Sir Scarfalot

Definitely. Assassination kills too many.

As an insane raiding fool, I can say that I attack anyone. However, I do make certain considerations. Here's my advice: 1. Get at least some ground army, at least one full city worth. If I see someone with so little ground army that I can win with 5000 soldiers, then I'm liable to poke them for a quick payout regardless of other factors. 2. Stay active. I will almost never raid anyone that logs in every day, purely because they can fortify and thus deny me any loot. 3. Get a navy. These are often overlooked, but they are the most efficient way to use military actions in terms of removing resistance. If someone has a strong navy, there's little I can do, active or not. Don't count on it though because I still chip through against deeply inactive nations. 4. Get at least some airforce. Even if you have the tanks and ships, if you have no airforce then you can be whittled down and beiged with ease. This is just advice for keeping me and my alliance off your butt, at least in terms of our loot raids. The only way to prevent opposition missions is to not piss us off and avoid being scummy enough for people to be able to convince us to do our pro bono strikes. Now, the other infinite horde of pubbie raider normies can and will still raid you anyway. The only thing I know of to keep them off your butt is just maximizing your fleet, spies, air, and soldiers. This won't stop them raiding you but it will make it so that you can beige them right back. Tanks are in my opinion not worth it since they cost much, much more than 40 times a single soldier. But if you want to do a peaceful strategy then they can really work. Either way, if you keep your navy supplied and reinforced, then you can sell resources to gain money to cover the cost of the military. Earlier on I was running deficit spending and covering all my costs with the login bonus and selling raw material. It really works out well for getting over the initial building phase, when you need to get the money and resources together to set up the foundations.

I would argue that the existence of a statue or street name isn't necessarily honoring anyone, it's just acknowledging them. Putting up the statue in the first place was a questionable decision, but tearing it down after the fact is just petty and unnecessary.

I am a solid leftist liberal, and I really don't see any reason to tear down/rename the things. History really shouldn't be whitewashed. There's something to be said for not honoring disreputable things, but that's why we don't have a national holiday celebrating either the beginning or the end of the Civil War. Passive acknowledgement, like having statues, is perfectly fine IMO; actively celebrating is different.

No, it's not an exploit, it's a rational decision that still costs those that do it dramatically. Actually fortifying on time like I described is actually extremely difficult and requires literally perfect play for days. This is the best possible solution, going any further opens the door for permafarming, which is a considerable problem that needs to be avoided. The upshot of this rant seems to be that you want to be able to make profit off of attacks; this is actually almost exactly the opposite of my philosophy. I care not what I gain nor lose, all that matters to me is what my enemies gain. If I can keep that below 0, then I'm happy. I end up making plenty of resources by raiding inactives, but all I really want is to do damage, loot be damned. As for activity, you absolutely do need to be online multiple times per day for the invulnerability... there's just no way around that. Get a data plan on a smartphone and set alarms, and plan before you start driving any considerable distance. That's what I do, and I'm not even Aargh. Considering how proud you are of Aargh's activity/dedication/strategic acumen, that shouldn't be too difficult for you, right?

Not really man, a few feet of sand will stop any munitions short of extremely powerful or specialized stuff, and once a tank drops 12 feet into a hole without any ramps, it is seriously stuck until rescued by crane/helicopter/shovels.

Wars DO have winners and losers with or without this update. Being able to avoid beige is a choice that players should absolutely be able to make. What really matters is that the choice is balanced with the alternatives, which in this case is preserving infrastructure and enabling counterattacks. Previously, the choice to avoid beige was a no-brainer to low-infra nations, since they could still launch possibly two nukes or four rockets while still having the benefits of fortification spam. Now, they can't do a nuke at all, and can only launch a single rocket... which is rather devalued on account of the cheaper infrastructure. They can fortify to prevent loss of their resource warchest, but at the cost of infrastructure, improvements, and now counterattack options. Digging trenches and setting up sandbags doesn't cost much beyond sweat and dirt, and both of those are well represented in the concept of "military action points"

Actually, having done some quick math, it's still perfectly possible to avoid beige with 100% certainty. This update is perfect for my strategy (thanks bestmin ) so I really can't see how it's any less for yours tbh. WARNING, MATHEMATICS AHEAD Let's look at the military actions available to us and how efficient they are at eliminating resistance, first. Assuming immense triumph at all times, Ground battles: 10 resistance 3 actions = 3.3 resistance/action Air battles: 12 resistance 4 actions = 3 resistance/action Naval battles: 14 resistance 4 actions = 3.5 resistance/action Rocket attacks: 18 resistance 8 actions = 2.25 resistance/action Nuke attacks: 25 resistance 12 actions = 2.08 resistance/action Obviously, therefore, naval battles are the most efficient at removing resistance and pushing enemies to beige. Ground battles are the runner up in terms of action efficiency. Now, let's consider a theoretical beige attempt. Total action resources are 67 MAP for aggressor, 66 for defender (Assuming aggressor is blitzing and defender is pirate) 16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost 16 fortifications = 160 resistance gained 234-160=74 total resistance lost Defender therefore has 26 resistance and 3 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt. Now, since we have all that resistance and actions to play with, let's look at some counterattacks perhaps? 16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost 14 fortifications = 140 resistance gained 234-160=94 total resistance lost Defender therefore has 6 resistance and 11 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt. Therefore, there's enough actions leftover to do a single conventional rocket counterattack. The only player truly screwed over by this update is a certain excessively nuclear-armed state that hasn't got any other military. No matter how you slice it, this update precludes doing a nuclear counterattack and still avoiding beige, as long as your opponent is playing perfectly. Also, and I think this deserves mention: Freudian slip, amirite?

