Liffer

MCXA knows what's what... [IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/congressgod/arab.png[/IMG]

MCXA leadership is aware of this thread. We lol in Fran's general direction. That is all.

MCXA was much improved by the absence of several of the above posters. I believe the "who" and "why" are obvious.

We're still linked to NPO through three or four bloc agreements. Hardly a severing of ties...

I've been in MCXA since its founding. The leaders are professional (not 8th graders), our members are intelligent and active (again, not kids or adults who act like kids), and there really is a place for everyone in helping to run the alliance. MCXA is what we make of it; there's a reason why we are highly-respected and the most powerful blue alliance...

Two days ago was the first day BLEU accepted formal individual surrenders from NADc. Much of the NADC loss was due to departing members (though not a formal "disbanding", it looks similar to the numbers). If you check it out, most of the score NADC lost is reflected by gains in the BLEU POW "alliance".

I can die happy now. Good work all around (esp to the NADC whose defense strategy is making all of this possible).

While changing the formula to make things riskier is one possibility, how about a small possibility not only of the spy being revealed, but also being interrogated? Example, you catch a spy, you wouldn't immediately execute them; you'd try to learn what they know. So why not create a possibility of the spy being captured and tortured/interrogated. With the resulting information, the defending country would do the same to the attacker as the mission the spy was sent on. Example, Spy is sent by X to Y to steal tech. Spy fails in stealing tech, but is caught and forced to reveal where X stores its tech. Nation Y gets up to 3 tech from X. Even if the mission is successful, the effects would be mimicked in the attacking country. Granted, this should only be a small possibility, but it would make nations think twice about using spies as missions are more risky (closer to real-life).

If a nation can be "attacked" by 3 spy missions in a day, then they should be able to conduct that many of their own. As with wars, they should be against different nations, but if 3 enemies are targeting me, I should also be able to target each of them back. The 1:3 system will place unaligned nations and small alliances at a major disadvantage. Even if I know the identities of all of my attackers, I can only strike back against one of them. Not fair. Also, will the notification PM go out even if the mission is a failure and the identity isn't revealed? Something like "Unknown nation tried and failed to do X".