Georgi Stomana

I think I should add another rule: Be careful about taking on debt with interest.

GPA is for me because it is the only alliance that actually states what it believes, in it's founding documents, and I believe in those principles also. Other alliances may have some lofty words like "community" or "brotherhood" but what they actually stand for is not explained like GPA. If an alliance does not believe in anything but power in numbers are they any better than a gang? Ultimately neutrality with self-defense is the most correct view because peace is the most efficient and safest way to develop your nation. Those imperialists who believe that they can get rich by war and stealing from others - history shows that they are doomed.

Cheerleaders are cool, I like the skirts.

It would be cool as long as they can be destroyed or damaged in battles. National Projects can't be destroyed and you can't specifically target improvements (and you'd imagine in war both sides would target forts, and that forts would be on the frontlines, unlike most improvements in cities).

If you don't mind, I would suggest something similar to this: Have two types of soldiers, just normal Soldiers and Veteran Soldiers. When you buy soldiers they're just normal, but the more battles a soldier is involved without dying the higher chances they'll become a Veteran Soldier, who fights twice as good as a regular one. It's simple.

I went for nuclear because I want as many of all my slots to be doing something to make me money or resources.

I guess it depends how much "realism" is an issue, but I believe even at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (Chernobyl especially) it didn't happen for no reason, it was basically a disaster waiting to happen due to terrible safety, management and other preventable problems.

Well, putting a man on the moon is a whole lot different than having a manned colony on the moon or another planet. I just meant that putting a Satellite into space which which allows for more accurate missiles and less expensive missiles (and maybe benefits in other areas such as Spying on nations) would be more appropriate to colonies. Anyway I have a suggestion of my own to add: National project name: Central Reserve Bank Small description: Central Reserve Bank is a national project that manages a your nation's currency, money supply and interest rates for greater commerce in your cities. Project effect: Allows your maximum commerce rate in cities to reach 115% (or 130% if stacked with the International Trade Center). Resource cost: 2,500 2,500 5,000 Cash cost: $45,000,000 (same as International Trade Center) Note: To have this implemented it will be necessary to increase the improvement limit of Supermarkets from 5 to 6 per city so you actually have enough improvements to boost your commerce rate that high.

The same basic rules apply, in both a socialist and capitalist system there is the basic motivation to provide for provide for yourself and your family. But in a capitalist system the psychological motivation is directed at the individual - that a worker can join the capitalist and get rich - but even if we are to assume that 10-15% of the population are the propertied class (varies from country to country) then chances are they will not join them as expansion of the capitalist class would mean lowering it's living standards to accommodate new members (although exceptions always exist). But in a socialist system the motivation is for all people to work to increase the living standards of everyone, gradually and equally, which will take a lot longer.

1. Never assume that a human being will do anything voluntarily. Even if they do then who is to say they might not change their mind tomorrow? Force is the only universal language humans understand. 2. Money must be directly tied to production. Each worker must be paid not according to the time they have worked, but at a fixed piece-rate for each unit produced or action performed. We must work smarter, not just harder. 3. It is better to overfill a quota than to only merely it. A surplus is always preferable to a quota, if raw financial coercion can make a worker meet their quota, then psychological motivation can produce a surplus. Quote of the Day: "Voluntarism is not necessary to run a state, a state can survive on the foundation of force alone, but volunteerism and psychological motivation can make a state even stronger, so it is a good thing to have - but not to rely on."

Sounds a bit too complicated, that said I wouldn't mind Artillery, which have the ability to attack cities like Missiles, or engage in battles backing up ground troops and tanks.

Kinda reminds me of Heroes of Might & Magic 3 (the town view)

Well, the thing is those kind of relations are outside the gameplay mechanics, yes the game recognizes alliances and integrates them into the mechanics, but actual relations between alliance come down to the people behind the keyboard, there's no "simulated" diplomacy for example like many strategy games do. Most players/nations are not leaders of alliances or government members/diplomats, so most nations will thus never really take part in this "politics" thing, they'll just sit comfy in an alliance and it's leaders will have all the power. I guess it comes down to whether you want a game where alliances are the real "nations" and the actual nations are more like "citizens" or subjects who have no real power individually but make up alliances - or you want a game which actually simulates controlling a nation (this isn't a realism argument it's a focus argument). As in, even putting aside the RP stuff, are we "players" or are we "nations". What ruined (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in my honest opinion was that it became Cyberalliances or Cyberblocs, not Cybernations. I mean in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (well in this game too) if you aren't a member of an alliance you'll probably be destroyed, and even most alliances still treat members like "players" and not as if they were ~independent states~. In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) it became such that anyone could be completely destroyed without reason, I mean in the ~real world~ would a nation be able to declare war on everyone they see and not have negative consequences. At this stage the negative consequences are not in the mechanics of the game, it's just that raiders or rogues will get crushed by alliances or whatever. But that makes the problem worse, and makes alliances more all-powerful. I guess this is the distinction between IC and OOC, but I don't think it would hurt to add some features to the game where the average nation can participate in global politics and diplomacy IN THE GAME with other nations, without having to become a leader in an alliance and dedicate a lot of time to some off-site board/IRC. Even say being able to set up Embassies in foreign nations would be neat, what they would do I have no idea but I don't think it would hurt. Anyway soz for the rant. I just think (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has some valuable lessons of the mistakes which made the game utterly stagnant and boring. EDIT: I played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) when it was a new game, this was actually when I was still in high-school but from memory it was very fun because alliances weren't very powerful, raiders were abound, it was chaotic and anyone could create a nation and become a world power. It was very much like P&W is right now. The decline of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) came when the Treaty-web/Alliance/Blocs structure became completely established and "nations" on their own became irrelevant.

Thank goodness, I'm sure someone would of already taken Stalingrad if they were unique.

I hate how Cata changed (or ruined really) so many old zones, Darkshore was pretty horrible as I remember, as was Feralas, and the Tauren place that got completely flooded, I don't think I can express the rage I felt when I saw what they did to that place. It is a shame because new players will now never experience many early zones how they originally were, unless they play on a private server of previous versions/expansions. Adding new areas is cool, but changing old stuff permanently is wrong in a persistent MMO.

But is being part of an alliance ever an absolute guarantee of safety?

Well funny that, I just purchased Uranium from you. Well, enjoy comrade.

Don't suppose there's anyone out there who wants to sell me Uranium at a sane price? In return I will buy in a large (bulk) quantity.

But is there a reason for the sudden rise to the 2000~ ppu? I don't think there's a nuclear war going on right?

I don't suppose the price of Uranium is going to drop at all in the near future.

Well that's fine too, I just mean that the idea of a (very very small) chance of a meltdown completely out of the blue sounds terrible, it would be better if a meltdown was linked to the plant being blown up in war. I mean just imagine checking your nation only to find out your city's nuke plant has melted down for no apparent reason.

Oh god no, maybe instead of that if your Nuclear plant gets blown up you suffer a nuclear explosion in your city?

I'm not being completely serious, I just like dropping ideas, feel free to say they suck or whatever.

What about colonies/foreign investments on different continents? So a European country could buy a Uranium mine in Africa or an Oil Well in the Middle-East.

Very interesting.