Arcaeus

I'd love to see a new component: the ability to spy Alliances. Specifically Alliance Bank. It could be maybe a 2 spy action mission (requiring IA) that a Nation can do, but formulas are based on both their Alliance and the other Alliance's spy numbers. A formula of nominal spies in the AA and average spies per nation. This actually has a unique effect of ensuring AAs get members to build up spies, and more reason to do spy assassination campaigns against other AAs, etc. Maybe this could be expanded but I really like this conceptually. Other ideas: Remove day-change limiter. If someone can camp a screen and snipe a missile/nuke, I don't see the problem with that. Again when nukes are used often in losing wars for one side to pad damage scores, think it's fine for them to be able to be destroyed. I'd actually love to see a player poll on this in the Discord. Success ratios on Covert is probably too strong and can be nerfed slightly.

I would first start with the premise: What do we want nukes and missiles to do? And I think it's important to communicate that to players as well. During wartime, it serves as a very strong way to destroy infrastructure, basically works really well balancing the risk/reward of infrastructure for its benefits in peacetime and the risks at wartime. I do think this conceptually must stay regardless. However, I'd probably want to play around with the effectiveness of nukes and missiles. Specifically to counter the "Player gets worn down by war so they no longer even attempt to win wars, just declare on largest infra targets to help pad war damage scores". I could see balancing it in the following ways: Nukes being more effective based on certain domestic infrastructure averages (maybe cap to 1500 or 2000 average but to play a risk/reward of having to rebuild to make nukes more effective) Maybe applying a debuff to nukes/missiles. Say someone has air superiority, it reduces its % chance to be successful (think of a nuke/missile being shot down). Can have different effects for different debuffs. Say then blockade may reduce the % damage of the nuke/missile, and/or the ability for it to be created. As right now, risk/reward only exists on the person with infrastructure, but there is no risk/reward concept for the player building these weapons in the same day change and especially in a losing war they are only incentivized to neglect other aspects of war mechanics to solely build nukes/missiles for score. Especially with tying nuclear success/effectiveness to debuffs gives players the ability to mitigate this apart from a project while also encouraging them to do more diverse military actions.

I'd want to make a new debuff for Soldiers. Basically if you're in a war and you Blockade them, get Air Superiority, have Ground Control, maybe something like "Logistics Control", a combined benefit for having all 3 other debuffs. It could (1 or more of the following): Do double casualties to enemy Soldiers Half the casualties of enemy Soldiers Reduce enemy Soldiers from damaging Tanks When you're winning a war, it can be frustrating to dominate every level of combat but still have opponents suicide cheap Soldiers into tanks for additional damages. This could prevent that from happening. It may also make more well-rounded wars where players consider different ways of winning wars. It can also help scenarios of down-declares where they have a mass of soldiers but don't bother to build tanks, planes, or ships to give their opponents a way to overcome their mass of soldiers if they don't commit resources elsewhere.

Just some friendly feedback. Maybe a rename is in order. Amarr Duchy maybe, perhaps Amarr Kingdom. Amarr Empire just isn't fitting.

We just appreciate that you finally drop the façade of pretending to act like victims as you tend to do and admit to the poaching. But god that Alliance history story Jet wrote to us. The sob story of how everyone seems to always be against you. And yet there is such a recurring pattern y'all never seem to learn.

It's totally not poaching though. Our former IA Jarret just happened to go without any notice to Amarr where screenshots show Amarr gov laughing about it. But Jet totally was going to say something to us, he just happened to fall asleep before he got a chance. Totally unsuspicious.

We wanted to give you guys a heads up for future attacks. Let Jet get some coffee so he doesn't fall asleep after war declarations. But please, try not to act like a throwaway micro.

Can confirm. We wanted to declare sooner but she really did distract all 3 alliances.

You could also play with the spy mechanic as not a direct action but an indirect role. So say you still made the trade via market while blockaded, the game would make a roll based on whatever formula. It could also be that: 1. On success - All materials make it through. 2. On failure - Some/all the material is lost at sea (as you mentioned). 3. On failure - Some/all the material is captured by the blockading force (new idea) It could be that # of spies helps to play a small to moderate roll in the calculation but itself is not a spy action (though I like the idea of a spy action wherein success would allow the next trade to go through with 100% success).

I agree that the RNG rolls between scales of success and troop count is wonky. It would make sense at least to tie them together into a similar mechanic than separate but related rolls. Because I agree that mechanic is rather comical.

Disagree, RNG is useful: Wars in real life often are won with lower rates. Arguably when attacking, cities should have fortification bonuses. It adds a risk/reward measure to battle ensuring people don't just put in enough to get a guaranteed risk but need to decide where to over-commit at times if needed/worthwhile. It's healthy to the in-game economy. It ensure more turnover of units/resources and especially when munitions/gasoline trade <5000, it's a built in anti-inflationary tool similar to credit trading for resources above 5k. I think having war RNG brings more to the table than it detracts.