Zim

1. Wrong place to post this. Again this isen't Alex suggestion page. 2. 3. 7. and 10. I reduced my response because it's clear you didn't actually response to what i said, I reduced my response because it's clear you aren't responing to what i wrote: A. You either ignored what i wrote, and just slightly rewrote what you had previously written, before posting it again. B. Purpsefully miss intercepting everything i wrote, it's like you made up a stance you think i have, and then argue against that stance, rather then what i actuall wrote. An Troll tactic. If you can spend some effort in this arguement, why should i? 4. You aren't starting fact, you starting an opinion, an opinion you post no arguement for. While your own "fixs" only really been pushing a case that help big alliances, which yourself have admitted too. With how much you saying you aren't looking to offend, the more i am starting believe you are. 5. The more cities you got, the higher tier you have, the higher tier there is, the fewer wars there are. When we get 6 months NAP's, is because it benefit to the whales, not much else. 6. Majority isen't against changes to slot dynamic, they are against Alex suggested version of what that might look like. Again how many downvotes do Sam's comment have, and who does that downvote belong to? If capping alliances isen't going do anything, then why shouldn't be against it? 8. You haven't explained why you think Sam's version would have negative effect on raiding. I feel like you mainly been aruging against Alex here. 9. Reread Sam post and find out, why don't you? You have read it right? Because the more i see your response the more i doubt it. I also think i posted a long list of things Arrgh wanted implemented some years ago, under one of alex comments when he was looking for suggestion. You welcome to dig that up. 11. Most of what you have listed would have huge impact on the meta and game in general, just adding a new unit is sure to break everything, if not just going be a place to waste ressources. New improvement again big impact, new project is getting kinda meh. We gotten so many in the last few years, mostly it just money shink for whales, so they got something to do. Trafic would also shake everything up. Frankly it seems like you just very against one thing, rather then trying to preseve the "meta", which i don't really think is worth preseving.

1. That would be the players own fault, after a while it dosen't really matter how many declare war on your nation. just because you got the option to declare on 9 nations dosen't mean you should declare on 9 nations. now you got options. You aren't even using 1 slot right now, so you sure know that don't you? You still ignroing Sam actually post and argue against alex, i have mentioned this so many time. So i am going stop arguing against anything that is meant for alex. 2. You commenting this on the wrong post. You have repeatly failed at bacis reading. 3. em wat? 4. already explained why this is bad idea, you haven't brothered to reply to a single one of my point and repeating yourself dosen't make a stronger arguement. 5. it really isen't. Fighting then to slow down the bigger you get. 6. Can you say who is against Sam proposel, look at the first comment who exactly has downvoted it? is that the majority of people in your mind?then you should consult a mental health expert. 7. Okay you either an poor troll, or english is really not your first language, and you rellying fully on google translate. Stop getting upset, and find someone in your alliance to explain this to you, because you are clearly not able to read. 8. how exactly would it make it impossible to raid for others? Target dosen't disapear, are you really saying other raiding alliance are that inferior to Arrght, that minor game change like this would screw you all over? It's very disrespectful and ignorant towards other i say. 9. Player clearly don't got all the options available, like the current resorting to nuke turrenting, is because of lack of ability to use any other option. There used to be other options when you on the losing side on a war. low effort. 10. How contractive of a nature, you refusing to reread texts, even when the energy required is a lot less responding with wrong info. Norminating you to an award got nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all, i am talking about the poor result we get from community votes posted here on the forum. 11. The game have been completely changed and rewritten many, many times. I don't think you realize just how many times and how radical things have been changed around before. Do you know what fortify orginal did when it was first intruduced in the game? I expect new larger changes to be implemented on the test server first, not like the time Alex randomily removed beige from the game, because that was a thing he did. The game have lived through a lot bigger changes. You might diagree there is less people around today then there used to be. You can also disagree the Earth is round. Dosen't make you right, there is a button ingame called "data visualization", amoung other thing it list active players over time, pick the month option, to remove the extremes and you see the how the game been facing declining player numbers in recent years.

