[Howdy IAA and ZDP]

We are not a rogue alliance. Why does everyone think this?

I'm guessing he was being sarcastic.

[Howdy IAA and ZDP]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Wrong type of conflict. No in-fighting.

[Does anyone really care about micro-alliances?]

I don't care no matter the size of an alliance. I read what's going on and contemplate the situation. I typically write up a reply regarding what has transpired but then delete it as I wonder why I'm even bothering. Any drama can easily be cleared up if the parties desire it and anyone can tech trade. The doom of one does not equate to the doom of all.

[OOC: Interests aren't represented in the game proper thus I have no reason to care about anyone else. The only thing which has me 'care' is my desire to roleplay somewhat of a benevolent ruler and then it's about the actions taken, principles of any matter as opposed to who takes them. In a more devious mood or mindset or with differing game mechanics I'll instead care to the point of how useful they are in dooming others.]

Maybe I'll care when I see an alliance that stands out as exceptional but I've yet to see one. It's always possible that I just haven't seen them much here of course.

[wF's CB against UED]

I don't suppose I was the only one who tried to go to the !@#$%* link when it was posted and went "well OK this CB is crap" when it 404ed?

I actually figured that before I went to the link. When the !@#$%* link was posted I just began to think "I wonder when someone will upload several fake logs that will cause a global war".

[United Earth Directorate's Response]

I would assume MOST members knew better than to just open a pm that says "Attack WF!!!" and do it. but then again this is UED

Was it really that simple? One thing I wonder is if the rogue and these 4 knew each other. Otherwise are the 4 relative newbies and rather inactive? Those new to online gaming are really the only new sort of player I could see making this mistake. Friends however I can see doing this much more easily.

[United Earth Directorate's Response]

Of course, it's still possible for a member to obey an invalid order from a rogue, but the sheer number of people that obeyed and attacked makes me suspect that there weren't clear ground rules on that.

It's certainly possible. I don't mean to suggest otherwise but I'm wondering if there's more to it then this person simply being a generic rogue. I'm pondering if these is a symptom of something other then rules within the alliance.

[United Earth Directorate's Response]

Don't you have rules or regulations telling your members exactly what constitutes a valid order and who may give such an order? If not, I would recommend you do that now.

Truthfully it wouldn't really matter if an alliance did have such a rule. Members still can act contrary to them and the only thing their alliance can do is either tell them to stop, eject them or target them themselves. It's been established that KDII didn't order this nor did anyone else in his government. The only thing left to be seen is what will be UED's actions internally with regards to these members or perhaps establishing such rules for greater clarity within the alliance -- if that's where the issue originated as you seem to suggest -- then what WF and its allies response will be to the whole mess.

[Accepting a Rogue, Post-Conflict]

I'm wondering what alliances out there would be willing to accept a former nuclear rogue into their ranks. Not somebody who did it months or years ago, but somebody who had recently come off a nuclear spree.

No, this isn't deciding plans for me, as fun as it would be to go rogue like that B)

PS - If it "depends on the situation" then describe what situations your alliance would accept them under/deny them for. For instance one could be getting angry at their previous alliance and hitting a few members, another could be just leaving for the fun of it and hitting some random nations, etc.

It would depend largely the following:

• Why they went rogue
  
• How likely are they to go rogue again
  
• The method chosen in going rogue
  

I would make inquiries to the targetted alliance(s) and any former alliances the rogue was in then base my decision on all of that. I wouldn't really care what other alliances think of it but rather I want information from multiple sources so I could make my own determination as to what happened and what I should expect from the person in question from that point on. This all is along side the typical recruitment questions of course.

[What does "Carbon Copy Rulers" do in the PMing system?]

Yup, you can put up to 25 other nations there to send a message to a total of 26 nations at once by using carbon copy.

[On the Athens Affair...]

Merely stating a position and hoping you would take a second look, there is no solid action being taken here my friend.

I was not suggesting you were going to do anything.

[On the Athens Affair...]

I love it when someone uses sovereignty to justify violations of sovereignty.

Not to mention arguing against the imposition of ones morality on another when the very topic could be said to be the same depending upon the Knights perspective of raiding. I know them not so I may be wrong but the larger, more generalized OP certainly has me chuckling for this reason.

