Clarke

I forgot to laugh it was so funny.

These threads are desperate. "Beige is a problem! Soldiers is a problem!" Both have easy counters, staggering targets and direct air attacks on soldiers. You can't however have your cake and eat it.

Your way of thinking of the game and the war mechanics is overly complicated. Its a bad habit to compare everything to real life, this is a game. Not many games are realistic and if they were they would probably be boring.

I never made a thread with that suggestion so I have distorted nothing whereas you have ?. With your proposal however a change like that would be necessary to keep soldiers relevant. There's measures that could be used to indicate progress, number of projects, cities and age which combined could be used in a formula to indicate tech level.

Realistically my nation would be extremely defensible from aircraft with anti-air weaponry manned by soldiers against lesser developed nations with their Mickey mouse armies. I'm not trying to distort the game, you're trying to distort it lol. I don't want any change.

I have to factor in my population size every time I purchase troops and I assume it the same way for most people fighting in this war. So that is factually wrong as I myself can prove population is a factor in soldiers, its just not a factor when you have a massive population base like 10 million or such. How much skill does it take to buy airplanes and shove them at people? The same argument can be made for every military unit. My next game suggestion is actually reduce the soldier losses from airplanes targeting soldiers by 75%.

This is an interesting read but you have an obvious bias, after however number of months of the enemy fighting back with soldiers you decided to vent and ask to nerf them. There is no escaping that.

I'm one of those whales with 40 improvements over the limit in some cities?. In all honestly I could still fight this war with just 20 improvements in each city rebuilding to 1000 infra when necessary. The war is dragged out because alliance leaders in your coalition want the other side to quit the game.

In order to stop nations from wasting nukes you want to get nations to waste lots of money on nukes to do minimal damage. I'll admit I have no use for Nuclear weapons in the global war however with this suggestion there is even less use. This change may be beneficial if a nation has 3000 infra and lots of improvements but once the war gets down to it and nations are rebuilding to 1000 infra to keep fighting then this makes the idea is somewhat pointless as nukes have no purpose in that war if they cost 100 million. Can you calculate the damages for us to show how they break even?

$100 or $200 million? The idea is interesting but unfortunately with no disrespect you lack the longtime experience of knowing the value of items. I'd expect to knock out 3 - 5 cities for $100 million tbh. Endless wars will still happen, you can fight endlessly buying up to 1000 infra or within that range.

Okay but not much about the war mechanics is realistic. Soldiers is probably the most realistic part, more so than building ridiculous numbers of tanks, ships and airplanes. I think the same principle applies to them. That does sound like an interesting war system though.

Clearly not the case as my nation today got overwhelmed. Yes it will be back to normal soon but if you don't want to deal with that then nations fighting should peace out. You can't just kill something and then be lazy and expect it to stay dead because you don't want to or can't commit to keeping it that way .

If I could downvote this bizarre sentence I would, all I'll say for now is thanks.

I guess Thanks is the new downvote. Thanks for this garbage change Meanwhile the server is a mess and missing turns.

That's the truth of it. If you control everything else and outnumber the opponent it is quite easy to defeat troops. You need to keep the troops under control or they will grow rapidly because of your failure. Now you're fighting older nations with more cities being held down, it is what it is. Nerfing troops really just leaves missiles to fight back.

TheNG talking about OOC stuff is the last straw for you? really? You really shouldn't be saying personal OOC stuff if you aren't ok with it being public, its being internet savvy.

So damn dark trying to get people to quit, much more friendly to hope they get "lives" and be more inactive to match your own useless membership base. Flashback.

I doubt this thing you're doing is actually happening though.

George Clooney

Losing wars is pretty unappealing assuming the enemy does the most powerful attacks to destroy maximum infra. The problem is if the enemy can not outright win a war which is what is happening then no side will be outright winners and the war will continue with both sides winning in their own ways.

Is that what it was, someone sent me a stupid trade the exact same without any context. Obviously I cancelled it. I'm at war too. I received many embargoes from GOONS too.

Beige exempts you from paying taxes? Where is my taxes going?

I want to nuke a nation and wipe out 1000 planes.

Not sure about this. Ships don't need an increase, very expensive as it is. Planes don't need a monetary increase, 3.7 million to buy maximum planes each day? no thanks. Better to simply increase resource cost of planes. Soldiers are irrelevant in the grand scheme and need to be affordable.