Vladamir Putin

"Okay president, through our top secret mission done on our enemy, we magically summoned ships out of nowhere and prevented them from trading" I guess stealing credits through espionage could be a thing. I mean, besides the part where it would disincentivize buying credits and overall be completely broken, it's not that bad. Stealing resources on the other hand could be balanced. But please tell me how 60 people could manage to even steal a few tons of resources.

Perhaps a system where one can only sell a small percentage of their military on the market would be balanced if selling your military disabled the ability to recruit military for X amount of days. So for example, if you're able to sell up to 5% of your military per day. (So if you want to sell nukes/missiles, you need to already have 20 at hand), and if you sell any amount of military, you can't recruit any units for 3 days. So if you're selling to the wrong people, prepare to get rolled.

Yeah, the city age and the city timer is like the difference between saying "i'll see you in 2 days!" and "i'll see you in 48 hours!".

Hellooooooooooo

What is your favorite type of turtle?

Unless the score was based off of the normal 40 infra per 1 score or 4k pop per 1 score, and always took the greater value of the two. Would make the original idea still work without the problem of population exploiting to deflate your score.

Didn't consider that. Pretty much ruins the idea as people could sell all their land, down-declare a crap ton, then rebuy their land.

Instead of having 40 infra = 1 score, have 4k population = 1 score. Currently older players with older cities have quite a nice economical advantage compared to a newer player with the exact same build. With this new score system, older players would still have an economical advantage, but at the cost of a slightly inflated score. (which could potentially lower their effectiveness in war).

Are you related to this guy? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=27604

Why not just make fortifying impossible if your opponent has Ground, Air and Naval superiority simultaneously? Would make it possible to beige again.

Oh come on, half the game is forming a strategy to overcome "shit mechanics".

Given absolutely no background knowledge on the subject, one could easily assume so.

Incase this is remotely close to what i think it is:

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the wise?

What if they made the % of infra destroyed was based on how long the war lasted? 0.25% per turn of the war? (with a minimum of 3%)

Okay, give us an example of how it could be changed.

What if fortifying was impossible if your opponent has ground, air and naval superiority all at once? Would finally make it possible to beige again.

Welcome m9

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Yes, but air superiority doesn't affect a soldier's strength. (although the current system that allows planes to hit ground units but not vice versa seems quite silly, i dislike your reasoning for changing it).

Project Name: Department of Defense Information: Lowers gas and munitions usage for defending attacks. Project effect: When defending attacks, use half as much gas and munitions as normal. (Not when someone declares war on you, just when you defend the attack, regardless of who started the war) Resource cost: 5,000 Steel, 5,000 aluminum, Cash cost: 20 Million

It's a a yellow precious metal, the chemical element of atomic number 79, valued especially for use in jewelry and decoration, and to guarantee the value of currencies in the form of a unique bird that lived for five or six centuries in the Arabian desert that's also an alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states. Duh.

Stahp.

Only the best alliance at war ever you silly goose.

What's the sexuality called where a straight man is only interested in other straight men?