Jump to content

elsuper

Members
  • Content Count

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

144 Excellent

1 Follower

About elsuper

  • Rank
    Hedonism Bot

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Leader Name
    ElSuper
  • Nation Name
    Finisterre
  • Nation ID
    14301
  • Alliance Name
    Cornerstone
  1. Exactly; and sometimes that life coincides with server update.
  2. What if 1/12 of recruitment capacity updated every turn, stacking up to the current daily limit, as opposed to all of it once per day ? There is currently some advantage to focusing replenishment and attacks at server-midnight; this would provide a bit more scheduling flexibility to players without having to worry about missing out on that arbitrary advantage, and also reduce server strain at that time. This could obviously not apply to missiles and nukes.
  3. There are 2 other things that would need to be changed for this to work as intended: 1.) Spies would have to not contribute to score (they're negligible right now, so I don't see this as a big deal). 2.) The number of defending spies can be somewhat inferred from the odds of a successful attack. You'd need to make spy success odds opaque as well if you really wanted to have no idea how many spies someone has.
  4. IMO, it's important to remember that the New Testament was written when Christianity was an underground, minority movement. All of its commands refer to how the body of believers should behave toward one another, not how they should exercise dominion over non-believers in their society, one way or the other. This forms neither a solid basis for moralistic theocracy, nor for religiously-influenced state socialism. The New Testament simply does not tell Christians how a nation should be governed, because the idea of Christians governing a nation was a pipe dream at that time. As far as the Old Testament goes, there are a great many laws and regulations, which Paul affirmed as right yet argued that Jesus abolished them as requirements (the book of Romans is a good resource on this, especially chapters 7-9, IIRC). These laws were specific to the ancient nation of Israel and its covenant with God, and legally generalizable neither to the other societies of that time nor to subsequent or present societies. There are moral lessons to be drawn from them, but one must be very, very careful to draw the correct lessons from context. This guy gets it.
  5. I think this could have a lot of potential to add depth to the market, but it would need to be done very carefully, and the obligatory "we have bigger problems, so let's worry about adding stuff later"
  6. Half those things you said apply to P&W.
  7. Well, your question assumes that the earth is round, because if it were flat there would be no such thing as going "around" the planet, only "over" it. I think the more important question would be "where is the edge?" But really, people have gone up to space and looked down and taken thousands of pictures of the round earth, which we can look at. Even if a person thinks science is some huge conspiracy, it takes a special level of delusional narcissism for one to sincerely think they've caught on to some great secret coverup surrounding this.
  8. This site is a disturbing example of Poe's Law. It seems too crass to be sincere.
  9. Would you consider a Pyrrhic victory to be a misnomer, i.e. not defensibly a victory (winning)? I consider there to be a difference between having a victory and having that victory be worthwhile. Although it could also be, as you said, a matter of short-term vs. long-term. That is, you can defeat your enemy in every way you consider important, but spend so much doing so that another enemy will overtake you.
  10. I think "winning" should be defined by a given side's completion of its own goals, and must therefore considered subjective. Victory could be considered proportional, though, to the number or relative importance of goals achieved, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition. Taking the topic of superpower wars in the thread this spun out of: it is my personal belief that a shooting war between nuclear-armed states carries a high risk of escalating to the use of those nuclear arms. Both sides are capable of fulfilling a goal of inflicting massive damage to the other, but not of fulfilling the obvious goal of protecting their own lands and population. Result: No winner by any standard that isn't trying to cause an apocalypse, because no side is capable of achieving all of their core goals of self-preservation. Regarding asymmetric warfare, esp. Iraq and Afghanistan, goals are asymmetric as well. The U.S. set the goal of first defeating and dismantling the forces of the existing government (quick and straightforward) but then set the additional goal of setting up a friendly, stable government capable of maintaining order and preventing a terrorism-enabling power vacuum, defending the country against outside attacks, defeating and eradicating insurgency (ha!), (to a lesser extent) preserving human rights, and remaining at least non-hostile to the US. What other examples are there of anything like this except maybe the occupation and reconstruction of the Confederacy, and later Japan and Germany? The difference being that all those examples were pacified and devastated by years of total war, and not riven by internal strife. Such mission creep makes the achievement of all objectives difficult if not impossible. On the other side, the objective of an insurgency is typically to survive and frustrate the occupiers enough to give up and leave, making their victory much more likely. Other thoughts?
  11. One thing I question is the psychological effectiveness of missiles as a deterrent. War is already expensive and wasteful, and the people who go looking for it aren't always concerned about preserving their pixels. If they were, they wouldn't be looking for a fight in the first place. It might occasionally factor into a long-term calculation about which target to select, but only in situations where the aggressor is thinking "yeah, I hate that guy, but I don't hate him enough to take that much damage in order to roll him..." Generally, if there's a beef or a CB, I'd expect to see a war regardless of whether missiles are involved.
  12. I would support a simpler version of this, in which the player may trade off a higher crime rate for a higher population defensive bonus.
  13. I find Descartes' "I think therefore I am" to be pretty compelling. But if, somehow, we don't actually exist, why would that preclude God from existing?
  14. You're a legit solipsist?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.