Phaik

I don't know if I pass for mid tier or not. I currently sit with a score of 864 and an in the top 400 nations. Is this mid tier or bottom tier? Because if I have 50 spies and try to run an op against someone else with 50 spies, it would take two days' worth of revenue just to fund one mission. That's a lot of money for someone like me. So, seeing the cost of those missions, I will almost never use my spies to attack upward. Cost of ops like that may not be such a big deal to nations 2-3 times my size, but to me it's huge.

I invite you to partake in a little experiment. Ready? Stand up. Just stand there for as long as you can. I bet you can stand for quite a while. Over a short period of time, your position is quite sustainable. In the long run, not so much. Your muscles will tire and give out. The workers in the capitalist society are the muscles. As far as choosing to work. I work in a factory that produces propane tanks. I do not voluntarily choose to work there because I love propane tanks. I work there to put a roof over my head and food on the table. If I had a choice in what job I did, an actual choice where getting paid wasn't a factor, I'd work as a special effects technician in Hollywood. What job would you do if pay wasnt a factor? Is it the same job you do now?

Count me in on the Bernie Sanders train. I've liked what he says for a long time and I'm glad he's finally running. On the Republican side, it really is a clown car and The Donald really is driving it. I think as some of the others bow out and start throwing their support behind other candidates, Trump will slip down the polls. But until then, I can't wait for the debates! #FeelTheBern

Well, now we know who watches the Watchmen!

That's the very same spot I stopped at. Will, you're assuming 0 growth over two months time when everyone who's kept half an eye on the situation knows better.

Country: Phaiklandia Cities: 7 Upgrades: Strength +100 (100=>200) Total: 1,000,000 Is that right?

From what I understand, that is the way it works. If they go to vacation mode after the war starts, you can still attack them. They cannot attack back nor can any new wars be declared, but you are able to attack.

May I suggest a more political approach to the dev group? Sheepy/the devs knock around their ideas, hammer out what they deem to be reasonable changes, then present the change to the masses. The masses have exactly 48 hours to respond, after which that thread is locked, the devs and sheepy again discuss anything they agree or disagree with from the masses, and then Sheepy makes his final decision. PMs can be used after the 48 hours if clarification is needed. Nobody is blindsided by upcoming changes and they get a chance to say their piece before final decisions are made. And, of course, Sheepy has the right to ignore everything said and implement whatever he wants, but this way still provides some warning. The devs get to have their focused discussions and the masses get some say. It's the best compromise I see (not that one was asked for), and we can keep these suggestion boards open. Anyway, my .02

Where is this information?

How is this a level playing field? If nation A with 20k infra and 50 spies decides nation B with 10k infra and 50 spies shouldn't have missiles, it's going to be almost nothing (from a cost per mission standpoint) for nation A to take out all of nation B's spies and missiles. However, nation B (from a cost per mission standpoint) can't really retaliate. Nation B's spies are merely a defensive measure at that point and not a very good one with less than 30% chance of success. 3M per mission is 2+ days of revenue around 10k infra. I don't know what percentage of daily revenue 3M is for 20k infra. And the incentive for larger nations to do this to smaller nations becomes greater when the smaller nation is getting their very first nuke.

Meh, not really. They are both accepted spellings for the same definition. However, advisor is typically an official position while adviser is usually a friendly person giving advice. That's my take, anyway.

I was buying some bauxite. I had on hand 2.63 or some decimal close to that but definitely less than three. I bought 21 bauxite off the market, but now I have an even 24 total bauxite. Where did the extra fraction come from?

Thanks

Was there another server hiccup? I haven't received my revenue for the 16:00 turn.

I haven't tried alliance trades, but I think it's only affecting personal trades.

I and two of my alliance mates have had recurring resource for resource trades for a couple weeks. This morning we seem to be unable to complete these trades. The offers were made with no problem. And a global offer was completed without issue. Is there an issue with moneyless trades? When I try to buy, I get: An unexpected error has occurred. Please go back to the trade screen, refresh the screen, and try again. I thought at first it might be they didn't have enough on hand to complete the trade, but since they haven't accepted my trade, and I know I have enough, I expect they are receiving the same error. Thanks. Oh, and following the instructions and refreshing the trade screen didn't help.

Grats Warpool!

He's suggesting that nation's buy credits and turn them in to have Sheepy or a mod investigate a player that is suspected of cheating. He's not suggesting that Sheepy pay the players to investigate other nations.

Not sure where to put this, but I think here is fine. After successfully creating a trade offer, the the screen gives two link options: the first one says go back to the "trade screen", the second one just says "go back." However, both links go to the same place, your trade screen. It would save a couple clicks for people if the "go back" link went to the "create trade" screen instead, I think.

That's not what he did here. Previously, you could have had a 99% success rate on a kill spies mission and have a successful op, but still kill 0 spies. That's not successful, even if you don't get caught. All Sheepy has done is ensure that if you have a successful op, you kill at least one spy instead of at least 0 spies.

I've noticed this as well.

Can you explain the bolded section a little more? The way I read it, this treaty forcibly prevents one party from defending a mdp third party if the other party attacks said third party. Is that right?

My alliance mate was trying to sell me a resource. He accidentally hit buy instead of sell. Realising his mistake, he cancelled that trade and re-sent it properly. There was no problem with the trade itself. However, in my notification screen, when he cancelled his trade, the notification I received stated that he cancelled a trade offer I had sent. That greatly confused me. Just thought you may want to look into that. Thanks.

I almost made a crass and rude joke. I thought better of it.