Caecus

Against soldiers, tanks, and aircraft. The max damage is equivalent to one building per, but nobody can get up to max damage, since nobody has enough spies for max damage. Spies are only used to kill nukes at this point, making spying more or less irrelevant for anyone below 1500 NS. Soldier damage isn't worth it at Q&D. So is tanks. lol @ aircraft damage. Even ships aren't worth spying if they have spies to defend. And no, I wouldn't spy someone from 50 spies to just kill some missiles. Noticed this during the test server. Spies don't do crap, makes you wonder if they are worth using outside of "gathering intelligence."

But the equivalent amount of tanks is more expensive than the same monetary amount of soldiers.

Well, only one way to find out if this works. TO THE TEST SERVER! Make me op af.

I don't think it's a bad idea. Adapt or die, that's how the world works and that's how this game is going to do as well. This also gives specialization to the nation, as well as demanding more coordination between nations. Way I see it, it could be nice. Fix spies next plz. Edit: Fat airforce ftw Edit: Tanks are useless if this gets through, just via mechanics of war. My guess for the future ratio is 8 Barracks, 7 Airforce bases. It's alright, I don't use tanks anyway.

Where is the test server?

How do you sign up for test server?

Probably also good for all your dirty Saturday night horn-dog fantasy nuke simulations.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that there is something inherently violent about Islam just by looking at their scriptures. But the jihads at the end of the 12th century and subsequent ruling of their dynasties were more political reasons rather than religiously motivated conquest. The Ten Commandments say "thou shall not kill," and even taking the word in the original Hebrew (having the connotation of "murder" vs. "kill"), you would imagine that Christians only commit acts of violence in self-defense. Religion is a conduit for political and social justification of otherwise morally questionable policies. "God didn't create !@#$s the same as the rest of us," or "The Quran tells us that women should not be equal to men" or even "They believe in a false god, so we are morally obligated to send them to meet Him." To add another layer of complexity, there is even more underlying causes for their political and social extremism. Saudi Arabia's religious extremism extends from an era of Islamic puritanism, which underlying cause dates back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the socio-economic stress of Westernization and the humiliating defeats inflicted by England, Russia, and France.

This is a historical cause. Religious extremism doesn't just pop up in the happiest places on Earth. Extremism appears when there are systemic, inherent socio-economic problems that give rise to a desperate and extreme mentality. Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent balance of power era during the Cold War, Arab nationalism is increasingly hindered. The division of authority and an increasing difference between the wealthy oil barons and their associates and the rest of the population continued to stress the socio-religious tensions within the Middle East. This isn't just Iraq, this isn't just Iran either. This is what happens when a foreign power arbitrarily carves up a large landmass the size and population of the United States without addressing inherent leadership and social problems. Fact of the matter is, extremism isn't unique to Islam. It isn't unique to any religion. It's not unique to any race or culture either. It isn't even unique to religion. The Reconstruction South had multiple terror attacks, multiple killings and fire bombings. I'll even bet that the Civil Right era has more deaths per year than terror attacks in the West. The big misconception today is that extremism happens because you are associated with a certain ideology. Yes, that does contribute, but there are underlying reasons. People turn to extremism and their ideologues because they feel powerless. When the bank forecloses your house, your wife leaves you, your children hate you, and you got fired from your job, blowing up the very bank that foreclosed your house is your way of getting back at the world. At this point, blaming the Allies at the Paris Peace conference, or blaming the US and Russia for Soviet era covert social dissension, or even blaming the US in 2003 for Iraq is, at this point, counter productive. Yes, I blame them. And I will forever have a very delicate and precise string of swear words I would like to scream at Bush for doing something so bloody stupid. But that's in the past, and you can study as much history and still not change a damn thing now. What we should do now is focus on how to solve extremism. We need to recognize that there are people out there, within the very areas who are fighting against fundamentalism. They tend to be people who try to fight disorder and terror by becoming part of the system of order and justice. Every few months, we hear about an Afghan prosecutor who was killed in a terror attack. We are never given their names, nor their stories, and nor do we ever seem to care. Media has focused on the sensationalism, where they paint a picture where all Muslims are extremists, and all extremists are Muslims. This isn't right, and by having this mentality, we become ever more detached from the problems of the Middle East. By being desensitized, we eventually start to think that the only way to solve problems is to bomb everyone and everything.

