[Black 4BR circle]

Down to Aluminum/Marble or Aluminum/Pigs, and whichever we get decides whether we go with fish or fast food. I'm sure both are delicious!

[Black 4BR circle]

I have aluminum/wheat

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1001929

I kind of have wheat myself, so I don't think that's going to work out.

[Black 4BR circle]

I just updated it with both options until something starts to click a little more. And yes, I'll send out messages to everyone once the circle's in order.

[Black 4BR circle]

Bump. FYI, my circle last round stayed together all round! B)

[Black 4BR circle]

I understand what you meant. I'll see what's up once I get a few more replies. I actually think I prefer fish to spices, because that extra 8% population will end up being a few improvements, but I'm willing to go with either if the circle fills up.

[5 BR circle - color TBD]

Just vaguely wondering why you'd pick cattle over fish, since neither produces any BR.

[Black 4BR circle]

CIRCLE COMPLETE. Thanks, all.

[Get Rid of Nukes in TE]

This is not true. At the end of each round the top nations (used to be NG) get nuked over and over by rogues and such but someone will have to win in the end. So nukes do their job fine.

Well, if you want to call them rogues. I generally consider people who duck out of alliance a few days before round end, in order to nuke the people their alliance is working against without creating a full alliance war between the two, to be more along the lines of black ops agents. Disavowed, sure, but we all know who they're working for.

That's not the point, I believe the job nukes do now, to destroy a nation, is something that shouldn't exist in TE. The winner is usually the nation who either doesn't get nuked for whatever reason, or takes one less nuke. Skill doesn't factor in as much as it should.

It doesn't destroy a nation. It does make it hard (perhaps a bit longer than it should, and I have no issue with knocking a day off nuclear anarchy, as was suggested earlier). I agree that it sucks to be in nuclear anarchy for the last 10 or 12 days of the round, watching as people above you collect millions in taxes. But it happens, and as long as TE doesn't see one massive alliance/bloc clogging the whole top 50 or so, pretty much everyone who floats into the top few will get attacked. Admin/moderation have been pretty good about catching slot-fillers and fake wars in past rounds, at least in the top 10, so "cheating the battle system" isn't really an option.

Heck, I was in basically the same situation you were, this round. We actually got nuked by the same guy, but I think I'd already saved a bit more cash than you, and I've been able to cling to a top 15 spot since, with an offhand chance at making top 10 still, depending on what happens tonight.

[Decrease the number of Senate Votes needed.....]

I think "no lower boundary" presents an unintentional window for an update senate rogue. (Vote for self, start sanctioning.) If you take out the lower boundary altogether (presumably it's there to prevent that sort of thing), then I suggest adding a time constraint from start of voting until senate powers are enabled. Perhaps the simplest way is just to disallow senate powers for an hour starting at update, so a "reasonable amount of the population" at least gets an opportunity to vote before a senator can start doing things.

[Get Rid of Nukes in TE]

I agree, however that rouge would just buy 10+ nukes so even sanctions wouldn't matter as he would still do the

damage regardless of the sanctions. I do think that just as the amount of damage nukes inflict, the length of nuclear anarchy should be reduced. 4 days seems plenty long enough to feel an effect of a nuke.

As there are arguments for both sides, this IS really the only fair and probably undisputed way to help rectify the problem.

BG.

This sounds like about the best solution to me. The amount of damage is strong, but not overwhelming (pretty much as it should be, I'd say), but with the shortness of a round, nuclear anarchy + war length (because, let's be honest, it starts a day after the war starts, and ends five days after it ends), means it's not all that hard to deprive people of collections for about a quarter of the round. Since war length isn't changing, maybe the other should be considered. Of course, that would mean altering the discount for radiation cleanup (2 days sounds like it would give a very good reason to go for that trade set).

