Zerkium

I think it would make more sense to use "Lost", "Dead", etc (and columns flipped). E.g. Infrastructure lost, Value of Infrastructure Lost, Money Taken, Soldiers Lost. It's a slight head-scratcher every time I open the war timeline area up - is this the amount I lost, or the opponent? Unsure if others have a similar experience. Just tossing this suggestion out there.

Yeah I just re-read it, it's messy. I'm a software developer, was in a... mode I guess lol Rewording to a simple: - Fortify should ask the user what to fortify against (air, land, sea). If user fortifies against air, and opponent uses air-strike, then the attack will be severely nerfed.

Dat pompous arrogance. Idea: Implement a permanent blockade on this guy. All jokes aside, this is a pretty good idea: to be able to un-blockade someone you've blockaded. I'm not sure that the "trade only with blockader" idea is a realistic one though: e.g. Cuba wasn't going to trade with the US when the US blockaded them in 1962 lol.

EDIT: This post was a bit of a cluster-f. TL;DR: Fortify should ask the user what to fortify against (air, land, sea). If user fortifies against air, and opponent uses air-strike, then the attack will be severely nerfed.

I like the idea. Might be better to create a new weapon, "hydrogen bombs" to have this capability, though.

I've experienced this once or twice: a nation that has a blockade will nearly finish the war and just do nothing until the war is almost over, so as to keep the blockade. A mechanic that might resolve this might be to lower 5 resistance points every turn after already gaining 12 MAPs. This would result in the winning nation that is stalling the war's end having to balance out the risk of risking losing via neglecting to attack and finish off the opponent.

Seconded. I was born in Eastern Europe and the gulags, starvation, and totalitarian control o peoples' thoughts are still a terrible scar on the victims collective consciousness. Read up on the atrocities of Communist/Socialist governments such as Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia - absolutely gruesome systematic murder of millions of people.

To be frank, some of these rules seem a bit silly when a technical implementation may handle the problem; the system is akin to having moderators warn and ban for usernames having special characters instead of handling it with in-game mechanics. 4. War slot filled but the rate of attacks are low, or non-existent between the 2 players? -> War ended early after several turns not taken, -10% resources for both nations involved. 5. Spying slots getting filled by operations that don't do damage by allies? Implement a 2-tier system for spy operations, one in which information gathering is done (limitless spy attempts), one in which damage is done (limit of 2). If an allied nation wants to do a harmful spy operation to their ally, oh well? 🤷‍♂️ 6. Make bounties have more conditional logic, such that the bounty-requesting nation can demand... 20% infrastructure damage done or something like that.

You guys are implying that Alex & crew actually put work on the forum. The game should have all of the focus. The forum should just be a cookie-cutter third-party tool.

Idea: Most improvements' slot value, instead of being 1 for every improvement, could be a value of 500. And the cities' max improvement slot value could be the same value as infrastructure, e.g. 2000 infrastructure would be 2000 slot points. Maybe a different formula could be thought up, but this would keep it simple for everyone. This would allow for nerfing or buffing of improvements. e.g. If Air Force is too OP, the slot value of a Hangar could be increased from 500 to 750. This would also allow for some tweaks to existing improvements to allow them to compete with OP improvements, such as decreasing the slot value for coal power from 500 (standard) to let's say 100 to have it compete with Nuclear Power.

Alliance bulletins and replies from members, similar to "World News" feature, could be cool

I like it. When both nations are waiting to reach 4 MAPs to do an airstrike / naval battle, a successful spy attack reducing 1 MAP could be very decisive.

I think what you're asking for is already a feature. Go to a nation's page Click "Trade Offer" at the top Make the direct money / resource transfer. The target nation has to accept your offer.

Unsure if this is the right forum section: not exactly a ban appeal or anything, rather it's a warning appeal! I commented "MUCH SEMEN" in response to the "Semenist nation" posting about being the happiest in the world. I had assumed since the name of the nation has the term that making a fairly neutral goofy statement with the term isn't particularly terrible. It doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to get a warning over, I'm mostly posting because I'm unsure if some automated disallowed-terms system flagged me and added a warning or something. If the warning is deemed appropriate I'm fine with that too.

I think your nation name should be something that remains the same for the most part: an obstacle to rapidly changing name often is probably a good thing. You do bring up some good points though. It might be fun, role-play wise, to have a "User" field, and a "Current Nation Leader" field. The user remains the same, but the leader can change (e.g. After 3 months I might change from Ronald Krump to Josh Biddin after a contested election that I post about in "World News"). It is also fun, role-play wise, to set a different title for your nation. This feature already exists, though! I think you have some good ideas here. You should put a bit of effort into writing them in a way that is not aggressive and unappealing to others.