Sir Scarfalot

Honestly, I have a deep respect for anyone at the top of the "units lost" leaderboards. Being there proves that for all the war you're doing, you mean it; you're not plugging away at zeroed or inactive nations, but rather fighting people with military that are using it. After all what's better: getting dogpiled and rolling over, or getting dogpiled and fighting like hell anyway?

This... almost sounds reasonable, my only issue with it is that it could be better and perhaps more simply accomplished by the following: 1. Beige happens when war expires, based on resistance 2. Beige lasts for 60 turns (stay with me here) 3. Beige does not stack. Instead, it merely refreshes to 60 turns if the beige nation gets beiged again. That way, once someone's knocked out, they have at most 5 days buy, so they won't have full airforce at the end of their beige. Furthermore, even if the opponent is careful with their attacks, by declaring a war and blockading exactly one turn before the nation gets beiged, then the nation will be pinned for all but a single turn. Thus they're mostly pinned, but not inescapably so. Your way would work tho, I'm not saying it wouldn't.

Gotcha, I agree then.

Forcing a nation to be defeated is good though. Otherwise you can either keep down an opponent forever, or they can just stubbornly refuse to be defeated forever; either way it's not really fun.

I... don't think this is a good idea. The downdeclare range is good as it is; with this suggestion implemented, having cities would be too punishing IMO. Sometimes you just get rekt, so you downdeclare to do what you can anyway. The opponents that attacked you down to that level shouldn't be just letting you run rampant throughout their lowest tiers regardless; when the little guy has backup he's hardly helpless. What would solve the issue a lot more thoroughly is to change decommissioning so that once you've decommissioned units, you can't buy that kind of unit again that day. Much how you can't decommission units after buying that kind of unit in the turn, but if it went both ways then it'd be a heckuva lot more fair.

We'll have to ask Alexio first.

...says the guy who got looted for 5.5 bil ?

Can you actually deny it, or are you just going to fall back on that old trope? Go to war more often, get hit, play the game! Don't look for ways to avoid interesting gameplay, and certainly don't tell people that they should try to take steps in order to appease their rivals; at least not if you don't want to be called out on your pixelhugging. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

That's when TKR declares on BC, just to make the war that much more of a headache for Frawley interesting

If the answer to that is anything but "hug pixels and only pick easy fights" then you're the one that should consider the question tbh.

True, but all the good discords are the ones outside of the influence of the moderators/admins, and the worst parts of the forum are the ones not related to the game, so I stand by my statement in context.

Obviously we need to ask Alexio for clarification on the matter

Yes, the issue was people started just doing naval battles and airstrikes to perpetuate the wars beyond sanity and never actually "winning", in order to avoid ever allowing the opponent to surrender. Which was extremely imbalanced.

Hi there, welcome to the better part of the game

Well, there's no certainty on Earth either. The SEC and the federal reserve and the FDIC are just another layer of assurances, but all assurances can in theory be broken. It's unlikely, sure, but there are still incentives to cheat the system and walk away with the cash IRL as there are in in-game banking. The real retribution is that once trust is destroyed, the value of the bank plummets. Everyone will want their stuff back, and there won't be any new investors coming in. At that point, sure the guy that robbed the bank gets a lump sum, but he can hardly get any further. That, and there's the political backlash which can very well reflect badly on his alliance and potentially lead to pact cancellations or even open warfare.

Anomalous gloat, but that's fine

Wait, isn't the whole idea of "shares" being that the shareholder owns a portion of the assets of the bank? And therefore they are the owners? If someone's gone and taken stuff that someone else owns, that's called robbery. It is no-one's liberty to do that, not at all. (War is different, there's no expectation nor trust necessary in direct competition. This is more akin to pactbreaking.)

Come on, he's obviously just having a joke ? ...Either way, their alliance would definitely be separate from any other alliances currently engaged in any war. @Frawley would have to change up the entire way that the was presenting the data for their damage to be counted as part of your damage, even if he added them to your coalition (which I really doubt he will). After all, this war started at a different time. Even if he does add BC to your "side", their contribution/liability in the war would be logged under their alliance and thus could be easily subtracted from the totals.

If anything, most people that understand the war system wouldn't offer a surrender under such terms; it'd be just as bad for the dogpiled party as a truce. @Kurnugiais right, the game mechanics absolutely need to be controlled by the game in this circumstance.

Look, simply having war expiration result in beige would do exactly enough to solve the problem that this suggestion addresses and more besides.

What possible science could subvert the 3rd law of motion...? is he a dark scientist ?

Wolves' UID includes the following, btw: Neither are direct proof, but taken together there's definitely fishiness.

That's actually a really good idea, upvoted

I know right?! I keep my calculator up just to be sure whenever there's doubt, but this'd make everything so much easier. The "max money lootable" should also update when you change the number of tanks/soldiers you're applying to the battle as well. Related to that, the maximum airstrike damage changes if you apply fewer aircraft, so that ought to update as well.

Haha, fair enough then