I am not disagreeing here. Purely from the perspective of modern warfare, it is obvious that the North would have won. I meant to add an "e" at the end of Moral. lol. whoops. The cause of the north was entirely based on keeping the Union together. Abolition was when the war was almost won, and even then, abolition was considered politically extreme. What I mean in terms of morale is tightly related to the military objectives. The objective of the north had to be conquest, meaning the North had to invade, control, and force the South to return to the Union. The objective of the south is the creation of a separate peace, to force the north to recognize the lost cause of trying to pull the south back into the union by defeating the union militarily on their own lands. The difference between the two is a political ideology vs. defending their own homeland. While people like hearing freedom and security and union, when you put in your population to the meat grinder for that cause, even the most stoic have to ask themselves if it is worth it. In contrast, when you see union soldiers coming over the hill and want to take your lands and property, fighting for your livelihood is a stronger cause. This is speculation on my part, but I would argue that the British might have had stronger aid to the south if it looked like the South was winning. These battles are turning points because these battles occur at critical logistic junctions which command the surrounding area. With the exception of Antietam, Gettsyburg, and most of Lee's travels north, all of these battles are turning points because it allows the union to control certain areas during their conquest. If they lost the battle, that wouldn't matter. They would have to retry again until they achieved victory. The siege of Vicksburg was a siege because the union had to control that location in order to progress with the conquest. The south defends, the north invades. This is speculation, but I could see that it could be true. I highly doubt that the south would have reconsidered its stance on slavery though, not without union troops stationed there during the Reconstruction period. My point is, the north had a lot of advantages towards winning a war of attrition. The larger population, the industries, logistics, stronger economy. Anyone today, with full experience in modern war, can say that in 20/20 hindsight the Union would have won and that victory was inevitable. My argument is that at the beginning of the war, there was the entire possibility that the South could have won, and there was the entire possibility that the North could have just given up bringing the south back. My argument is that Lincoln, by force of character and ability, was the very force that kept the Union force to continue the war to return the South back to the Union.

I would agree with the statement that cotton elsewhere, particularly from Ali's Egypt, sealed the economic fate of the South. But the military objectives and civilian moral for each side did indeed favor the South. The war in the North never had overwhelming popular support, and as the war ground on and the stress of the war found itself into daily activities, the North had to be held together by a very incredible person to not conclude a separate peace, which was the objective of the Confederate South.

There is a strict difference between "Foreign support" and recognition of state. The North didn't have "All foreign support." They had all foreign neutrality. If the South had won a couple more battles when Lee adventured North, there was the entire possibility that England would support Southern independence and international recognition. Naturally, there are other factors which also played a role (Europe was anti-slavery, they were distracted in Poland and Denmark, and the US is on the other side of the world). But the British were generally favorable to the Southern cause. Edit: enough to sell them a state-of-the-art warship which wrecked havoc on Northern shipping and squished the standard Union gunboat.

Yeah, but again, we are really thinking of this as total war, rather than the norm for warfare before. Up until the Civil War, all wars were a couple of battles where defeating field armies forced surrender. And there are a lot of battles where the Union troops outnumbered the Confederacy 2 to 1 and still lost. 1st Battle of Manassess Junction is a perfect example of what people were expecting the war to be like. There are also a variety of other reasons why people thought the South could have won. 1. British support 2. Moral of causes 3. Stronger international economic ties

The South had a long-standing history of military tradition. The best generals, officers, and soldiers were from the south. The south was naturally militarized. Most of the north never seen a rifle in their life up until the war. The only reason why the railroad and telegraphs and factories actually played a part was because the Civil War was the first real instance of modern warfare, where conscription, industrial power, and destruction of civilian infrastructure were the goals of wars, not just to do battle and force a surrender.

