Arawra

It's weird 'cause, I thought t$ had a recruitment problem.

Wait, am I supposed to look at a non-existent treaty at face value or should I also point out that SwampCW-HM were collaborating for a war against us or should I continue looking at it at face value?

Duck off

Can I interest you in my religion, The Great Choc?

All the best Sphinx, Putmum, and tCW

Hello again Ignis Aternum.

Congrats Jordan! Good luck Atlas!

Good luck, have fun

You heard it here folks, only 6 more months of airstriking soldiers in Vietnam until you can go home

Nothing like claiming an easy win after such a humbling defeat, amirite?

Nice treaty! Congrats to our friends in Imperium, as well to TEst on finding a good ally.

"names"

Issue: when moving continents or somewhere else on the same continent you must recreate your nation map. Solution: add the ability to save a map template that allows you to save your current map (vertex placement, distance between vertices, etc). Why: this would be helpful for people that spent a lot of time creating their nation maps, who now see reason to switch continents or move somewhere else on their current continent (for roleplay), but don't want their nation map deleted and either having to recreate, redesign, settle for something as simple as a square, or simply stay where they are. Logistics: this addition would fall under QoL, so it could possibly be grouped into an update alongside other QoL changes. Benefits: -Feature is simple -QoL changes improve the game experience, even if for a relatively small number of players -Potential for more credit buying, since there could be people who refuse to change locations over losing their current map By no means is this a necessary feature, but as I said, it could be really helpful for someone like me, thanks for reading.

Your seat may get cold, but the Soup will forever be hot. Good luck Kev, you're a pretty cool guy~

Yeah, I remember raiding you one time, thanks for that 😄

FAKE WAR guinea pig squeals

And how's that working out so far? Raiders can easily raid more warchest from, either Swamp, or other sources. They might even keep some credits handy and then what?

Solid 2 weeks retirement, how was your vacation?

Good luck, have fun to all!~

Game balance should not be centered around realism either, but even as a counter point: The AC-130 gunships "Angel of Death" are fantastic at destroying enemy soldiers I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about; "Aircraft are currently the best unit in game to destroy infra with and it should stay that way." This is simply wrong, firstly because naval units do the most infrastructure damage as mentioned earlier in the thread, and secondly because the primary use of aircraft in this game has never been to destroy infrastructure. Aircraft destroy units, always have, and although they have since been nerfed in that regard, they still serve that purpose, and should continue to serve that purpose, you would be an idiot to think otherwise. Aircraft are not a jack of all trades unit anymore, ground forces kill tanks and aircraft better and faster than aircraft kill tanks and aircraft as mentioned earlier in the thread. Additionally, a buff to soldier casualties would hardly tip the scales to make planes unbalanced because soldiers serve the purpose of being a cost-effective, fast-conscription unit, and are not all that powerful when it comes to winning conventional warfare which is what matters. There are times when you have to airstrike soldiers, that's what happens when pirates do harsh downdeclares at max soldier capacity. However yes, you don't rely on airstrikes to zero soldiers, but the soldier casualties from tanks should be increased to make airstriking them less necessary 😛

Maybe a general stat of Nukes/Missiles destroyed, that would encompass nukes/missiles shot down by you and sabotaged by your spies. For nukes/missiles launched that were shot down, this could be included in parentheses next to the number launched, example: Say, I launched 10 nukes, and 2 were shot down by VDS, my stat would look like this: "Launched: 10 (2)" As for incorporating the amount of nukes/missiles lost to spy sabotage, I don't know how to go about doing that, but I also feel like that's a stat nobody would want on their nation page anyway..

Very rarely are you countering pirates at your same city count or remotely close to it. 50k per airstrike means 2 airstrikes cost 3,600,000 in munitions/gas to kill 500,000 worth of soldiers. Additionally, if all the units you build are soldiers and are complaining that you lose all your units in 5 minutes, then that sounds like your own doing; Pirates are not the center of war changes, nor should they be. For those that build normal, diverse armies including planes, soldiers, tanks, and ships, it will take 2-3 defensive wars fought over several days to zero them out, even in harsh downdeclares, source: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177550&display=war

This is incorrect. As a c22 with max soldiers and 60% tanks, I kill between 20k-25k soldiers per GA, which is nothing compared to the cost of 1. gas and munitions, 2. construction of the tanks and soldiers, and 3. tanks lost from GAs. It also barely helps in counters against downdeclaring pirates. Airstrikes are not much better; Mine kill 40k-60k per airstrike, averaging out to about 50k and costing ~400 munitions/gas. Tank casualties in GAs should be reduced, and soldier casualties from tanks increased. Soldier casualties from soldiers are so low that a 5% increase can be done with or without and not matter. For planes, a 20% increase would be good, which in the context of the numbers I posted, makes 1650 planes kill between 48k-72k, averaging out to 60k. Edit: I guess I'll tack this on too: the 10% increase to ships killed by planes is good, but the minimum ships killed needs to be increased by a lot; 1650 planes can kill as little as 14 ships in an airstrike which is just terrible.