Hyperbad

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.

I was not suggesting you were going to do anything.

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.

Seriously, 5 would have sufficed edit Doh, didn't see the third page >.< Anyway, it was funny, kinda wish I saw this thread earlier

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. 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.

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?

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

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.

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? 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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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