[Looking for a New Arch Nemesis - Apply Here]

Recently, The Guild of Calamitous Intent has taken notice of certain questionable events occurring within this venue (hereby referred to as "The Thread"). As the contents of The Thread undeniably present a party (hereby referred to as "The Nemesis") seeking a suitable Arch, The Guild would like to take a moment to courteously remind The Nemesis that there is no substitute for a qualified Guild professional. Furthermore, The Guild orders the following:

1a) The Nemesis must cease inciting improper behavior.

1b) In the future, The Nemesis must direct any further applications for an Arch through proper channels.

2) All parties taking advantage of The Thread to practice Costumed Aggression or Arching without a license must cease and desist, until such time as they have acquired an Arching License from The Guild, along with the approval of the Council of Thirteen and The Sovereign.

Once these terms have been met, all parties are free to resume their search for a suitable Nemesis/Arch relationship.

Thank you for selecting The Guild of Calamitous Intent.

Vhalen

Sovereign, for the Council of Thirteen

[High Level Bloc Statistics]

This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen.

This is seriously the dumbest debate I've ever seen.

I have never seen a debate as dumb as this.

I find that all debates are pretty much equally dumb, since they basically boil down to a presentation of opinions that aren't mine.

[High Level Bloc Statistics]

This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen.

You haven't been looking very hard, then.

[High Level Bloc Statistics]

What is the point of showing that? I mean honestly? Does it matter if your percentage gain is higher when your actual gain is twice as small? I realize Essenia did not say anything of the sort that Wildthing stated but if someone was to read WildThings statement and attribute it to what Essenia was showing without taking a closer look at the numbers then someone might get the wrong impression entirely.

So mind answering that question too?

Percentage gain seems like a vaguely silly metric to me, since the blocs with the highest initial percentages are going to show the "worst" growth, as the metric favors smaller initial numbers. To show an "unbiased" look, and perhaps an interesting comparison, I'd recommend a different presentation, which incorporates both percentage and total numbers, and draws attention to the numbers instead of the names, so you can highlight highs and lows in both, like so:

Nations over 100k NS

Citadel: (57) 65 = +8 = +14%

SF: (7) 11 = +4 = +57%

Poseidon: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5%

FB: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5%

CnG: (6) 9 =+3 = +50%

Edit: Included underlining because it looks nicer that way.

[Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs]

Vox members would likely have the best hard numbers, as Nintenderek indicated. I only brought the numbers up because certain people were waving false ones around like they held true.

That aside, do not fall into discussing this single point. It detracts from actually paying attention to other things said in this thread, and it is probably done on purpose to get people focusing on the "how many members" aspect rather than NPO in general.

I concede your point, sir, and this will be my last comment on the subject (at least in this thread).

[Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs]

Ya know, you should quit spewing things like this as fact. Until you can prove these so-called hundreds of people using our applicant AA, you are just spewing garbage.

Quit buying into the tired old rumors, and think for yourself, I'm sure you can handle it.

Yeah, I should quit stating facts as fact. It tends to get people all riled up for some reason. I humbly suggest you verify your information before you try to call me out as a liar. 211 nations in NPO have seniority of 166 days or less (beginning of Karma War). Now, I grant you this is no longer a perfect measurement by any means, but what it does say is that only 417 nations have been in NPO since before the war. They had over 900 nations when the war started, and I believe NPO Applicant had somewhere in the high 200's. While I don't have exact records on that, I'm sure someone does.

From an economic viewpoint, if we DID lose 600 members, but gained 300 over the course of the war, then wouldn't it stand to reason that our net loss was only 300? At least, that's my take on it.

That's one way of looking at it. We could also, say, describe the real situation.

[Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs]

Man, with our past leaders being so ineffective and cruel and despicable, I don't know why I and six hundred others continue to stay in this dratted alliance.

Oh, wait...

Mostly inertia.

We had 900 at the start of the war, not 1200, so we actually only lost 300.

You also had several hundred in NPO Applicant, most of whom suddenly vaulted into member status during the war, when NPO's member numbers began dropping. When the ~500 number shows up, that's what people are referring to.

[Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs]

It's a laughable notion because 1, apart from being a regular member and beating the stuffing out of our enemies, I don't seem to recall you doing much, and 2, PCIA was nothing more than a witch hunting organization with promises of false power to lord over other members in an attempt to recruit them.

So you prefer your witch hunts to be more informal, then?

[Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order]

I'm not one to post simply to offer congratulations or wave my arm in the air. (Though I'm not averse to including them. Congratulations, Cortath.)

And now, onward to further comments!

Actually, there's two.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go re-write the next issue of the Tabloid Tribune (My money was on the Dean of the Body Republic).

Anyway, placing the Sash of the Delegate is not something I do often, and I'm glad the shoulder it draps from is yours, Emperor Cortath.

I've learned that when you comment on incorrect spelling, it's wise to check your own. There's an "e" in "drapes," Sir Paul.

Lord Boris didn't say that you said he was a bad choice. He said that you were whining. Which you were. Who exactly would be a bold choice for emperor? Unless you start looking for non-IOs.

Since the IOs should bear a large portion of the blame for the NPO's recent mess, I wouldn't say that idea's entirely without merit.

[Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs]

"Favoritism" is easily conflated with connections, friendship, or working relationships. I shouldn't have mentioned it, it's not pertinent to why Zha was removed. And no James doesn't have me. Moo is not above the Order.

If Moo (along with IOs) aren't above the Order, then NPO's doing a particularly lousy job of showing it. Personally, I would be inclined against a leader with known connection issues running a clearly tense set of peace talks, apparently without someone able or willing (whichever, they amount to the same thing) to step in and take over when he loses connection. Personally, I would be inclined against having inactivity at my highest governmental levels during times of major war. Personally, I would be inclined against continuing to support that leadership after its disastrous performance has been publicly displayed to Bob at large. Now, maybe I'm a bit eccentric in all this; I don't know.

I guess I just don't have what it takes to be a Pacifican.

I thought NPO was joining Frostbite at the end of their terms? What is all this crap about Purple?

Maybe Purple's already going to be part of Frostbite by then? It's a ways off, isn't it?

[On Wonders]

Please keep in mind that I wrote this pretty quickly, lat at night, off the top of my head. Other suggestions are welcome! Anyway:

Given that people can only get 3-6 wonders in a round, and new economic wonders become fairly pointless toward the end of a round, the majority of economic wonders, notably those that give lesser effects than other wonders, as well as the most expensive/high-end ones (especially those with other wonder requirements) are basically worthless. I propose that some wonders be either removed, altered (either in price or effect), or replaced, to provide a more diverse field and increase player decisions.

For instance, who's likely to bother with the SDC, UHC, NPP, or NEO as they are? They quite simply can't return on the investment effectively enough before the round ends. And how many basic economic wonders (+cash or +happy) do we need? Nobody's likely to buy more than two or three. Lastly, requiring other wonders is a heavy price, so those wonders with such requirements need to have a strong effect.

Some of these things could be easily dealt with via price changes or tweaks in their effects. Movie Industry, for instance, is easily the worst happiness wonder. If it was significantly cheaper than the others, say $300k, people might consider buying it earlier, making it play differently from the others. NEO provides some slightly different bonuses than other economic wonders, yet the price tag is unfortunately too high to warrant exploring their usefulness. Among other problems, SDC's "tech happiness bonus" is completely useless (it also needs to have a wonder dropped from its requirements, I'd say, as it stands). What if some of these high-end wonders gave rewards toward the end of the round, such as:

SDC - increases NS multiplier on tech at End of Round from 5 to 10.

NEO - increases NS multiplier on land at EoR from 1.5 to 5.

UHC - increases NS multiplier on infra at EoR from 3 to 5.

NPP - increases NS multiplier on nukes at EoR from (Nukes^2)*10 to (Nukes^2)*15 (or 20 if you also have MP).

War Memorial - gives 2% of casualties as NS at EoR.

Now we have some significant choices to make.