[The Great Infrastructure Forbearance Challenge]

Day 2 - Wondered who spent 20 dollars to make me lose the competition. >_>

Seriously, 5 would have sufficed

edit

Doh, didn't see the third page >.<

Anyway, it was funny, kinda wish I saw this thread earlier

[Would you mind a Reset?]

Cybernations is a war simulator because i can point you in the direction of a dozen more detailed building games on Facebook.

If we are using comparisons to other games as a basis for saying a game must be something else I would point you to a dozen others which are easily accessible on mpogd with a more detailed war game or with benefits to it at the least. Such comparisons by themselves do not stand however as games within a genre may lack in places.

My question however was in reference to alliance wars specifically, not wars in general. It's an important distinction to make.

The only reason the politics exist is because people want to make friends out of other alliances and have more people to protect them in time of war. The only reason infra exist is to grow population to get more soldier or collect more taxes to buy more infra to get more soldiers. Basically every single thing in this game comes down to war and either building your nation for war or making it get more money for war anyway you look at it the end result of everything here is PvP war.

You're presupposing a purpose to acquiring money and everything else though and if that's the desire of the nation leader then you would be right. They are playing the game as a war simulator -- though ironically not usually using war to acquire said materials. How would you account for those that manage fine without war though if this were indeed a war simulator? Certainly it has potential for more then simply one thing.

Edit to add for I see no replies after this at time of edit and don't wish to double post

This all is missing the point anyway for we are discussing what the game presently is. My post instead was rather speaking of what the game is desired to be as the more important.

[Would you mind a Reset?]

The end product of the game is war. Everything you do is to increase your strength.

What do you mean when you say the end product of the game is war and in what way is it? Also, what connection do you place on those two separate sentences?

[Would you mind a Reset?]

Cybernations IS an alliance war simulator. The fact that there are some who do not participate in this activity does not change that.

I'm not convinced Cyber Nations is an alliance war simulator. Would you be willing to explain why you feel it to be one?

Fighting experience and military wonders matter a great deal in the game now - if it was not for the de facto recognition of neutrality that GPA is accorded by the international community, it would be very easy to butcher you all and profit a great deal from it. The game structure is NOT what saves the GPA from annihilation, but rather the political structure.

Please point out specifically what the connection with your quoted response and my post is. I believe you've read my posts in a way which I had not intended and wish to make clarifications where ever necessary.

Because GPA does not participate in wars, you really shouldn't care how they are conducted.

The GPA may not fight alliance wars but it does experience wars merely not ones to the scale of others. With the details of how Bob operates as you illustrated so clearly it certainly would be in my and my alliance's best interests to stay on top of discussions and changes regarding the war system regardless of what our perspective on its use is.

Personally I would be ok with a "neutrality mode" which would work like peace mode but be permanent and keep you from interacting with those not in "neutrality mode" in any way, if ya'll want to play the game but don't want to fight wars.

I believe you are misinterpreting a desire for war not to be the only focus or method of advancement for a desire of it never to occur. No where had I suggested war should not be possible or I desire to be impervious to such.

But for those of us who fight, cowardice should be punished and bravery should be rewarded, to make for a better game.

That already is possible and to some degree already occurs in the weight of word and support those which are deemed cowards by the community as a whole possess is significantly reduced. I don't really see why something being introduced as a game mechanic is at all required for a better game. Quite the contrary, I see the intrigue of uncertainty as being a boost to it as concerned parties will make ever more effort to solidify their positions.

I think I will make a suggestion to this effect sometime soon as well.

Have you any suggestions on how to keep it from being equally as monotonous and unengaging as things presently are? I would be interested in reading them.

[Would you mind a Reset?]

I think that there needs to be more of an incentive to war, for one thing. Right now CN favors people who dodge truly damaging wars and import tech with high slot efficiency. Thus, we have arrived at a state where conservative alliances are strongest by far, and anyone who wishes to rise to power must be similarly conservative. It might be ok if that were one path to power, but the warrior's path should be encouraged and strengthened by game rules changes, to promote wars, break deadlock, and ensure that people will not remain on top of the game simply because they have dodged any and all damaging wars, and know enough to keep their aid slots full of tech deals.

