All Activity

Jesus did turn water into wine, with them wondering why he saved the best for last. So anyone who says alcohol is off limit, don't believe in Jesus or think Jesus is bad. It was a party, so anyone who tries saying wine was just to prevent germs back then are just making excuses for their false teachings if saying alcohol is a sin. (I'm more of the view they used wine loosely for any psychoactive brew even. Solomon said he'd drink wine in order to connect with spirit realm, even if regular wine wouldn't help much with that.) Solomon lost his way, so not a great example. Just one of many it was used. Other passages say the foolish person will use up all their tinctures and oils, expecting to get more. The wise man's house has a bunch of them. (Had a dream once where I might have been in hell & Solomon was there.) Was messed up place where people couldn't die even if they wanted to. Solomon in his later years said some woman wanted him to sacrifice to their God, as soon as he sacrificed a bug to it; God left him. War on Drugs is a war on consciousness, in order to try controlling what consciousness people are always in & not allowing people to explore beyond. The mind is like a limiter, preventing you from seeing unneeded stuff & containing your consciousness. Part of why the big disconnect from spirit and so many not knowing right from wrong; where they blindly do as the gov says is all psychedelics which are useful for expanding consciousness are Schedule 1. That might be changing with shrooms though, which will maybe expand consciousness more. (However shrooms while I saw countless non human entity, didn't bring me closer to merger of consciousness with God. So can be good, but not the most useful for me.) Theosis, I consider this what Jesus proved possible & what to seek. (Modern Christianity has mostly gotten to caught up with Idols and rituals, rather than connecting with Spirit. However it's still a practice by Orthodox Christians & was widely talked about by early Church Fathers.) I don't pray with words usually, just contemplate God & mediate on closer connection. God knows what I want more than me probably. (Which would be a shift towards more freedom for humanity, not really anything personal I want.) When father had a massive tumor in leg afrer getting the vaccine and was pretty sure he was going to die a slow and painful death on chemo, did pray he be healed. Next time he went for an appointment they said it was harmless actually and just needed removing. So maybe asking can help. I focus more on teaching people natural law and freedom, rather than focus on convincing them the manner in which Jesus was born & whether he was resurrected in the flesh or not; as described by Paul. It's possible, but early Christians thought his teachings should be the focus. I like message from Gospel of Thomas, where message more seems where if right person reads it they'll understand and Kingdom is to be made. (Or it's work in progress.) " 3) Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.""

I transcended 3 gins ago with much less effort! Have a great evening my friend

I already knew you order that nation to attack who used the reason "Raid" even before you told one of my members that person was countering for a raid didn't exist. If you want to test us & attack my members, while lying to them about me & telling them you won't talk to me when they say to do that with your whining; will hurt. Your nation typed "Raid" for the reason, then you accuse my member of doing a raid they didn't do & that being a counter? You did admit what I knew with intuition right away, it wasn't a random raid and you ordered it. So enjoy my raids. No one did attack us other than you guys.

What they really should do is you get nuclear bounties without winning. XD

Besides navy blockading nations as its main primary function it is far outclassed by its air counterpart. At the same MAP count aircraft is cheaper to ustilise and provides better options in providing debuffs during war and overall unit reduction (especially against navy). Unit cost of ships is also a problem as 30 steel at current market prices is immense and would be far better suited for tanks or being spent on aircraft (a unit which seems to suit the navy role a lot better), additional fire costs make navy the most expensive unit to use considering the intended use. Navy blockades are difficult to maintain and warchests have gotten so large it takes months to starve them out. Additionally you only need to be out of blockade for a single turn, enough for an alliance with a bank bot to resupply their nation instantly. Besides these outlined flaws I have still seen some effective uses of navy (*cough* 50 ship spam*) that has led to breathing room or some reimbursement in net damages. Otherwise, I believe it needs to change to make them more useful or have better applications that can help with the current plane and nuke dominated meta. What do you think? TL:DR: Navy need to be stronker

Can't wait to stockpile munitions, max ships to shoot my score up, and use my stockpile + easy uranium production to do four devastational naval attacks per day on the whales of Orbis!

