elsuper

I feel like I should add, I like the overall idea and structure of it, and the use of resources to switch. But commerce seems OP to me, especially in light of Phiney's math.

Fair point too.

If it does, that seems pretty OP. If my math is correct, a 10% commerce boost at 100% commerce is a 10% gross income boost. Easily beats anything else on that list IMO. If it doesn't allow for going over that cap, that's kinda balanced, basically frees up improvement slots.

What reason would someone have for choosing coal over oil, or vice versa? (In the poll I mean)

I wasn't sure if I phrased it well. The question was toward the hypothetical person asking 'what if you or someone you knew got shot'. The point being it also really sucks to have someone close to you suffer heavy fines or go to jail for not hurting anyone.

Dear Sheepy, We despise you, like a flower. Your new, smexy volkswagen is on my cat. I sent it across the void into abbas. But my crocodile converted into MLGism and abbas blew skinflutes at dawn. So blow our sails through the open potato pudding sea of poop. Wieners roasting Jodo wants a big potato pancake

I agree. To piggyback off this, I would pose a counter-question: What if someone you knew suffered devastating life consequences at the hands of the government for merely owning a firearm? "They broke the law!" We're having a discussion about what the laws ought to be. My point of view on this, as with everything, is a rejection of utilitarian "pre-crime" logic, and a focus on proportionality. Does a person deserve to be punished for owning a particular type of firearm? If the answer is no, then it's simply irrelevant to me how effective such laws would be at saving lives. I could care less about militia-style tyranny deterrence, and I'm not even a "gun person." Never owned one, and probably never will.

I agree. If this were to be implemented, it would have to be severely limited to avoid destroying the game's economy. Maybe 1 additional resource maximum, at reduced output? But I don't think it's a necessary addition at all. Off-topic response under spoiler:

Pretty much like it sounds. There's a gentleman who raided my alliance, and we counter-attacked. The original victim deleted, and now the aggressor's war history omits the initial attack, making it look like we raided him unprovoked: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12482&display=war Missing from this is Sims' attack this week against "Big Blue Nation" of Cornerstone, which deleted yesterday. Not the biggest problem ever, but I could see it turning into a C.B. evidence-loophole someday for someone somewhere. Edit: Unless this is a bug, I don't know. If it is, please move this thread to bug reports.

When I try to click that link, I get a "403 Forbidden." What sinister agenda are they try'na keep hidden?

I've heard it's a slower-paced RTS, and I do like that idea. I found Starcraft II to be so stressful. I suppose you could consider P&W to be a very slow-paced RTS.

It's like Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who is said to have diagnosed an equipment failure for Ford, and itemized his bill as "Chalk Mark: $1. Knowing where to put it: $9,999." He got away with that because he had the expertise and Ford needed it. Giving people money to pay for healthcare (or insurance) will enable them to meet these costs, but it will also inflate those very costs beyond what they would otherwise be simply because providers will be able to get away with charging more. The real problem is not enough alternatives, and the inability to pit providers against one another, except in the initial choice of which provider to go with. Edit: I would concede that the ACA's "exchanges" are a minor step in this direction. Another idea I've had about this: an FDIC-like entity to back consumers in the event their insurance company goes under, which could encourage people to create/try out new start-up providers (pursuant to basic requirements, as are supposed to be enforced on banks), increasing competition.

Maybe remove the ability to demote to "Applicant?" Have Applicant be something you can only be when first coming into the alliance, kinda like how you can't choose to go to beige. I suppose you could kick everyone from the alliance and have them re-apply, but that seems like at least a bit more of a pain.

USA 20 Germany 14 Sumeria 17 The Slavic Theocracy 20 The Papacy 1

My thoughts on freedom: legal restrictions require justification, legal license does not. /thread /allthreads

If this were the case, where was conservative outrage during the Bush years? Mittens has said that he will not run.

I consider the question of who pays for or operates healthcare to be the least of the US system's problems. The real problem is too many sick people and not enough man-hours of expertise available to treat them cheaply. I would have addressed the access issue differently from how the ACA did (subsidize providers and medical schools to expand supply and thereby reduce price in the long run, rather than subsidize consumers). I also find the expectation that health insurance cover every health issue to be itself a bewildering phenomenon. It's like having car insurance cover your gas, its insane. It creates price opacity and moral hazard, and thereby inflates demand on a system already strained by excess demand.

A similar idea was suggested (I think it's similar, anyway): http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4477-xp-for-military-units/

Raleigh

If we could fix ground attacks to make them more relevant to top-tier warfare, there would eventually come a point in nation development where: -Nations could support max barracks and soldiers easily -The risk of losing costly high-level infra would outweigh the expense of building and maintaining tanks My point: make ground attacks matter, and tanks will work themselves out as an important part of a top-tier arsenal

Same thing here.

Please count me in.

It's not not about Jews...

477

This is the best thing I've seen or heard this week, I can't get it out of my head.