Rule proposal:

I want to propose that it is forbidden to attack AI without artillery except voted by the majority. SPECIALLY at the beginning of a game.

The main reason is that since it is a 1vs1, for each troop killed, one of yours die. And you need at least 10 for territory pinned down until the morale recovers, troops that will have lower morale. Let's do some math:

- We start with 120 troops.
- We decide to attack an AI.
- It have 2 territories (Like Iceland):
- You need at least 40 troops (20 will die, 20 will keep the territories)
How many troops? 40? Is that the 33% of the entire army that WON'T BE AT HAND WHEN THE REST OF THE ALLIANCE IS ATTACKING ACTUAL ENEMIES?
And let's suppose that we are even more individualist and try to conquer Denmark (3 territories): that would reach to a sum of 30 dead units, with 30 units pinned down: 50% of the troops!! Holy fucking cow, Austria Hungary alone would erase you from the map in a blink! Yet let's don't even mention what would happen if France decides to join.

The only acceptable case would be Morroco, IF Spain + France/Italy are enemies. There you would be pinned down anyway, and the enemy wouldn't be able to attack without being shored.

We must cease to underestimate our enemies. That way we will loose.

If someone have another point of view, let's discuss it, but if there is no counterargument, I propose it for rule.

Sorry if I have an irritated tone, and if I've offended someone, but I got tired of repeating it. We must play as one, if not we will be doomed.

While I (mostly) agree with the spirit of your text I must disagree with your math. For instance if Britain attack Iceland their troops won't be pinned down because Iceland won't rebel. Secondly with a sneak attack of superior forces you shouldn't lose a 1-1 ratio of troops. No way. Unless they have a fort and assuming the morale is roughly equal.

Three more things to take into account. Who are you? Who are you attacking? Why are you attacking?

Good example to attack AI: I'm Morocco and surrounded by enemies. I'm attacking Tunisia. I'm attacking to cut off a potential attack route, gaining two territories in the process (precious oil included) and I don't plan on losing more than 15 troops. The 15 troops have nothing better to do as well.

Bad example to attack AI: I'm France and Spain/Britain/Germany/Italy are enemies. I'm attacking Belgium. I'm attacking to gain territories.

In the first example there's nothing to lose. In the second you'll be killing yourself unless your enemies are incredibly inept. I think this is a common sense ruling. Though you've convinced me to postpone my attack on Iceland in Game 255912. I just can't afford to make a move with Sweden looming like a thunderstorm. I can afford to kill the AI I can't afford to kill the AI and have Sweden swoop in and take my provinces. Which is why I'm sending some scouts, to be ready to take advantage should he try what I was originally thinking.

This all being said I do not think we need a rule per se. I think we need continued communication and strategic cooperation. Taking a vote for permission to attack and AI might waste a valuable opening with bureaucratic red tape.

Even if it is only the 25%, or 30%, it still gives a huge edge to the enemy. Specially in Iceland, the maths still hold, since the troops would take 3-4 days in the expedition. A complete waste.

With Morroco I agree. The former message (The first one was delated for a mistake relating the "send" button and me not realizing that internet was off) was more complete, including that it is way easier to defend Morroco with those 2 provinces, and they are oil and lumber, excellent resources.

But for Denmark and Iceland it holds. We will loose a precious edge if we attack in the 3 maps those islands.

I agree, but it is a case by base basis on whether to attack an AI or not.

P.S. remember that taking an AI capital is just as beneficial as taking a player capital Morale-wise.