Nightmare government

[The AUT]

President: The AUT

Rest: ODN

That'd make for some good times.

[Cataduanes]

Funny story: Soviet Sindorin is still out there somewhere. We caught him the beginning days of NSO acting like a girl to throw people off. So someone reported him.

Heh that does not surprise me at all

President: The AUT

Rest: ODN

That'd make for some good times.

Yeah that sounds about right

[Azaghul]

To be fair, the utility of google docs is debatable, and many people prefer to have clear records easily accessible for what's going on. I for one prefer forums to fiddling with google docs even if it's not as pretty.

Depends on what you're using it for. Anything can be a mess depending on the competency (or lack thereof) of the person trying to do it. For any banking effort with a substantial number of participants, google docs makes record-keeping and organizing a lot cleaner, quicker, and easier than forum based work.

Also, try actually posting your nightmare gov rather than just taking offense cause you were on somebody's.

This I agree with completely.

To be fair, Nintenderek has never tried to breach 4k NS. He likes scrapping at the bottom with warchests that are frankly impossible for actual newbs to obtain, not to mention experience. Yes, in an alliance-wide war 1 Nintenesque fighter whooping 6 enemies' butts with an experience and money advantage doesn't matter anymore than a spit in the ocean, but if he's having fun and isn't small due to incompetence, I don't see the big deal.

At that range, as soon as you unluckily loose a ground battle with your warchest... congrats you've just funded your enemy's war for several days.

It also doesn't help that combat in that range is just symbolic, it does little to determine the results of a war. I guess it's "fun", but personally I have more a lot more fun having a nation large enough to make a good contribution towards an overall war effort.

[Blacky]

It also doesn't help that combat in that range is just symbolic, it does little to determine the results of a war. I guess it's "fun", but personally I have more a lot more fun having a nation large enough to make a good contribution towards an overall war effort.

I agree that micro nations have little effect overall on the war effort. However, I hear a lot of the time people arguing that "wars are decided in the upper tiers", and I always ask "why do you believe that?"

Many times in statistics threads that scope the strength of different alliances misleading tiers are used e.g; 5,000 tech or 50,000 NS, as if an arbitrary barrier some how effects a nations ability to combat in wars. Maybe in the system before this one where the war declaration range was 50%-200% those people had a leg to stand on but now it's ridiculous.

The average NS is something like 18,000 NS. However, that shouldn't be used to measure warring ability, because there are as many as 2-3,000 nations at the bottom bringing down the average NS. I think a better system would be taking into account when most nations have the tools to fight in wars, ie; Navies, Airforce, Nukes, etc. And then from there finding the "hotspot". I'd say 15,000 NS - 20,000 NS is generally where most nations begin producing a high ratio of taxes collected vs bills paid and also gain access to the various military tools. From there we see that the "tightest range" is around the 28,000 NS region. At 28,000 NS there are 2,919 nations in range. At 60,000 NS despite the range being far wider in terms of NS there are only 2,769 nations in range. {at 45,000 NS it's about 3,000 nations but again the range is far wider}

In the Karma war the average NS of the Hegemony side at it's peak was a mere 25,000 NS (not accounting for dead weight) and for the Karma side a mere 23,000 NS. I think it's fair to say that the bulk of the wars are not fought in the upper tiers, however the upper tiers certainly are the most notable. It is also true in many instances that NS, and also the concept of top nations are also misleading. As that NS can drop rather fast when infrastructure is destroyed and infrastructure has very little in terms of military effectiveness outside of ground battles, but does increase upkeep considerably.

That idea actually stems from old propoganda which suggested that the NPO could have won GW1 in a war of atrocity. Due to the fact that they had a higher number of top nations which was laughably no more than a few thousand NS at the time being able to aid fall the smaller nations. At present as you know each nation is expected to be their own bank in times of war and be able to fund themselves, or else they face the risk of being bill-locked. Of course that does not negate the need for banking, $18,000,000 in aid is definitely useful for an MP armed nation in the 15,000 - 25,000 NS region after being knocked around a little.

Of course I know that isn't neccessarily what you were saying, but I just wanted to put that to rest.

edit: overuse of italics

Edited October 26, 2009 by Blacky

[Penkala]

Emperor: Corinan

Regent: Chron

MoIA: Francesca

MoW: Battalion

MoFA: TheAut

MoE: RyanGDI

[NeCoHo]

Triumvirs: Xiphosis, Ephriam Grey, Sethb

FA: Doitzel, rmm4390, Necoho

IA: RyanGDI, Darth Sexy

Defense: Hellscream, Virillus

Advisory Council on alliance policies and direction: King Xander, Ivan Moldavi, Starfox101

EDIT: forgot the third failboat in FA

I'd be down for that.

