Shiho Nishizumi

This would just lead to people nuke turreting each other, as that'd be a lot more effective than fighting conventional wars. If you're destroying 9/10ths of the city's imps, you're invariably also destroying any max capacity mil in there. The remaining mil is unusable due to the city being disabled. As such, there'd be no point in using anything else at all, given that a nuke would materially or effectively wipe them out anyways. It's simply bad game design if you can undo the substantial amount of effort and coordination that goes into winning conventional wars by engaging in a style that's not much more than just click a button to buy the nuke, and another to launch it. As for long wars; that issue is a political one, not a mechanical one. Furthermore, the recent changes, whether for good or bad, are already going to make wars more resource-intensive to wage. So I think that you're overlooking the impact that update is going to have by wanting YET ANOTHER (on top of the several that have been added by this point) resource sink to be added. And no, there's no reason why nukes should be overpowered. Ideally, nothing should be overpowered, as the main concern in games is to have good balance between the different units/tools at hand. The priorities in games are balance because ultimately, that's what leads to an enjoyable game experience; not realism to a fault. Especially not when "realism" has been forfeited several times by now in this game.

Reps aren't something people are going to readily accept by default. Have them be 11 figures sums halfway to being 12, accompanied by further economically punitive terms (thunderdome, for example) that makes it extremely obvious that the aim was to throughout bankrupt the other side, and it's no surprise that people weren't about to accept them.

It wasn't working. I had filed a ticket over it, and even SS'd before and after the AS to show that no ships had died. Infra and plane casualties were being registered. Ships weren't.

@Alexhas this been addressed?

It's pointless to devote a certain amount of time and effort into a feature that isn't expected to see much, if any use, in contrast to devoting that that same amount of time and effort into more significant/worthwhile updates, such as the recent update and the Alliance QoL thing. It's simply a matter of investment vs return, and the latter options offer far better returns for the investment involved. As such, I'd be encouraging a greater emphasis to be placed on the latter two. This is inconsequential enough to where it could very well just be added directly as changes to the improvements themselves. Which would allow far more people to make use of them if they were so inclined.

You couldn't pin down someone forever on the old system either, due to the resistance mechanic. If it was possible to forever pin someone,, the last war wouldn't have gone for eight months for the simple reason that there wouldn't have been a way to present any resistance. It's not anyone's problem that you were simply ignorant to this fact. No, it wasn't. And yes, hitting people with less cities when 0'd yourself was a valid strategy; note that you yourself were 0'd, and the other person had military; often maxed to even be in range in the first place (the alternative being ridiculously padded with infra, in which case that's their fault). And as soon as you bought military yourself, you put yourself in range of larger people that they themselves had military to put you down. It's nowhere near as a foolproof and unbalanced matter as you're making it sound, and wasn't too difficult to respond/address if the defender's milcom was reasonably competent, and the counters did their due diligence. That your response's substance is "well let's gut this entirely (and frick up other things as well) because it was a circumstantial issue at best" exemplifies the approach taken, and the disastrous result thereof. Clearly you yourself were not, given that you failed to notice all the other issues Justin and myself highlighted. And if you were, it shows your ignorance in regards to the war system; which is unsurprising, as you haven't seriously fought since 2018, when you sent your AA to die in a futile banzai spearhead.

Your armchair theory doesn't hold water, when compared with the results at hand (as hinted by Justin). And they certainly will not in an actual war context, when you have the target itself counter attacking and rebuying, counters coming in, etc etc. You focused on a singular problem, and chose to smack it with a hammer irrespective of how the cracks affected the entire structure. Just as an example, wars being way grindier and resource intensive (in part because costs such as gas/muns usage weren't altered), means that upstarts/new players will have a much harder time competing with old alliances, due to the simple fact that the latter have had more time to stockpile. And these fights will be fights of attrition for the simple reason that you can't really zero someone, let alone pin them, if they have the resources to spend. Wars being these resource intensive also dissuade alliances from warring in the first place, as there's much more at stake. All of this contributes towards stagnancy. And if you do get 0'd because you went broke on, example, steel; you can't even fight back anywhere near as well as you could under the old system, due to cities being the main NS contributor. You'll be in range of people with similar city counts as you, who are nonetheless maxed (provided similar infra counts). So congratulations on stripping those people from any tools for fighting back, other than nuke turreting. Were these factors considered at all? No. Again, that GC still limits the amount of aircraft deployed, that Air Superiority has no effect, tank K:D being 1:1 on IT's; all of these are indications that barely if any testing at all was done (because otherwise, people would've spotted it and told Alex about it), and most likely you lot just did some maths, went like "Yep, this checks out", and went with that; and failed to implement it properly while at that. Again, this sort of stuff doesn't work because you completely ignored a ton of circumstantial factors that simply can't be mathed (or simulated properly on test server, for that matter). Oh and as a little aside; on top of what Durmij said, it also takes effort to properly plan and pull off a good blitz. It's only natural for a substantial advantage to be the trade off for both the cost and effort involved in it.

