Sir Scarfalot

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

Eh, it's not exactly an advantage unique to anyone's playstyle and the information is already available, so there's no reason to not make it that much more convenient.

Back-talking the moderators now? Seriously? Just stop.

BK = Brown Knights confirmed? Didn't need to be longer really; it's only a game and the point of a game is to have fun. There's only so much fun to be had grinding someone down in a dogpile. There's plenty of fun to be had fighting against a dogpile IMO, but then again that's not everyone's cup of tea. Props to TRF for fighting back in the 2nd round at least, hopefully they got some good experience from the war. At least one good thing came from this conflict: Welcome to the missile club, @MCScout

Something something legitimate military tactics blah blah not abuse etc. etc. Stop bullying TGH, you

Yeah, as far as I can tell the game only costs the defender something like a maximum of twice the unit value of the attack in resources... like if you spent 50 soldiers and a tank in an attack against someone with 100k soldiers and 10k tanks, the defender would therefore only be charged for the use of 100 soldiers and 2 tanks. I may be way off in my understanding of this, but it's roughly what I've observed in the few cases when some schmo suicides against me. And more importantly, being able to beige oneself in that manner isn't really what I'd like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a direct surrender function though, wherein one party in war has the option to "surrender" and thus automatically beige themselves, with all the normal penalties of beige... IF they can only do this when they have zero military of any sort, and executing the surrender depletes their military buying power for that day as well. That way it can't be used to triple raid someone under beige that easily.

Naw, a fox would have a longer snout and pointier ears further back on the head; that's just a red looking doggo.

God, no, just no, and more importantly please heck off. The wars are just long enough to allow your cheesy bullcrap "pin" ""strategy"" to be countered by extremely efficient and dedicated play; doing what you ask here would make it COMPLETELY UNSTOPPABLE. So, to reiterate: Please heck off. If you actually want to shorten wars, then go ahead and do it; there's nothing stopping you from just taking that last hit and shortening the wars yourself.

...I like this guy. He gets it. Please don't punish him for this @Roquentin

Evidence, specifics? Alright, how's this: NPO can, right now, completely and wholly resurrect Cybernations from the pit of inactivity it has become. It is within your community's power to turn that game dynamic and fun once more. Every day that you do not is another day in which a game remains dead, on account of NPO. Whether NPO was responsible for Cybernations dying in the first place is irrelevant to my point; the fact remains that you are choosing to leave it dead when you have the choice to not. In that sense, you are the primary cause of that nation sim's continued death. All you need to do to make CN not dead is splinter, and encourage competition again. Will you do that? Is it fair to even ask it of you? Of course not, on both counts; you want to 'win'. And you can't 'win' without utterly dominating the whole kit and kaboodle, never allowing anyone to challenge you lest they 'win' and therefore you 'lose'. Frawley, Shadowthrone, Thrawn especially and for that matter you yourself have all said as much; you say you want to check their power and make sure it does not overwhelm your own. The only way to do that in a sustainable and lasting way, as Thrawn has stated is the intention, is to annihilate all competition. What I'm saying is that if you are successful in annihilating your competition, you will in fact annihilate your competition, creating a situation wherein there can be no competition and therefore no gameplay. I've seen that happen. I've made that happen. I've fought against that happening. I've ignored that happening. I've encouraged that happening. I've discouraged that happening. I've temporarily suppressed that happening. The one thing I have never done in all my years of nation sims is prevent that happening, and regrettably I have come to the conclusion that it is ultimately inevitable. Unless you can somehow deny the statement that "without gameplay there is no game", then I don't see any rebuttal in your post.

You guys really haven't been paying attention apparently. You seriously think the war will end when you want it to? Well, good luck convincing your enemies to stop when you're ready for them to stop

Sure, if "Alliance X" set a defined limit on the damage they want to do and then end the war at that point, then sure. But alliances don't have "damage goals", and certainly can't end the war on their own timetables. This isn't some single-player RTS where once you complete your objectives the match fades to black, plays a pre-rendered cutscene and you move on to the next mission; this is a multiplayer sandbox and you don't dictate the damage you do nor how long it takes, however much you might want that power.

I don't understand game mechanics? Haven't been accused of that in a while ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The best way to have fun playing a game is to have fun playing a game, there's no other way to say that. The fact that your alliance follows a strategy that isn't fun doesn't change that. It is absolutely bad strategy to fold on the upper tier, where there was (and yet remains) the possibility of victory, in order to instead double down on hugging pixels in the lower tier where there wasn't any possibility of defeat anyway. With military strategy like that, you really don't need enemies. As for the last line... what else is war but expenditure of resources to frick someone's shit up temporarily?