Sir Scarfalot

Oh ? As for the mechanics and admin actions... see, Panth would have persisted anyway, they're not THAT weak. If the coup had gone through all the trouble of kicking and banning everyone, then Panth leadership would have simply made a new alliance (though possibly with a different name, which would have made it a much more crushing blow) and pinged/messaged everyone that had been in their alliance to join the new one. And they'd have been better off without their inactive deadweight anyway. Admin did them no favor here, and his action wasn't THAT stupid or unprecedented, so eh, I don't fault sheeps on this one.

Even if that were the case (and I really can't think of many situations wherein it was, but that may simply be ignorance) this isn't the start of Pantheon's story; not by years. So that rules that out doesn't it?

My opinion on what would be ideal is for everyone to be able to promote themselves one level if there is no-one at all above them; with the following rules: (A). If there is no leader, then the heir can promote themselves up to leader; if the leader is VM, the heir can remove the leader from the alliance outright and then therefore promote themselves up to leader in that order, if multiple heirs whoever does it first gets it (B). If there is no leader AND no heir, then any single officer can promote themselves up to heir, and therefore up to leader, in that order, first on the draw gets it; if there is no leader or the leader is VM and the heir is VM, then any single officer can remove the absentee heir and/or leader and therefore do the thing (in order, first come first serve) (C). If there is no leader AND no heir AND no officers outside of VM, then any member can simply promote themselves to officer and therefore heir and therefore leader. If all of the leadership are VM then any member can boot 'em all and take control. For extra shenanigans, let applicants count as members for the purposes of these rules :3

I'd almost agree, but forcing a nation out of VM opens an entirely separate can of worms than an arbitrary admin-based promotion, since it gives a precedent for VM to be ended early. For all the shenanigans VM allows, the two weeks has at least always been sacrosanct; changing that would remove one of the few real constants in the cheese meta.

The best buff to baseball would be more along the lines of both players getting ticket money instead of just the host team; say each individual game is actually a set of both a home and an away game. The reason I don't do baseball is because I don't want to go through the insane hassle of embargoing literally everyone in the game individually so I can grind baseball with just those that reliably tip.

Well, they do; awful and marginal victories cause considerable attrition on the aggressor's force numbers, and perhaps more importantly waste MAPs, preventing them from making otherwise gainful actions. All this without requiring the defender to spend their own action points. Action points are a resource, don't waste them needlessly

Ehhh... there's a lot of issues here, but one that stands out in particular is the order of operations. If you did an offensive and you're high on ground but low on air, would the ground attack be processed first and thus earn you a better airstrike, or would the airstrike be processed first and thus cripple you? And how would the navy really interact with the other two branches? It's a creative idea, but alas, poorly thought out.

okay, see, it doesn't actually take that much more time to type properly. Not everyone can be a speedy typist, but it took me under a minute to write this. Do better.

Fair enough; we shall see then

Yeah, but nihil novi sub sole. If that really is the biggest complaint you've got, they actually are doing well

Good luck though; this DoE actually looks promising. Hope it works out

If people want to mutually agree to a ceasefire, there's nothing stopping them from just not taking military actions. Other than sanity, of course.

The nuke already includes aluminum and gasoline, which accounts for the delivery vehicle. What's really weird is that missiles apparently carry a payload of lead bullets; they're basically a gigantic shotgun shell apparently.

Or, alternatively, micros should just go for Green (or whatever the highest is) and if anyone tries to push them off, so be it: then they're beige, which has a higher bonus anyway

Me neither ?

Fair enough. Incidentally, I think 32 is the maximum in a 7 day period... 62 hours per set of 8 wars, so if you start the clock as soon as you lose the first eight, you have just enough time for 3 more sets of defeats, plus a bit of leeway. Which would put someone who did this about halfway to the 'wars lost' leaderboard. Strangely enough, this wouldn't even come close to breaching the 'lowest approval' leaderboard, since those nations are preposterously deep in negative approval... here I thought my -888% was bad, jeez ?

Oh, it's possible. ...Not without deliberate effort, but it can well be done.

Yeah, you generally want to try and go for airstrikes in that situation instead of double ground, and personally I'm partial to missiles instead of nukes since they can be spammed off the login bonus and not much else. Still, when you're out of resources, soldiers are cheap; and it's not like you're going to have a surfeit of resources after a couple months of getting rolled ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're not kidding; that really IS an effective tactic.

Oh, I fully agree, that's why I said as much in my post. In fact, large-scale alliances can be much worse.

Well, the worst harm that they can cause is pretty much the same harm as the mass alliances can cause, which is to be so structured, defensive, and cautious as to give a completely boring and terrible gameplay experience to their membership, and thus turn otherwise promising players off of the game. We don't have nearly enough retention as it is.

On the one hand, they do cause some harm... on the other hand, their polar opposites, the mass-recruitment blob alliances, can and do far, far more harm to the game's 'progression', as you put it. I'd say don't be afraid to be small, don't be afraid to get into conflict, and don't be afraid to get rolled. Getting rolled is okay, giving up in the face of hardship is not. Also third

Y'know for a second I'd thought they were protecting Polaris. It'd really make more sense

Challenge accepted >;)

More like if you spied a target that has an unforgivably tiny warchest and you want to lock him out of munitions/gas/money. Even then, get an ally or two to cover the ground/air, on the off chance that it's a trap and you get immediately countered by someone with a hecklot of ships and the guy suddenly gets resupplied. Have a plan. And while for the most part in proper blitzing alliance war against competent opponents you 100% need to nullify their air and tanks ASAP, @Noctis Anarch Caelum isn't actually wrong; it's just extremely optimistic and rather self-centered. Blockading someone that has a huge warchest has a good chance of loot... but it has a better (as in ~99.9%) chance of giving them options with which to destroy more of your military, which means you can't use as much military yourself against your other targets. That means more pressure against you and your alliance mates, which is not a good. Be a team player and go for the suppression; loot is definitely secondary to that.