Shiho Nishizumi

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.

"Please stop downvoting!" Universal reaction:

I'd wholeheartedly suggest you to go buy Tropico 4 if you only want to hardcore nation build. It is plenty better for that and not very expensive, especially when it goes on sale. Alternatively, Nationstates as @Dad suggested. With that said, regarding the post itself... I'll start off by saying that 100 days is not a significant amount of time played. Most of the significant players have at least a year under their belts, many more than that, so arguing from a position of age is not going to work in your favor. With that said... Soldiers losses are basically irrelevant. They are mostly used as cheap cannon fodder. Tank and Plane stats matter more, full stop. Ships too. Soldier losses are also irrelevant because this isn't like, say, Hearts of Iron 4 where you have a limited manpower pool to draw from. It's dictated on daily quotas. And soldiers take the least time to max out too. Infra at 1k and below is pretty cheap. If it was genuinely hurting your bottom line in Arrgh, then you were either building above that, which was simply stupid in your part as it's not necessary to have such tall infra to raid; or your target selection was poor and the loot you got suffered as a result. Raiding is quite profitable (especially at ultra low city counts) if you're good at it. War is an integral part of the game, in case you haven't checked the title. War is also waged for the objectives of those who wage it, be those political, economic, or simply to have fun. War also happens to drive up activity in a game which otherwise you have little reason to log in daily if you don't actively trade, raid, or do govt work for. You don't win by any of the things you listed. The closest thing to "winning the game" would be by forming a hegemonic sphere (group of alliances allied between each other) which dominates it. But that isn't particularly fun because there's not really anyone to challenge you or to drive up political intrigue. Of course, getting cities, projects and infra (the latter to a reasonable extent) helps argument economic and military (infra not included for military; anything above 1ksh infra for military is a hindrance talking from a purely militaristic point of view) prowess, but without the proper coordination/skill to actually utilize them they are little more than a paper tiger which inflates your actual worth. Also, no. War is underutilized. Two Globals a year is quite a slow pace. Role playing is not a relevant factor for most people in this game. They tend to go with themes, yes, but what actually keep them playing is their interaction with other people in alliances they are in (or others) and activities within the game. War is one of those activities. There's a forum section in this game dedicated for more involved roleplay. I'd suggest you check it out. Approval in cosmetics and irrelevant. You can have -999999999999999999999999999999999999 approval and you will function just as well as a nation with 999999999999999999999999999999999999 approval. Also, realism isn't really the main concern in this game either. Things are set up with balance first, and realism second in mind. Already went over this, so I won't reiterate. With that said, no. Score on infra does nothing to argument your military capabilities if you've got enough infra to max aircraft (800-1000 spot). In fact, it's detrimental. What you think is irrelevant if you're basing it on personal experience. Not only because it is very subjective, but also because yours is extremely limited compared to what other people have. And you're certainly not basing it in actual knowledge because otherwise you'd know that being inflated NS wise isn't fun in actual war. It simply leaves you hanging up dry to get plummeted by people that have more cities than you. What exactly is the point of just hoarding what you produce and never using it? Especially when all you have to do is set up your production once, and log in every now and then just to make sure you have enough raws or food/uranium to not go starving or unpowered. It is simply unrewarding to do that, because you aren't proactively doing anything to generate that revenue. Exception being if you actively trade for a profit, in which case fair enough. Resource prices have also consistently gone downwards. The only thing that considerably counters that down spiral is war, due to lesser output and higher demand. Yes, waging war has it's costs. Especially if you foolishly overbuild in terms of infrastructure. Those costs are acceptable for whatever objective you are pursuing (already listed them). Rebuilding isn't that big of a deal. Often it's just a month, or month and half to get back where you started. Translation:

Kek. A couple of years ago, my friend and I had thought of finding a loophole around the magazine thing and other stuff. Such as .223 being allowed since it's technically a .22 bullet or Cali compliant style of guns. Unfortunately the text does say that adaptions of military firearms are only gucci in .22 LR, so that fell on the wayside. In the meantime, criminals run around with homemade guns or stolen (many times from armories themselves) FMK-3's, Halcons and whatnot. There was also a scandal over police-issue handguns making their way into the black market too. You'd figure that those would be enough indication that gun control isn't really working, but apparently not.