The past two globals are case example of it not being such. NPOLT I needn't elaborate. Surf's Up largely came down to how NR et all hit. If they had hit the overextended people rather than easy pads, that war would've not gone the way it did. But yes, this is Alex coming up with 50000 different changes that addressed XYZ complaints (many of which were very specific/situational) that he couldn't be fricked to test (as is becoming increasingly apparent to me), either individually or as a bundle, and pushed to go live haphazardly for no good reason other than to claim he's doing something. I suppose that having a huge changelog looks more impressive than having just one or two lines.

Aircraft casualties from these GA's are also not listed on the war timeline, or statistics. Also... https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=656061 Nice update @Alex. Totes not half baked.

Naturally, the guy who was party to losing 1/2 billion to a single raider thinks that this is good.

I told it to Frawley back in the day when he made the realism argument, and I'll tell it to you now. Arguing based on real life logic is asinine, when you have so many factors in this game that throw realism right out of the window. Such as being able to basically double your population overnight, loot being able to be delivered through a blockade via a beige you got with a missile/nuke (even if you had no other conventional force whatsoever), being able to play baseball with nations on opposing warring alliances through blockades, etc. Does realism only matter for X but not for Y? Make up your mind. Furthermore, real life is very often inherently unbalanced. It is preferable to have as many stacked advantages as possible. For instance, one of the changes you made here was to make tiering more rigid by inflating city NS and devaluating military score. The purpose of this, per you, was to minimize the amount of ludicrous downdeclares which led to an unbalanced match up due to the downdeclaring nation potentially having a greater than 2:1 ratio in city count, compared to the defender. All well and good. That sure as shit doesn't make any real life sense. Do you think that, for instance, the Soviets cared that they outnumbered the Finnish by magnitudes of hundreds, specifically in terms of materiel such as tanks and aircraft (the former, ironically enough, being one of the main things that inflated NS previous to the changes)? Of course not. They rolled into Finland anyways, because that's what "real life sense" actually is. It's about making things as unbalanced as possible in order to gain as much of an advantage as possible. The focus gameplay should be one of making things actually balanced, rather than try to justify them on "real life sense"/realism. The latter can be a thing if it enhances it, rather than just be added for the sake of it. Rather than implementing various small changes to see how things changed, you simply read "Planes OP" and "Tanks UP" and went balls to the wall with nerfing one and buffing the other, not caring for how these interacted in conjunction. That's not how balancing should be done. It should be done by taking baby steps to see how it affects the overall dynamic. Honestly, it's possible that it'd have been mostly fine if you had just made it so that tanks could kill planes per GA (albeit not at these rates). But the way you implemented it, you just threw it the opposite direction. The silver lining is that there's still a fair bit of time to test things out in order to balance it properly.

Just name it League of Nations, since it'd be about as effective as the real thing.

"Get off of alum so there's less of a supply so I can make more money from my production."

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=630723 cost the defender 38.6m in unit value, the attacker 18.86m. Not including soldiers (which is roughly comparable) and looted cash (which favors the defender). Price of steel being at 4046 PPU and alum at 3506 PPU respectively. Theoretical infra lost (based from 2.1k infra since that's what the NS and his builds suggest) valued about 51m (no discounts) for the attacker. Defender lost some but I'll assume it's just like 5m or something of the sort. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=630730 cost the defender 37.8m in that same value, while attacker lost 20.8m. Infra lost (based from 1990 infra based on same parameters) valued at 40m. Defender also didn't suffer that many losses in that respect. Doesn't include beige loot values. That also obviously adds extra. What were mathematically unsound trades (especially given the circumstances) are apparently fine trades now. Then again, I'm not surprised he'd think that when he thinks that bringing up the Test server is meant to mean anything.

Realism isn't an argument in a game where you can triple your population overnight, baseball through blockades, immediately strike someone on the opposite end of the world, etc. And you cite Iraq (because I presume Highway of Death). I can just cite Vietnam where the U.S. literally dropped thrice as much as they had dropped during WW2 on it's entirety, and yet still lost over 3k planes (not aircraft in total, just planes), 90% of those casualties coming from ground AA fire and SAM's (not present at all in game). Include all flying crafts and that goes up to the five digit range. With the N. Vietnamese themselves only losing low three digit aircraft counts. Aircraft in WW2 also displayed their limitation in instances like Iwo Jima, where the heavily dug in troops were able to out trade (in terms of casualties) their attackers which enjoyed a 3-1 advantage in terms of grunts, and near if not total air and naval supremacy. This isn't represented in game. Also, during the outset of the Battle of the Bulge, where weather (also not represented here) severely impaired their operational capacity. Not to mention the entirety of the Winter War, where the geography and dense forestry also limited their capabilities (too, not represented here). Rather than outright killing power, the main benefit from air power on tanks in those early instances, was one of psychological stress and disruption on the enemy organization. Both of these matter greatly in real life, but neither are a factor in game.

