Matthew Colebourne

There have been comments in this thread that just stun me. Are you going to dismiss a candidate because he calls himself a Democratic Socialist? Really? Without even looking at his policies or plans, you're going to just stick your head in the dirt and pretend he doesn't exist. There is no excuse for that. That's just plain stupid. I am not even saying you should support him. I am just saying that it's incredibly foolish to dismiss people out of hand, no matter what they call themselves. If you have the time to watch funny cat videos on Youtube, surely you have the time to spend a minute looking at what somebody stands for. So far, I haven't heard many points being raised against Bernie's policies & plans. And the only one that has been raised was the one about higher taxes. Yes, the super-rich will have to start paying their fair share instead of thriving off the back of hard-working Americans. I am European myself, and if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that Americans are some of the most hard-working people there are. And yet, how many of you really feel that wealth? Do you feel, when you wake up, that you are literally living in the wealthiest country in the history of mankind? Well, do you? You most likely don't. Is it really that hard to admit that a country that's good for all, would be a much more pleasant country to live in than a country that's good for a few privileged people? What strikes me as even more ironic is that often (not always, but often) right-leaning people are hugely distrustful of the government. Yet it was the government who kept telling you during the Cold War that communism was bad. How comes you believe them there when pretty much everything else is a giant conspiracy? Is socialism a perfect system? No it's not. But we've tried capitalism. It breaks time and again. It's a system that works for a few. It's a system that thinks every person a predictable machine who will make cold, rational economic choices. Capitalism has brought The West a great many good things, but you'd have to be profoundly hard-headed to not at least admit that it is an unstable system, spiraling out of control. Sometimes, yes, you have to think from an "I" perspective. But when it comes to tackling issues that affect all of us, isn't it wiser to start thinking from a "we" perspective? Do you think the bankers, during the crash, where thinking from a "we" perspective or an "I" perspective? The answer should be obvious. There is a time and place for the "I" perspective. There is such a thing as taking responsibility, being disciplined, self-improvement, etc. But the matter of the fact is that you're not alone in this world. You affect people, and others affect you. You can try to hide or steer around it, but it won't work. Your live is only marginally dependent on your own good choices and largely influenced by other people, some of whom you won't even ever see. I could keep going for ages, there are so many things I would like to adress, but I'll keep it at this for now. I am open to honest and fair debate, but I am not interested in an insult party.

Desolum, Europe Strength +200 Cost: $2,000,000

So instead of adding more unit types, why not take the classical RTS concept of unit experience? As in: units that have fought in and won a war will become more effective in the next war. Now, obviously you can't keep track of 50,000 (or more) unit's individual experience points. However, perhaps soldiers could be altered to only be available in battalions/chunks of 500 or a 1000 men. An even easier way to account for battle experience and adding a little depth is to just give a division wide bonus. Suppose I achieve three immense triumphs with my ground forces in a war: maybe I get a +5% offensive bonus for X turns that applies to all my ground troops? As much as I like the war system now, it's a bit lacking in depth. I'd be against adding more units as more units = more complexity and more complexity != more depth. Still, having your previous war experiences have some positive (or negative) effect on your war effectiveness might make wars that much more dynamic, strategic, and interesting. Thoughts?

6.5% is fine with me

Nation Name: Desolum Alliance Name: Cornerstone Credit References: (Anyone who can vouch for your reliability): None. Guarantor(s): None, though I could the Alliance bank to be my guarantor if this is deemed necessary. Daily After-Cost Revenue: $533K Did Someone Refer You To Us? If so, Who: No referral. Amount you would like to borrow: $5,000,000 (5 million) What Is Your Investment Plan: Purchase 6th city (cost $4,025,000) and set up basic infrastructure there (remainder). I, President Matthew Colebourne of Desolum, agree to the following if I choose to accept a loan from the Cirrus Bank: -Pay all interest associated -Repay the principal -Act in good faith to repay all my debts and refrain from misrepresenting my intentions or history. I also give the Cirrus Bank, or whoever may hold my debt in the future, the right to reclaim my debt through the use of force. I agree to inform any alliance I may join while holding this debt of this arrangement. Additional remark: will the Cirrus bank notify me of the exact amounts (including interest) I'll need to pay every 4 days? I assume I'll receive PMs telling me how much I need to pay in interest every period?

-snip- no longer applicable.

Ah sorry! I've accepted your offer

Desolum would like to join FOFA and compete with other nations in a friendly manner! Country name: Desolum Upgrades Costs Registration Fee$20,000 50->60$4,500 60->70$10,000 70->80$20,000 80->90$40,000 90->100$80,000 100->110$200,000 Total Costs: $374,500 Cities: 5 Stadiums: 10

It was a beautiful read. o/ Terminus Est!

/o Cornerstone! Look again, friend