Sir Scarfalot

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.

It's basically animal abuse tbh

Well, maybe not making sense is his point. Perhaps BK is on such a completely different level that making sense would be a step down for them

Syndisphere protectorates But there's others, independent and otherwise.

If he's actually put money into a trust that will get it into pockets that aren't his, then I officially don't know what anyone is talking about anymore

What is even up with all these banks popping out of the woodwork; the entire concept is almost completely inapplicable to the environment, so seriously wtf.

Are you actually kidding though? If he's willing to ignore the charter and keep your assets, then what possible incentive does he have to prevent him from ignoring liquidation procedures? What recourse could you possibly have? You can roll him, perhaps, or even his whole alliance, but when it comes right down to it that doesn't actually get your money back: it just sets you both back further. Now, that scenario would certainly be better than rolling over and letting him keep his gains, but it's still not a successful liquidation.

And yet the terms were modified at some point, so apparently they were negotiable. If only a little.

There is, but the OP for that thread deleted his account or something, and now we need a new one.

That isn't the same thing though; P&W is a persistent game that cannot, and should not be comprehensively conquered. When someone wins a non-persistent game, then there's somewhere to move on to, the game goes back in the box to be played anew later on. In this game, if someone conquered the world... the game would be won, and therefore over, but we couldn't move on within the game.

That is completely correct; however, if you can cover your money bills for just one turn, you will be back up to full capacity next turn without any need to worry about how much you didn't pay earlier. Basically, there's no debt, only zero and above.

Good idea, really. Might not even go far enough, but it's definitely a step in a better direction.

That would require an endless horde of competent players, the lack of which is a huge bottleneck. With that in mind, it's better to find and groom the best available with all available resources, distributed as cost-effectively as possible within that limitation, since players are the truly limited resource.

And 32 cities is less than 50% more city; the difference is almost negligible compared to the cost. Which is how the game was designed, for good reason. In all sincerity, what's your point...?