Shiho Nishizumi

The point is to have some sort of table of content with which to easily access a particular treaty, rather than having to dig to find it.

I honestly don't see that happening (mostly due to the extensive amount of effort and balancing it'd require), though I can suggest you to pick up Wargame: Red Dragon if you're interested in that sort of stuff .

Yeah, we learned they were loot pinatas after we had declared the wars (doing spy ops prior to that would've thrown away the surprise element, and killing off spies always takes priority). And again, it was more interesting than just going with the safe approach of stagger, denial and pinning (there was some risk on beiging them, as we didn't know how would their ties react to the war), which wasn't really necessary in this case. These sorts of war impoverish the losing side the further it goes on, loot or not. Be it due to aspects that can be easily reflected, such as military/infra damages, or less obvious variables, such as lost income/refined production (particularly when the wars draw for longer and improvements losses stack up, and you have to either refit your cities midwar, or deal with a considerably reduced rebuy potential). And if anything, loot gains as a whole decline as the war goes on (again, talking about a setting like this one) when compared to the first rounds, simply because of usage, banking, and/or decline on stockpiles as they're looted. As is the case with infra and standing military, the first round is the most painful one. As for motivation to fight back, it depends on what you set your goal to be. Is such a war winnable by the losing side? Almost certainly no. Can he try to close the damage? Yes. Can he simply do so to avoid giving the other party an easy, painless war? Yes. Winning/losing shouldn't be the only consideration; trying to get even, if only a little bit, is an objective worth pursuing. You mean my two cents regarding shortening the individual war's duration? It wouldn't change the tides of a war, no. If you mean auto beiges, then yes, it would change the dynamic substantally. Which I did point out in my first post. *Edit.* As for your example with SRD, I had already covered that aspect in my first post regarding adjusting taxes (by which I meant, increasing) during wartime.

No, the express purpose of beiging them was truly to give them a chance to do something. We knew full well that regardless of what they did, they'd get smashed, but at least giving them the opportunity to do stuff was more interesting (and personally, I was curious to see if they had picked up anything from the 69DW) than to just cycle/deny beiges and sit on them, which is not particularly fun for the one doing it (and even less so for those who're on the receiving end of it). Loot is indeed wealth transfer... if there's any wealth to transfer, that is. If WC's and wartime taxes are adjusted to account for it, then the loot bleeding can (and in fact, is) substantially mitigated to the point where it isn't substantial. Considering that loot is one of the few incentives for beiging at all (the other few being infra destruction, getting rid of someone nuking/missile'ing you, or doing so to avoid being beiged yourself, amongst others I may be forgetting), I don't see the 'wealth transfer = inequality gap widened' as being a substantial issue, especially when you consider that it's often forfeited anyways for the sake of keeping an opponent down, and particularly when it's only a potential circumstantial issue (given that inequality is only increased if the loser happens to be impoverished while the winner is well off, and you could very well be in the opposing case wherein the loser is quite rich while the winner is the one that doesn't have a penny to his name), as opposed to the one being put forth in the thread (idle time while sitting on someone due to low resistance), which is bound to always happen when you go with the lowest risk, pragmatic approach. And for the record (might as well address the issue originally presented), the only thing that a change as proposed would achieve is simply make wars like this more fun for the winning side (due to slots being more frequently freed up being able to attack more times in the same war), at the expense of the losing side's amusement (due to being bombed more constantly while there's often little they can do in such a situation). If we were in the business of making things more interesting/fun across the board, rather than to pick a self-serving suggestion presented by either side of a conflict (or rather, individuals belonging to either side of a conflict), I'd just go with the suggestion Sketchy made back in March/April, of making beige happen automatically by the time a war expires (if it didn't happen already). It'd actually generate a scenario where there's conventional action (the kind people tend to seek) every round, as opposed to the current setup where it's usually it's the first few (if not the very first) rounds where you fight conventionally , while the following ones are, for the most part, a matter of keeping someone's head down, while the one being pinned tries to find ways to fight back, usually by unconventional means. If loot has to be tweaked/nerfed (alongside infra destroyed in all your cities) to make up for it, then so be it. It'd be a small price to pay for the benefit it'd bring in terms of making alliance wars actual constant back and forths, rather than round one knock outs followed up by constantly stomping on the guy who got downed.

