Sir Scarfalot

Nice! Doubt that record will be broken any time soon.

A. You always have to worry about down declares; keeping your buying power in reserve just changes the scale of your enemies somewhat, but there is always the possibility for someone with some specialized military that can put the pressure on you in some fashion... unless you're Seb or Fraggle of course B. That's not at all what we were talking about in the first place. Yes, basic tactics like what you've said here are used to work around the fundamental limitations of the war system; what is being suggested here is something to enhance the system itself.

I mean, why? What would this fix, or for that matter change at all?

I went over this with Grumpy in another thread so I'll just summarize: Nukes hurt. Just because you've got the fat to cover it doesn't mean that they aren't still a real cost to eat on a daily basis; every dollar spent rebuilding is a dollar not spent on growth, attacking, defending, or most importantly keno.

That's a respectable sentiment

Well, Micchan did say 'only in the month of June' so I imagine we're counting July separately

Oh, right

One more for the July pile

Alright, this attempt at damage control so wrong on so many levels, I simply have to call it out. Fine, fine. Beige is in and of itself neither victory nor defeat; damage is what matters. Since that was what Grata was going for, we should consider everything about the war on that basis. Which leads us into the next statement... Then why didn't he? Duskhorn was doing reasonable damage relative to the resources he was expending per ground attack, and looting a bit of change in the process. Each attack was a victory for TEst and a loss for SA. Minimal perhaps compared to the scale of the conflict as a whole, but we're considering just this war and on the basis of net damage, since that's what you say Grata was aiming for. If there was an opening, then why didn't he take advantage of it? Grata declared the war, and 10 minutes later lost a naval battle. It took him 12 hours to take his first action of the war, which was 3 naval battle triumphs of his own in rapid succession. Which, as I'm sure you know, costs the same number of action points as it takes to launch a nuke.... Which, apparently, was never the intention? Even assuming that the war declaration reason was a ruse, a ruse to what purpose? Why get someone to think you'll nuke them? It's already implicit in fighting nuke bloc imo, but then again people still get surprised by my missiles, so maybe a bit less subtlety is called for sometimes. But, Grataz was the aggressor. Why would he go in unprepared, or at least buy military promptly once he had the opportunity? You said earlier that he could have stopped the ground battles at any time with a doublebuy, yet he didn't. I mean, sometimes people do somehow forget that you declared, or something like that. The almighty sheep knows I've fought opponents that have done dippier things. However, winning wars isn't pixel hugging, unless you've got blockade and are cooperating with your alliance to perform a pinning maneuver. Then, beiging and thus screwing up the plan is pixel hugging, and basically treason. Since Duskhorn did not have blockade (and was in fact blockaded, as you've mentioned), had no alliance objectives to consider, and was taking over 300 infrastructure damage per naval battle, he had exactly no reason not to beige. Maximizing outgoing damage is skill, minimizing incoming damage is sanity, and winning when you don't have the upper hand is excellent play. That's not pixel hugging, that's fighting properly. Why though? Like I said above, Duskhorn had every reason to beige and no reason to not. Besides, he hadn't taken a nuke, just as planned, so what's up with the word "another"? And lastly, the war ended with Duskhorn having 2 resistance left, so get on out of here with that "wasn't anywhere near winning" nonsense. Yes, Duskorn beiged Grataz, and thus A. did more damage; B. stopped his incoming damage; C. looted a bit of stuff; D. prevented Grataz from looting stuff, and E. earned salt and enabled Pre to make this thread for the forum battle. So, yeah, it is fortunate for TEst that your tactics are lowering your damage and increasing theirs. Good job.

I like how you're not counting TKR's bank alliance getting looted; that alone more than triples those "money lost" and "resources lost" numbers.

No, no, hell no, no, yes, and no. The only good suggestion here is extending beige time; right now, it's 2.1 days per loss uncapped, up to a theoretical 16.8 days of beige. For better balance, it should really be a full 3 days per loss, but capped at 9 days. That, or (and this would be optimal imo) preferably 7 days beige for loss, but each loss sets the count back to the full 7 days so beige never goes longer than that. Either way would be superior to how it is now.

People keep talking about Empyrea and I get confused... It was my nation name first ree

Honestly, this isn't a bad idea. It would really change the way high-tier warfare works, and in my opinion in a very good way. I should point out that in this war alone, I've fought opponents as high as 2200 score and as low as 240 score. In my nations' history I have fought hundreds and hundreds of wars in both the high tiers and the low tiers, so I can say with some authority that the way battles happen between high tiers and low tiers changes in a much more fundamental way than anyone realizes. Simply put, as militaries get larger, it becomes easier, faster, and more likely for militaries to be zeroed, and harder, slower, and less likely for recovery to happen. Neither of these are good trends for game balance or fun warfare for either side, and limiting the total forces able to be deployed in any given battle would fix the issue, if implemented neatly and carefully. Other ideas to add onto this one might be that each action point is one maneuver that one military unit (think an armored division or an air wing) can make. That way if you stack more action points you can use more military at once at the cost of more action points and thus do more damage and lower resistance more, or you can do smaller attacks with less action points that do less damage and lower resistance less. There's a lot more possibilities, like having a higher land area lower the proportion of military you can use at once (they're spread out over a larger area), or having military units be based and fight per city rather than all cities acting as a unified front, so weaker cities become liabilities. These could get complicated, but they'd be interesting IMO.

To be specific, the next day change will happen in 3 hours 27 minutes from this post's timestamp. Day changes happen every 24 hours from that point, and do follow daylight savings time.