Nope. It's a years-long process, and knowing how this country operates likely charged up the ass. It'd be more cost effective to just buy a Garand. Also, I went back and re-checked the status of the SKS, because from what I recalled it was banned from civvie use unless the mag was welded shut so that it couldn't be swapped with aftermarket parts. I was wrong. They just lumped all of the SKS pattern rifles as exclusive "Armed Institutions" (Police/Gendarmerie/Armed Forces) weaponry, regardless of it's condition. So there's no working around that.

(Had written it on mobile first, then passed it onto my laptop for better structuring and other stuff. Hence the white text). Pretending that the guns are the (sole, at least) problem, and therefore banning them would get rid of the problem is nonsense. Criminals would simply source from the black market, homemake, or resort to knives or other cold weapons, the latter which is a pattern among the countries the U.S. is compared to. People who're feeling really suicidal are just going to take the pills, leave the car running in a closed environment, meet the noose or go take a bath with the toaster. Taking the guns will just stop a few; actually caring for them will save a many more. (Before you bring it up, I have no issue in comparing Argentina and the U.S. in this regard, because it's about gun control in general. Furthermore, those pushing for it themselves tend to ignore the significant differences that exist between the U.S. and the countries it's often compared to [European nations in general, and Japan in particular]. Comparing the U.S. and Argentina because it's the countries whose gun legislation I know the best of, and it's easier for me to find info on either).Just as a reference point, in Argentina, we have pretty hefty control (need not only a permit [and training], but also a copy of either your salary's receipt, or net commerce earnings [so no, jobless folk or criminals don't have easy if any access to them]. No self-loading rifles outside of .22LR's and fixed mags [basically only M1 Garands; SKS's got banned by name]. Technically two different licenses [one allows for .22's and .25 ACP, plus I believe 16 gauge. The other allows for the rest outside of .50's and whatnot]), and we have 6 deaths to firearms per 100k people, while the U.S. has 12 per 100k. It sounds great, until you realize that Argentina has a fraction of guns per 100 people that the U.S. has (10 vs 112, likely bigger gap nowadays since it's a 2007 report), and that Argentina's homicides with firearms ranked at 44,5% versus the U.S.' 37.3% (in 2016. Different dates because this is what I could source). And you have to consider that 32,2% of the gun-related deaths in Argentina are unknown in motivation (means that the actual homicide rate, albeit unknown, is higher). (Suicides not covered due to a lack of reliable sources that set apart which for who. The best I could find is that hanging is the most common for both sexes, and then it's guns for men and poisoning for women for 2nd favorite).So, what's the reason for the higher firearm homicide rate in Argentina than the U.S., in spite of the gun control and far less guns in circulation, both in totals and per 100 people, you may ask?Socioeconomic factors (we undeniably have it plenty worse off than the U.S., to be fair), too soft of a penal code to dissuade criminals from committing crime, gun control itself (unlike as claimed here, guns have a far bigger role in self-defence than as stated. Elaborated further below), plus legislation, hampering law-abiding citizens from being able to properly defend themselves, powerless police force due to how the laws are set up (between both, ALWAYS pick the one the U.S. has without a second doubt) etc, are why.I could continue on the comparisons, but I've made my point clear. Gun grabbing doesn't translate into direct drops in gun violence. You need actual, long term solutions to fix violence, be it gun based or of any sort. For the U.S. in particular, those would be to work on the mental health and the socioeconomic gap that exists there, at least for a start. Gun control is, at best, a cheap band-aid. Addressing health, education and economy is what will truly make a dent on those homicide and violence rates.Also, something that most people tend to forget when arguing about the subject; the role of firearms in defensive situations and thwarting crime. Contrary to the negative feels some may have in that regard, it is a statistical fact (study here), that even on the low ball counts, the general agreement is that they stop as many crime attempts as they are used for crime. Higher figures suggest that they are used twice or thrice more often for self-defence than crime. Another page which sources directly to govt reports: It is frankly dishonest to pretend that these don't matter, when it is a mere fact that guns have a sizable role in allowing civilians to fend off criminals and defend themselves. Arguing about gun control without factoring in the instances where they are being used to do good would be akin to arguing about cannabis regulation/ban without factoring in the medical benefits it has going for it. Correct. More people remember about Columbine than the Boston bombing. In one hand, yeah Columbine netted more deaths. However, it happened nearly 20 years ago, while Boston only happened 6 years ago, and Boston did amount to three figure injured, a number who also lost their limb/s. Not to mention that it was done in the middle of a pretty well broadcast marathon. Columbine also symbolizes the fruitlessness of the AWB, on that note.