Yes, and yes. Cookie recipe has been sent in forum PM. Raid dispensation is provided for individual raid purposes, and is handled via ingame messages.

https://politicsandwar.com//alliance/id=4256 "I do not help, Mr. Bogan. I oppose." -Melchior The Department of Opposition has now opened a new branch office on Orbis, under the direction of Sir Scarfalot of Empyrea. Feel free to message the director with inquiries on the following: Department regulations Raid registration Nation or alliance opposition Purchase or sale of secrets Rocket attack requests and cookie recipes. Agents will maintain constant opposition of inactive or null-military nations, regardless of alliance affiliation; have either rocket- or nuclear- weapons capacity for legal opposition purposes; and fortify as necessary to prevent any aggressors from gaining profit from their actions. All raiders must register with the Department of Opposition prior to raiding any agent of the Department of Opposition. Unregistered raiding is against the law! Based on the Department of Opposition in the city of Nephilopolis, from the webcomic Dresden Codak.

Honestly, you really are doing it wrong m8. Listen to these guys and fix your nation. Tall builds are not a good idea, and this update really doesn't change that.

Initially I was against this change as it looks like it would disproportionately help larger nations, but with just a slight change it could very well do everything it needs to. The change to this that I'm proposing would be that rebuilding infrastructure is at a discount, but the discount asymptotically approaches zero as the rebuilt infrastructure gets higher. That way, newer nations can invest in their infrastructure and actually move upwards towards relevance, while older and bloated infrastructure nations still have something to lose. Basically, if you build up to 2000 infrastructure and get brought down to 0 then you get a discount going back up. If you have 9001 infrastructure and get brought down to 0 then you get the same discount building back up to 2000, but the discount is less when rebuilding infrastructure 2001-3000, and you get an extremely small discount at 8001-9001. The upshot of this would be that the game tends more towards a more generally balanced, dynamic, and interesting experience, with heavies being whittled down and newbies building up.

Why... whyyyy? Why wasn't the money DESTROYED? I'm boggling at the utter lack of creativity here! Just spam land or throw it into baseball, or shove it into a nation then delete that nation. It'd be so easy and obvious.

That's why this is in national affairs and not alliance affairs; I'm definitely not speaking for the whole of BoC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wrecked... enough? I don't get it. I mean, I understand each word, but when you put them together like that it makes no sense :S There's always more wrecking to be done ;p

Am... I missing something? Was there supposed to be an embedded video here?

Yes, but wars quickly become imbalanced in a bad way. Once a nation begins losing, they might as well ragequit since they have literally no options left for meaningful play. This discourages activity and therefore enjoyability, even for the winner since constantly grinding air raids isn't fun, it's a chore. If a nation had to use a small but significant fraction of their standing forces per each defense operation, then underdog nations can still cause damage to the enemy resources, which encourages A. the underdog to remain active and engaged, B. wars to be fought to more rapid beige instead of long and spiteful sieges, and C. nations in general to focus more on resources instead of pure military. All of these things would be better for everyone, whatever their fortunes in war happen to be.

I was surprised to learn that when an attack is a failure, the defender does NOT in fact use all the resources that his military would seem to require. That isn't good for game balance, I believe. If the defenders' entire battle upkeep or at least a real part of it is required per defense, then that gives underdog nations an actual option for costing the winner heavily, though not so much as to make war impossible, unwinnable, or unfair. With 50 troop or 3 aircraft attacks happening often enough, the current maladaptive culture of air raiding until expiration would no longer be so effective and more fun strategies would become effective enough to be usable. This would make the game better, for both winners and losers in war. Though I might be biased, I do think that adding in a higher cost for defenses would make the game more interesting and playable. (Remember, this isn't the politics section, please consider my suggestion on its own merits and refrain from offtopic discussions)

So? A lot of damage was done all over Orbis. The point I'm trying to make is that, nation for nation, there were still solid victories on our end (including at least one against Syndicate, thanks for the shekels). You can't define an entire war by a few accomplishments any more than I can, unless you really don't consider us in the trenches to be worthy of consideration. I'm not denying that the tides were against us, but this ain't chess. Once the pitched battles conclude, the asymmetric phase begins, and I have every reason to believe that BoC could have handled themselves in a long war of attrition; in fact, it would have been good for us since that shakes out the weak minded. There's a reason why they're called the tides of war, after all. Still, peace is welcome enough; to see our enemies throw all those nations under the bus was really depressing. Would it have killed you to spare, like, $100,000 in munitions/fuel to make me lose ONE of my attacks? Cheapskates.

Ayyy, can't disagree there

He wasn't that inactive, also failing to defend an ally counts as being cucked Edit: Yup, >active within the last 7 days. That's not inactive, that's damage control

Thanks, but if I was willing to desert BoC I'd have taken another offer by now. As I told General Kashmire (https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=16493), if you're unwilling to fight, and more importantly unwilling to accept responsibilty for your obligations, then you will never know peace. My place is in BoC and I won't let them down.

IDK, we hit Syndicate pretty hard. Depending on how much they managed to get out of their alliance bank, 100 mil might actually be legitimately comparable to the damage done. I have no idea about seven kingdoms though. BoC as a whole may have been defeated, but this is exactly the place for me to point out that it was hardly as stacked a result as you'd like to believe. As for leaving TC, that's not my call nor my problem.

Thx bb <3

6 to 3 win/loss ratio and my win over your ally Laterre means that I can say, with complete authority, NO U