Maybe it'd be too laborious, but perhaps sort it by year, and then sub categorize per month (or trimester? Or any other subcategory) as the main divide? And then the type could be differentiated in a broader stroke, with the likes of 'war' and 'peace'. Pretty self explanatory. War would encompass anything relating to a war, from the DoW's to the peace term. Peace would be anything in between wars (or that, should it have happened with a concurrent war, was not related to it). IMO, the forum thread, pinned so it's on the top, would be the simplest and most conducive for digging through. Simply spoiler tag the previous years for the sake of keeping the length of the thread reasonable.

@Chief Wiggum Would the directory include threads that span from it's implementation and onward, or would there be effort put into incorporating announcements that predate it (say, for example, a peace agreement from 2016)?

Uchuu senkan Yamato when?

Thirty Years' War then?

It came across as if the war was going to last less than a month. Otherwise you'd just say ''A month and 'x' weeks''.

Gotta give it to ya, shit looks slick. Nice job lads.

Yeah it was.

Nah, on SRD's eyes they are below human at this point.

You opened yourselves up to being hit by their side the moment you joined this war. Rather than complaining and crying foul, take it to the chin and make this a learning experience.

Mitsuru on the prelude to this war:

Uhm...

An attacker that doesn't attack (either for slotfilling or sitting) being treated as the loser (and losing infra/loot as a result) of a 100-100 resistance stalemate would be there to prompt the attacker into at least doing something in the war, rather than just end up filling a slot. Them not getting beige time out of it would be there to prevent people from deliberately declaring wars, not attacking and taking the loss that would usually grant them some beige time, which would allow them to rebuild military. The entire reason why people stagger beiges or deny them in the first place is to prevent people from being able to rebuild and mount a counter offensive. In one hand, I get that it's frustrating for the one that's on the receiving end of it (I've been there). However, it's been a common military procedure since resistance has been introduced, which is why I question the timing of your post (and no, I don't buy your excuse when you were merrily shitposting [and were in tCW] during that war). Furthermore, you're not abusing anything by not beiging (except for when people declare and don't do anything with their war, which I've already addressed). This notion that you *have* to beige your opponent is quite silly. You're not breaking any rules or abusing any mechanics by not beiging (particularly if you have a blockade on your adversary). You are forfeiting loot and destroyed infra for the sake of allowing a neutralized enemy to remain neutralized, which is ultimately what wins a (conventional) war. I'm highlighting conventional because there's unconventional ways to keep fighting, but that's up for the involved parties to find out. And no, some people delete or quit right away because they can't handle seeing stuff that took them a while to build go poof, and this tends to happen plenty before they get in the perma-pinning part of the war, so these changes wouldn't address those people, if that's your concern.

Interesting. Why didn't you find these to be ''bull and unfair'' when you yourselves were doing similar, if not the same things, during DDR/69 Day War? At any rate, the proper solution to beige denials would be to have a beige happen regardless of resistance reaching 0 or not, such as is Scarfalot's proposal (Sketchy had proposed it earlier this year with some differences). And an easy failsafe to people declaring and not attacking would be that, if at the time of expiry each party still has 100 resistance, the attacker would be granted a defeat, and suffer the same penalties nations suffer when losing, but without being beiged (this is to prevent people abusing said mechanic in order to gain beige time).

Chicken Wing hasn't logged in since we nuked him (which is why he VM'd as well) in DDR/69 Day war. I never thought getting nuked could be that traumatizing. More power to the Atom, eh @James II?

If I recall, Sketchy already has the war data registered for those. In other words, those are still reflected in those stats.

OpenShot. It's a bit tricky though. This was my first time edit, hence why there's some errors here and there.

Not sure how hitting the other side's vulnerable nations, especially that of an alliance that is already involved, is a sign of desperation. Also, if they are going to go down regardless of what they do, doing the most damage before going down is the sensible thing to do.

It's not so much that you're a threat, but rather that when you're already warring the protector, there's little incentive for them to respect the protectorate treaty.