Sir Scarfalot

Naw Remember that the PB gives you a 10% buying bonus, which is indeed less than the military purchasing benefit you get from a new city prior to c11... however, that benefit happens at a cost of 50 score as opposed to 100 plus infra. Even before cities became way overpriced in score terms, there were indeed benefits to be gained for super low score raiders, even if it was an unusual approach; now it's pretty much indispensable due to score inflation.

Sure, sure, but right now it's literally just a council of Prefontaine. How is the status quo any better?

Because that makes them just plain resources, and not a source of conflict

Hrm... I mean, why wouldn't CotL just offer to pay the safekeeping back in deposits? Leaking is no good, sure, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), there hadn't been any leaks from Odin prior to this thread. Possibly not even then? So CotL is holding Odin responsible for something that they knew was purely Lory's actions? Or are they holding the entirety of NP's member base responsible for the actions of a single member? If there's further context, I'd be most interested in hearing it, otherwise it looks like (prior to this thread at least) that CotL straight robbed one of their old members without reasonable cause. Now that the thread is public of course, that rubicon has been clearly crossed and the justification for expecting a return has gone up in smoke, but it's still concerning to see the precedent that this sets: tl;dr: CotL confiscating their own members' safekeeping on a false pretense? (Once the thread happened, of course, the crime's been done and ironically the confiscation becomes retroactively justified, so gg on that) Am I wrong here? I'd be perfectly willing to admit to it if I am.

Ayyy, fair enough; tbh I hadn't known about red or orange grass myself until I'd looked it up.

It could. Thing is, there's really no problem with that, is there? Besides, there's a LOT more small nations than large ones. If a substantial enough coalition of micros were willing to fight e$ for it, then they could potentially take and hold a sizeable amount of green territory. Which would destroy the benefits of green, forcing T$ to abandon it and instead monopolize a new color. Thus rendering the whole exercise irrelevant for anything but aesthetics. Which isn't a bad reason for war, when it comes right down to it :3

A. Bullying is literally (a synonym for) the name of the game B. "Just a color", multiplied across an entire bloc, is a very substantial economic force. The damage is more than I'd care to calculate, but just to put it into perspective: going to war and pushing CK to the beige bloc (with a better bonus, by the way) is actually less economically damaging over time. That's why T$ takes green as seriously as it does; anyone goes onto it without permission and they are literally stealing millions straight from our monopoly. Hate us for it if you must, but... y'know. Is ours.

Blue: Yellow: Red: There's more, of course, like orange and purple, but you get the idea: not all grass is green, yo.

thatsthejoke.jpg

At least it'd actually be funding a worthy cause in that case

Actually, while that might well be the case there, the issue has indeed been tested on the main server and GC does indeed prevent full plane use.

Aren't both of those just constitutional monarchies? ...And very weird?

It seems that air superiority doesn't actually count when determining how many planes are killed by a ground battle tank raid? As in, if you get ground attacked by 2500 tanks, you lose 18 aircraft whether or not you have air superiority applied? Please fix this.

See, this is one of those times where it's helpful to remember this truth: It is impossible to scam an honest person. This is why Shifty will never get scammed

None of these are good things, and even less of them are funny.