Sir Scarfalot

...That's actually a really good idea, now that I think about it.

Agreed, let it all burn!

I'll catch up to you guys eventually ?

Naw man, missiles and nukes are stashed in deep underground bunkers in secret locations with steel doors thicker than a lewd simile; you need spies to take them down and that's how it should be.

Here's a better idea: The defender in any given battle gains resources based on the number and type of military that was destroyed in the battle. Planes crash and give wreckage that can be recycled into aluminum, or bauxite if we want to simulate the fact that they're, y'know, destroyed; tanks burn out and the steel can be melted down, missiles leave shrapnel, bullets can be sifted out of the topsoil, shipwrecks can be fished out of shallow waters. Nukes annihilate themselves into subatomic particles and convert some of their mass into energy so they aren't salvageable, gas is burned and therefore chemically inert, and soldiers... they get nice funerals since we're not going there. How's that?

It's been mentioned before... many times... but the beige mechanic needs an adjustment. Right now, I can win literally every single one of my wars, and literally every single one of my enemies can win against me; but neither side is willing to do so due to the huge detrimental effects that would have on our allies' war effort in general. That's stupid, we all know it's stupid, but we have to work around it anyway since we'd literally lose the war if we won the battle. Have I mentioned that's a stupid concept? It bears repeating: That's stupid. Now, I'm NOT suggesting that we remove the mechanic of beige; if we did that, the situation would be so much worse since anyone pinned down could be easily pinned forever with no possibility of recovery. Right now, that's still at least theoretically possible, but at least it's both difficult and allows a side that's heavily outnumbered to have loads of fun launching missiles and nukes and beiging inactives or screwups however and whenever they can. This encourages smaller blocs and risky wars, which is a good thing IMO. (That it has not actually done so is a separate problem.) The problem comes in with relatively even wars; in that situation, beiging one's opponents means that they get time to rebuild their aircraft and also clears out the war slot, which if defensive means that a fresh opponent can come in immediately and resume airstrikes with a full 100 resistance to work with. The loot and infra damage is nothing compared to those advantages, and so everyone's milcom has to bend over backwards and hammer it into our soldiers' heads that they are NOT to win without express authorization, which as you can imagine is about as far from a fun gameplay experience as it's possible to have. My proposed solution to this is simple: Change the mechanics so that whoever has less resistance when a war expires "loses" the war and is beiged as if they were taken down to zero resistance. An alternative and more complex solution would be to cause both sides to lose one resistance every turn, no matter what. It'd be effectively the same, but allow for more interesting and dynamic strategies, not to mention reward activity. Admittedly, this could result in wars basically being declared and then immediately ignored by both sides. However, I think what's more likely is that everyone will pay more attention to rebuilding and double-buying their airforces every turn and cleaning out the oppositions' airforces when practical in order to prevent them from being able to build up airforces and declare right as they're about to be (unavoidably) beiged with heavy air fleets for easy, heavily damaging, and with the new mechanics unavoidable beiges for their own team. As it is, we just don't know exactly how such a change would play out. Regrettably I don't think a test server tournament to test the change would actually give us valid data since TP$ would just win the raiding categories, the pixelhugger alliance of the week would win the score categories, and nobody would care about beige discipline, just like every other tournament ever. Still, I'm pretty sure the theory checks out; we'll see air engagements desperately taking down aircraft in order to prevent stacked beige raids against high-value targets, and therefore beiges which enable aircraft repurchasing with which to engage for the purposes of desperately taking down aircraft in order to prevent stacked beige raids. Which is at least fun, and means we get to win wars we're winning, which would be so much better than the current nonsense of winning by losing and losing by winning. TL;DR: Make wars that expire result in beige for the one with lower resistance!

>When you accidentally doublebuy tanks instead of flashing (Thankfully I haven't done that myself yet)

FTFY

Spying away resources by percentage... That's really extremely powerful, since it's equivalent to an entire beige. If it's 10%, that's the same as two whole beiges! Maybe 1% would be better for a spy operation?

Gee, but there's so little to talk about recently, what could the topic possibly be?

Few days? C'mon, it's gotta be at least a couple weeks or we're all gonna just be disappoint ?

Oh no you don't!!! That's my tier that is! overextends self even further I have nukes this time ?

We hecking TOLD you to be patient, smh fam XD

Who has 2k infra for that reason? 1400 infra all the way bb, don't need a rebuild when you don't have a build!

I'm surprised Alpha agreed; there was a list of demands a mile long according to Shifty. What happened to those, then? Finally realize it's unrealistic to squeeze a rebuild out of the 4 people left in Oblivion? Grats on victory, but please make decent peace deals like this the norm kthx

You're not wrong; and this has been suggested before. For what it's worth, ground forces can get ground control, which counters aircraft somewhat. The counterargument is that aircraft can be allowed to be the heavy-hitting unit that are worked around; their power is part of the tactical balance and they don't need to be nerfed. Whether or not you agree with that tends to be proportionate to how much steel you've lost to aircraft in the last couple of months, so you're not off base on any particular point.

Notably, no TGH have actually denied intentions to roll KT ?

Heck, there's still 3 of them? We'd all better get to work then ?

No, that would just enable people to potentially make arbitrary amounts of money ingame by throwing an arbitrary amount of money at Alex. This already happens, but to make it legitimate? Pay-to-win is a BAD THING, and if that happens then I'm gone.

Wew, now that's a volatile market holy geez Well, error or not, there's still those exploits that really oughta get patched out.

It's 'cos there's a specific law in the USA that prohibits collecting email information about anyone under the age of 13 without parental consent. Since such consent is damn near impossible to prove, websites universally have to say "no registering if under 13", that way if anyone under 13 does register then the website is blameless since they had a warning up. This law has helped exactly nobody.

This can only happen if a lot of the most recent credit purchases were done for $0. I'm not putting this in game reports since I don't have a suspect but it clearly shows that someone is bypassing the purchase restrictions on a large scale. Maybe this exploit will finally be fixed once Sheepy can focus on the game like he's said he'll be able to?

The spy war in the 69dw was pretty firmly in our favor. It's not the usual way it goes but it is quite possible to happen.

And/or the losing side would spy the heck out of the winners, either way it gives the spy war more of a purpose. I'd be okay with it only if it WASN'T able to target power plants or military, but otherwise it's a solid idea.