Shiho Nishizumi

Photoshop? How dare you. It's Paint! It was also made a year ago.

Old but gold from AC.

As we did with BK and friends, because they plotted to roll us. Alliance fronts are a long outdated concept, but I'm not surprised that the inQompetent side is oblivious to that fact.

Jessica Rabbit would've never planned such a shoddy offensive either, but that's neither here nor there.

Yes, the losing side has to do it more often. That's simply part of fighting a losing war. Again, with enough activity (log in twice a day) and caution you can avoid the looting. The losing side should be more cautious with it's spending and management either way. Depositing it in nations, beige or otherwise, is always a bad idea, as nations provide no benefit over AA's. Especially since those records are visible while bank to bank aren't. And I wouldn't say unnecessary, as it entirely disregards the potential for gain that comes with it. Can the risk be deemed not worth of the risk? That's up to each individual. But it's still a factor that exists and shouldn't be disregarded on it's entirety.

Others have covered most of what I have to say in the matter (Mitsu, Scarf, Nizam etc). But I gotta comment on this... presentation that solo AA banking is somehow difficult to pull off. It isn't. All you need is a decently active individual whom you can trust. If he's cautious even the better. Keeping a bank safe that way is no rocket science. Even then, one man AA isn't the only way to do it. Having an ally hold it for you, for instance, can work in certain circumstances. Apeman held TRF's bank when we blitzed them, for instance. Furthermore, I'll go ahead and say that the amount of leaders who went like "Uhm, we shouldn't war in part because our bank AA might get looted during the war." in the pre planning of a war is 0. It's not a frequent enough occurrence (practically 0 if you picked the right guy to do the job) to ever be considered as a factor, nor is it a factor you should even be weighing in to conclude whether you should war or not. Your main concern is seeing if you can even win. If so, you'll be too busy reaching out for potential allies, organizing the coalition and sorting out who hits what to be concerned about such a minute detail. I also don't see the issue of scoring a big hit with proper coordination if you were presented an opportunity, given that such opportunity always pops up as a result of the banker's slip up, be it inactivity, overconfidence or others. I think that we should be aiming to have everyone be more competent and capable, rather than dumbing things down. As for the "transfer of wealth". AA bank loot can be nullified if you're reasonably competent. Individual/nation loot can be greatly mitigated if you properly manage the amount of resources sent to nations in between and manage your tax policies. We learned that when we bled loot like crazy in the first weeks of 69, but after a couple of weeks it basically went down to nothing. Part of it was natural thinning out, but we noticed that it decreased greatly after implementing our countermeasures. Obviously, everything is a tradeoff, but that's just part of the game. As Scarf said, nothing is without risk. @Venom It would be a double edged sword for raiders. In one hand, yes less loot. But on the flip side, their bank held loot would be far, far safer. This is particularly more important for solo man raiders than for other raiding AA's.

They actually pulled a Corralito? Lmao. I figured it would have been considered to avoid a bank run, but never thought it'd go through. Never trust banks.

fricking finally. The entire point of banking is long term returns. It makes no sense that people who bank for a profit would pull a 180 for short term gains (buy a bunch of cities while delaying the retroactive expense), while gutting the long term (lost interest rate revenues due to pulled assets, alongside loss of share of the market). Especially since, again, the retroactive cost would have to be paid for anyways if they ever intended to buy another city (which they do), and a higher cost since it'd also include the retroactive cost of those cities they frontloaded. With less money than they would otherwise have since they just blew it on a bunch of cities that won't pay off. It's no rocket science that generating 5b from just your nation's income is a lot harder than generating it with your income plus your investment's returns. All of this is just some nonsense doomsday calling. And even if such a withdrawal were to happen, the end result would be a temporary shrinking. Savvier bankers will remain to make extra buck off of higher interest rates, and likely reach out to more potential investors to fill in the demand that the bankers who withdrew left unattended. New banks might also form to try to fill in such demand, not to mention that sooner or later, the bankers who pulled would return, albeit weakened because they have less capital to work with in the face of those who remained. I do agree that this sink by itself won't do much, and it'd perhaps be better off if it was made to cost refined. As Frawley pointed out, raw's sink is refining, so increasing the demand for refined goods will by proxy increase the demand of raws to be used to manufacture them. Infra would also be good if the goal was just to have sinks, though I prefer the consumer goods proposal for a consistent peacetime sink.

I think it would be a bad change to implement, especially if made from the angle of a resource sink. I can understand and sympathize with wanting to fix the problem of R1 deciding the course of a war, but the economic aspect would be rendered moot simply because of the heightened cost of waging war discouraging people even more from warring than as of current. The econ problem should be tackled with a constant peacetime sink instead. Just add improvements that use up refined resources and pump out cash. You would be killing refined production (due to limited slots and/or pollution stacking up), using up current stocks, and generating cash which would all result in refined being less common and money being more abundant, thus driving prices up. I also disagree with the change as a whole, because it would basically shift warfare to being economic warfare (even more so than it arguably is as of current), given that the only way to subjugate some definitely would be to make him run out of resources. While coordination would generate better trades, it would still be beholden to how deep each participants pockets are. Exception being in the case of gross military incompetence on the richer party's side which would be no different from as of current. With that out of the way... 1) True. 2) Would fall flat due to aforementioned costs shying people away from warring as often. 3) Fair, though first strike is still important due to controls. 4) A pipedream due to fear of escalation. 5) Controls are also an advantage. 6) Not that black and white, given that beiging would shield him from new attacks and thus reduce the potential max damage dealt in coordinated hits due to less people being engaged. 1) A lot stronger, given better rolls due to larger armies, and the capacity to fully flex their econ assets. 2) That, or aversion to them unless if absolutely necessary. People would be far more concerned about letting a sphere/s sit on the sideline and just keep generating stuff which would give them greater direct staying power in a war. 3) Yes. 4) They would likely need to be able to kill military or other strong buff to justify their usage instead of spamming navals or airstrikes, especially if the target is at war with plenty of people; obvious exception being nuking a 4k infra city. 5) Yes. I'm glad to see this being added in. It would have been a colossal oversight if it had gone unattended. 1) That would likely rip one of their few benefits, that being them being decent ratio netters due to how cheap they are. They aren't a particularly strong unit, and being able to max right away would be a nerf as is, given their quicker mobbing rate as of current. 2) Yes. 3) They would need a new niche, given their current one would be largely gone under that framework. Either killing units directly, or impairing their production would make the most sense to me. It would be a very delicate thing to balance, as if handled without care they could inexpensively cripple conventional military entirely, but that could possibly be mended with hardcaps or diminishing returns over repeated use. 4) That would be a good change under that rework. 5) It would probably still be fine by then. 6) Not a bad idea, though that would make NS ranges basically useless.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=160260 Not much else to it. Kriegsmarine flag which is in violation with the rule regarding references to nazism.