Shiho Nishizumi

Liberty of action doesn't mean exemption to criticism and backlash. Also, seizing someone's stocks is an excellent way to plummet it's value due to the destroyed trust with the shareholders in particular, and public in general.

A pointless addition imo. If you send them off beige, people will surrender ASAP to preserve most of their military and avoid unfavorable matchups, which would make it practically impossible to zero someone, ever. Thus, it'd be unbalanced. Since it'd be fundamentally broken for war, it can't beige. And if it doesn't send off to beige, there's literally no point in surrendering since it's damages you'll take sooner or later. All it achieves in an alliance war is that your slots will be freed up more often for your adversaries to re-slot.

Twarp?

Nah, TRF tried to do stuff. It didn't work out (and in fact cost them even more), but the attempt was there.

Yeah, plenty of AA's moved around (NPO and tCW being other examples) to the then-most profitable colors when the color bloc update happened.

The sigs for TGH cracked me up. I wish you good luck in your future endeavours.

Do we win?

1st world problem if I've ever seen one. Easy solution: Just refer to it as GSW yourselves. This poll isn't some sort of holy mandate which if ignored dooms your soul to eternal damnation; it simply decides which name goes on the wiki. You can still refer to it as GSW, not unlike how some still refer to Trail of Tiers as Git Gud Friday. And given that GSW is a popular name for this war, GSW being used as an alternative to it wouldn't be unreasonable at all. Seriously, this isn't worth the grief/anger being displayed.

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.