1. yeah you can raid in the mirco tier? that always been the case. If you stay down in the small tier for months or years, you should also be able to fairly easily beat 3 random mirco counter with limited skill and experience at the game. You mostly just summed up mirco raiding encouraged near universally by all alliances. You not really saying much of anything here. Beside reducing raiding as something you grow out off. And from that you jump to Alex suggestion(beliving it to be sam's) would ruin raiding, without really basing it on anything. It just mostly fluff. 2. Alex suggestion again, but alright let me play devil advocate. Having 9 nation dogpile a player, when 3 players are enough for the job, isen't economicily sound. And would also leave the larger alliance more vulnerabel to being hit. Reducing the amount of slots you have strenghten the defensive side in a war. So the blitz become a bit less punishing. You don't just have 9 defensive slots all of sudden. You would only have 9 defensive slot if you yourself started 9 wars. 1 or 2 wars and you would still only have to deal with two counters and with 3 wars you would have to deal with the same amount you do now. While it's encouage one to raid fewer target, it also encouage you to hit higher quality target, if you only have to deal with possible two counters, suddenly a lot more people would be encouraged to hit inactives in alliances. It give you more option, and when you close to being beiged, you can then declare war on 9 inactives, which dosen't sounds bad at all. It put more pressure on individual players to perform better in wars, and reward being skilled at the game. War cordination and overstreching become more important, and would encourage alliance build tall instead of wide with it's broad membership. 3. Except it's broken, that the whole arguement is based on the fact there is an of the playstyle nuke turrenting, TGH want to nerf into the ground. And Sam want to adress the reason for why this is the default playstyle for losing nations. When you haven't experienced the war system under different meta's then the current one, you would agree the current system is very broken. And not particually fun for the losing side in a war. 4. That it goes against your arguement for why we need more city savings projects? while helping to cement existing larger alliance to keep being above smaller alliances. 5. Allowing it and discouraging it aren't mutually exclusive. When the game mechanics encourage race to the top, that what most people choose to do. Most nanon's come in 3 flavors, offshore, raiders abusing the bank system, or inactive. Still not adressing that city saving project wouldn't help them one bit. 6. Sam suggestion boil down to reducing you war score range of who can declare on your nation, depending on the wars you already involved in, or redusing the amount of new wars that can be declared on your nation. Sam was purposefully leaving his solution fairly open to take in adjustments, or suggestions from others. Reread his actually comment, then reread Alex suggestion. compare the two, think really hard on the difference and now comment. Frankly we can also just adjust the score so infra have higher importance on nation score again, so destroyed nations can only get hit by smaller built up nations or similarily destroyed nations. That would give more options then just turning toward nukes and missiles when losing a war. 7. The fact that splinter alliance can happen, isen't an arguement against policies that encourage them. You can't argue against reform for an healthcare system, by pointing out there already is a healthcare system. Activity is slow compared to the past, goverments are also in general spending less time on the game then they used to, now that bot's have slowly taken over much of the workload. I remember having to calculate bank balances by manual inputting the data into excel spreadsheets. While dealing with nations that was older then the ingame bank record system, worse when they where running on their fourth reroll. Department system i always found a weird inclusion, you can run your goverment differently you know. As a raiding alliance, you better of with a more lose goverment system that is quicker to react. Most alliances are fairly conservative in nature. there is a difference between the option to have more people in goverment and putting external preasure to encourage them do it. Other things this would result in would be alliances being quicker to remove inactive from the allinace, helping raiding. While creating splitners isen't the only option, going for quality over quantity is also an option, which would also encourage more alliances to be created, by encouring a bit of elitisme. Also be bigger source for drama and conflict. While a cap of a 100 players would only effect a few, very large alliances. Frankly this should have already have been brought up after the monster that was guinea pig farm. 8. Not forgetting, never had a reason to learn their names. Can't see much raider in many of does, hitting inactives nations, without an alliance, with 0,0123 infra left dosen't make an alliance an raiding alliance. Updates happen that harm raiding, happen fairly frequently looking back. There have been period's, sometimes year long. When Arrgh was the only raiding alliance around, it not really a status quo that's to our benefit. When Arrgh have a monoply on raiding, means it not very functioning raiding system. The harm you surscripe to isen't set in stone. frankly i don't see doom being painted at wall and should very easily be a benefit. Just take a bit of time to get used to, Arrgh have always been able to adapt, and surive. We been reduced down to as few as 9 people. And been able to come back up. What you need is an identity and a community, not size. Each time Arrgh have adapted, even it it took time, we have also been reduced down to as few as 9 people at one point. Alliances should be able to survie hardship, 9. Can't see it reducing activity, you again arguing against Alex suggestions, but even with alex suggestion don't see it. Fighting a war you losing isen't really an effective way to drive people from the game that isen't fresh meat, who is alrady half the way out the door as is. Alliances might facture and dispand under the pressure, but players have more options. And just throwing that out there, if you right now was mass raiding an alliance, an another alliance came and filled out your exsiting 3 slots, you would also be rolled. 10. You misunderstood everything i wrote here. reread it. 11. Small changes is only going leave this game slowly dying out, with the only people left being does that have investested to much into it to quit. Something new and fresh, adding new freatures that isen't just different shades of exsititing onces will undoubtly shake up the meta aswell. And Alex isen't in gennerally been shy about reworking the game, removing beige, to later retroudsing it, making fortify go from the strongest ability to the most useless, making treasure the most broken to barely worth the flavor text, one of the biggest missed opportunity i have seen, is still customization of unit's ability. Why is now the time to stop making changes? and not many of the earlier years when the game was undoubtly more broken, but also way more fun. Changes dosen't limit players, instead it shake them out their current stale meta, as everyone frail around trying to figure out what new meta get formed.