Main point: Primativism is a terrible idea now. GG

A return to a realist international (interstellar now) paradigm.

I think no. They made a bet that one day it would solve itself and not implode the country.

Avoiding 20/.20 hindsight, I would have bet on the South to win the American Civil War. It's only because of Lincoln and his titanic personality that won the Civil War.

It's like you are surprised that America is aggressive. The US has a long standing history of using military force. Even American culture is like that, though we don't really think of it as militarism or aggression. Cowboys versus Indians, for example. I would, however, disagree that the US is exceptionally aggressive, or more aggressive for its time. The United States always had a security dilemma, same with the Soviet Union. Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, the Afghanistan invasion, supporting of bloody military coups to install favorable governments in nearby countries, that's not something unique only to the US. The only instance of exceptional aggression was with the Saddam regime, and even then, I would just call that being stupid. What the Bush administration should have done is made Saddam look at the imminent danger, make him pay for the troops out on the field, and then send our troops back home without a fuss. Even dictators tend to be more willing to talk when threatened with complete and utter annihilation.

My opinion is no.

Disagree. American hegemoney (and its military form) is the only thing keeping us from reverting back to a realist paradigm of interstate anarchy. For those of you unfamiliar with Realism in international relations, here is the wiki summery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) I do, however, think that the United States is going about it all wrong though. While our love for democracies partially stems from the fact that democracies are less likely to go to war against other democracies and thus promoting world stability, invading Iraq and removing the Saddam dictatorship without having a good plan (two dumb!@#$s called Bush and Cheney) to replace the regime was just plain stupid. Since the United States entered the world stage after the Second World War, the number of deaths directly related to war has dropped significantly, and will continue to remain at an all-time low as long as the US maintains hegemoney. Yes, I am including Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, Korea, first and second gulf wars, all those nasty civil wars in Latin America, and Africa.

A serious and genuine return to primativism would result in a significant, if not complete, drop in agricultural activity. Last time I checked, the average person could go without food for 30 days (with water) before expiring. A return to primativism IS mass extinction.

Wait, wtf? Aren't we getting a bit off track here? This is a forum post about shaming the Israel's prime minister for being stupid. That being said, Netenyahu is stupid.

Marxist ideology is a process, according to Leninism, where the proletariat becomes the ruling class first, and then subsequently eliminating all other social classes so that there is only one social class remaining: the working class. You are looking at an end goal that even Marx admits will take a very long time and several revolutions to mature. In the interim, there is a class-based society in which the proletariat remains a dictatorship. Nobody ever got past Leninism, and I don't imagine anyone will now. So the only communism that is even remotely realistic is Leninism, which should not be confused with Soviet communism. That being said, if we purely look at the ideal structure of the inherent Islamic intellectualism from itjihad, you would find a very similar political structure. And yes, I would argue that the Calph political system under the Abbasid is very similar to the structure of Soviet Communism.

Islam is an aristocratic (arete, meaning "best man") theocracy, based along the lines of Plato's Republic, except not a philosopher class ruling, but the people most versed in the Quoran. Communism likewise an aristocracy, where the best man is the landless, working class man. I don't particularly know why, but people tend to relate communism with anarchism. Putting ideological differences aside, the ruling structure of communism should be along the same lines as Islam. After all, both Islam and Marxism derive roots from Plato's Republic. Again, Marxist ideology aside and looking strictly at communalism, Shari'ah law is actually quite flexible, and, while I profess to not know the Quoran very well, communalism should not be contradictory against the principles of Islamic faith. Itjihad has been closed, however, for several hundred years now, and there is very little of the Islamic scholarly traditions which we saw before the Ottoman Caliph. Combined with the disorganized and chaotic Middle East, it can give the impression that communalism is forever incompatible with Shari'ah law.