War Hawk

(I should note that I'm not fond of any city limitations, but Alex seemed happy with Pre's idea, prompting my alternate recommendation.) As I previously stated, the formula and numbers I provided aren't formal recommendations, but the numbers of my napkin math aren't very far off.

I'm wholly opposed to the proposed static city restriction on down declares. In tandem with the current score restriction, I find the proposition to be too limiting for large nations to meaningfully fight a "losing" war (e.g., the current conflict). A better solution would be a variable, city-based restriction like the following: (Attacker City Count / 2) - 2 = Declaration Floor (The example formula isn't necessarily a formal recommendation -- rather, a general suggestion of what should instead be considered.) Examples: A nation has 5 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 1 city (rounded); A nation has 10 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 3 cities; A nation has 18 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 7 cities; A nation has 25 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 11 cities (rounded); A nation has 32 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 14 cities.

I know - I'm just poking fun at recent suggestions.

I should probably add that this suggestion is for personal benefit.

This may be a bit nitpicky as far as in-game suggestions are concerned, but it would be helpful to have an adversary's activity status listed on the war page. This would allow us to verify the activity/inactivity of our opponents without needing to repeatedly visit their nation pages for status checks. Example:

Some nations have unit killed totals vastly higher than the "destroyed" totals listed on respective nation pages.

No idea what you're taking about.

Don't worry about updating the individual stats. Nothing will change between now and the end of the war.

You caught us red-handed, Shifty. That 2k uranium we sent Oblige (two months ago) is all we have left.

>Complain about half-damage nukes in defensive wars >Receive constructive response about actual utility of nukes >"I don't give a shit." x5 I mean, I get that you're salty, but that's no reason for you to mix up "I don't understand" with "I don't give a shit." Moreover, if you're worried about the real value of your dealt infra damage (i.e., infra damage relative to the ROI on said infra), you and the rest of NB should have focused more on war and less on the months OWF shit-talking.

I'm having serious doubts that you understand what "I don't give a shit" means. Inb4 "I don't give a shit."

>Kastor