Cirrus

Hi. I want to give some foreign aid to someone. It used to be that there was a $3 million max limit for such gifts, but when I go to input a number the system will let me put whatever I want - even up to several hundred million, and when I click "confirm" it will tell me all is OK. I checked the update log but didn't see anything about removing the limit. Perhaps I didn't check back far enough. Has the $3m limit on aid per transaction gone away?

Haven't read any of the comments, so apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said, but... [quote]In such a context, going after alliances we've never heard of, regardless of size, can be justifiable, if only to get them into the game the rest of us are playing.[/quote] Those folks are playing a different game than you. You have no more moral authority to force them into your version of it than they have to force you to sit in peace mode collecting pixels. Some people just want to see where the nation-building aspects of the game take them. They want to play SimCity, not Civilization. And that's OK. There isn't anything wrong with that. Those people should be allowed to play that game if that's why they're here. The whole point of the neutrality movement was to make it possible for those people to have a place to play their version of the game without being harassed by people interested in a different kind of game. Just pretend that those who play the game differently from you don't exist.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1280835295' post='2399389'] The same thing will happen with this map. The hard figure of X NS = 1 territory is the flaw. Make it something like a percentage of the total territory instead[/quote] Personally, I think the diagram map I made in 2007 is the most accurate to have been created. I created circle "continents" for each color sphere and then divided each circle into wedge "countries" for each alliance. Circle size was based on the overall NS of the color sphere, and wedge size based on the percentage of the color sphere that each alliance contained. The main problem was that it didn't look much like a map - although this problem could have been solved with some creative artistic license. A secondary problem is that it assumes everyone in a given alliance is on their color, which is obviously not true. [img]http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/mad/MapOfDigiterra-Dec07-600.png[/img]

In honor of the Prism Protection Front's many glorious contributions to robertocivilization, my nation hereby presents as a gift to the PPF this magnificent new national wonder, to be constructed in the heart of Pittsburghistan: [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4841802574_ea947e707e_b.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan-lem2001/4841802574/in/set-72157624610310762/]source[/url] [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/61/198348285_a99723b4db_b.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/scattered/198348285/]source[/url] [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/201401024_7fba3bbbc5_o.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/outtacontext/201401024/]source[/url] [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4841786918_393d423c06_b.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan-lem2001/4841786918/]source[/url]

[quote name='Locke' date='19 February 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1266595284' post='2192076'] White peace is another word for "ceasefire." It has nothing to do with victory or defeat; that is determined statistically, politically, and by whatever other terms may be imposed on top of it. [/quote] This is correct. White peace does NOT NOT NOT mean there wasn't a winner.

Updated. Rok's color is fixed.

Tromp: The real reason for the chart is to see who *isn't* involved, but might still become so.

[quote]Most of those people are not allied to C&G or to TOP[/quote]Just a handy way to ID the sides. We don't seem to have cute catch-all names for the coalitions this time around. SuperComplaints does seem to be starting to catch on for the one, but what about the other? [quote]Why is RoK green again?[/quote]What do you mean?

Nothing too substantial here. Just a quick chart showing the top 50 or so alliances, along with what side they've joined in the current war (if at all). A couple of notes: 1. This is for the TOP front of the war only. For example, RnR is listed as a non-participant even though they are still active on the NSO front. 2. You may notice that alliances are not exactly listed in the correct nation strength order. This is because I did not transcribe any decimal places into the spreadsheet. The purpose is not to list alliances in exact order, but merely to give the list some vague sense of organization. Please do not feel insulted if your alliance is a spot or two below where it should be. 3. Obviously, alliances listed in blue are allied to [b]Complaints & Grievances[/b], while those in red are allied to [b]TOP[/b]. White means they are not in the war as of this writing. (updated Fed 5) [img]http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/mad/CNwarparticipants.png[/img]

Merely a statement of fact. I've nothing else to say.

[quote]Fark refused to give us peace[/quote]My how the tables have turned since GW2.

Opethian's last two are very good.