1. You do know you talking to Arrgh's gov right? You don't think we would know what would kill piracy? You do also seem to be confuse Sam's suggestion, with Alex's suggestion. Maybe reread Sam comment would you. Sam suggestion would actually make it easier to raid, while giving the defending player better odds under most circumstances. While make an openning blitz in any war less devasting. There is also rather limited reason to focus down on a singular nation in the smaller city range, just with the amount of inactives around. Even if Alex suggestion is implemented, then new players can just compensate with a focus on raiding quality rather then quantity. Put more pressure on making the numerus raiding bots to get better at finding targets. While it can also draw more goverment oversight to new players, getting more involved in their growth, that might actually reduce the amount of inactive we dealing with, put more importance on the smaller tiers in wars. Or goverments can compensate their laziness with throwing money at new players and get them raised up quickly in score. 2. I don't know any of does alliances, again criticism of alex suggestions, not Sam. 3. Already said this benefit mainly established alliances and players that got the funds available to build the projects. Actually new alliances, dosen't have the money to invest into this without ending up in a sunk cost fallacy if they try. From an economic standpoint a new alliances is better of investing into it's smaller members first and formost when the cost to return is more in favor of return, where the cost would be paid more immediate. So this benefit long established alliance, who wanna contest the whale tiers in other alliances, not new alliance or new players. While i question this constant race to the top. And kinda undermind the time and effort many current players have put into the game. Antarctica you mention dosen't even have any players that have 26 cities. While with the High Tables my surface level investigation, i shouldn't find a single Advanced Urban Planning built in the alliance. 4. Narh it dosen't, it only benefit alliance that already got the money and ressource storred up, and can use it without risking bankruptcy. Raiders don't gennerally just rush upwards, sudden city tiers have bigger benefit for a raider to be in. 5. Most playing solo aren't actual solo. Or else they stay down in the low tiers where they don't have much competent competition. Not really much use of city 26 saving project. Or they stop being economically viable real quick. 6. that not sam's suggestion, that's TGH. i think you mixing up quite a few different post. Again might wanna reread sam actually comment. 7. Already adressed this in my previous comment, easy chance for splinters is frankly enough. giving alliance more stuff to manage, and creating a need to bring more people into goverment and start to actually play the game all counter point, you haven't adressed one bit. 8. There is always going be raiding alliances, come around in periods before they collapse and disapear. Pirate alliances are bit more rare. I haven't seen any new alliance i would call as such. I know Arrgh is cool, but do try to forge your own identity rather then build atop of ours. 9. Can't see how a more dynmamic game, that can see to rise and fall of more alliance would kill the game. That seem like an accusation you like throwing around for anything you don't like. If you end up fighting 9 defensive wars in the suggest warsystem(alex suggestion not sam's) you wouldn't be very skilled. 9/9 wars, even in alex suggested isen't going happen unless, you yourself do quite a lot of shitty decessions. On the other hand you suddenly got a lot more options on how to act. 10. This is the forum, i think most warname votes and community awards show you aren't going get the best results on here. Plus Sam suggestion has one single downvote, and that is you. Who seem very confused about who suggested what. 11. Sam suggestion come in response to others (THG), wanting to nerf nuke turrenting. Who instead of just trying to nerf it into the ground THG wants, actually try to adress the problem in the war system that encourage nuke turrents as the only valid option in losing wars. The war system is broken ask anyone who played for a few years. Player numbers are in decline, monthly number of active nations has fallen by more then a 1000 players compared to last year, and more then 3000 compared to the year before that. Something should be done to help retain player numbers and attention. Where current small patch works geared towards whales inconvienece isen't going to help.

