endlesshills

This is a great idea that would make tracking your military much less of a headache. Along with this, it would also be nice to add an option to launch an attack again with the same parameters without having to be booted back to the war screen. Combine those two into being able to automatically rebuild units lost in attacks you make and war would be a lot more streamlined.

Thank you so much! I love the look of all these designs!

I like this idea. I've been thinking that Ground needed to play a more important role in warfare.

I'm more offended that someone defiled P!ATD with a fricking AMV in 2018.

We all got distracted by the TFP filler episode. Gotta love cliffhangers.

Hi! Welcome to the game. If you have any questions, plenty of people are more than happy to help. There’s no wrong moves this early on, just get acquainted with everything and everyone, doesn’t really matter who or how.

I’m honestly surprised that people would stick around in the face of that kind of penalty. If I was your everyday shitbag alliance member and saw that kind of punishment I’d just up and leave. Hard to understand how someone could remain loyal in the face of that.

oof O O F

"peaceful growth" Absolutely disgusting.

I think we're both intending the same thing, just describing them different ways. Rebuilding successively nuked cities would be cheaper as, yes, it would be based on how many "active" cities you had. The idea of self-nuking to drop score is entirely intended as an in-game way to get rid of cities instead of needing to restart because of building too many cities. fair 1. It would definitely not be the most effective way to fight a war, as foregoing units altogether would get your nation rolled before you could drop more than two nukes. Heck you'd still have up to 12 hours of leeway if you were quicker on the draw than your opponent and could add in some extra damage through airstrikes to add some extra punishment before finishing them off. Upping the destructive capability of a nuke adds more end-game strategy to protracted attrition-style wars (where you're already fighting "like a vagina" to cause as much damage as possible) by allowing combatants to effectively and (relatively) quickly lower the enemy's ability to build their military back up after losing. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by nuke turreting, but it should have the opposite effect of wars lasting forever. Wars would be decided much more quickly assuming one side invested heavily enough into mass-producing nukes beforehand and were able to defend themselves. From my perspective, the amount of prep you would need to make your nation capable of getting off all 4 nukes in a war would already assure your victory from the start. This would just make that victory more definitive. 3. That is the intended mechanic, yes. It's counterbalanced by your score quickly dropping out of the range of your previous opponents due to said city wiping along with your units being wiped out. Peace agreements would be reached much more quickly when a losing side risks their members having a nuke train ran on them all the way down to 0 (even though it would be progressively easier to recover from). While it would definitely be frustrating to be on the losing side of that scenario, it wouldn't last too long, as the ~110m investment to get nukes plus the ~5m per nuke would be prohibitive. The cost would ideally keep it excluded from a conventional war and only as a last resort to either definitively end a war or to be super !@#$ to someone/some group in particular at great cost to yourself. It's funny because your last city was also your 33rd. A mechanic like this also serves to soft-cap the number of cities a nation can maintain. As it stands, completely crippling and destructive dogpiles are already possible with as little as two nations deciding they want to just chain blockades on you indefinitely. At least with this system you'd drop out of their score range quickly. It makes things more cut-throat but it hardly destroys competition. Hardly. By the time a city could be raided to 0 infrastructure it'd be out of almost everyone's raiding range already, and would have long since been completely unprofitable to raid.

Merry Christmas ❤️

The best defense against Arrgh is an empty coffer.

I was mulling this idea around for a while, and after seeing Alex's post about a somewhat similar mechanic (at least in its intention), I decided to propose the idea: When bombing/nuking/whatever-ing a city down to 0 infrastructure, that city is "destroyed", and is effectively disabled in terms of production, score, etc. (and maybe all improvements destroyed too. Idk they're not that expensive). Players who have their cities destroyed have to "rebuild" them at a cost of, like, 20% of their most recent city's cost (e.g. a nation with 8 cities has one get destroyed, it costs 20% of ~12m to rebuild, totalling ~2.4m). This accomplishes a few things: 1. Broadens the tactical application of attrition wars by allowing aggressors to effectively cripple a target in a protracted war (reducing the overall production limit by disabling military infrastructure) 2. Makes wars more decisive, as a thoroughly defeated target could be forced to rebuild several cities after a slew of punitive wars (but balanced as their score drops significantly, allowing them to avoid further punishment due to their base score being inflated from their number of cities) 3. Allows nations extra flexibility in deciding their nation score as they can effectively sell/lose cities if they feel they have gotten too big for their own good. Numbers can be fudged but the concept is this: instead of relying on an incredibly rare event to blow up a city at random, give that power to players who are willing to invest the time, energy, and money into trying to obliterate an enemy nation, and, more importantly, give it a tactical purpose beyond griefing.

I like the idea of it being a personal trade option to allow more flexibility in peace terms and whatnot. I would not be so much of a fan of it being introduced to the global market because of the headache it would be to figure out what deals are better, but that's admittedly laziness on my part.

Hello!

I think it’s disingenuous to say that wars should last the full five days. If anyone’s winning a war in 2 days then it was a stomp from the start. I’m of the opinion of not letting a one-sided war be dragged out any more than it already can be. If you want to be damaging, coordinating a blockade and nukings can hold a nation down for 10 days and cause them to lose up to 24,000 infrastructure, if they even have that much. For transparency’s sake, I live off of raiding, so being caught in wars against broke targets is very annoying. Not to get off topic, but allowing more intel gathering operations a day would make up for lengthening wars because then at least you could scope out more targets without slowing your operation down.