attention to one battle can just help the loss calculation system

Lemona

Lkandria wrote:Ew. I hate it when victory can be decided simply because RNGesus says “Well screw you” and rolls the highest number of casualties for you and lowest for the opponent. It takes away all strategy this way. Now it doesn’t matter the strategies. This system sounds really bad leaving an entire war up to random numbers

I mean, i don't really care either way, and my message was more in the spirit of finding a way which makes everyone happy.

Any RNG would have to be based on actual NS stats there would have to be ranking similar to the BFL. it would just be difficult when its multiple nations against each other Lol.

It would also need somebody to manage all of that in a fair way.

I personally see no problem with leaving it how it currently is, i'm not planning on going to war so yeah :D

Lemona

Elkonie wrote:I want more attention to the battles as a turn based strategy

after all, there were many sieges and battles where a huge number of soldiers lost to a smaller number of troops

Most of the times the smaller troops are either very smart or more advanced.

I donÂ’t like New-unions idea but I believe it should be based on size and advancement if you would win battles or not.

The smaller and less advanced your military equals the lower chance you should be able to win

For example unless a bunch of people hang up on him Lkandria can defeat almost anyone because their military is very advanced and very big

I got haircut

New United Common-Lands

Pinevilla wrote:ItÂ’s not just wait till you can read it if Ardeyn accepts it

Thanks for submitting that Pinevilla, i think the best way to implement anything would be through parliament so i look forward to reading your proposal.

Lemona

New United Common-Lands wrote:I mean, i don't really care either way, and my message was more in the spirit of finding a way which makes everyone happy.

Any RNG would have to be based on actual NS stats there would have to be ranking similar to the BFL. it would just be difficult when its multiple nations against each other Lol.

It would also need somebody to manage all of that in a fair way.

I personally see no problem with leaving it how it currently is, i'm not planning on going to war so yeah :D

Me neither :D

New United Common-Lands, Lemona

Lemona wrote:Most of the times the smaller troops are either very smart or more advanced.

I donÂ’t like New-unions idea but I believe it should be based on size and advancement if you would win battles or not.

The smaller and less advanced your military equals the lower chance you should be able to win

For example unless a bunch of people hang up on him Lkandria can defeat almost anyone because their military is very advanced and very big

but if amiya is inferior in technology but slightly and is balanced by weapons from developed countries

therefore, you need to pay more attention to the battles, for this you need a referee who will assess the situation and recognize the winner

Has anybody seen how this type of RP works in other regions, it might be worth starting there that may help you too.

New United Common-Lands wrote:Has anybody seen how this type of RP works in other regions, it might be worth starting there that may help you too.

Evanereich Away!

New United Common-Lands

Pinevilla wrote:Evanereich Away!

Buh bye!

New United Common-Lands

New United Common-Lands wrote:Has anybody seen how this type of RP works in other regions, it might be worth starting there that may help you too.

I think the whole idea of this is dumb and we should just keep it how it is

New United Common-Lands wrote:Has anybody seen how this type of RP works in other regions, it might be worth starting there that may help you too.

Ugh this is hard all the regions IÂ’m finding are one or two nation regions

New United Common-Lands, Lemona

Lemona wrote:I think the whole idea of this is dumb and we should just keep it how it is

I mean who decided who wins and loses wars at the moment, it's basically who can type the fastest.

Lemona

New United Common-Lands wrote:I mean who decided who wins and loses wars at the moment, it's basically who can type the fastest.

B)

me

New United Common-Lands

Can someone please tell if 5,295.00 influence is good? (Apprentice)

And also that means IÂ’m an OG B)

Lemona

Pegemony wrote:Can someone please tell if 5,295.00 influence is good? (Apprentice)

And also that means IÂ’m an OG B)

Is okay

highest in this I region is Yodle I think

mine is like 10,000 I think

Nvm I literally canÂ’t find anyone with our type of rp we may be unique :)

Lemona

Evanereich wrote:Nvm I literally canÂ’t find anyone with our type of rp we may be unique :)

Or stupid

Lemona wrote:Or stupid

I like my thing more

Lemona

Evanereich wrote:Nvm I literally canÂ’t find anyone with our type of rp we may be unique :)

It will be offsite NS so the big regions have no RP on their regional rmb.

I donÂ’t know if The Washington Federation knows anything about this kinda of RP

Lemona

New United Common-Lands wrote:Has anybody seen how this type of RP works in other regions, it might be worth starting there that may help you too.

Declansburg

Lemona

Anyone want Chicago to be a state

Also where do babies come from again?

Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:Anyone want Chicago to be a state

Also where do babies come from again?

I donÂ’t want Chicago to be a state.

And babies come from hell.