2. 1000/1500 infra run up in cost, if you stuck fighting on the losing side in a war that goes on for upwards of a year, that cost is going be stacking up very quickly. And it's punishing towards raiders, that on avarage run at around 750-1000 infra at best. 3-5. Yeah you missing half the discussion and how it effect the rest of the game as a whole. Might instead ask why is nuke turrents currently the only feasible strategy for a losing side in a war? Maybe you should look at how to make other options to be more feasible rather then to try and remove an existing stragegy from an already oversimplified game. The discussion to preventing nukes turret, mainly come from TGH who prefer to run crying to alex, then actually do the counter play that excist to it. While when they got rolled in the next war, they going be begging Alex to implement a new nerf to counter this proposed nerf. As for recuitment, people are just not going to buy 10 soliders, and build them throughout the day 1 by 1. people already do this with ships. so pointless, but annoying to do. 5. Didn't know Eclipse was that confident on always being on the winning side in wars. Or are you looking to get Sphinx the number 1 spot on total infra lost? 6. How exactly does that work against multiple opponets? is this just a tactic to be better at rolling over?

1. wouldn't really do much with latest warscore changes, and hasen't really been that relevant since the Fraggle nerf. 2. So good for farming whales, atleast so long they on the winning side in a war. Bad for everybody else. 3. Either an extreme nerf to raiding, or hilarious pointless, depending on how much millitary is no millitary. 4. Making it worse for the losing side in war, isen't what the game need, would also nerf raiding and invailate quite a few builds. 5. Also an raiding nerf, and basely invalidate nuke runs. This just benefit farming whales uninvolved in war, or on the winning side in one. I don't really see how any of this would help the game as a whole. Remember it's side losing the war that lag an abilities to fight back, not the winning side lacking ability to punish the loser.