As long as Rebel Virginia gets to be one of the FA Deputies.

My nightmare gov would include:

Emperor: Xiphosis

MoIA: Imperator

MoFA: Quinoa_Rex

MoF: Lord Boris

MoW: Vacant, because no one would want to fight this bad-$@! alliance gov.

Edited October 26, 2009 by NeCoHo

[Timberland]

GM: BOWWOW3000

GH: BOWWOW3000

GC: BOWWOW3000

[Duncan King]

I've had dealings with most of these at one point or another and they've all left a unique impression on me. Some have left the game for one reason or another, the rest I prefer to avoid as much as possible.

Main Leader: Carter

Other Government: Francesca, RyanGDA, Dpops, Maligore, the "duck" man, the "first" man, Lord Shazbot, Gonzoczar, Jack the Great.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Duncan King

[Dr. Dan]

GM: BOWWOW3000

GH: BOWWOW3000

GC: BOWWOW3000

Odd, that's my fantasy government.

[Azaghul]

I agree that micro nations have little effect overall on the war effort. However, I hear a lot of the time people arguing that "wars are decided in the upper tiers", and I always ask "why do you believe that?"

Many times in statistics threads that scope the strength of different alliances misleading tiers are used e.g; 5,000 tech or 50,000 NS, as if an arbitrary barrier some how effects a nations ability to combat in wars. Maybe in the system before this one where the war declaration range was 50%-200% those people had a leg to stand on but now it's ridiculous.

The average NS is something like 18,000 NS. However, that shouldn't be used to measure warring ability, because there are as many as 2-3,000 nations at the bottom bringing down the average NS. I think a better system would be taking into account when most nations have the tools to fight in wars, ie; Navies, Airforce, Nukes, etc. And then from there finding the "hotspot". I'd say 15,000 NS - 20,000 NS is generally where most nations begin producing a high ratio of taxes collected vs bills paid and also gain access to the various military tools. From there we see that the "tightest range" is around the 28,000 NS region. At 28,000 NS there are 2,919 nations in range. At 60,000 NS despite the range being far wider in terms of NS there are only 2,769 nations in range. {at 45,000 NS it's about 3,000 nations but again the range is far wider}

In the Karma war the average NS of the Hegemony side at it's peak was a mere 25,000 NS (not accounting for dead weight) and for the Karma side a mere 23,000 NS. I think it's fair to say that the bulk of the wars are not fought in the upper tiers, however the upper tiers certainly are the most notable. It is also true in many instances that NS, and also the concept of top nations are also misleading. As that NS can drop rather fast when infrastructure is destroyed and infrastructure has very little in terms of military effectiveness outside of ground battles, but does increase upkeep considerably.

That idea actually stems from old propoganda which suggested that the NPO could have won GW1 in a war of atrocity. Due to the fact that they had a higher number of top nations which was laughably no more than a few thousand NS at the time being able to aid fall the smaller nations. At present as you know each nation is expected to be their own bank in times of war and be able to fund themselves, or else they face the risk of being bill-locked. Of course that does not negate the need for banking, $18,000,000 in aid is definitely useful for an MP armed nation in the 15,000 - 25,000 NS region after being knocked around a little.

Of course I know that isn't neccessarily what you were saying, but I just wanted to put that to rest.

edit: overuse of italics

I agree generally. It's a mistake to say that the very top ranks determine the war exclusively. But the question is how much is each nation worth? Assuming all wars from hear on out are generally gonna be nuclear, all nations with nuclear ability and a workable warchest can contribute. It depends a lot on how broadly you mean when you say "upper tiers". Nuclear capability is a requirement to be relevant, but other military wonders, tech levels, and large warchest. High tech, high warchested nations with every available improvement and most/all military wonders able to fight it out with nukes and conventionally for a long time are gonna be worth a lot more than mid ranked nuclear nations that can launch nukes for a few weeks and that's it. It takes several mid-sized nations to equal a really large nation, and very large numbers of small nations to make up for a nuclear capable mid-sized nation. Just because at each step damage output, as well as how long you're able to sustain that output, becomes substantially greater. As well as the fact that being large enough to sustain a large navy and 105 planes, win ground battles, full sat/MDs, does make a substantial difference on damage output even if nukes do the most.

