First, tduong, the US pays the maximum rate of 22% of regular operation cost and 27% of peace keeping costs (the minimum for any nation is 0.001%). Try checking your fact before spouting foundless speculations. The US doesn't even pay the most per capita (Luxembourg) or per GDP (Japan). The top 10 governments are: United States 22.00%, Japan 19.47%, Germany 8.66%, United Kingdom 6.13%, France 6.03%, Italy 4.89%, Canada 2.81%, Spain 2.52%, China 2.05%, and Mexico 1.88%. The top 10 contributors pay 76.44 per cent of the regular budget combined.

Second, you just highly insulted all of the US allies, such as Britian and Canada, who fought and died beside you. Please recind your 'fact' for the fallen military personel.

Angel, you are trying to make a paradox out of nothing. The US Constitution is supreme in the USA, including the right of congress to declare war. However, there the US signed the UN Charter as well, which governs international affairs. It's like marijuana clinics in California. The State says 'ya go ahead, you can do that', while the separate authority of the Federal government says 'no, that's bad." It's not quite a fitting analogy as the UN has no ability to enforce it's mandate. There can be a conflict of opinion without affecting soverignity.

DH, I'm not judging the war(s) by saying they are illegal, only that they violate international agreements. Personally, I think two wrongs don't make a right and violence only begets violence. Besides that, I reserve judgement on anyone or anything outside myself. If Israel uses surgical strikes to take out Iranian reactors and science centres, Iran will just continue operations more descretly in reinforced underground bunkers.

I am currently with Rival, but my posts on AT are not reflective of Rival's stance on anything, so I don't really bring it up.

First, a link explaining more of illegal wars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tional-law_b_1324303.html

Second, DH, I am not defending Iran. I have said here that they are irrational and any war of aggression by Iran against Israel would be as illegal a preemptive FS. I believe in peace, not unilateral force. Brute force rarely works and just pushes the problem into the future with additional fodder for anger. The threat from Iran is not certain and could be mostly election rhetoric. That statement also fits Israel.

Third, Iraq did not have intercontinental missiles and the flight path of such cannot be intercepted by current anti-missile technology.

Fourth, the UN does not impinge on national sovereignty. However, it is a framework agreed to by sovereign nations to govern international relations. The UN is mostly toothless and cannot enforce resolutions, but as a signatories, the US, Iran, and Israel, should seek the approval of the international community prior to unilateral force.

Fifth, The US Constitution state:

This does not state that the US claims authority in cases involving another land. It also implies that any international treaty is validated as part of the Constitution. Your "right" to wage war is not impinged, but your right to wage a legal war is contingent on the approval of others.

No, the UN Charter does not only require one half-hearted attempt at peace. We must continue trying by any means available. I don't know how well you read Articles 33-51, but Article 39 outlines that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so.

The so called sovereign right to kill citizens of another country does not exist any more than the right to kill domestic citizens abroad. Or do you believe the US government can legally kill Americans outside the US? (http://www.aljazeera.com/.../03/2012398516557461.html)

http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/...;h=1600&zc=1&q=60

Israel, like most nations in the world, is a signatory to the UN Charter. Article 33 states:



Declaring war without UN backing is illegal under international law. Just like citizens of signatory nations can be brought to justice at the International Court. You cannot get a war without all five security council veto votes, and Russia and China would side with Iran. Regardless, Israel is willing to ignore international war, like the US, and wage an illegal war of agression without concern.

How can you be most mediocre? Did you mean mostly?

Seems like this cold war has gone hot.

Best of luck to SoF and PDM.

Ninong: Yes, I started with NLS and we decided to remain with SOL.

Jiman, you kill ants with a magnifying glass, not stomping!

*Stirs the pot some more*

As far as I know, MD hasn't denied the alligations that they (Arsenal/Makinso) were planning for MD to attack LaF this reset. If not, why did MD drop relations this reset? If so, the comment "The war was already lost 5 days before the FS" is in accurate. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

As for limiting LaF's gains, maybe have the rest join GDI instead.

You must not be that experiences, because it's 2 consecutive attacks, not 2 total hits per 24 hours. If you alternate hits, every attack removes 1 DR, thereby not achiving DR Ghost Acres. For proof, look at #152 attacks on #568 between Feb 29 and Mar 2.

midevil.chaos, LaF warred SOL last reset over their non-acceptance of 80% L:L. SOL lost the war and adopted the policy change that LaF desired. As a result, SOL has caused less conflicts with other clans this reset, as players are able to retal for their land instead of to some archaic policy.

What retal policies specifically do you (and those you are listening to) find unfair? Different alliances on different servers enforce different retal policies to different effectiveness. If you take that away, what exactly differentiates one alliance from another?

The terms Near East, Middle East, and Far East are Eurocentric stem from the period of 1850-1902 and describe the extends of the Ottoman Empire, the area between 'Arabia and India', and the Hindu Empire and beyond.

Thus speaking, Pakistan and India are Far East, Iran is Middle East, and Israel is Near East. Using modern terms, all four are part of Asia. Describing it as "the region", TAN is correct in saying that Pakistan and India should both be considered regional nuclear powers alongside Israel.

So MD has resorted to hitting themselves into DR (82 hits in the last 36 hours) and even landkilled one of their own members. I guess MD gave up yesterday and now just trying to limit the gains by LaF.

In 2005, Iran President Ahmadinejad had a conference called "The World Without Zionism." (Something actually done, not just an individual spouting off).