Elkonie

Pinevilla wrote:Anyone want Chicago to be a state

Also where do babies come from again?

the stork brings the spirit of a child into the cabbage, after which the woman eats the cabbage

she bears a child and then ... well, then I think you yourself know

Lemona

Elkonie wrote:the stork brings the spirit of a child into the cabbage, after which the woman eats the cabbage

she bears a child and then ... well, then I think you yourself know

And then she gets f-ded

Elkonie

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1648049

Lemona, Favenova

New United Common-Lands wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1648049

Umm what

Lemona

Favenova wrote:Umm what

i was just looking at RP from other regions

Lemona, Favenova

Lemona

I will give you Alaska and Haiti if you give me the yucatan

this is cool, https://ibwca.polarorbit.space/

(map from the communist bloc)

Lemona, Astravica

New United Common-Lands wrote:this is cool, https://ibwca.polarorbit.space/

(map from the communist bloc)

You, make something like that now

Lemona

Pinevilla wrote:You, make something like that now

Haha, i have very little website building skills sadly, i would love too!

Lemona, Pinevilla

Favenova wrote:Lemona

I will give you Alaska and Haiti if you give me the yucatan

No, and shouldnÂ’t Ardeyns own Alaska?

ThatÂ’s how it was for a while

Favenova wrote:Lemona

I will give you Alaska and Haiti if you give me the yucatan

No, and shouldnÂ’t Ardeyns own Alaska?

ThatÂ’s how it was for a while

I've made a dispatch with Pinevillas proposal so people can review it

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1736162

I don't think having a select few nations apart of the RP deciding how it works in Parliament is fair tbh

A poll would be better

Lemona

Ardeyn wrote:I've made a dispatch with Pinevillas proposal so people can review it

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1736162

I don't think having a select few nations apart of the RP decide how it works in Parliament is fair tbh

A poll would be better

Parliament should be like more government like decisions

Something to do with the map rp should be with the public and not a council

Lemona wrote:Parliament should be like more government like decisions

Something to do with the map rp should be with the public and not a council

NUCl thought it was a good idea

The first rule is worthless, because we already base it off the Calculator.

The first 3 rules are worthless.

We havenÂ’t even begun voting but I vote against

Lemona wrote:The first rule is worthless, because we already base it off the Calculator.

How is it worthless, you just described the rule is the same as 1. so that means you agree with it

Lemona, Pinevilla

Lemona wrote:Parliament should be like more government like decisions

Something to do with the map rp should be with the public and not a council

And the public can become Mps

New United Common-Lands wrote:How is it worthless, you just described the rule is the same as 1. so that means you agree with it

They are worthless because 1. is already in place, wars have always had a meaning in this and we already said no godmod

New United Common-Lands

New United Common-Lands wrote:And the public can become Mps

A lot people donÂ’t want to give their email address to join WA, meaning not everyone can unless they have a good reason.

Hey Lemona

I found a song you need to blast across the English Channel to Britain:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fs4YdMPGI

Pinevilla wrote:Hey Lemona

I found a song you need to blast across the English Channel to Britain:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fs4YdMPGI

Have a border with Britain

I ding need too

Lemona wrote:

Have a border with Britain

I ding need too

Still do it across the channel and on your border

Lemona

Lemona wrote:A lot people donÂ’t want to give their email address to join WA, meaning not everyone can unless they have a good reason.

You don't specifically have to be WA to join parliament, but the whole point of WA is to ensure we have a democratic system rather than spam voting with puppets

Pinevilla wrote:Still do it across the channel and on your border

Maybe later

Lemona wrote:No, and shouldnÂ’t Ardeyns own Alaska?

ThatÂ’s how it was for a while

I only owned a tiny bit before but now in Kaltburgs map I have all of it

Lemona

Ardeyn wrote:I only owned a tiny bit before but now in Kaltburgs map I have all of it

The color looks like FaveNovaÂ’s thatÂ’s the thing

Either that or my eyes are messed up

Elkonie

Lemona wrote:A lot people donÂ’t want to give their email address to join WA, meaning not everyone can unless they have a good reason.

Honestly I hate the WA it is useless and doesnÂ’t get anything done.

I mean itÂ’s not enforced at all just look at all the condemned regions and nations that just ignore it.

IÂ’m only in it so I can do parliament and stuff.

Lemona

New United Common-Lands wrote:You don't specifically have to be WA to join parliament, but the whole point of WA is to ensure we have a democratic system rather than spam voting with puppets

Uhhhhh

[sub]thatÂ’s kinda what I meant when I said unless they have a good reason[/sub]

Pinevilla wrote:Honestly I hate the WA it is useless and doesnÂ’t get anything done.

I mean itÂ’s not enforced at all just look at all the condemned regions and nations that just ignore it.

IÂ’m only in it so I can do parliament and stuff.

I kinda hate it too.

