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?

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) events as I remember have two choices, both of which have different outcomes, so people were able to figure out quite quick which was the "right" answer to every event. With this proposal the event would just happen, no right or wrong choice involved. That said I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in a looooong time so it might be different now, or my memory might be faulty.

I know. I'm talking about what "economic sanction" means in real-life. Why would the sanctioning nation receive money? It doesn't make sense. It sounds to me like what the proposal really is, is a nation/alliance taxing another nation/alliance, in the same way that alliances tax their own members. I mean if that's what it is call it tribute or something, not sanctions.

I wonder if it will ever be possible to buy resources with a donation, instead of money.

Even that way it seems incredibly clunky and doesn't conform to any expectation of what sanctions actually are, no real nation would agree to be sanctioned. It just sounds ridiculous even thinking about your scenario, where an alliance is sanctioned and magically wow the whole world knows that in 5 days comes war. Also let's think about what sanctions are, sanctions are not going to financially benefit the nation doing the sanctioning, they will just deprive the nation being sanctioned of importing any of the sanctioned goods from the sanction-er nation. That said I will put my own proposal for sanctions to be constructive; why not enable nations and alliances to sanction other nations/alliances in the same way as Embargoes currently work, BUT it's only for a specific type of good, ie Guardian sanctions UPN for Munitions, meaning both sides cannot sell munitions to each other but they can other resource types.

How many countries in the world would do absolutely nothing and be absolutely fine with it if people in a foreign country made a film about their sitting/current head of state/government being killed? The issue wouldn't be as big if the film just featured a hypothetical North Korean leader/s, as in not the same "universe" we're in, it's always going to be a problem when you use the likeness and name of a real-life person being murdered in a fictional film without their permission. I'm pretty sure there's been video games about fighting with China and even one where North Korea invades America which didn't get this kinda drama. Death-threats are generally not protected by freedom of speech.

Ehh, I do know that getting a negative event would likely just piss people off, so maybe make the chances of a negative events way lower than a positive one?

Seems pointless, why not just embargo them? An embargo is exactly the same as a sanction only generally sanctions only target certain imports/exports. It would never be used. Why? Because firstly most nations are aligned, and a sanction would be an act of war on their alliance. Second it would basically give your enemy time to prepare for war and tip off the nation to their intentions. Seems like something which wouldn't be used outside roleplaying where both nations agree to it before hand, not "serious" playing of the game.

I disagree, raiding is always wrong, because it is wrong to steal from others. If someone wanted to leave the game they could just delete their nation. Being inactive just shows that they don't log-in much, that's all, it doesn't automatically mean they've left the game.

Even if the DPRK did hack them, it was within their rights to do so. The movie promotes the murder of a real-life person, a real world leader and head of state. It just goes to show that the US does not respect the sovereignty of nations.

The only resources I'd like to see added to PW are Refined Uranium and Limestone/Cement (makes sense that you should need cement to make improvements).