I'll use an example of many: If they had had good milcom, they would've recognized how overstretched we were early on and concentrated all their counters on one assault, and not sent them piecemeal for us to nearly use our daily buys on. NPO's entry was unnecessary had they played it right, and was needed solely due to their incompetence. Ofc a lot more than that, but that is just the starting point. That you seem to think otherwise, plus how "cheating is irrelevant" when GPWC is quite explicitly how they had the funds to drag the war double the length of KF (bans notwithstanding, and the bans only having punished one AA when the cheating benefitted their coalition as a whole), does tell me that you quite frankly don't know what the frick you're talking about. So I'll just disregard future posts on that basis. And yes, claiming meta (aka standard) on a war that was defined by unprecedented and extreme is simply dumb. Especially when the people who were largely responsible for how it turned out is gone.

Minimum is meant so that you can't get cycled in perpetuity due to going broke. It's not meant to give raiders a free pass for their loot. Production can be taxed 100/100 unless if beiged. Okay. I'll be blunt because apparently what I've said isn't getting through. You can't fricking pretend that this would've made a god damn difference in a war where the other side was fricking trying to exterminate you. And you can't fricking sustain a trade with a side that was cheating nearly a billion worth of resources per god damn day. >1/3 was good for perma blockades but actually isn't so it doesn't hurt to add anyways. Not an argument for adding it. The rest of what you've said is already done as is, with no infra pads being a thing to keep people in range. I also think that you overestimate the amount that was being looted towards the 2nd half of the war, the odd Polaris bank loot notwithstanding. At any rate, as I said: Arguing that it'll be the same as current is an argument for the current system, not the one you're arguing for. Since it doesn't make sense to make mechanical changes if an end result is the same. You're just wasting time and effort, and are at risk of implementing bugs. It doesn't even solve these issues. That you've opted to ignore what I've written, or side step it with unrelated matters, doesn't change that. The actual answer is that I'd have them not beige, and simply whack a mole their buy attempts until expiry.

>Permanent blockading. Minimum unlootable refined. >Getting rolled for months. I've literally addressed how this wouldn't have changed because it was a political factor, not a mechanical one. Especially when, you know, one side was cheating for more than half the duration of the war. >Not winning wars being a chore. You do realize that 1/3 means no leeway for beiging, correct? It'd also actually minimize the amount of looting you could via GA's do simply because you'd have to save the res and map's for the buys which are more substantial. >1/3 solves all. No it doesn't. Hell, if you're broke and blockaded, it doesn't matter whether you have a 1/6 buy, 1/3 buy or even 1/1 buy. You can't buy if you're broke.

Except it's not the meta. I also don't expect to see the 300 infra thing again.

1/3 buy was originally proposed as a way to mitigate/negate the whole beige shenanigans. Since you only would need two defeats as opposed to four to comfortably rebuild to max with 1/3. Well, the funds aren't there just for war, but also post-war. Having gone into a war with an AA bank empty, and fighting another war basically a month after, I've been there and done that about being broke after the fact. It's not an amusing prospect let's just say. That works if the group's comprised of huggers, really. And such a behavior is detrimental to themselves, because it basically reads as "Oh hey people can get free hits on us.". That's not a message you want to be sending off. And if it drags, there's always the argument of sure, group with infra is losing infra, but the group with no infra has no infra, and sometimes no production (if running an exclusively military build). This isn't a problem for people who're into raiding, but that group is just one of several that play this game. Things that aren't a factor for them are a factor for others. And if the argument is "Well, they may be trashed but they can always just raid/turret after getting trashed", the same is true with the current model.

