Georgi Stomana

You could make beiging someone destroy a percentage of their infrastructure, ie "X Nation scored 6 immense victory ground attacks making Nation Y surrender. In the chaos of the surrender Nation X soldiers occupied Nation Y cities, looting, destroying and killing all they found. This resulted in ZYX infrastructure damage in Nation Y before they finally withdrew."

OK, so here's my basic point: In PW wars you can build up forces and spend money to reduce the damage your nation will take in battles. You want to not get your infra destroyed? Build more troops/tanks/planes/ships. You can't do this with Missiles, there's the small chance of intercepting with Iron Dome/Vital Defense but otherwise you cannot defend yourself, you can only retaliate. Even if say the Anti-Missile would have a chance of partially intercepting the Missile, ie it hits thethe missile mid-flight and the debris lands in your cities still doing damage, that would be OK too.

Oh right, sorry.

Nation ID: 9236 Post Count: 250 Link to Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9236

Anyone know of any browser-based games like PW but where you manage a planet and build spaceships?

Because they will still have paid for the Anti-Missile, with all those resources and money, they've just paid the price ahead of time. Also it could be 90%.

Realism argument again? People would buy them because you would still be doing damage to them, because the Anti-Missiles would also have a cost. My view is more just that being defensive is not a viable strategy for missiles in PW, your only option is to retaliate with your own missiles, and personally I prefer games when they give you as many different ways to play as possible.

20% or 25% is not odds that many like. The suggestion is so people can pay the price ahead of time for a 100% guaranteed chance of not getting hit by one Missile during war. With regard to Iron Dome/Vital well they could remain and the Anti-Missile could only take action if it "got through" your defenses, like a last-resort.

Pretty much self-explanatory, you can make a Missile that is designed to be fired to intercept other Missiles. The cost would be the same as the cost of a regular Missile. The Anti-Missile would automatically be consumed if an enemy fires a regular Missile at your nation during war, meaning you don't get hit. In addition, using an Anti-Missile means you can't fire a regular Missile for that day of war, or if you've already fired a Missile then you can't intercept one for that day. You can intercept one Missile per day for every war you are engaged in, so you can intercept multiple Missiles but intercepting just one means you can't fire an offensive one that day. Also another idea: It can also take out Nuclear weapons, but the Nuke still detonates in the air doing some infra/radiation damage to your nation. That's how it would be balanced between being able to take out nukes. Thoughts?

Come on, NOTHING in Naked Gun was even remotely serious. This movie might of been a comedy but the central plot seems serious.

I don't think it's worth buying any manufactured resources, even if you don't have them natively just import the base resources and refine them yourself. The PPU of gas is over twice that of oil.

Some people might say that no alliance has the right to attack another alliance without it being in self-defense, no matter the past grievances. Even if you wanted to "teach them a lesson" then why didn't you just send diplomats, sit down and work out your grievances, without resorting to violence?

I don't mean changing everything... just stuff like every European country having a picture of Paris or whatever.

National project name: Construction & Building Industry Small description: Creates a nationwide body to plan and organize all public construction projects. Project effect: Decreases cost of infra 5% Resource cost: Dunno

What is your alliance's stance on raiding members of alliances?