Uranato

Your flag looks decent. That's all I'm going to say.

wdym surrender? I already deleted

My thoughts: 1. I like the idea of giving the losing side a concrete chance to regroup, but I feel the amount it takes away from strategy is not worth the 'fairness' gained. Beige discipline, and the decision of letting a high loot target expire or to beige it is an important part of warfare, in my opinion. 2. See 1; though to a less extent, this also somewhat discourages beige cycling (although I haven't run the numbers and am not entirely sure - this could potentially bring more strategy to the game by making the cyclers calculate how to properly beige cycle each of the targets they're sitting on). 3. Again, see 1. Getting beige cycled through your offensive slots is not as common as getting beige cycled through your defensive slots. 4. This discourages getting out of beige, which is again another limitation to decision-making which I'm not sure is worth the gain (not entirely sure about the gain either). 5. This is actually something I somewhat like. This has the potential to open up another decision. As of now, if you're getting attacked continuously, it's best to have some enemies beige you to get breathing room. But if you get extra rebut by beiging your defensive slots, then maybe that could be a worthwhile consideration? Upvoted because of effort and because I agree with some points. I skimmed through this very quickly, so probably have misunderstood or missed a few points.

Change my mind, salted popcorn is the best cultural food of Orbis

Good flag, good declaration of existence. Good luck. I hope you succeed.

Good luck. I hope you don't start a Guinea Dog Sharking Corp.

It's very easy to calculate off the top of your head, but I support any good QoL feature that doesn't take much time to code and should benefit nearly every player.

@Nukey6 apparently Zibigdarlo against anyone who trades.

Learn to read. HTH You have still not given any explanation whatsoever. I would invite players to contribute something constructive other than "No. Bad. Learn to count. Market manipulation (no explanation, it just is!)." I am buying from the market, selling to the market. I don't see how that is "market manipulation" or "credit gouging".

I don't see what wrong I'm doing - ? Isn't trading a valid method of profits? @zigbigadorlou Edit: I buy from the market by posting a buy offer, and sell on the sell offers. I don't drive the sell prices up.

If there was a limit to how many credits you can buy per month in the first place, there would be no flooding the market for billions. You can trade other resources. Though granted, their price fluctuates a lot more, but it's still the same thing (buy cheap, sell dear).

I was buying credits for cheap and selling them at a higher rate in the in-game market for profits. However, the limit set to prevent players from using real-world money to buy a large amount of credits and sell them also applies to me, so now I'm stuck with several credits I have no use for for a month. I suggest that instead of a sell limit on credits, there should be a limit on how many credits you can buy with real-world money (limit it to 10 or so). This will cover the credit redemption limit without affecting those who trade credits for profit. If this already exists and the sell limit is there to prevent credits from being traded over 10 times per person, then apologies. Edit (possible bug): I just tried putting my credits on sale one or two at a time to check how many I had left till the limit was reached, and this way I could put all of them on sale. If I withdraw my sales and then try to sell them again at once, then it shows the limit reached error message again. (They got removed after the limit was reached, so the bug doesn't actually affect the game.) Edit #2 (bad suggestion): I talked on Discord for an explanation as to how this is a bad suggestion, and so take my suggestion back (limiting credits bought for IRL money hampers the game's revenue, which is unfair). However, I still don't see how flipping credits (buying and selling from buy and sell order respectively, without hoarding) is bad.

A user on the PnW Discord suggested "static defences". It got me thinking ... New improvement type: Defence These are a new type of building that have limits and require energy to function (much like all other improvements). Each of these affects the fighting capability of a specific troop type (soldiers/tanks/planes/ships), if the fight occurs in the city these buildings are built in. Further, these improvements could be sabotaged through use of spies. Another change that could be added is the ability to choose which city your army attacks when making an attack action during a war (currently, if I remember correctly, it is random except for nukes). Possible types of defences could be - 1. Trenches (improve the power of your soldiers) 2. Dragon's teeth (these were used in history to stop tanks, and could decrease the power of enemy tanks) Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_teeth_(fortification) 3. Anti-air batteries (decrease power of enemy planes / increase enemy plane casualties) 4. Coastal artillery (decrease power of enemy ships / increase enemy ship casualties) I haven't yet thought up the numbers for this, I might do so later in an edit. I think of them as not massively changing the tide of war, but still providing a noticeable effect. Addendum: there could be a new sort of defence improvement: Safehouse - protects a set amount of resources from being stolen (basically, if you have your safe house, your, say, oil can't go below 500), works in any city, destructible by missiles/spies/normal attacks. What it'll add to the game: Defences would bring a new dynamic to wars (hopefully) without greatly upsetting the current meta / system. Users of these defences have to make the choice of building them at the cost of other improvements (which'll reduce their economy), especially if there is a limit on how many defences you can build per day (so that one can't simply remove other improvements and build these to max right after starting a war). Attackers would have the choice to focus down a city at the cost of doing less infrastructure value damage overall, as opposed to spreading their attacks (although the damage difference might be so minimal that this isn't a major choice, plus, if I'm not wrong, very few care about infrastructure damage anyway) to maximise infra $ damage. Missiles would gain a slight buff (?) as defences would be targetable. Addendum 2: Just a thought - defences could also tie in with Immense Triumph outcomes. Trenches work for whichever side has ground control, enemy air superiority negates your trenches etc. Problems with defences: Personally, I feel that defences are unneeded at this point in the game. They would only work if the choice to build defences was a real choice instead of not building them or building them being objectively superior. Further, I doubt they'll add all that much to the game to justify the amount of time it'll take to add them to the game.

Nothing different, you just destroy more infrastructure. However, after the first strike, the next nuclear strike (IIRC) destroys infrastructure of lesser $ value. So if you want to maximise damage, simply target the city with maximum infrastructure (which IIRC is already selected by default) and then target the next city with maximum infrastructure.