Of course, we could also approach this with some other options that do significantly different things. Since TE rounds end regularly, high-end wonders (especially with hefty requirements) can significantly alter things without destroying gameplay (most of the game being played before they can come into effect anyway). This opens the door for things like:

Moon Mission - $30,000,000 - The moon mission exemplifies your nation's spirit in the face of adversity. Counts as 5,000 NS toward your total at End of Round. Requires 750 technology and Space Program.

Advanced Aeronautics Program - $3,000,000 - Your scientists are capable of aeronautic wonders. You are permitted a third air attack per war, per day. Requires 600 technology, 3 Factories, and a Pentagon.

Naval Engineering Program - $3,000,000 - Your scientists have achieved significant breakthroughs in shipbuilding. Your infrastructure requirements for ships are reduced by 10%. Requires 350 technology, 3 Drydocks, 3 Shipyards, and a Naval Construction Yard.

I realize these last few could just end up an unbalanced mess, but they're examples of different sorts of wonder effects. Also, I just kind of threw numbers in there with very basic estimates. They're probably not quite balanced, but I wanted to get the ideas out there more than anything.

[Warning]

The claim is that Pacifica has lost close to 500 members. Considering membership as never higher than 1,000 and current membership stands at 636, again, please, verify your number. This time, please use fact instead of estimates.

Well, I do know that a month or so into the war, over 160 members (4 pages @ 40/page) had less seniority than the length of the war, and of those, maybe a dozen had 10k NS or higher. Add to this that the "NPO Applicant" AA currently stands at 6 members. Prior to the war it was, shall we say, significantly more populous. Now, let's take a look at the math. By your numbers, we get about 350. Add to this the 160 minimum just discussed, and we're over 500 already.

Now, I was just trying to explain to you what the discrepancy between your number for losses and the other poster's was likely caused by. You'll have to forgive me if this subject isn't meaningful enough for me to make any significant effort to dig up numbers (if it's even possible after this long) for the applicant AA, and running membership totals from from the war's onset until now, but denying that it happened just makes you look like a little kid with his fingers in his ears, going "La la la la la, I can't hear you!" Furthermore, since it seems from your previous response that you're set on completely ignoring anything I say, it's hardly productive to continue in this line, so with this post, I'm about done with this.

[Franco's Neutral Corner Issue Second]

Welcome to the Neutral Corner.

This week's question is:

What determines the relevance of an alliance? Is it all in the opinions of the alliance you ask?

I hate to boil it down to such simplicity, but the answer can be summed up in one word: Effort.

A lot of the above responses discuss what parts of an alliance matter to relevance (reputation, ordnance, membership numbers, intent/goals, etc.), but the simple fact is that these are all indirect determiners. Effort is the prima causa of relevance on Bob. The more effort an alliance puts forth (in, respectively, FA, war, recruiting, government, etc.), the more relevant it is. It's generally easier for a large alliance to become more relevant, because more people total typically means more active, effort-producing people. Even with a lot of nations doing the minimum, an alliance of several hundred is likely to have more people putting forth some genuine effort than an alliance of several dozen. However, a small alliance without the military strength that Bob discusses (or even a single person), can still be quite relevant geopolitically, if it/he/she produces a larger-than-usual amount of effort. Vox was a good example of this.

In other news, this is boring, and I probably shouldn't have bothered writing it, but I'm not deleting it now.

[Warning]

Please verify that number.

I believe that number is taking into account the fact that NPO basically drained its applicant AA (at various times during the war, it was pointed out that those numbers had dramatically decreased, while the number of new, very low NS nations in NPO correspondingly increased), and they still ended up 300 or so nations down. Since many of the nations in question had been applicants for some time, and swiftly became members during the war period, there was apparently nothing prohibiting their joining prior to the wartime drop in NPO membership. Since they somehow didn't make it into NPO until it was necessary to camouflage membership losses, then suddenly got sworn in, their padding of the membership total can be seen as artificial. (I imagine these nations aren't being counted as part of the total, and that's the discrepancy you're seeing. Taking this into account, the 500 estimate is probably on the low side.)

[Trade Circle (Round 7)]

All done. Thanks!