Aisha Greyjoy

I like ONE of your ideas associated with alliance warfare. Maybe because I already suggested it once before. War range is expanded (maybe to +100%/-33%)

This is essentially what our bank does. As the top member of my alliance, I get jack shit little benefit from our Bank, despite paying more in taxes then anyone else. What I do get is a Bank that funnels my tax revenue down to pathetic third world shitholes our newer member nations so they can be useful to the alliance.. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I agree with Grillick. Your alliance leadership can better tailor how the bank spends it money to address bracketing issues. Tax rates themselves are unlikely to have significant impact on growth for nations, unless they are very high, which will stagnate growth, obviously. Its how the Bank spends the money that has growth impact.

This is an opportunity for training and morale building.

I thought that 2nd quarter play with 6 seconds on the clock was super daring and way too risky, even if it did work out for them that time.

Women in Burquas? No. Women in school? Yes. Safe to walk home at night? Yes. Electricity? Yes. Terrorists running the country? No. Saddam's Iraq was a paradise compared to the new Iraq. Mind you, if you spouted crap about Sharia Law, he'd make you watch your wife and daughters raped before sending you to prison for 50 years.

I agree 100%. Powerful dictators can keep islamists in check. Baath stands for Arab Secular Nationalism. Its very ideology was against any sort of religious state. That said, Baathist Iraq was also a powerful check against Iran. Now we've enabled the terrorists and Iran, so good going Team USA.

With diminishing returns on infra/cities, at some point, the best way to make money is to do NOTHING. No. I whole-heartedly oppose interest on cash. Let the banks manage that via lending and saving.

Welcome

I say its bad. Having a military isn't bad. Using it isn't bad. Using it aggressively to defend or promote interests does seem bad. So, bad.

A rogue hit you. So what. Blow him up and move on. That's life in these worlds.

Nice work! Thank you.

I choose not to boycott GPA. Maybe later. I think what we have in GPA is a rogue clicque that goes against what most GPA'ers stand for. I trust GPA to sort out their own internal matters. And if they get aggressive with SK, then its a different story. I am not the neutrality police. i don't blockade UPN for not being neutral, why blockade GPA?

I recovered fine from the war. I was on the winning side. It would have been a lot harder if I was in UPN, for example. Too hard I think.

Getting an enhanced html5 mobile interface that can be packaged as an app on the app stores(android, iphone) and uses the same back-end databases will help the game grow.

Rebuilding up to an infra level you already reached should cost 1/2 the normal amount. Realism: Building a highway is expensive. Rebuilding a highway is less expensive. Game Balance: Complaints about war being too tough to recover from. Losing half your infra isn't as bad when its cheaper to rebuild. It doesn't allow anyone to get ahead, but it does allow people to recover from war more quickly. Implications: Wars will happen more often and cause less butthurt. Methodology: Track the peak infra level of each city. Anytime you are more then 100 infra from your peak level, the cost is one half. This prevents "lose 1 infra to get half off on the other 99".

Being at war already is a huge expense, as you use munitions, gas, and lose soldiers and tanks who need replacement. You lose the benefit of the improvements that could have helped your economy as you stock up on factories and barracks, etc. Making each unit cost more in addition makes war even more expensive. Others are pointing out in another thread that war is too costly. Removing the added cost for being "at war" of higher unit maintainance would be one small step in the direction of improving that problem. Edit: Small steps are best!

500k of unneeded mil expenses = 40m in 80 days.

Win is a term that has different meanings for different people.

Good luck Rose! Lots of changes in the air. Try to keep your footing firm. Stability has value.

In b4 GPA civil war!

Enjoy your wars everyone! I think a well-prepared rogue can probably do a lot of damage on the way down.

I have 7 cities at 1200 infra, using nuclear power. At 1.2 per 1k, I could be using 8.4*1.2 = 10.08 I actually use 16.8. An alternate explanation, offered above, is that 7 1k cities would use 8.4, and 7 1001 cities would use 16.8. That exactly fits my situation. We assumed(I did too) that nuclear power scaled downward, that 1100 is 10% more uranium use then 1000. In fact, the first 1000 uses 1.2, and anything between 1000.01 and 2000 uses 2.4. Grillick's explanation is correct.

OOC: The a tag in the css takes over in this case. Drop the URL's and the styling will come back. Uh, congratz?

I for one am glad to see GPA take this approach. Is it a little hypocritical? Yes, but what is the alternative? That they never get to engage in war because they've grown too far past everyone from not engaging in war? And GPA is ready for an attack. They have been for a very long time.

It worked for me when I used it last month to get Missile Project.