rapmanej

quote makes the point of the thread. nicely done. If you really "want to go" , then why are you in the pansy alliance?

how? neutrals screw this game up. It's called Politics and war. None of this pansy crap. And here we have fake-neutrals. Roll them all on principle.

Stop using the term "bullying" in reference to an online game. It demeans actual bullying. To the rest of you: This is what you get when you allow neutrals in the game, especially fake neutrals like the current incarnation of the GPA.

I also fail to see why this necessitated a forum topic.

Please don't tell me you're playing the "they're pieces of garbage, but don't worry, we're pieces of garbage too" line.

Because at the end of the day, the variables in nation simulators are people. And people will be people, always. This goes without saying, but the end result of this OP in any nation simulator is the same - less respect for the alliance in question.

I was referring to the political landscape. Anyone who has any history in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) during the bipolar war knows exactly what I'm talking about.

But they should. In these types of games, complete with fast-moving events, IRC/Skype/Teamspeak remains the overall best tool for a fast-paced back and forth conversation. I couldn't imagine negotiating surrender terms through PMs (you could, but you would waste a lot of time).

I'm back, I'll respond to both of your posts so I don't have to double post. "2. ESA has to much power to protect them and our ranks are solid above newbie." what a ridiculous assertion. I get war coverage, however if you, by your claim, have "too much power", then you should be able to fund your lower tier to fight. Either you are lying, or you have no idea how to fight a tiered war. Everything else you posted was inane and not worthy of a response.

quoting this for posterity. I'll respond when I have time, but my first thought is that you're getting close to the edge with the backpedeling.

because I was agreeing with your point and adding to it.

really it's politics 101. You should never, in a political simulator, show your weakness on the OWF. Let me translate to you what this means to other would-be raiders. 1. ESA has raid-able targets 2. ESA doesn't have the power to defend them, and generally lacks alliance fortitude 3. Let's raid ESA 4. Profit. At best, this should have been handled between you and your bloc mates in the privacy of back-room IRC channels, however you have decided to show your weakness and your ass on the forums. Wrong move.

how boring. And how destructive to the game. People need to realize that all neutrals offer is a way to screw these games up.

When are you going to stop being hippies?

I can't believe I have to say this: raiding is not bullying. If you can't handle your stuff then you need to turn the game off.

yep. Even at my paltry high 100s score, war expenses can grow steep, so I can't imagine how much it would cost in the 800-1000 score. This should be obvious: For treasures to be effective in encouraging conflict, the bonuses associated with having treasures should at the very least be greater than the cost to obtain them through war. benefit of treasures >= the cost of war to obtain (preferably greater). If this requires a 50% bonus, then so be it. Anything less than the above equation is a simple waste of time. P.S. I still want to see a useful system be implemented, because all neutrals need to be rooted out.

After reading your posts in this thread, I'll come out and just say it. If we have neutrals, every damn one of us should roll them. Neutrals offer nothing but stagnation and fake moralism into these games.

yeah not a fan. Missiles are already limited by turns, and it should be up to the individual nation how to use those turns. Creating an arbitrary limit will simply result in a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-like situation where all wars result in 2 cruise missile attacks.

After seeing the city cost formula, I'm much more relaxed. Thanks to all who commented in this thread, especially Michael Malone for providing the numbers. Most of my fears came from the linear cost of PN cities, so it's good to see more of an exponential cost structure here. I still hope that Sheepy will eventually code something as a contingency plan, just in case it is needed at a later date.

because this isn't RL. Hate to be so blunt about it, but trying to make the game about RL will not end well. With the exception of the 2 nuclear attacks on Japan, IRL nations have never used nuclear weapons. Should they be stopped too?

Obviously any aid cap would have to make changes to trading, and the elimination of sweetheart deals.

If you consider laughing my ass off to be "crying" then sure. I thought it was funny. I also fail to see how the community I have been a member of for the last 4.5 years could "poach" me.

536 million for the infra, plus the extra cost for improvements and land.

If you want to take an owf post as a threat, ok then