Hansarius

Only one I take issue with is this one: If your nation is subject to blockade and having lost air & ground superiority, then missiles were the only way you could fight back. Now if it happens, then you can't do anything but sit back and watch your nation get destroyed. I believe reducing the damage, increasing the maintenance and boosting the Iron Dome to 50% would be more than enough to nerf missiles.

Winter is coming

And we have the best gfx department to boot!

Best of luck to both Dia with his retirement and to Mortimer for taking over the wheels. o/ DEIC

You could always just make it a feature for personal deals rather than making it an option for the open and alliance markets. People do it anyway with the mechanics already in place, why not simplify it and make everyone happy?

This would be pretty useful.

Welcome to Orbis, I hope to see more of you.

The thing with missile warfare though, is that you'll most likely end up firing no more than one pr day. And you'll probably be fighting at least 3 wars. This because you'll probably have your arsenal spied away prior to the war or quickly spent a few days in. So you have plenty incentive to want use other attacks than missiles. The question is more, are you able to use any other kind of attack?

Well that's a shame. Good luck to you Rose

Glad to see peace return to Orbis in time for the holidays

I hope the blood god is sated by the blood we've shed.

We are not suffering any delusion that we are winning this war. But we have no intention of just being quiet when presented with the hypocrisy of what is now going on. Considering that your justification for this war was how we conducted ourselves during the peace talks with TAC in the last war, I find it very puzzling how members of your coalition are now not only doing the same, but acting worse in the peace talks of this one. Fortunately, there are some people among you who has acted more reasonably, and shown class in dealing with us, and I can only hope their reason prevails.

We found that your coalition was not all in agreement with the all the terms offered. Seeing how some of those terms were highly questionable considering the justification used against us, I believe it is in the best interest of both ourselves and those particular alliances that we reach separate peace agreements.

I'm a bit conflicted there to be honest. It seems fair that if control is harder to achieve it should also be harder to break, but then again, you'd be in even more trouble if it's harder to break. perhaps a compromise should be that control takes 3 immense triumphs to achieve, and 2 immense triumphs (or is it just victories that are required now?) to break

I wasn't really going to make a suggestion on this before after the war. But I have been thinking that perhaps it might be better that blockades, ground control and air control, isn't achieved before you've reached your 3rd or 4th immense triumph. The effect of control in each individual field can be so devestating that fighting back becomes overwhelmingly difficult. The trend I've seen in this war is tactics where nations specialize in either tanks or air, and hit their target together with someone who specialized in the other field. I'm not complaining about these tactics being used, I find it a very interesting part of the game in fact But it does mean that the attacker can each focus on destroying one part of a defender's force, and there is little to nothing the defender can do to fight back as the air and ground control means that he can only fight back with 50% of his forces (which has already been depleted entirely, or is heading that way.) But if the air control, ground control or blockade aren't added before the 3rd immense triumph, the defender will at least have a bigger chance of fighting back, and get in some last ditch supplies to help him fight before he is blockaded. And the attacker would still hold an advantage for striking first, which I believe is fair enough.

I owe you, Mutant, the grand sum 1.52million to be paid on the date of January first at the latest, for the purchase of 800 gas at the price of 1900 ppu.

Valid point. Maybe add a small modifier pr consecutive immense triumph for ground attacks would be better?

This idea has some merit. I am currently in the situation where I'm getting my ass kicked but thanks to my missiles I'm able to keep up in damage caused. I can see how that is a little unfair considering I'm by any definition losing those wars. Though without missiles, I wouldn't be able to fight back at all, so I don't think restrictions there is the way to go. I will eventually lose my ability to fight back even with my missiles due to being blockaded and I think that is restriction enough. Maybe a damage modifier that adds x0.25 to the damage cap for each day you've held superiority over your enemy?

Congratulations to all elected. A nice group of people you've got there!

I understood, I just don't think it's a good idea. If you have control on one front, odds are that you're going to have control on the others as well, especially in larger conflicts where the side who takes the iniative usually will strike with either superior-forces or better co-ordination if not both. The advantages of striking first and taking the initative are already powerful enough without enabling them to disable a nation's defenses entirely by nullifying the ability to at least defend oneself with missiles.

That's actually a pretty bad idea. Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

Limiting incoming missile and nuclear strikes to 1 pr day does sound fair and would bring more balance to missile warfare. With missiles it isn't too big of a problem, but when nukes does start showing up, and if nations can become subject to being hit by 2-3 if not more nukes pr day, then that's going to be pretty bad.

I..... I think I love you

I am not sure what yo are trying to prove with these logs? Those are indeed logs of tC talking about the war with TAC, 1 or 2 days prior to the war started. A war which started when EoS informed the rest of us that a coalition was being made to take us out, something that was going to happen sooner rather than later. A fear I believe current events show wasn't entirely without basis.

I take it you would prefer it I should just sit still and agree with your own fabricated or assumed allegations against us.