Sorry, a bit digging up death treads. I am not too active these days. Frankly, I don't really dislike the suggested changes. There is definitely, something to work with here for raiders. I can see this being a decent buff to high-tier raiding, which is something I have desired for years. One need to be bit pickier with what targets one selects to raid, but only having to deal with possible 2 counters suddenly make a lot more nations far more beigable than they were before. I can see a comeback for many of the old school raiding tactic, instead of the current meta of cheapest build possible. Wars can get a bit more expensive, and frequency of raids will slow down, but nations that doesn’t expect to be raided now can be. Nuke runs only become more powerful, while hiring mercenaries to fight in wars, suddenly became far more desirable. As an example hiring Arrgh to ram into an alliance to bait counters, so an alliance open more defensive slots, to then be blitzed. It going to led to more strategies having to be developed, make the war system more complicated, which it does desperately need. So the option for victory become more then who got the most players, or who is willing to fight for the longest. Radical changes to the game mechanics I think is needed to bring life back into this game at any rate. But Alex, also a voice of warning, players doesn’t always know what best for the game, I have seen a lot of indie games fail after trying to do to much of what the players wanted to have implement. And frankly i see a lot of the game current issue being caused by overreliance on the advice of a few old players. The best tactic is just to do test runs of different suggestions. And see how they function.

Is there any reason why you believe dynamic slot-filling is a silly idea? Capping alliance on members doesn't sound too bad of an idea. creation of multiple extensions, increase the need for larger governments and cause a need for more people actually to play the game. This with time can lead to more splinter alliances, civil wars becoming something more viable to happen, and more chance for drama, making the game more interesting. Generally, a war or raiders will be quick to make paperless alliances fall apart or seek safety in papers. If they are actual paperless and do not rely on secret treaties. Or else some game update eventually comes along and upends what they rely on. There is a reason Arrgh is the only alliance to survive paperless for a significant amount of time. But the issue here isen't paperless isen't viable, for most alliances. It's the domination the largest alliances in the game have on every facet of the game. That's not only the individual player but even fairly large alliances lose agency in the face of a few top alliances. City discounts mainly benefit already established larger alliances that got the funds to take advantage of them. I might go as far to say they might actually discourage growth in smaller alliances, where saving up for city discount project instead of building more cities would take priority. Plus making this game all about rushing the highest amount of cities, would be a mistake. It's not often i am going compliment NPO, but they where probably the most effecient alliance in this game history and was number 1 alliance for large part of the games history. And they didn't have a whale tier at all. They basely just had all their members always be on the same city count. Making them extremely dominating in the game mid-tier, and fully willing to do suicide attacks to the point i found extreme, made them able to easily drag larger players down. I wanna see more creative playstyles like that again.

The alliance announcement system, can be made into a fairly strong discord alternative in small alliances. Members can comment, and ask question through it, guides can also easily be made available through the announcement system. And members can be given permission to create their own posts. Arrgh still have sudden tradition around it's use. Many people don't know that discord first started popping up here in 2016, two years after P&W first got startet. And why many of the oldest alliances got some abouned forum site tucked away somewhere, heck NPO is still using theirs https://npowned.net/ The main issue with the ingame annoucement is that everyone in the alliance can read them. If alex made it selective who should read what post, then you got solid discord alternative even for bigger alliances.

It has no effect on gameplay. Read the wiki. Believe me, when i say we got the mid maxing of this game down to it's teeths. https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/National_Tax_Rate

Not to bad, well it is more a roleplay element then anything. But you can increase it either by buillding some commerce building, supermarket, banks, shopping malls, stadiums in your citiies. Creating some service jobs, can't expect sweatshop workers and coal miners to have the greatest income. Else you need to change some of your answers to the question sheet that determind your nation economic politics, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/policy/ But is just roleplay flavour, it dosen't have any effect on the gameplay.