Funny. Have an upvote.

WHY: Another option to improve military technology and power. DESCRIPTION All ships become nuclear powered CHANGES: Naval Ship Cost (Peacetime) $3375 -> $4375 Naval Ship Cost (Wartime) $5062.50 -> $6062.50 1.5 Gasoline -> 1 Uranium each battles (munitions still the same) BONUS Reduce naval attack by -1MAP's once per war. NATION SCORE Increase nation score like nuclear weapons.

This is untrue in a multisphere game, where the longer you are at war, the more other spheres outgrow you.

Thanks. If they ignore the constitution and freedom, people do have constitutional right and obligation to overthrow.So if they won't play fair, Agorism is another solution. Libertarian Party tries gaining ground in their system rigged against it. (However lets the state destroy itself and distance oneself from any dependency on it.) Carl Jung makes mention of the transient function, which explains somewhat Old Testament descriptions of how tyrants are destroyed. They become increasingly delusional and self destructive. The whole process is called the ‘transcendent function.’ It is a process and a method at the same time. The production of unconscious compensations is a spontaneous process; the conscious realization is a method. The function is called ‘transcendent’ because it facilitates the transition from one psychic condition to another by means of the mutual confrontation of opposites. Jung (1939)[2] The transcendent function does not proceed without aim and purpose, but leads to the revelation of the essential man. It is in the first place a purely natural process, which may in some cases pursue its course without the knowledge or assistance of the individual, and can sometimes forcibly accomplish itself in the face of opposition. The meaning and purpose of the process is the realization, in all its aspects, of the personality originally hidden away in the embryonic germ-plasm; the production and unfolding of the original, potential wholeness. Jung (1916)[3] So those barely conscious could be even be part of a bigger picture, without realizing the role they're playing. Since the collective unconsciousness can effect people when they change mental attitudes. Knowing everything is connected makes more possible. Kennedy challanged Trump to debate him at the Libertarian Convention; since first event will be them trying to defend their positions vs libertarianiam.

Man, I'm quickly forgotten on being the first person to advocate this change for several years. (But yes, I'm still of the opinion that ships need anti-air value)

Nuke turreting can also bring the winning side to the table to end the war quicker if they are taking a great deal of damage while not being able to dish out much damage. If the winning side can just sit on people and not take any appreciable amount of damage they have no incentive to end the war. Nukes are also cheaper than guerilla fighting in terms of resources so rebuilds are quicker and cheaper so maybe we won't keep seeing these long assed NAP's after every war. Probably not though as it seems that most leaders these days are pixel hugging wankers.

It's simple. Kamikaze relies on upfront damage, which is exactly the kind of damage that the dev team has been hard at work trying to curtail in their pursuit of "fairer wars that aren't decided in a day". The problem is that this is entirely misguided in the context of the game where people are going to find ways to hedge bets and gain advantages. The end result is that blitzes are still decided day 1 while conventional guerrilla is sacrificed in the process. Unfortunately, I don't see it changing because, if nothing else, Alex in particular has demonstrated to be well set on his ways, whenever he can actually be bothered to do something about this game. The dev team changes do make little sense in aggregate when allowing for extra tens of millions of damage from extra missiles is fine (not a complaint; I do like missiles myself and find them to be underrated), but also deeming that the chip damage against tanks from soldiers was too high. (I assumed that the forums were going to automatically merge both of my posts; I wouldn't have double posted otherwise).

The irony is that this is both true and a symptom of a greater issue. Turreting does need to be viable because of the dev team consistently making conventional guerrilla less and less viable with every conventional military change change. Propping up turreting offsets this, but it does make for an unidimensional strategy that's not as good to the sort of options that were available before 2020.

