elsuper

Voting standards, regardless of their intentions or contents (poll tax, having to pass a test, or whatever else), will always disproportionately count out the economically underprivileged, and by extension, underprivileged minorities. I'd be confounded if voting standards ever became widespread again. Nothing wrong with constitutional education, though.

This could work and leave a path upward and outward for the colonized as long as: 1) The colonized got something out of it during the occupation (passive income boost?) 2) The bar for the indigenous to "liberate" a colony were sufficiently low 3) Colonial cities scale in price with the number of cities/colonies the colonized nation contains It opens up lots of opportunities for drama, as well: "Why are you colonizing members of our alliance?" "You stole my colony before I got my money's worth!" If I understand your idea of colonies, it amounts to a city subsidy for the colonized at the cost of (temporarily?) not controlling that city. Or am I just projecting my own ideas into it?

In peace, economically, it's definitely a bad deal, even ignoring steel (which you shouldn't, and only makes it worse!). In a war, it's messier, because you may be able to protect infra from being destroyed in ground attacks if you can defend with tanks, but I don't feel like trying to figure out when that becomes viable. I guess there's also a difference in casualty rates, but I don't know how it's quantified or how to factor it in.

Strictly from a long-term standing-force perspective, ignoring the exorbitant cost of steel: If "1 tank is worth 40 unarmed soldiers": and "Soldiers fight with 75% more effectiveness when equipped with ...Munitions." Then 1 tank is worth 40/1.75= ~22.86 armed soldiers. 250 tanks per factory means each full factory is worth 22.86*250= 5715 armed soldiers, or 1.905 times as much strength per improvement slot as a barracks. For upkeep, soldiers cost 1.25 and 1 food per 750 in peacetime, or $3750 and 4 food per barracks. Monetizing the food at ~$110 ppu gives you $4190 upkeep per barracks, or about $1.40 total per armed soldier unit. Tanks cost $50 upkeep each, times 250 tanks per factory= $12500 upkeep, 2.98 times more upkeep per improvement slot, or, divided by 5715 soldier strength per factory= $2.18 per soldier strength, or 1.55 times more upkeep per soldier strength unit. It's really only beneficial if that almost-1 improvement slot you save can make up the $8300 difference in upkeep, but it can't.

I've seen some discussion of cost vs. power for missiles and navy, but haven't noticed any mention of the fact that ships are multi-use and missiles are single-use. I don't know if there's actually a problem here, but that's worth factoring in.

What do you guys think of the Congressional letter to Iran: http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf I think it does more to create no deal than to create a good deal, which I find distasteful. If the Republicans want a better deal, they should pressure Obama, not the Iranians. Presenting a disunified front only reduces our credibility. I also heard it violates the Logan Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953 But upon reading both, I disagree. This isn't a private communication, and the signatories are members of the US government involved in ratifying treaties. I thought I had you figured out, but you're more nuanced than I thought. I like that.

I don't know about that, but we certainly can't afford to do it for every country that tries to blackmail us into it by enriching uranium.

I agree, breaking blockades is OP for an improvement, especially if you only need 1. Having it as a project would be an interesting idea, though. It would be the Iron Dome of blockades, kinda.

I didn't see what was wrong with the spelling or grammar. As far as the suggestion goes, it's cosmetic and slightly more realistic. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I don't think it's high-priority either.

But you partially answered your own question. A potential arms race is a fairly valid reason Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. I think he was suggesting that it be funded by western countries to remove an excuse for uranium enrichment.

Way to play nto the hands of world-government end-times conspiracy theories States don't require UN permission to be real. A state is any entity which successfully enforces a monopoly on the use of force in its territory, which Israel certainly qualifies as. There was never a sovereign nation named America, until there was one. The shared experience of the Nakba, at the very least, has created a Palestinian national identity that is, like it or not, as valid as any other. Say whaat? I assume you reject the Bible as a valid source, but there are plenty (an Egyptian stele) of non-biblical (an Assyrian stele) ancient (an interpretation of said stele) sources (an ancient Israelite inscription) pointing to the existence of an ancient Israelite state. There are more, but I have other things to do today. I've been wondering about this. Do you have links? I don't mean that as a "Citation Needed" gotcha attempt, I'm genuinely curious. I gave a cursory attempt at researching this, but found too much tinfoil hat stuff to wade through. I'm also curious about this.

Fantastic! So much drama from that.

Congrats Mr. Booty! o/ TLF o/ Mad verse

I agree with this, although I wouldn't mind if it told how many spies you captured defensively (spies that attacked you and failed and were killed). I think that's a neat little stat.

I remember when I was joining GPA, there was a question in the application "What does it mean to be neutral?" I thought that was silly, but I've been seeing what a topic of contention it is :/

This guy gets it

What if it used a spy op? Edit: But wasn't concealed like one, to avoid the abuse possibilities.

They're missing the point, that's for sure.

Maybe we shouldn't call the next big war "World War 3." WWII was in some ways an extension of the unresolved conflicts and grievances of WWI (especially regarding the Versailles treaty). There was a logical connection between the two, and therefore a better reason to give them similar names. The thing people are calling "World War 3" will likely have a more tenuous connection to WWII than WWII did to WWI, as the Axis of WWII (Germany and Japan) are now more allied to the US than to any other major power. The sides and coalitions of any future major war will be markedly different from the previous world wars. The main thing "WWIII" will have in common with WWII will likely be that it's just a really big war.

I like how the red and blue states are mostly switched.

What are people's thoughts on Iranian nuclear negotiations? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/02/world/middleeast/2015-03-02-iran.html?_r=0 From that article: "The deadline for finalizing an outline of an agreement is the end of March, and a final deal would have to be reached by June. Under an agreement, Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel would likely be strictly limited for at least 10 years. Restrictions would ease gradually. Some equipment would be shipped from Iran to Russia. After the deal ends, Iran would still be subject to inspections and unable to produce bomb-grade fuel. It remains unclear whether Iran would have to answer all questions from inspectors about its suspected work on bomb designs." Do you think that's a good deal? I'm asking specifically about the content of the deal, not about the character of Obama or Netanyahu. Personally, I'm skeptical of the efficacy of inspectors, as they depend upon the Iranians to not conceal facilities as they did with Fordow and Qom. I do realize, though, that that logic leads to regime change as the only possible way to keep Iran non-nuclear, which doesn't seem great, either.

But if that improvement turns out to be, say, a nuclear plant, then you've inflicted over half a million in damage and disabled the power.

This seems like the sort of thing that would have been suggested before, but I wasn't able to find it. What if spies could temporarily disable power in one city, either random or attacker-selected? Not destroy power plants, but render them inoperable for, say, a day? Because this seems powerful (think lost commerce, refining, military capacity), I think, if ever implemented, it should have a low base success rate.

Sell offers are usually above the average PPU.