To be frank, i do see capitalism being fairly self destructive, in more then one way. As a economic system i see it in automation. Technology inovation that lead to freeing up workers from food production, was what made capitalism into the world dominating economic system. Capitalism is still a fairly young system, with it not being to many decades since the majority of the world population was employed in agriculture. With rise of Industry, we started taking steps towards automation, to reduce the amount of workers, and time a task required before it done. Which is a process we have never stopped doing. And now we at a point where we have data, a limitless source of value, that can make machines without human imput, that perform task faster and better then humans. Capitalism will keep pushing for automation, to save on cost and increase efficiency. Now what happens, when a large part of the labour force is no longer needed to work, like when we start hitting 10-20% unemployment rate. Not because of fault of their own, you can of try to reeducate them of course for new jobs. But how long before does jobs get turned over to the machines. And now, we have a large and increasing part of the population unable to find work, that means they don't get a salery, which means they have no money to spend. Eroding profit from business. That is when universal bacis income start to look real good, together with reducing the maximum amount of work hours people can work. You don't want people starving, you don't want crime out of control, or mass riots in the streets, or companies declaring bankruptcy over losing their enitre customer base. You saw how a positiv impact stimulus payments had on the economy doing covid. A new check each months, and the economy would soon be boombing like never before. As people would have money to buy stuff from the economy. But with universal bacis income you also starting to reach the death scream of capitalism, because now people don't need to work to live anymore. Giving an enormous amount of power to the workers. With companies having to increase their benefits to keep people employed, atleast the few jobs that can't be automated. While Space minning, can possible push us towards a post-scarcity society. And than you start eliminating the point of money at all. Of course Capitalism having been taking this lying down either. We see it in the creation of bull----jobs. Where the job themselves generate no value, but that they have money to use in economy is what is importent, entire companies, who don't produce anything but is instead focused on gambling on debt and stocks. And when they make a lossing bet, the goverment will bail them out with tax money. The inflated importances put into the stocksmarket, it's deregulation in the 70's and 80's, that still !@#$ the global economy. So it keep going up, even when the rest of economcy seems to be collapsing. And payouts to investors is put before a companies long term growth. When bonds that kept produtives saleries connected was ripped apart, globalization moving jobs abroad in gambles of short term cost servings, to be abused by China in the long term. While serving the connection a company used to have with their local communities. Continuously reducting of workhours, was put on hold, with slaries stagnating, with every oppitunity used to squeeze as much short term profit as possible. Capitalism is a great system, when it's regulated. if not, then business dosen't mind sacrificing the health and lives of it own workers for profit, buying ressources that use child labour, or posion the local drinking water with polution, or the air you breath, or using literally slaves, or selling weapons and equipement that countries are activilily using it to commit genocide. It wasen't with their good wild that we started having days free from work, the weekend was something workers had to fight for, or workdays that didn't last 12-14 hours. Similar if you want to use capitialism to raise the living standard of the many you need it to be regulated, or atleast allow the workers to form unions to strenghten their position. Else buisness will be looking to squeeze out as much value from your work as possible, capitalism will never in good faith pay someone the full value that their labour is worth. Else there wouldn't be any profit. Regulated capitalism is the best system we tried so far, but when automation take over i do really hope we start switching over to universal basic income, because the other alternatives are worse. But on the other hand, i don't believe pure socialisme is a good system for us right now. the tech for it to work dosen't excist yet. Of course that shouldn't stop countries from pushing towards a model similar to the nordic countries, that does seems to have found the best ways to regulate capitaslime.

Welcome to the trap.

Oh thank god Village, sorry about freaking out so much. Emotional time at the moment, and well us pirates have normally have to deal with fairly consitent raiding nerf since the Purple Spy War, with just a few updates that benefits us, which is often just lessening of a prior nerf. And then when it started to look up, with some good updates for us over the last year, i just read the line: " this will reduce raiding income as the nation's regular income increases, making them less reliant on this feature and better adjusted to the main game as a whole." And well without the prior context it dosen't come of doing us any favours.

Any reason in particularly, for why you pushing your playstyle as the only acceptable way to play the game? Because that what it sounds like, that your group is activilty trying to kill high tier raiding, because you don't play it, and would be more convient for you to not have it around, so you can build up to 3000 infra with the most worry, being a insulted guy on the market, that you undercut. Raiding income is already crippled compared to farming in the higher tiers. The problem should be to make raiding more comparable, not less. To encourge different playstyles, so you can maitain a larger playerbase, and a higher player engagement, and inovation. Discouraging the most active part of casual player base, aren't going to be a benefit to the game.