It made my agriculture drop and I made three proposals to repeal and it failed

The rules are hard for me to follow cuz I canÂ’t understand anything they say

Lemona wrote:The color looks like FaveNovaÂ’s thatÂ’s the thing

Either that or my eyes are messed up

No theyÂ’re not it is literally the exact same color

Lemona wrote:I kinda hate it too.

It made my agriculture drop and I made three proposals to repeal and it failed

The rules are hard for me to follow cuz I canÂ’t understand anything they say

I ignore everything they do.

Mostly cause I forget everything they do.

Did yÂ’all k ow Biden tested positive for COVID

Astravica

Ardeyn wrote:I've made a dispatch with Pinevillas proposal so people can review it

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1736162

I don't think having a select few nations apart of the RP deciding how it works in Parliament is fair tbh

A poll would be better

Before putting this forward I think we need to review it a bit more. Like there's more to the RP than just this.

I think my main concern is who would be our RP administrator and do they know how to manage this process?

My specific points;

2. No unjustified wars. Every war must have a cause, you canÂ’t just go around declaring on whoever you want.

What defines a justified war, I personally think you would need to suggest some war categories to make this one work (i.e want their land, disagree with them etc, plenty of reasons I'm sure)

3. Accept defeats. If your nation is losing a battle or an overall war, do not make it unfair and start pulling random stuff out of your head to keep you at war. This slows down the process and makes things annoying for the other side.

Who would be in charge of telling people who is winning and losing a battle, we need like a whole simulator throughout the war, and iÂ’ve never played risk iÂ’d imagine we need another map with all of where you military troops and stationed etc with a bit about the terrain (plus some RNG to help decide the battles)

Basically is complicated and we need a simple way to make this understandable for everybody

1. The battle will begin by each nation sending a certain number of troops. There will be an attacker and a defender at all times. This number of troops can consist of whatever type of troops you want, and can be as big of a number as you want. (Although it may not be smart to send in a huge number).

what happens if troops die over time and then you have none, so how would all that work

Pinevilla wrote:No theyÂ’re not it is literally the exact same color

Â

ArdeynÂ’s mainland color looks darker compared to the Alaskan color.

Lemona wrote:The color looks like FaveNovaÂ’s thatÂ’s the thing

Either that or my eyes are messed up

I was confused initially too so I checked myself and it is owned by me

I'm only a couple shades darker than FaveNova

Lemona

Ardeyn wrote:I was confused initially too so I checked myself and it is owned by me

I'm only a couple shades darker than FaveNova

okay

New United Common-Lands wrote:Before putting this forward I think we need to review it a bit more. Like there's more to the RP than just this.

I think my main concern is who would be our RP administrator and do they know how to manage this process?

My specific points;

2. No unjustified wars. Every war must have a cause, you canÂ’t just go around declaring on whoever you want.

What defines a justified war, I personally think you would need to suggest some war categories to make this one work (i.e want their land, disagree with them etc, plenty of reasons I'm sure)

3. Accept defeats. If your nation is losing a battle or an overall war, do not make it unfair and start pulling random stuff out of your head to keep you at war. This slows down the process and makes things annoying for the other side.

Who would be in charge of telling people who is winning and losing a battle, we need like a whole simulator throughout the war, and iÂ’ve never played risk iÂ’d imagine we need another map with all of where you military troops and stationed etc with a bit about the terrain (plus some RNG to help decide the battles)

Basically is complicated and we need a simple way to make this understandable for everybody

1. The battle will begin by each nation sending a certain number of troops. There will be an attacker and a defender at all times. This number of troops can consist of whatever type of troops you want, and can be as big of a number as you want. (Although it may not be smart to send in a huge number).

what happens if troops die over time and then you have none, so how would all that work

1. Yes we have categories of justifications.

2. If you read down a bit youÂ’ll see victory conditions but you can surrender in the battle if you want.

3. If they all die then you lose :/

New United Common-Lands

Pinevilla wrote:1. Yes we have categories of justifications.

2. If you read down a bit youÂ’ll see victory conditions but you can surrender in the battle if you want.

3. If they all die then you lose :/

Ok thatÂ’s fair

New United Common-Lands wrote:Before putting this forward I think we need to review it a bit more. Like there's more to the RP than just this.

I think my main concern is who would be our RP administrator and do they know how to manage this process?

My specific points;

2. No unjustified wars. Every war must have a cause, you canÂ’t just go around declaring on whoever you want.

What defines a justified war, I personally think you would need to suggest some war categories to make this one work (i.e want their land, disagree with them etc, plenty of reasons I'm sure)

3. Accept defeats. If your nation is losing a battle or an overall war, do not make it unfair and start pulling random stuff out of your head to keep you at war. This slows down the process and makes things annoying for the other side.