I'm not sure I understand what kind of a set up you desire but I think it ultimately becomes a question of just what this game is intended to be. If we wish for more then merely a political simulator but one of the real world then there should be little incentive for war, especially when major powers are concerned. At the same time the damages can be seen as rather extreme the way they are now. Losing a sewer system and roads isn’t very likely except in a total or otherwise war. Also infrastructure isn’t the sole factor of how many people are in a nation. It would make sense for conservative alliances to be the strongest from a stand point of realism due to a lack of resources spent fighting.

If however the desire is to favor war then that’s an entirely different turn for the game. I’m not sure I’d wish to play a game where the way to advance through the ranks or simply improve my nation requires it lest I be targeted instead. It would allow for a change of the present norm but this on its own would be monotonous as well with little depth.

Right now the rules and game structure appear almost to contradict one another. The damages received in war are rather extreme but then wars are encouraged by the NWM wonder and penalties for being in peace mode. I suppose however admin just wants war to be an option rather then either of the two other extremes. I think a more balanced view towards war with a change in the way attacks are conducted would result in less hesitation opening it as a viable option where there may be the possibility of it both being profitable or disastrous in consequences.

[Would you mind a Reset?]

I like rinse and repeat games with nicely set time frames.

As do I on occasion however it only works for so long without changes before you see the player base become drastically reduced out of sheer boredom. It's an issue of replayability. Let's imagine CN was a single player game for a moment with all others being AI. Speed the time up so that 3 years passes more quickly. What would keep you returning and wanting to play a new game after the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. time?

Continually making changes to the game.. Adding in new 'super wonders' every few months you mean?

I have a great distaste for that sort of idea. It adds little to nothing new from a depth perspective and the lacking of depth in the game itself could be mentioned as a reason for the lack of interest. This isn't to say it needs to be rocket science. Some new functions or say reworking what already exists could have a profound impact on player interest while keeping the history the game presently has.

[Would you mind a Reset?]

The game is past it's prime... Most people don't even have wonders to buy anymore, the game wasn't designed for nations to grow to the point they did. I'd love to see a reset just because I don't think the game is going to get any better from here..

Basically that's a rinse and repeat just with a longer frame of time you'd be repeating relative to what wars cause one to do over again. It would be more monotonous then interesting as some the feel is anyway. Toss in the loss of every bit of work prior to a reset and we could very well see a significant number of players leaving. The way to keep it fresh is to continually make changes to the game. Adding more for players to focus on both has its benefits and disadvantages and its something admin would need to carefully consider.

I don't support a reset, I do however support changes to gameplay be they modifications of what we presently have or outright additions.

[Cybernations down 60million NS]

So, shortly after update on April 25th I happened to copy some stats from World Demographics and paste them somewhere safe; I figured they could prove interesting at a later date. I forgot about them but happened upon them recently. In any event, here they are:

04/25 2:51 a.m.:

468,792,368 Total Nation Strength

15,650 Average Nation Strength

1,207,575,972 Total Population

786,551,971 Total Citizens

421,024,001 Active Military

2,460,256,100 Total Military Killed

27,268,313 Total Miles Of Land

*snip*

It's actually down over 70mil. I recall seeing total NS at 474mil on the 23rd or 24th. It might have reached 478mil prior to that, the name did ring bells prior to your thread being made but I can't remember it quite so clearly. I've seen watchined the demographics several times daily to see the change and if the large number of peaces made will result in a stabilization or a continued decline is unavoidable for the moment.

[Current War's Name]

I was reluctant to vote as I don't particularly like any of the options. The coalition one would be nice if other wars where the NPO was challenged had a similar naming scheme. Maybe name it as another Great War, sort of a Napoleonic naming system. I still think NewPOleonic is a good name for the specific series of wars and so should be named similarly.

If that wasn't to happy the best I've seen yet is Karmony.

[My take on the current conflict....]

The test of a man is how he acts when given power.

My curiosity has been piqued and I think not all of the thoughts behind your statements have come to be verbalized so I ask. If the test of one is how they act when given power, how is one to judge if others are worse or better?

[Marching past 10k]

I'd say this is some sort of an Inter-war period war. The first 3 Great Wars led to the Hegemony ultimately being formed. The UJP, while close to a GW, was simply a schism between two parts of the WUT.

And it is an intermediary war because this is the end of the NPO era of unipolarity and the beginning of something new.

Epic war anyone?

NewPOleonic Wars as a general name for those described with each individual war being the equivalent of the coalitions?