War Branding Law

[PFH]

And what pervents group of players joining active nation raising this law to the max and then declaring war on other nation again lighting 1 trader resulting in treasury drained wirh no power to fight aggainst it. This law makes no sense at all.

Besides why nation needs another way to motivate it's citizens to fight for it? If you are enjoying perks of that nation weather they are stipends or insurances or both or even just perks of 1 port and your rank then you should fight for it.

With this law only nations with 20 and more players could be safe from treasury raid although neither them could be 100% safe remember raid on Spain treasury? This law gives 0 perks to nations only to players whom want to raid someones treasury.

So if this has no perks and no treasury is safe then are stipends not giving perks? Every law has 0 perks woth your logic and technically anything that takes gold from treasury is dangerous, including basically every law that exists to nations. If a group of 20 players wanted to drain a treasury, they wouldnt target this as if the 1 player decides to quit or defleet, they have no one.

Also your point is invalid as this wouldnt target one trader it targets a nation. Read my suggestion before making a point the whole nation benefits from this like you said dumby lol. If this became a problem then the initial nation did something wrong for this to be used against them.

[Meliva]

And what pervents group of players joining active nation raising this law to the max and then declaring war on other nation again lighting 1 trader resulting in treasury drained wirh no power to fight aggainst it. This law makes no sense at all.

Besides why nation needs another way to motivate it's citizens to fight for it? If you are enjoying perks of that nation weather they are stipends or insurances or both or even just perks of 1 port and your rank then you should fight for it.

With this law only nations with 20 and more players could be safe from treasury raid although neither them could be 100% safe remember raid on Spain treasury? This law gives 0 perks to nations only to players whom want to raid someones treasury.

like teddy said- if they have the votes to force something like this, they have better options of raiding the treasury. mainly sending themselves payments and denying any to other people who are not in their group. If they did the war payment way, the minority who are against them can still recoup some losses-while the vote way they would be unable to do so.

So once more, this law would be a very ineffective to drain a treasury. Sure, its possible, but its like eating a bowl of cereal with a fork- sure it can still get the job done, but theres a much better way to do the same job that already exists.

[Sebena]

I see there is no sense in discussing this and you proved that I was right as soon as you started to call me names.

Secondly 20 players gather join Spain they overthrow curnent king and council they raise this law to the max declare war on SKN then all they need to start draining treasury fast is light up players like DarkKnight whom fly SKN flag and have 500+ ships. 100 fleets with 250K per each hit is 25M easily. Now next round they light up another player with SKN flag and in less then 2 hours 100s of millions are drained.

[Sebena]

And what pervents group of players joining active nation raising this law to the max and then declaring war on other nation again lighting 1 trader resulting in treasury drained wirh no power to fight aggainst it. This law makes no sense at all.

Besides why nation needs another way to motivate it's citizens to fight for it? If you are enjoying perks of that nation weather they are stipends or insurances or both or even just perks of 1 port and your rank then you should fight for it.

With this law only nations with 20 and more players could be safe from treasury raid although neither them could be 100% safe remember raid on Spain treasury? This law gives 0 perks to nations only to players whom want to raid someones treasury.

like teddy said- if they have the votes to force something like this, they have better options of raiding the treasury. mainly sending themselves payments and denying any to other people who are not in their group. If they did the war payment way, the minority who are against them can still recoup some losses-while the vote way they would be unable to do so.

So once more, this law would be a very ineffective to drain a treasury. Sure, its possible, but its like eating a bowl of cereal with a fork- sure it can still get the job done, but theres a much better way to do the same job that already exists.

And voting for payments takes how much time?

What if mistake happen and they lose king position and original king gets on the throne again and vetoes those payments?

[PFH]

3 days. Thats 750m on a 1 b treasury. With this do math. Lets say we do CDV as the nation target and lets assume he is in nuie still. Lets assume 350 fleets and idk how many he has. 250k payout on attack wins. 1400 turns which will be the total. Attacks every two hours from fugis, and including how long that would take to assume that MB, retals, or anything will be included to even get a scratch of 750m. A player who is that large will have the ample resources to stop, defleet, and prevent that raid and therefore shut down your idea completely. The stipends save that trouble just by having population. Ur logic makes no sense.