Who would be in charge of telling people who is winning and losing a battle, we need like a whole simulator throughout the war, and iÂ’ve never played risk iÂ’d imagine we need another map with all of where you military troops and stationed etc with a bit about the terrain (plus some RNG to help decide the battles)

Basically is complicated and we need a simple way to make this understandable for everybody

1. The battle will begin by each nation sending a certain number of troops. There will be an attacker and a defender at all times. This number of troops can consist of whatever type of troops you want, and can be as big of a number as you want. (Although it may not be smart to send in a huge number).

what happens if troops die over time and then you have none, so how would all that work

this is good, but I would like the parties in the telegram to initially send their number of troops to the referee

and then the referee would announce in the message the number of troops of the parties, so it would be possible to avoid the situation when you say your number of troops and the opponent, without thinking, will immediately say the number is much larger, this will equalize the chances

Pinevilla wrote:1. Yes we have categories of justifications.

2. If you read down a bit youÂ’ll see victory conditions but you can surrender in the battle if you want.

3. If they all die then you lose :/

How would you decide max troops to send out?

NSEconomy, Population, Some other thing..

Lemona

Teampizza wrote:How would you decide max troops to send out?

NSEconomy, Population, Some other thing..

You can send out as many as you want

I have a feeling this if passed would not end up well.

A change to the rp such as this might confuse nations and will take a while for people to get used too.

And in my opinion, unlike how the proposal said it will make it more fun I donÂ’t believe this sounds fun, it just sounds more complicated.

I also found the longer wars being more fun and this making them shorter making them less fun and less interactive.

New United Common-Lands

Lemona wrote:I have a feeling this if passed would not end up well.

A change to the rp such as this might confuse nations and will take a while for people to get used too.

And in my opinion, unlike how the proposal said it will make it more fun I donÂ’t believe this sounds fun, it just sounds more complicated.

I also found the longer wars being more fun and this making them shorter making them less fun and less interactive.

you can always stretch the battle for several days, or vice versa, voice many small battles

Lemona wrote:I have a feeling this if passed would not end up well.

A change to the rp such as this might confuse nations and will take a while for people to get used too.

And in my opinion, unlike how the proposal said it will make it more fun I donÂ’t believe this sounds fun, it just sounds more complicated.

I also found the longer wars being more fun and this making them shorter making them less fun and less interactive.

In it's current i would vote against too, I'm not against the principle.. although I'm never gonna use the War RP so maybe i should just not get involved.

Like is there really an issue with the current process?

Lemona

New United Common-Lands wrote:In it's current i would vote against too, I'm not against the principle.. although I'm never gonna use the War RP so maybe i should just not get involved.

Like is there really an issue with the current process?

I donÂ’t believe there is any issue.

I just feel like this new bill doesnÂ’t really fix any problems

New United Common-Lands

也许我们需要保证儿童的存活率

Lemona

Egoism Freedom Island wrote:也许我们需要保证儿童的存活率

what does that have to do with anything?

Lemona wrote:what does that have to do with anything?

Who is egoism

@柠檬 儿童总是因为意外死亡而影响经济和劳动力发展

New United Common-Lands wrote:In it's current i would vote against too, I'm not against the principle.. although I'm never gonna use the War RP so maybe i should just not get involved.

Like is there really an issue with the current process?

Lemona wrote:I donÂ’t believe there is any issue.

I just feel like this new bill doesnÂ’t really fix any problems

There is an issue.

We have the problem of people continuing to make up stuff to keep them from losing, we saw in the New union-Elkonie war. If we donÂ’t set some rules then people will keep on doing this and dragging out wars longer than they need to last.

Longer wars are fun, but can be annoying if they are long because the other side keeps on saying “oh now I bring in 200 tanks to keep on fighting” every time you’re about to win.

Favenova wrote:谁是利己主义
这个地区的名称只是随便取的

Egoism Freedom Island wrote:这个地区的名称只是随便取的

Pinevilla wrote:There is an issue.

We have the problem of people continuing to make up stuff to keep them from losing, we saw in the New union-Elkonie war. If we donÂ’t set some rules then people will keep on doing this and dragging out wars longer than they need to last.

Longer wars are fun, but can be annoying if they are long because the other side keeps on saying “oh now I bring in 200 tanks to keep on fighting” every time you’re about to win.

Logically they can.

And show the examples.

Lemona wrote:Logically they can.

And show the examples.

“Logically”

ItÂ’s not logical if you keep on doing it to keep you from losing.

Elkonie did it even though me and new union had completely destroyed his country.

Pinevilla wrote:“Logically”

ItÂ’s not logical if you keep on doing it to keep you from losing.

Elkonie did it even though me and new union had completely destroyed his country.

Except Adert was on his side.

Adert makes that side stronger, and since Adert and Elkonie are Allies and your guys militaries donÂ’t equal as much, you would most likely lose.

Along with mercenaries Elkonie had

And the LkandriaÂ’s supplies given to Elkonie

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.