iMatt

It is nice to see you finally having decided on a FA path.

Congrats to the elected, and the 5 mill. Onwards and upwards! Question: What is your FA direction? (since PNL is now gone)

I wish I could say I feel bad about this, and I suppose it's there to an extent. But I think this is a good thing, for TFD and for others in the treaty. Good luck to you all in the future. I'm excited to see where you go from here!

I understand and agree with you, I just wanted you to clarify for the masses I have a bad memory but it says you are TPF. I was in TPF for a month or so, did you mean me? This is a recruitment thread for Kzopp not me

The idea of success in this game varies greatly between nation rulers. Some want the standard statistics, all wonders, a bunch of money, one of the top nations, etc (like you), some want to be very involved in creating an alliance. Others want to rack up the most possible casualties, and even others want to try igniting the next world war. I guarantee you if you change your idea of success to one that interests you more than the one you're currently going for, you'll find a lot more to work towards. I was in your position once, so I switched alliances to a newer, growing alliance with a great community, and I felt much better at least for the time being. Then I got bored of this eventually so when we went to war finally, and the war ended, I didn't want it to end so I joined another alliance to continue fighting. I believe I got into the top 2 Defending casualties and top 5 attacking before I quit. I quit because I felt at *that* point I had finally got all out of the game I was going to get. Then I came back because I missed the people, and it's exciting to grow from scratch again (at least for the first while). Suggestion: get in on the ground level of a new alliance, you'll have a bucket of fun with it.

o/ Kharn!!! And TSI, happy birthday!

Haha - theory is an interesting theory.

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1288448096' post='2497243'] Congrats on making it to 500,000 NS so quickly. Good luck in your future endeavors! [/quote] Thanks Arrnea - we'll try to push up to 1 million with this initial momentum. Thanks for the luck!

Hey Kzopp. Interesting that you chose to forge your own path here - I envision you mostly as sticking in an alliance until the end. I used to think that was me as well, then I learned how to leave alliances and not feel like a deserter or implying the alliance I'm leaving isn't a good alliance. Shoot me a PM if you're interested in joining Exodus. We're just starting, a nice fresh start, and have a lot of great personalities (all very active). Joining now would set you up to be on the ground floor when as we continue to grow. You'd have your hand (however big or small) in the formation of the alliance. Anyway, I'll leave it at that, and that we'd be pretty humbled if you chose to join with us. As far as your last part: I disagree on the fact that people can find their own tech deals/trades. Many people who wouldn't go searching for these things would accept aid or sent aid if told to. More work for those organizing but hey, if they want to do it, why stop them. It's worth it in the sense that there are better TCs and more TDs. I agree with this one. That's why big alliances fell out of favour and small alliances are now the thing to do. Smaller community, less distance between leaders and members. This type of alliance is certainly okay *as long as* the leader doesn't quit or get ousted. Think about it, having no rules on the top relies on that leader being benevolent, kind, just, etc. If that person steps down and another less virtuous person moves into their position it could spell the end of the alliance. Ahh - I'll rephrase because now I know your motivation/the example you're thinking about when you mention this. Yes, the small charter rules aren't the worst to not follow, following the "spirit of the charter" is all well and good - but it's a slippery slope. Give the leader the choice of where to stop breaking charter rules, and you may be asking for trouble Agreed.

Congratulations to both of you!

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1288313708' post='2495807'] It is the unofficial recreation of GGA, didn't you know? [/quote] There have been a number of alliances which I could put that label on Onwards and upwards!

Voted, as of now we're 15th. Quick up!

[quote]Come join thr Exodus[/quote] I endorse this alliance because I am a part of it but I do not endorse the typo in the subtitle Can we correct that, or start a new topic with thr right spelling?

Thanks to all of you coming out to wish us luck in this! It should be fun. Glad to be back in action with all these old friends of mine!

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1287075623' post='2484509'] It sounds to me like you're arguing the opposite opinion of quigon's, though. He's trying to say that the GT is always better than the GM. You seem to be agreeing with Ironfist and I rather than quigon, which makes your 'edit' a bit confusing. [/quote] Excuse me, what I wrote I wrote thinking it was +5 happiness off the bat for both. My reasoning stands that any positive effects of which gov choice you use will not factor into this discussion. You'd have those positive effects whether or not you purchased the wonder. so GT=+5, we can all agree, GM=+4 when you have the desired gov already, and GM=+5 when you *don't* have the desired gov. You more often than not *don't* have the desired gov, since most of the time you'll be at Democracy and your desired something else. If we say 80% (may not be accurate) of the time desired gov isn't Democracy, then it'll average to GM=+4.8. So max GM can be is +5. Edit: for me personally, I'll still get the GM first, since it gives me mobility of gov choice, and on average is "almost" as good as GT (+4.8 from above).

