George Clooney

Nice. Very useful.

Thanks, Sheepy! Good change.

Well he is a Certified Genius after all.

Somehow I don't think this was in Guardian and Mensa HQ's war plans. Have fun UPN.

Ok, have fun!

Yes, there are a fair number of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) refugees here. Hope you enjoy your time here, I have so far.

I like it.

This appears also appears to attempt to incentivize people to actually go for a victory rather than sitting back and bombing someone to rubble. I look forward to see its effect on the game and what tweaks may happen as a result.

Oh look, lulz come to our world.

Disagree unless the target nation simply lacks air or navy force, at which point Immense Triumphs are automatic. It would however force you to manage the forces you send in, such that you would be going for less than Immense Triumphs. FYI: From the perspective of realism, a nation being relentless bombed and its cities reduced to ash or starved into submission via a blockade with its port cities being destroyed would surrender fairly quickly. If that doesn't fit your gaming objectives, sorry. However, I do like the idea that victory in a war would result in some land going to the victorious nation from the defeated nation. The mechanic could be set up such more land would go to the victor in the case of a victory through ground Immense Triumphs, since--realistically speaking--the victorious nation will have occupied a significant amount of land and or taken strategic objectives inside the nation. See above. Also, it would mean that everyone would need to have better balanced militaries. Currently it's possible to build up a large tank force and simply blitz opponents who may totally outclass you in every other measure. It's a bit of a loophole that hopefully this will address.

Currently only ground attacks that result in immense triumphs push the "surrender meter" one notch. As we know, 6 such victories consecutively results in a defeat and a move to beige for the defeated nation. I propose a change such that ANY 6 consecutive immense triumphs (ground, air, sea) would result in a defeat. Aside from being more realistic, it will make it less likely that players will essentially sit back and slowly destroying target nations instead of trying to pursue victory as is common now.

This might come as a shock to you, but just because you can't win, doesn't mean it isn't worth "playing". So what is your plan for "winning"? Bore us to death or suffocate us in bullshit? Why do you care if UPN wants to be here?

Damn there is a lot of butt hurt in this thread. How about we just get on with it and try to all be home by Christmas, eh?

Have fun on Orbis, VE.

o/ UPN Congrats to the winners!

They are after all the neutral menace. Flight or fight response is perfectly normal.

Good luck in rebuilding, TAC.

"BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!" And you would be the Religion professor. Cool. Maybe next time UPN will seek Terminus Est's advice on what constitutes a proper preemptive strike. Given the past reputation of your alliance, that bar should be set extremely low. We might even strain a calf muscle stepping over it.

So it's your contention that there can be no threat implied by someone who is posturing? It's a good thing we have a behavioral expert around like you to explain everything.

Given the amount of flak we've gotten in this thread, I'd say that "neutral" is relative.

Careful, you'l get a headache. But I am curious what your problem is.

Good luck and have fun.

Nation Name: New Kentucky Nation Link: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=1341