Sir Scarfalot

Something something legitimate military tactics blah blah not abuse etc. etc. Stop bullying TGH, you

Yeah, as far as I can tell the game only costs the defender something like a maximum of twice the unit value of the attack in resources... like if you spent 50 soldiers and a tank in an attack against someone with 100k soldiers and 10k tanks, the defender would therefore only be charged for the use of 100 soldiers and 2 tanks. I may be way off in my understanding of this, but it's roughly what I've observed in the few cases when some schmo suicides against me. And more importantly, being able to beige oneself in that manner isn't really what I'd like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a direct surrender function though, wherein one party in war has the option to "surrender" and thus automatically beige themselves, with all the normal penalties of beige... IF they can only do this when they have zero military of any sort, and executing the surrender depletes their military buying power for that day as well. That way it can't be used to triple raid someone under beige that easily.

Naw, a fox would have a longer snout and pointier ears further back on the head; that's just a red looking doggo.

God, no, just no, and more importantly please heck off. The wars are just long enough to allow your cheesy bullcrap "pin" ""strategy"" to be countered by extremely efficient and dedicated play; doing what you ask here would make it COMPLETELY UNSTOPPABLE. So, to reiterate: Please heck off. If you actually want to shorten wars, then go ahead and do it; there's nothing stopping you from just taking that last hit and shortening the wars yourself.

...I like this guy. He gets it. Please don't punish him for this @Roquentin

Evidence, specifics? Alright, how's this: NPO can, right now, completely and wholly resurrect Cybernations from the pit of inactivity it has become. It is within your community's power to turn that game dynamic and fun once more. Every day that you do not is another day in which a game remains dead, on account of NPO. Whether NPO was responsible for Cybernations dying in the first place is irrelevant to my point; the fact remains that you are choosing to leave it dead when you have the choice to not. In that sense, you are the primary cause of that nation sim's continued death. All you need to do to make CN not dead is splinter, and encourage competition again. Will you do that? Is it fair to even ask it of you? Of course not, on both counts; you want to 'win'. And you can't 'win' without utterly dominating the whole kit and kaboodle, never allowing anyone to challenge you lest they 'win' and therefore you 'lose'. Frawley, Shadowthrone, Thrawn especially and for that matter you yourself have all said as much; you say you want to check their power and make sure it does not overwhelm your own. The only way to do that in a sustainable and lasting way, as Thrawn has stated is the intention, is to annihilate all competition. What I'm saying is that if you are successful in annihilating your competition, you will in fact annihilate your competition, creating a situation wherein there can be no competition and therefore no gameplay. I've seen that happen. I've made that happen. I've fought against that happening. I've ignored that happening. I've encouraged that happening. I've discouraged that happening. I've temporarily suppressed that happening. The one thing I have never done in all my years of nation sims is prevent that happening, and regrettably I have come to the conclusion that it is ultimately inevitable. Unless you can somehow deny the statement that "without gameplay there is no game", then I don't see any rebuttal in your post.

You guys really haven't been paying attention apparently. You seriously think the war will end when you want it to? Well, good luck convincing your enemies to stop when you're ready for them to stop

Sure, if "Alliance X" set a defined limit on the damage they want to do and then end the war at that point, then sure. But alliances don't have "damage goals", and certainly can't end the war on their own timetables. This isn't some single-player RTS where once you complete your objectives the match fades to black, plays a pre-rendered cutscene and you move on to the next mission; this is a multiplayer sandbox and you don't dictate the damage you do nor how long it takes, however much you might want that power.

I don't understand game mechanics? Haven't been accused of that in a while ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The best way to have fun playing a game is to have fun playing a game, there's no other way to say that. The fact that your alliance follows a strategy that isn't fun doesn't change that. It is absolutely bad strategy to fold on the upper tier, where there was (and yet remains) the possibility of victory, in order to instead double down on hugging pixels in the lower tier where there wasn't any possibility of defeat anyway. With military strategy like that, you really don't need enemies. As for the last line... what else is war but expenditure of resources to frick someone's shit up temporarily?

After reading this, I have to ask... in all sincerity, how the frick does longer and more damaging wars equate to shorter and less damaging wars? What are you smoking and where can I get a hit of it?

Thank you; I was typing up a frick-off wall of text that spanned more words than I even want to believe but you made the point well enough here so I don't gotta. Upvote

Well, as long as it's per city then 1k per resource (2k food) should be good. Sure, that's a lot of uranium, but then again we gotta be able to build our nukes

-spoilered for scarfposting-

At this point a million dollar prize would actually be perfectly affordable, the thread should really be cashed out so we can move on