Scared of being rolled. He admitted to such in PnW's discord.

Sup. Argie here. English is my third language, yet I still put more effort into constructing proper sentences than you do. For starters, it makes it easier for others to understand what the frick you're trying to say. Secondly, it shows that you're putting at least an ounce of effort into it, rather than just shitting it out there. Thirdly, to consistently type out like this can and does lead to bad habits later on. You've got no excuses for your appalling, kindergarten-grade typing. As for the proposal itself, it's nonsense. Firstly, as others have pointed out, Pyrrhic is still a victory, and it's coded as such in the resistance damage where it deals a reduced amount but still deals some damage in that regard. Utter failures are net neutrals for resistance so there's that too. Your proposal is inconsistent with current systems. Secondly, this notion that only defenders should benefit from war morale is nonsense. Both in real life and games, war morale goes both ways, or do you seriously think that events such as the quick fall of France in World War 2 didn't have a boosting effect on the German morale and war support? Thirdly, it wouldn't even achieve what you're seeking due to material disparity, unless the guys that are gang-banging on the other guy are that incompetent or that outmatched, in which case they would still have a hard time regardless of war morale. If you're having problems with being constantly gang-banged, either join a better alliance or improve your own. Don't waste Alex's time with such worthless additions. The above took exactly 5 minutes and 13 microseconds to type out, for the record.

>SPQR. >No yearly elected consul duo. What kind of counterfeit Republic is this?

No. You'd be asking it to be exploited by keeping people slotted nearly infinitely. By design, ceasefires would need to be an exception to the slotfilling rules because otherwise, people would end up being punished for using a mechanic on it's intended way. Even if Alex were to put a hardcap on how long you can keep the ceasefire in effect, it'd very likely be exploited within those limits. That aside, it'd be an useless mechanic. If one side has the definitive advantage, there's no incentive for it to take the ceasefire when it can just steamroll the other side. As for those who're fairly even, then what exactly are you accomplishing? Being able to just build up on the parity? For all intents and purposes, people can do a similar if not nearly identical thing as you're proposing by peacing out and then redeclaring war. The main difference militarily would be MAP's, which if anything would make the restart of the war more interesting. So no, Alex shouldn't waste time coding this because, at best, it's an useless feature that'll only be used by clueless individuals, and at worst it'll be exploited as a way to legally slotfill, which would very likely end up with it's removal due to a massive influx of reports. So at the end it'd be wasted effort.

IIRC, it was after CoS sent their own counters.

You have much brighter recollection of the events than I do . The way I recall it, Yui had to organize counters because the Olympian of MA was MIA, the counter's timing and organization was all over the place (only Monika declared at the stated time), and then the Pantheon counters got rolled in turn. That's where it had been agreed to to avoid an escalation if memory serves me right.

You can question whether there's a reason to justify their existence, but you're misrepresenting those three instances.

Before I proceed to answer, just for clarification's sake: CoS' case was during the Nothining. IR's was when they tried to steal Panth's bank. BK's refers to GGF/ToT. Correct?