So the logic that the upper tiers decide wars is that if you are able to take out the enemies upper tier your enemy would have to have a very substantial numbers advantage for their mid-sized nations to win against your larger nations. Nuclear nations knocked down into the lower ranks are gonna slaughter lower tier nations who aren't nuclear capable. After you reach the upper tier, 8K+ infra, WRC, large warchest (~500 mill+), thousands of tech, etc. the differences aren't as great. Of course a really huge top nation, 15K infra, billions of warchest, 10K+ tech is gonna do more, but it's not as substantial as the difference between the upper tier nation and the mid-sized nation, or the mid-sized nation and the small one.

[lmcfalcon12]

Sorry, just got to this. Chairman Hal is God. End of story.

[Londo Mollari]

Leader: noWedge

2nd in command: Slayer99

MoD: Bob Sanders

MoFA: Chairmanhal

MoEcon: Van Hoo III

MoIA: Farung

Intelligence: Ephraim Grey

Propaganda: Kilkenny

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at this one.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Londo Mollari

[rsoxbronco1]

Leader: noWedge

2nd in command: Slayer99

MoD: Bob Sanders

MoFA: Chairmanhal

MoEcon: Van Hoo III

MoIA: Farung

Intelligence: Ephraim Grey

Propaganda: Kilkenny

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at this one.

I think Bob Sanders would probably be a decent, if not good, MoD.

Why no mention of Banned Member the duck as Minister of recruitment? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

EDIT: The filtering is retarded...even alluding to a banned member is technically filter evasion since people know who I'm talking about

Edited October 26, 2009 by rsoxbronco1

[alpreb]

GM: BOWWOW3000

GH: BOWWOW3000

GC: BOWWOW3000

Finest member to ever leave TOP

[HalfEmpty]

Headman: Chicken Slippuah

FA: Mushi

MOW: Lt

IA: Slayer

Morale Officer: Alfer

[Machiabelly]

So the logic that the upper tiers decide wars is that if you are able to take out the enemies upper tier your enemy would have to have a very substantial numbers advantage for their mid-sized nations to win against your larger nations. Nuclear nations knocked down into the lower ranks are gonna slaughter lower tier nations who aren't nuclear capable. After you reach the upper tier, 8K+ infra, WRC, large warchest (~500 mill+), thousands of tech, etc. the differences aren't as great. Of course a really huge top nation, 15K infra, billions of warchest, 10K+ tech is gonna do more, but it's not as substantial as the difference between the upper tier nation and the mid-sized nation, or the mid-sized nation and the small one.

If you beat up all the lower tier and they start to threaten to leave in droves you can force an alliance to surrender.

[Imperator G4G]

My nightmare gov would include:

Emperor: Xiphosis

MoIA: Imperator

MoFA: Quinoa_Rex

MoF: Lord Boris

MoW: Vacant, because no one would want to fight this bad-$@! alliance gov.

The bitterness makes me smile.

[i surge i]

I'd be down for that.

MoIA: Imperator

MoFA: Quinoa_Rex

MoF: Lord Boris

.

You realize that The Liquor cabinet was pretty successful with them in government, right?

Edit: clarity

Edited October 26, 2009 by i surge i

[Sandwich Controversy]

Xiphosis, Emperor of the Liquor Cabinet.

[Imperator G4G]

Xiphosis, Emperor of the Liquor Cabinet.

Well, not quite. But quinny, Boris and I were all .gov in tLC.

[TehChron]

Emperor: Corinan

Regent: Chron

MoIA: Francesca

MoW: Battalion

MoFA: TheAut

MoE: RyanGDI

Everyone respects everyone's right to etc etc, but frankly I dont understand how having me as a second-in command is a nightmare move of any sort. Mind expanding on that choice? Edited October 26, 2009 by Chron

[i surge i]

Xiphosis, Emperor of the Liquor Cabinet.

Shut up you know what i mean

[youwish959]

Everyone respects everyone's right to etc etc, but frankly I dont understand how having me as a second-in command is a nightmare move of any sort. Mind expanding on that choice?

Your just the second active poster of NSO he could think of.

[TehChron]

Your just the second active poster of NSO he could think of.

You'd think he'd have thought of Ivan or you before me. At least those both have conceivable reasons.

[Londo Mollari]

I think Bob Sanders would probably be a decent, if not good, MoD.

He would do a good job IMO actually. A competent government is potentially more "nightmarish" than an incompetent one. This government would undergo bitter infighting, but would be just absolutely vicious to other alliances. And therein would lie the .