Sir Scarfalot

I'm pretty sure SRD's post came before the official terms thread was posted, so no. Granted it came like a few minutes before, so points for cheekiness, but not a violation.

Perhaps, but fresh salt seems saltier than old salt. It's at least the most salt we've seen for a good while.

I'm with the rest of the thread on this one; your work was always prompt and fair. You'll be missed o7

Ah, so it was optimistic enemies, gotcha. GG

If the Soviet Union had that philosophy, the cold war would have been over in minutes. ...And for that matter, we'd all be speaking German. Just sayin.

Maybe they boned up and went on a huge blitz out of a big beige cycle, or else their opponents optimistically bought infra while in firing range? Either is plausible, beige cycles being what they are.

Persistent, aren't you? Well, I won't hate on you for this new micro, since persistence is key to success, especially in the face of haters. Still, don't forget to improve, that's the most important part of persistence... Otherwise it's just doing the same thing over and over again, otherwise known as insanity.

That's why I didn't vote for that category at all; it's an objective measurement and absolutely shouldn't have been voted on as if it were something people can have valid opinions about. It's like voting on how tall a 10' tree is; it doesn't matter how strong the 8'4 caucus is or how biased the 11' media is on the subject, it's 10' and that's a fact.

People can and do specialize sometimes, and their nations are invaluable for tactical raiding. Teamwork and organization are very well understood to be a hugely important force multiplier already, so I'm not really sure that there's a problem here to fix tbh.

No nerfing raiding ?

I'm well aware of that; I was responding sarcastically Well, there is the idea of putting in a warning for any global trade offers that are way below or above the next best deal, that would at least eliminate the mistakes right?

...How? Do either of those even have internet?

Actually, we lost that particular treaty on @Hodor's authority more than a week ago. Killzbob doesn't have the permissions to remove treaties

That's not actually how we did it though

The way I see it, the economic situation is on a macro level and no individual member will make or break their alliances' warchest, unless of course someone accidentally bungles the bank. That's why I don't really consider the alliances' warchests when looking at individual battlegrounds. As for if someone deletes, well, that's pretty obviously a tremendous defeat for their side. I'd not really count that as a proper and honestly fought war. I hadn't really thought of the latter scenario, but surely that's more of an edge case. ...Surely. Either way, it's a massive defeat on their end, but still on a strategic rather than tactical level.

Shhh, only likes now

Nope, no upvotes from me

So sayeth Pylon69...

Excess? There is no excess; we need all of those treaties in order to accurately reflect the bond our alliances have with each other :B

I would have to disagree with this particular point at the very least, Sheepy. Project slots are limited for the majority of the game but the largest players have more project slots than there are actually projects (current infra levels of most whales notwithstanding and the #1 player excepted of course, but that aside), which means that any project is no longer an option but in fact a straight potential bonus. Now, it may indeed not be overpowered nor gamebreaking, but when there's no reason not to grab a bonus then it's not really an option at all but just another cherry for the top. Ultimately I'm with @Sketchy on this one, and I don't really see any need to expand on the points he's already made so I'll just leave it at that.

This is already modeled under the "ground control" mechanic IMO; adding a way to actually loot military forces doesn't sound like a good idea to me honestly.

Indeed, sometimes you have to spend a LOT of resources in order to nail the beige, and decommissioned units aren't included in the stats nor can be reasonably attributed to any particular war front... but still are unquestionably resources spent by the "winning" nation, which can easily count for a lot against the bottom line. Personally, I think of outcomes in 4 different ways. A clear victory is one where you loot more than you spent/lost, a close victory is one where you win but don't loot more than you spent/lost, a close defeat is one where you lose but the enemy doesn't loot more than they spent/lost, and a complete defeat is one where you lose and the enemy loots more than they spent/lost. Tl;dr: Win and loot = complete victory, Win but no loot = victory, lose and enemy loots = complete defeat, lose but no loot = defeat. Anyone that avoids complete defeat is doing okay in my book, more or less anyway. Net damages are more of a strategic consideration between alliances and the conflict as a whole rather than a tactical one on any of the individual battlefronts, since the economic situation is definitely more macro-level than a few isolated attacks, and the losing side can gain back a lot of net damage ground through aggressive use of attrition wars even when losing the net damage race in their defensive slots. That's how I see it anyway.

Awww... Well, I guess it has to happen, but that's still disappointing since we love the meme so much

Great! ...What's that got to do with the issue presented in the OP?

I have credibility? But naw, you won't see me leading an alliance in this game. That way lies disaster, trust me.