Swedge

Numbers can be played about with of course. In terms of raw combat value they should be less effective than tanks imo but thats made up with their effectiveness vs. their respective counter. I haven't really put that much more thought towards the numbers tbh but something along those sorta lines is what I'm envisioning. In terms of score could do similar tanks: (Artillery * 0.05) or play about with it depending on combat impact - certainly the disadvantage of fielding large numbers of artillery would be pushing the score range up so like everything else pros + cons with the military setup you run. Just makes things a bit more tactically diverse than the current system we have.

Tanks are fine tbh. Main benefit is the ground advantage vs. soldiers + extra loot. I don't think tanks are unbalanced; plane balance should be addressed but you do that either through readjusting numbers or (suggestion incoming...) actually introducing a standalone AA unit. Imo war mechanics could do with a new feature to make it more interesting/less stale. So my personal suggestion would be to introduce a new improvement, something along the lines of an artillery factory which could produce 3 types of unit: - Anti-Air (good vs. planes but relatively useless vs. soldiers/tanks). Can only be used defensively. - Anti-Tank (good vs. tanks, less effective vs. soldiers, relatively useless vs. planes). Less effective on offense. - Artillery (good vs. soldiers, less effective vs. tanks, relatively useless vs. planes). Less effective on offense. In terms of numbers something like this, similar to tank factory: manufacture 150 artillery pieces per day, max 750 per factory. Running costs $30 per day in peace, $45 wartime, 1 per 100 artillery. Max 5 factories per city. Unit cost $40 and 1. Or something along those sort of lines. Imo would make things a lot more interesting in terms of strategy choosing artillery composition (i.e. you have max 750 per factory but have to choose which of the 3 units / or what ratio you want to use - with the same recruitment rate as tanks, i.e. 5 days to max out, it would take some time to switch out composition to effectively counter enemy setup). Whether Alex would be arsed to make such a change is another question altogether. But if you want to do something with the war system imo this is the way to do it.

1860: 3,521,110 slaves / 9,103,332 total population Yeahhh. About that reading comprehension thing...

Au contraire, infrastructure is a bourgeois affectation. And if there are nations with resources to be redistributed, be they bourgeois or petit-bourgeois, they must be taken out of the clutches of the imperial powers that be.

Oh sweet summer child... Gons claim to be communist while supporting the quasi-fascist hegemonic powers? Meanwhile... true Arrghunism is the redistribution of wealth from bourgeois nations ?

That also panned out extremely well historically.

If you include top 65 the treaty web gets even more hilarious: I just think the game would be more interesting if there were more diffuse blocs (and kudos to the people who actually have vaguely distinct blocs) which would make for more interesting FA as opposed to this clusterf***. Really don't understand the mentality in some AAs who seem to think having as many treaties as possible is a good thing: it just makes your treaties more meaningless because we all know fine well you don't value the 10+ AAs you are treatied to equally - just have a few treaties which actually mean something and both your allies/the rest of Orbis will respect you more.

This one just seems non sequitur... Why would having a satellite in space increase military recruitment on earth? Would be better reworked as military academy / HQ or something which makes a bit more sense.

Too used to CN, didn't even realise RnR were roman themed ?‍♂️

Moral of the story: merging with ded inactive alliance doesnt make your AA better - it just makes it more ded + inactive What's more interesting is why people thought those merger terms (i.e. guaranteeing gov. positions to ex-BSL) were a good idea in the first place. Any comments in hindsight? ?

Carthago delenda est But for real, good luck and all that jazz - also deserves applause for actually having an original/non-generic AA theme ?

lol when you realise the Soup is just a front

Solid geopolitical move undermined by shitty font selection.

Rationale: self-explanatory - missiles aren't nukes. They have lower MAP but this isn't reflected in the construction limit. Suggestion: change the construction limit on missiles to 2 per day, while keeping the current MAP system. In practice this means 1.5 missiles per day in terms of actual war application (i.e. no actual change in that regard) but bringing construction limits in line with that. tl;dr - missiles are considerably less cost/manpower demanding to construct than nuclear weapons. This should be reflected in the game mechanics with a simple edit to the daily construction limit

This. On top of that it's highly highly unrealistic. Nuclear incidents happen, sure but no where near on the scale or magnitude of what is proposed here. Chernobyl I think most people would agree is probably the worst nuclear incident outside the WW2 bombings; the number of people who directly died as a result of Chernobyl is 31 - the IAEA estimate around 4000 premature deaths associated with the disaster. And the proposal is to wipe out entire cities at a fairly high % chance? (so if for example you have 30+ cities pretty much guaranteed to have a meltdown killing hundreds of thousands of people at least once a year...??) Sorry but no. If you want to introduce this sort of mechanic do it with nuclear weapons rather than imposing an ultra unrealistic mechanic on power plants.