Happy now? Are you on light mode?

See the full story here: Part 1: Piracy against Journalism [link] Part 2: 6 out of 7 captives released [link] Not-so-breaking news: The last Arrgh captive has been released,and Arrgh's war to protect journalistic integrity has now come to a close! You can now all feel safer, Orbis. You're welcome. Here you can see the safe return of Euron Greyjoy to the Borg Collective, Just mere moments before Arrgh captured... the rest of the Collective! A moment later. Our brutally clever plan of sneaking our swords past the metal detectors by making them out of plastic, made it possible to capture the Borg fanclub too, in in the middle of the ransom crisis. Euron was of course set free, but was not allowed to play with waterguns anymore. The rest of Borgs Assisted Loot Liberation Service was now up for ransom. That Borg got around to paying for their freedom some days later. Here is Admiral Ripper napping, surrounded by the things he loves most in this world. We have to thank Borg and the fine people employed at The Observer, for making it possible for Ripper to sleep-in, as he can only get a good night rest when he is weighed down by other people's money. Arrgh!

By not making it your main focus, wars are expensive, many doesn't really realize how expensive. One of the main problems with merc services was that they where extremely underpriced, often even on purpose to try and pull in customers, but even when they try to raise prices they normally don't earn enough to cover for what they would have earned doing other stuff. So in general merc services don't last to long with the exception of Arrgh, that can use it's reputation to pull in customers, instead of offering low prices, and has a better understanding of actually cost. Merc contract isen't always going be a daily thing, and when it is, it often new players trying to hire a merc, while not being able to afford one. So do other stuff, that give you money while you wait between contracts. Second thing is that people have to trust you, which is something Arrgh build heavily on, Arrgh normally demand payment upfront, but if they where to fail the contract or something unexpected happened that prevent the contract being carried out, the client get their money back, while being offered an alternative solution if possible. Arrgh has a rep for being expensive, but trustworty and getting the job done. That is around the 3 point you need to work with, price, trust, and war experience. So i would suggest trying to join a raider alliance, and get some war experience in, try to get some insight into how they run merc services, and not just the direct cost of war, but what you might have earned declaring on another guy, or farmed doing that time.

And you think that will get you some better war names? oh honey, no.

My comment was more a reference to all alliance wars in general, not you know just the globals. That is not to say that white peace has never happened in globals, they have, and even more where it is as close as can be to it. What would be your suggested solution here? And even when there is a victor, it isn't exactly much motivation for keeping people in the ring, with gains being so minimalistic. If we should get some harsher demands we might actually start to get some more interesting globals, and once lasting longer than a month. We should really require a minimum length for a global. A "global" that lasts for barely a week, isen't a war, it is a skirmish. If a promise of bragging rights can help achieve longer and more fun globals, be my guest. We haven't even had a global break the 1 trillion mark since Dial-up, even though Dial-up wasen't the first one to do so. And that is despite the fact the Orbis wealth has more than doubled since then. Another issue is thought if we let the winning side decide the name. Who will actually decide the name? the members of the winning alliances? or just the governments? Will it only be the "big alliances" in the bloc that get to vote? Will it be with Byzantine elections? where the higher-ups decide what names can vote for in the first place, how would names get nominated? What if the allied can't agree on a name? or what if the names chosen a still terrible? We really should plan out the replacement system in more detail before we start to dismantle the old system. Frankly, for most people the issue, seems to be mainly about their preferred name not being chosen. Else most hiccups with the systems should be simply solved by getting more people involved in the nominations and voting, if only something was around to motivate and inform players, oh right it called alliances.

Dosen't most wars end in a white peace? or "white peace" with secret terms.