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1286943085' post='2483224'] You're confused by what I'm saying. You realize there's a bonus +1 happiness for choosing your desired govt./religion, yes? I'm not saying the +1 for Democracy is the same as the bonus given for choosing your desired government. I realize there's an added bonus for Democracy itself. If you're discounting the happiness bonus for desired govt/religion, they're still both +5/+5 (if you pick a government that gives a happiness bonus). If you happen to pick a government that [i]doesn't[/i] give a happiness bonus, then yes, you'll get a +4 from the GM. [/quote] I think what quigon is trying to say is this: The GOV versus RELIGION happiness bonus for having the correct one are not the same inherently. For religion it's like a "Free" +1, since you should *always* have the correct religion. For government, you often *don't* have the correct gov for good reason (ie choosing democracy over your preferred gov). In these cases, buying a GT *does not* give you an extra +1 happiness since you already had it. Buying a GM *does*, since you didn't have your preferred, but now you do. Does that make sense? Edit: I didn't read this current page, it seems quigon already explained it. (furthermore, I don't understand why this is under "debate". Quigon's statement about which is better was fact to me before I read this thread anyway.)

Taking something useful out of this: Many people say game mechanics aren't what helps create wars. But the number of incidents regarding secret aid since it came out have proved otherwise. I think it's time for some more friction related updates to this game!

Both you, and cp4 at the same time... Good luck in life, meyer. It was a good time, this Cybernations!

cp4, sad to see you go, and I suppose that plan that was being discussed is no more. Probably for the best. I think you've got a lot out of this game, so I don't view this as an incredibly sad parting except for that I may not talk to you much/at all anymore if you don't come on IRC. (you aren't quitting IRC totally, right?) Good luck out there!

OsRavan - an end-game size would require an end-game money collected too, IMO. Without one, people would just sit there and accumulate money (well, they do that now). But an end-game size would lead to boredom from the very top. No where to go from there. In addition to your end-game size limit, you'd need to somehow create more frequent wars, or reasons to go to war. [u]I think we need more in-game reasons to go to war. Make sanction color based, give sanction a real meaning besides the prestige (take away flags for those who were previously sanctioned).[/u] This will correct the larger/smaller color sizes to some extent, and create more conflict. While we're at it, give some *real* bonus to having a senator in your alliance.

Changing to 5000 NS is interesting. It will have me thinking about inviting people. It's easy to get to 5kNS with a new nation. Related question: What if that nation gets deleted someday? Do you lose your bonus? (I assume not, since you may no longer possess the bonus at that point, ie war, or no money in coffers)

Build some better dams (yes, thaone got it right)

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1284524171' post='2454422'] It's not really all that automatic - it was only designed to handle one alliance at a time (ie. my own). The stats I posted had to be done manually for each one, and took a fair amount of time, so I'm really not inclined to make it a regular thing (unless I find some time to redesign the program to handle all alliances at once - which, now that I think about it, may not be that difficult). But I'm more than happy to give out stats to individual alliances on request. [/quote] If you have it for one alliance, and you're using the aid sheets that you can download then it shouldn't be too too difficult to automate the whole thing. But yeah, TFD has been collecting this (me by hand, often) data, and our numbers have fluctuated from 30% before a tech program start date, to 50% the next day, it would kind of be cool to see those fluctuations. I understand if it can't be automated it doesn't make sense to do all that by hand

Gopher - I like the aid slot usage automator you have there. Any way that can be updated weekly? (Also, a graph of the %'s over time would be useful!) Nice to see TFD up there. Our tech program leaders have really kept on top of things.

To clarify for everyone in the thread, the more land your opponent has, the more is raided from them in successful ground attacks. I looked through your opponents and some had near 0 purchased land (nothing to steal), but 2 had 1.5-2k land, and one had 3.5k land. The larger ones should give you 100-150 land (iirc 150 land+ for anything above 1 or 2k land.)