[Meliva]

And what pervents group of players joining active nation raising this law to the max and then declaring war on other nation again lighting 1 trader resulting in treasury drained wirh no power to fight aggainst it. This law makes no sense at all.

Besides why nation needs another way to motivate it's citizens to fight for it? If you are enjoying perks of that nation weather they are stipends or insurances or both or even just perks of 1 port and your rank then you should fight for it.

With this law only nations with 20 and more players could be safe from treasury raid although neither them could be 100% safe remember raid on Spain treasury? This law gives 0 perks to nations only to players whom want to raid someones treasury.

like teddy said- if they have the votes to force something like this, they have better options of raiding the treasury. mainly sending themselves payments and denying any to other people who are not in their group. If they did the war payment way, the minority who are against them can still recoup some losses-while the vote way they would be unable to do so.

So once more, this law would be a very ineffective to drain a treasury. Sure, its possible, but its like eating a bowl of cereal with a fork- sure it can still get the job done, but theres a much better way to do the same job that already exists.

And voting for payments takes how much time?

roughly 3 days. But if you already have the bloody majority vote, those 3 days won't matter. You just secure you and your buddies payments, collect, and block any of your enemies payments. Rinse and repeat until its drained and you and your friends make off with 100% of the treasury.

Do it by using the war method, and the people who you are raiding can take part in the war too and reclaim some of the gold. if things go wrong, it very well could end up with you and your friends getting less then half, and the minority stealing back most of it.


So i am sure most people, when faced with either a guaranteed 100% payment for just a few extra days of waiting, versus a far less guaranteed payment that ALSO requires lighting people up and plundering spending turns. i think most would simply wait and get the guaranteed cash.

[PFH]

And what pervents group of players joining active nation raising this law to the max and then declaring war on other nation again lighting 1 trader resulting in treasury drained wirh no power to fight aggainst it. This law makes no sense at all.

Besides why nation needs another way to motivate it's citizens to fight for it? If you are enjoying perks of that nation weather they are stipends or insurances or both or even just perks of 1 port and your rank then you should fight for it.

With this law only nations with 20 and more players could be safe from treasury raid although neither them could be 100% safe remember raid on Spain treasury? This law gives 0 perks to nations only to players whom want to raid someones treasury.

like teddy said- if they have the votes to force something like this, they have better options of raiding the treasury. mainly sending themselves payments and denying any to other people who are not in their group. If they did the war payment way, the minority who are against them can still recoup some losses-while the vote way they would be unable to do so.

So once more, this law would be a very ineffective to drain a treasury. Sure, its possible, but its like eating a bowl of cereal with a fork- sure it can still get the job done, but theres a much better way to do the same job that already exists.

And voting for payments takes how much time?

What if mistake happen and they lose king position and original king gets on the throne again and vetoes those payments?

Then the original king won the battle wolfie are u dumb. I wasted two top helper votes on this logic?

Aside from the point, this wouldnt affect it. I feel this argument is more personal and emotional than it is logical on your perspective

[Sebena]

3 days. Thats 750m on a 1 b treasury. With this do math. Lets say we do CDV as the nation target and lets assume he is in nuie still. Lets assume 350 fleets and idk how many he has. 250k payout on attack wins. 1400 turns which will be the total. Attacks every two hours from fugis, and including how long that would take to assume that MB, retals, or anything will be included to even get a scratch of 750m. A player who is that large will have the ample resources to stop, defleet, and prevent that raid and therefore shut down your idea completely. The stipends save that trouble just by having population. Ur logic makes no sense.

It's your and not ur.

I am done discussing things with you since you don't have arguments therefore you call people names losing all credits you had until that point.

[PFH]

You did read the quote right? I 1400 turns to hit 350 fleets and that doesnt include how many turns to buy, players needed to cover that, and how stipends save your turns right? You’re clearly mistaken as i have proven my point with meliva and you still dont get it

[Sebena]

It's 4 am and I am not in the mood to discuss things when people with whom I am discussing just repeat 5 same sentences with no new arguments in them