No the person with the most ships is going to run out of ships before the one with most planes run out of resistance to be beiged. The plane guy have the advance, simply because planes are better at killing ships, then ships are at killing ships. But the deciding factor is likely going be ground, how of much of distraction it going to be. And if causing the most damage, or beiging is the goal of the war?

We don't know how many of Russia's nuclear weapons actually work, or if the amount is accurate. I say it extreme overestimation to believe Russia has that amount of working warheads. Nuclear weapons and their delivery system require expensive and near constant maintenance, with the most importent part, the core of fissile material needs to be replaced every 15 years at least, due to nuclear decay. Now consider the fact that China with 300-350 nuclear weapons has a bigger budget for its nuclear arsenal than Russia, with its close to 6000 nukes, which should raise some eyebrows. The US is spending over 44 billion dollars a year to maintain it stockpile of some 5000 nuclear weapons, and Russia has recently gotten past 8.5 billion. In comparison, the UK is spending 6.8 billion to maintain 225 nuclear weapons. You can well see the issue here, now factor in Russia's extreme corruption issue: "He who doesn't steal, is stealing from his family." One gotta starts to wonder how much of the nuclear budget actually reaches the nuclear weapons, especially as these are weapons that are never meant to be fired, in comparison to more urgent stuff like fuel, ammunition, and entire tanks, that have seemingly gone missing due to corruption. Another issue can be seen in Russia's tanks, Russia liked to brag about having the most tanks in the world, you likely heard the claim of above 20.000 tanks at some point. 12.000 is more frequent these days, but here lies an issue, because that number is still too big. By most generous satellite estimates, Russia's true tank numbers hit closer to 6000. With 3000-4000 in storage. With over 1000 tanks destroyed or captured in Ukraine, it dosen't leave to much left. This makes more sense because it would better explain why Russia has started to deploy units with t-62 in Ukraine, not their puppet states, does they arm with WW2 era weapons, but actually Russian troops. The t-62 were outdated in the 1970s, which Russia has said have fully retired from service in 2008. So what ups with that? beside Russia not wanting to take part in turrent toss competitions anymore? The t-72 is up, Russia has claimed they have 8000 t-72 in storage, with 2000 of them in active service, this was before the war. Now we know Russia has lost atleast 1200 tanks according to Oryx, adding 30% and we reach somewhere around 1600. Russia tank losses still need to be 5 times as big as that, for it to make sense that they pulling t-62 out of storage, if we take Russia words on their own numbers. So we got to the conclusion that Russia has been lying about its tank numbers. The same is hopefully the case for nuclear weapons, else it might be a miracle we hadn't seen any accidental explosions.

I have noticed that a lot of new players tend to pull towards Blitzkrieg, not seemingly realizing that the buff it provides only last for 24 hours. I think a possible change to the description to make it more clear, would help remedy the situation. An example would be to take part from the wiki description: "For the first 12 turns (24 hours) after changing to this War Policy, your nation does 10% more infrastructure damage and casualties in Ground Battles, Airstrikes (casualties only apply to enemy aircraft, not units targeted), and Naval Battles." Adding "After switching to this War Policy," at the end of the current description would be a help, at least to the people who don't have English as their first language. And might assume it means the first 12 hours of any war started. Otherwise changing the name would probably be the biggest help, as blitzkrieg does tend to catch the eye because of the familiarity, and cool factor to the edgy teens. Translating it into mobile warfare, or lighting warfare might be a good solution, else 'Fire brigades' might be a better fit for the actual use of the policy. As i haven't really seen any successful uses of it in the start of blitz. I mean why would you? The downside of counters getting an extra MAP bonus for 5 days before one can change the policy is too much for opening up a war with it. The more likely use of it is as an emergency extra boost when your counter slot is already filled out, or fighting someone of nearly equal strength. Where In IRL: the doctrine of 'Fire brigades' means the scrambling of different forces merged together to react to an enemy breakthroughs.

Love you Ripper ❤️