@ Dryad (not an actual ping since you read this thread anyways) Where is beige removal suggested? It wasn't mentioned in his most recent thread. Whales aren't the only ones in a plight if zeroed. And the thing about such a change is that it doesn't change just that. It changes everything. Incapacity to pin means that war shifts from being about control to economic damage (at least moreso than it sometimes was about). You may think "good", but there are a few ramifications about it. First, smaller groups can't achieve victory against larger numbers through superior planning/coordination, simply because those foes don't stay down long enough for that to be viable. You may argue that the coordination/planning may help to secure better trades. That's true, to some extent. Given a large enough disparity (and assuming the larger group isn't thoroughly incompetent to the point of not being able to send semi decent counters), you won't be able to trade effectively over a sustained period of time simply because of numbers. There's only so much you can do with a single day's buy. Second, such a system by and large by default grants the advantage towards older alliances and/or players, simply because they've had more time to stockpile when compared to newer entities. It also encourages avoiding wars, given that having a large stockpile would matter substantially more than it does now. Encouraging avoiding/delaying the most worthwhile aspects of this game is not something I find to be desirable. I'm also not convinced that it would have mitigated the cited issue of last war lasting for so long because it was mechanically impossible to remount a comeback. While mechanically it was (at least conventionally), the actual reason why it went for so long was political. The current system has been in place for about three years now. Three wars lasted longer than month and a half. Two were held to such a long extent by IQ. Especially given what transpired from NPOLT, can you seriously make the argument that "oh they broke we can just peace now" would've made a difference? Given the logs, I don't think so. You can't really feasibly fix a political issue via mechanics. Again, I think that there's merit to wanting to tamper the effectiveness of first strike a bit. I simply don't think that this is the way to do so.

It's moreso getting them to that point in the first place, though the prospect of a C30 nation being able to muster an airforce *larger* than that of a C20 on a double buy (lack of reserve notwithstanding) is... ehm. The city NS thing isn't as much of a problem for me. I think that it's misguided, given the nature of most of those declarations, but it's nowhere near as relevant as the 1/3 thing. And if the aim is truly to mitigate/avoid those instances, then it doesn't need to be paired with a 1/3 revision.

He wasn't the only one. He was just the ballsiest.

Even when he's used part of his buy, it's a tricky proposition. Which is why Boyce was able to be afloat for so long until he got dragged down (and he was probably pulling some of the craziest sell downs during the war). This is in spite the fact that he was marked to be dragged by Roquentin both for personal reasons, and for the hindrance he was. The one instance where he did get brought down by C20's, was when he had declared a bunch of offensives, and it so happened that in between these declarations and him building back up, he got hit by one of his offensive slots. And it's not just him either. I've seen plenty other people do just that and be quite fine. The issue is that people are too fixated on this particular hypothetical while neglecting to factor in the greater picture.

No, you can't sic a C30 with someone half his size. Especially under a format where, you know, the whale can (if hadn't already) effectively double the ground of that of his attacker and basically guarantee a GC. After the current effects of GC, you aren't talking of 1350 planes vs say 2000 of a partially deplaned whale. You're talking of about 900. And as Valk said, you can throw a downed whale or two in to do a quick AS to further jeopardize such an attempt, especially when a downed C30 can basically throw C11 plane counts at those guys basically whenever. Even a C20 is a hard sell, and not something that, unlike as being suggested here, NPO went with as a first choice. Not even secondary. The first recourse is, obviously, to simply have some AA with the upper tier to do the dragging for them. Which in the last war, was done by tCW and the likes. The third was the C20, but the first two were nations with the actual punching power to put in a hurting that couldn't be just shrugged off. Once they had alienated basically all of their upper tier co-belligerents, they instead resorted to having a single upper tier nation act as tip of spear for the rest to capitalize upon. To the extent where they built up some nations into higher city counts specifically to do this sort of work. The amount of times I've seen NPO send off three C20's on one 30+ are scant at best. And those where they did do that, were mostly when the guy had hit like five people or something of the sort, which yeah, no brainer. There's also that the C20 gargantuan consolidated tier that they and BK had (and which they based their entire strategy on) isn't really a thing anymore. They also managed what they managed because they engaged in some extreme infra selling which, while effective at what it did, was prohibitively expensive (10m per city 20 if you rebuilt to 700. Doesn't include improvements. 850 with improvements is easily 20m per city. This, of course, doesn't include lost production) to the point where I am fairly certain that it was a contributing factor towards their decision of cheating with GPWC. People like Valk, Zoot and Swedge did a pretty damn good job of explaining why this is a bad idea (which is pretty self-evident and why I didn't bother talking about it myself), so I won't repeat on that. I'll just say that this hypothetical of C20 vs 30 is not just moot due to what I said, but also due to the fact that in reality, there's a ton of nations in between those two to screen for the C30. And those nations in between too benefit more from the doubled plane recruitment rate than do the C20's, simply because it's military they can have on the field which enables more favorable trades, both in the miliary and economic sense. If your concern is lopsided blitzes, address it specifically. Though, again as Valk said, the main culprit is the plane and how centralizing it is. The price increase was basically the worst pretend-nerf that could've been implemented, as it had no bearing on it's effectiveness and multi-functionality. It simply meant that they're more expensive to replace, and as Durmij had pointed out, had de facto given an alum advantage to nation that already had planes at that point, to the detriment of those who lacked it.