TheSovereignGrave said
Why does everyone view the nations that are turned into NPCs as easy targets? Just because they don't have a player anymore doesn't mean they're easy to conquer...

TheSovereignGrave said
It doesn't happen because the player just assumes that because the nation's an NPC that they can't lose the war...

Golem said
An idea: add a tl;dr section under your posts in the IC, summing up what your nation is doing, and where. It's easier to keep track on the development that way.

Golem said
I will test each nation against its enemies whenever there's war. You may describe your tactics, as they'll factor in, but ultimately its the system that will decide who wins or loses. It's the only way to get a fair outcome of the situation.

Yog Sothoth said
Well if you look at the statistics mine and Titanic's military out number the Myraratur Republic, and we won't be conquering them, just forcing them into a treaty that allows free trade and a canal.

TheSovereignGrave said
Um, what exactly does the system entail?Why a canal? What purpose would that even serve? It's not that big a distance to just sail around.

Golem said
A word of warning, though: war will be dangerous and possibly disastrous for both sides; both winner and loser will feel the fallout.

Sauron The Dark Lord said
Quicker is always better, you realize this?

Golem said
You don't need to concern yourself with the system. If I'm the only one that know how it works then there'll be less bitching and moaning and metagaming. Just play the game as you originally would have. I will be fair and consequent.A word of warning, though: war will be dangerous and possibly disastrous for both sides; both winner and loser will feel the fallout.

TheSovereignGrave said
Not when it takes decades and large amounts if money and resources to build. There's a reason you didn't have a bunch of canals being built in Medieval and Renaissance Europe.