Sir Scarfalot

That's not actually how we did it though

The way I see it, the economic situation is on a macro level and no individual member will make or break their alliances' warchest, unless of course someone accidentally bungles the bank. That's why I don't really consider the alliances' warchests when looking at individual battlegrounds. As for if someone deletes, well, that's pretty obviously a tremendous defeat for their side. I'd not really count that as a proper and honestly fought war. I hadn't really thought of the latter scenario, but surely that's more of an edge case. ...Surely. Either way, it's a massive defeat on their end, but still on a strategic rather than tactical level.

Shhh, only likes now

Nope, no upvotes from me

So sayeth Pylon69...

Excess? There is no excess; we need all of those treaties in order to accurately reflect the bond our alliances have with each other :B

I would have to disagree with this particular point at the very least, Sheepy. Project slots are limited for the majority of the game but the largest players have more project slots than there are actually projects (current infra levels of most whales notwithstanding and the #1 player excepted of course, but that aside), which means that any project is no longer an option but in fact a straight potential bonus. Now, it may indeed not be overpowered nor gamebreaking, but when there's no reason not to grab a bonus then it's not really an option at all but just another cherry for the top. Ultimately I'm with @Sketchy on this one, and I don't really see any need to expand on the points he's already made so I'll just leave it at that.

This is already modeled under the "ground control" mechanic IMO; adding a way to actually loot military forces doesn't sound like a good idea to me honestly.

Indeed, sometimes you have to spend a LOT of resources in order to nail the beige, and decommissioned units aren't included in the stats nor can be reasonably attributed to any particular war front... but still are unquestionably resources spent by the "winning" nation, which can easily count for a lot against the bottom line. Personally, I think of outcomes in 4 different ways. A clear victory is one where you loot more than you spent/lost, a close victory is one where you win but don't loot more than you spent/lost, a close defeat is one where you lose but the enemy doesn't loot more than they spent/lost, and a complete defeat is one where you lose and the enemy loots more than they spent/lost. Tl;dr: Win and loot = complete victory, Win but no loot = victory, lose and enemy loots = complete defeat, lose but no loot = defeat. Anyone that avoids complete defeat is doing okay in my book, more or less anyway. Net damages are more of a strategic consideration between alliances and the conflict as a whole rather than a tactical one on any of the individual battlefronts, since the economic situation is definitely more macro-level than a few isolated attacks, and the losing side can gain back a lot of net damage ground through aggressive use of attrition wars even when losing the net damage race in their defensive slots. That's how I see it anyway.

Awww... Well, I guess it has to happen, but that's still disappointing since we love the meme so much

Great! ...What's that got to do with the issue presented in the OP?

I have credibility? But naw, you won't see me leading an alliance in this game. That way lies disaster, trust me.

Everyone that voted Fraggle for that award is just jealous tbh

Still leaves us with 4 treaties, you'll need to cancel each one in sequence 😛

Indeedy