MethylMercaptan

I don't see the difference between sending 20000 and 200 against a negligible defense if you can choose to not use munitions in battle. Either way the attacker doesn't spend anything. Without a lower minimum you have very little damage being done in wars involving smaller sized nations, nations who should be able to rebound from infra damage more easily than nations with more infra. I'm not saying 50 infra, but it shouldn't be 2. If my battle that I supposedly "won" and that I expended 6 hours of war points for can be covered 10x over with the income my opponent gains in a single turn, then it's not a win.

Nation: Septic Tank Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=17844

Ok, but why? Why shouldn't having soldiers storming the cities of the enemy destroy at least a considerable amount of infra?

2000 soldiers. Seems like there should be a minimum damage if there isn't already. Even 100 soldiers should be able to do more damage than that, otherwise it's not a victory, it's just a waste of war points.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=49891 2.30 infrastructure might as well be 0.