Different amounts of Military points used for different things.

[Dzung]

Currently, If you want to attack it costs 3 military points. A military point is made every 2 hours therefore to do just ONE attack you gotta wait 6 hours to possibly just finish off an inactive with no soldiers,no money,nothing. Why not make it so for 1 point you can only attack with with a max of 1000 troops, for 2 points you can attack with a max of 3000 and for 3 points you attack with however many you choose. I feel this is a much better system of using war slots and points than now. I can attack a nation with no money and by the end of the war I probably get around maybe $100(Of course,I don't know the nation is penniless beforehand otherwise I would not attacked them.) This way instead of spending 36 hours on a pointless war you can opt to just spend maybe a few hours in a unprofitable war. This, I feel this would be a much more efficient system. It would free up war slots faster and you still have to use 3 points on nations who can take more than a few 1000 soldiers on anyway.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Ay Dede

[Ollysho]

I actually don't mind this idea. Just because it allows wars to go faster. Although I'd say the values need to be played around with a bit and maybe it should be a percentage rather than a fixed number. Just because there would be no point in getting a bigger army

[Alex]

If you've noticed, there are a lot of nations that profit solely through raiding. They find a nation, attack him until they surrender (looting them all the while) and then go onto the next nation.

 

While this is, and should be, a viable path of growth, it shouldn't be too overpowered. If you could end all your wars against nations without any money in just a few hours so you could move onto the next guy, it would make raiding nations the only real way to grow. There needs to be some risk/reward, and part of the risk is using up a war slot for a minimum of 12 hours.

[Ollysho]

Hrrmmmm, never thought about that actually

[Brooklyn666]

A bit off topic, but I always wondered why (I'm not suggesting it should be different) ground attacks are the only way to win wars? Why not 6 immense triumph airstrikes or naval battles?

[Greatnate]

Because, no nation has won a war through air power alone¹, and very few, if any, conflicts have been resolved by naval battles. Without land forces to occupy territory, what can you expect to gain from a conflict?