Fair point. However if NPO will not accept the sort of terms I mentioned nor allow sufficient damage to be caused to its power base (via staying in peace mode), that may still be the best option. However, even then the point wouldn't be permanent war; the point would be to sufficiently weaken NPO's power base. Once that goal was achieved, peace (even white peace) might be granted. The real point is that regardless of whether the means are a negotiated settlement, an active war, or a long campaign of attrition, NPO cannot be allowed to escape this war in any state that allows it continue as a world power.

I'm not going to register on your forum just to post a flag, but here is a quick concept. CN needs moar checkerboard. Hi-res available, etc. It resizes well.

tl;dr - You have to win if you want to make policy.

Either several of the Karma alliances will consolidate into a new Continuum-like hegemony, or (more likely) there will be a power vacuum and the cyberverse will enter a new, less predictable era. Unless of course NPO gets off with enough strength left to rebuild, in which case they will establish a new hegemony in about 6 months.

This should be obvious to everyone. The only rational courses of action are to either continue the war in perpetuity or find terms that permanently neuter NPO's ability to exact revenge. The two best suggestions I have seen for that are to 1) Limit NPO's freedom to sign treaties, or 2) Require NPO to remain below a certain total nation strength or score ranking. And no, extremely tough terms to end the war for NPO do not violate the spirit of Karma. Tough terms for one alliance is not the same as tough terms for everyone. The message would be that the punishment fits the crime.

It's not a zero sum game, Kev.

This revolution is not about GATO.

Ivanelterrible is a legend on the battlefield. No one else can say that in quite the same way.

1. Those who just want to have random wars should remember that for many players it is part of the fun to treat the game like a real nation, including all of its politics and organization. Personally I think it would be great to have a CyberNations: Actually Simulate Reality Edition in which everyone took things as seriously as OBR. 2. IRC can be useful, but I agree too much emphasis is put on it. I have no interest in hanging out in a dozen different IRC channels all day, especially when most of what goes on in them is just spam anyway. When MAD came out of neutrality I don't think any of us realized what sort of additional time commitment IRC diplomacy was going to require. I am sure that is one of the reasons activity declined - nobody wanted to spend a bunch of time in IRC channels to do any little thing. Any time we tried to accomplish something via forums we found that a month spamming in IRC "getting to know you" was a prerequisite (with the exception of our long-time PM and forum-based relationship with Echelon, which I appreciate to this day even if they don't reciprocate).

Neither reciprocity nor destruction is the point, though destruction is a means. The end for which we fight is freedom from oppression by the NPO empire. The only means by which that end can be achieved is to cause an adequate level of destruction to the machinery of that empire, including the diplomatic, military and economic supports on which it stands. History shows that where the imperial aspirations of NPO are concerned, partial destruction of those supports is not adequate to ensure freedom, thus a more total destruction is necessary, potentially including nations in peace mode. This applies only to NPO itself. The other various hangers-on, puppets and imperial subjects are not serious threats on their own, and therefore lesser levels of destruction among them is adequate.

This is an excellent and hilarious suggestion. It would need a "this supercedes all other treaty obligations" clause though. Also it would only be an MDP.

Personally I would keep the arrows and simplify the star/earth/circle thing, but Khan's version works very well and would be a good flag.

The flag does several things well. Good colors and good contrast. Congratulations on avoiding many of the common pratfalls with photoshop effects and lettering. It is a good start. But the comments so far are right: It is too cluttered. It seems you decided you wanted a bunch of kewl symbols and threw them on haphazardly. Most good flags have one or two symbols on them; yours has five: earth, circle, star, arrows, lightning. Do any of them (aside from earth) have any meaning at all? What is the lightning supposed to symbolize, besides kewl effect? And why are there two bolts instead of one? You need to pick 2 symbols (at most 3) that are actually meaningful to your alliance, then ditch the others. I will say that I like the arrows. They are a unique way to handle a border, and make your flag more recognizable (which is after all the point). Of all the symbols you have used, the arrows are the one that comes off to me as most effective.