*immediately rage edits* >:(

Yeah my post was more so about individual raiders/rogues that sorta thing. I totally agree that people on the losing side of a global should have more options and should be encouraged to make more risky gambits. Part of the reason nukes/missiles have been buffed as they have is because people can't seem to agree on a way to make that happen. It's a band-aid solution.

@Anarchist Empire good luck with your new alliance!! If you are indeed Noctis, welcome back I guess. What I love about this is the frankensteinish nature of people's ideas about real life that sneak into this game, as well as how the game ought be played. It is always refreshing to see new ideas, both the good and the bad

@Hatebi I agree with all that. BUT, my position on the nuke turret meta has nothing to do with individual raiders. The “nuke turret meta” is what I call the optimal strategy for the losing side of a global war. What I’m talking about is the difference between the effectiveness of zero mil turrets vs militarized guerilla fighters. That’s not a good thing in my opinion. First, once all their infra is dead, nuke turreting is a way to claw back some net and the more effective it becomes the less incentive there is for a losing side to actually peace it and drag it out. It’s incredibly difficult for a sphere sized coalition to effectively shut down a sphere sized coalition of nuke turrets. Not just mechanically, but politically getting everyone on the same page to make it happen. I can see how politically, dragging out a war for more than 2 months is just not really that feasible, but if you have stubborn leadership that is ok with a prolonged war of attrition as long as their clawing back net, the new mechanics reward that. Second, the effectiveness of nuke turreting destroys militarized guerilla fighting as a viable option. Mostly because it’s better to break beige and drop 5 nukes then sit in beige for 5/6 days for rebuy/decom options while eating spy attacks just to launch a maximum of 14 grounds and then decom tanks or 7 navals and decom ships. It’s such a long wait to be effective with military. Thats not even counting the ability for an opponent to insta-slot you the second you break beige and wreck your mil before you can get some of those attacks off. That second part is my main concern. I want smart and effective military strategists to have the ability to deal more net than nuke turrets in a losing war. With the current buffs, I just don’t see how it’s possible. So losers are resigned to brainless turreting rather than trying to implement a difficult, risky, military strategy. I want losers to have multiple ways to lose and with the buff to turrets, guerilla warfare is dead. building and using military is expensive and there should be a reward (in the form of higher potential net damage than nuke turreting) available to players that make that investment and use their military intelligently. A losing side should be able to pour money into building military and spending gas/muni for the chance at making inroads in conventional warfare by defeating the low tier with more low infra numbers and then climbing back up. Or at least squeezing solid net out of the military they have with flash attacks. And right now those options just doesn’t exist with the current mechanics. Thats why I say the nuke turret meta is here specifically in the context of how the losing side of global war conducts warfare. Military just isn’t a viable option right now and I think that’s very bad for the state of the game.

Nuke turreting is one of the few effective ways for the losing side of a war to fight back after the conventional war has been lost (which can occur as soon as the opening blitz is launched). I don't really think it should be altered unless there's some very comprehensive updates to how wars are fought overall. Like how fighting conventionally is a skill, nuke turreting is a skill, and countering nuke turrets is a skill. In this already very limited game, we don't need any of the few playstyles to be patched out. I really liked @Who Me's suggestion of making ships have an anti-plane combat value, or some kind of change to spies overall. I think those are much better places to start.

Other than the fact that you lose them all in one round of attacks and it takes 20 days to buy them back?, Yeah, they are fine.

Funny, I’ve also talked about Ships for -years-. I’ve literally been the loudest advocate for them receiving some anti-air buff. You can check back to 2016 on that. Not sure what the problem with spies are though? They seem fine?

Imagine trying to be taken seriously while attempting to paint Mayor as a pixel hugger. You may want to do a bit of research before you randomly start hurling accusations.

If you mean current wars, I don't mind letting those finish. Guess I won't declare another when a slot opens if you guys are done.