Some irrational quotes include:
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny.
"Israel must be wiped off the map."
"I have a connection to God."
"[Then President Bush] also receives inspiration — but from Satan."

No? Now about the Iranian plot to hire a Mexican gang to blow up a DC restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador. Such a plot had no relationship between the risk involved to the potential reward, aka irrational.

An irrational leader makes an irrational nation, unless there are checks and balances to said leaders power.

I can agree with hanlong and Jiman that game mechanic tweaks are in order, but the increased ghost acres for Dictators was implemented so that it would have more of a chance at netgaining competion. We are now seeing the results of that, and yes, more people are giving Dictators a shot to gain land. Now people are complaining that these countries are displacing traditional strategies in the Top 10: that was the intent and it's working, perhaps too well.

I disagree with simply connecting returns to defense as this skews returns back too far that bottomfeeding outweighs landtrading, as you'll always have a higher Def:Off ratio. Instead, I would propose a series of changes to DR that would reduce the "abuse" that some perceive in both strategies.

1) Extend DR from 24 hours to 48 hours
While SoF has complaints up to 72 hours, the game standard currently is 48 hours. If attacks diminish returns for two days instead of one, then there is a reduced drive to attack the same country daily, whether bottomfeeding or landtrading.

2) Reduce DR removals for attacks from 1 to 0.5
Fast landtrading (as between #152 and #568) is only possible as one defend and one attack cancel out and 0 DR remain.

3) Change from step-function to continuous
Current Formula:
Hit 1-3: 100%
Hit 4-5: 80%
Hit 6-7: 50%
Hit 8-9: 35%
Hit 10-11: 15%
Hit 12+: 10%

Suggested Formula: 100% - 10%*DR
Hit 1-3: 90% average
Hit 4-5: 55% average
Hit 6-7: 35% average
Hit 8-9: 15% average
Hit 10+: 0% average

These changes would affect both bottomfeeders and landtraders, giving all-x strategies a small boost in relative ability. Bottomfeeders could no longer gain by deep DR farming for 20-30a a hit. Landtraders could only get maximum returns through one hit per country per 48 hours.

First, China has ICCM (Inter-Contential Conventional Missiles) that could strike the US without going ballistic. Second, the US is no where near to self sustaining, espically in oil and petroleum by-products, such as jet fuel. China has strong connections with OPEC, the Middle East, and Africa. Finally, the US cannot afford their military budget without the trillions of Chinese dollars flooding in every year. I'm not saying the US couldn't win a war with China, but the world is much more dependant on the world's number two economy than you seem to allow for.

It's ironic that most "landtraders" stick to a single parter as there is a slim pool of countries with matching NW, land, and strategy. If more people would embrace the game mechanics for their own gain then there would be less incidences of multi-hits per day trades.

There are 164 countries over 20k land and 12 over 50k land (5 RD, 2 LaF, 2 Evo, 1 Rival, 1 PDM, 1 Neofed). That's 1/3 of alliances represented: 6 cases of land grabbing/"landtrading", 2 cases of war farming (LAF), 2 cases of farming into deep DR (EVO), and 1 case of internal tag hitting (Neofed). That seems to me to be a good mix of strategies and player interactions.

Adapt or die. I wonder when SoF will live up to their name.

China produces about 97% of rare earth metals and has 37% of global reserves. China is the world’s largest producer of antimony, graphite, tungsten, and zinc. Other major minerals are aluminum, bauxite, coal, petroleum, diamonds, gold, iron ore, lead, magnetite, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, tin, uranium, and vanadium.

Marco, LAF fought SOL last reset over L:L retal policy and SOL changed, so that's your most recent war over land or policy.

As for bots, the community seems divided, so two alliance servers, one with and one without bots, seems to make the most sense.

I believe one of the major issues with EE is that there is little adversity for players in clans. If you are one of the lucky few to bottomfeed, the worst you can expect is a few missiles or ABs. If you are trading retals, there is little reward in making your country 'unbreakable'. Bots that attack would add a layer of adversity back into the game. You can't run with too low defense or you might not get your land back. You can't farm relentlessly without provoking a response.

Why should we have to wait for a new player to find this game when we can have simulated humans playing along side us? Without bots, there is little chance of the player base growing substanially.

First of all, I now understand jeest's reluctance to join an established alliance after being deleted. Established alliances screen for multies.

Secondly, the majority of decline in the game occurred in the era of no ghost acres and the rise of Land:Land retals. At that point, the game stagnated with country growth coming only from exploring or bottomfeeding. As the pool of legitimate untagged countries contracted, the game became dependant on multies. It has been at least 8 years since the majority of untagged/spam tag countries were legitimate new players.

Third, with only 61 of 737 countries out of protection, there is a ratio of 11:1 meaning less than 9% of the server population is capable of farming all untags even with Patty's 5 hits per alliance rule.

Finally, at what point does the fun of existing members balance with the desire to grow the game's player base? Without full community conformity, there will always be a minority of agressive players that drive away new players.

Maybe they need to recruit a new wiki-mod.

MD is loose?

Fascists gain a temporary +15% bonus to bonuses. When you change to another government the temporary bonus is lost as well as the 14% conversion loss.

Oh, I forgot to laugh :P

World Wildlife Fund?

He didn't say LAF were netting, only that netting for this reset is dead because of the spectre of war.

What type of weekend commitment are we talking about? Checking 1-2 a day, or every few hours or minutes?

What about an archrival? Is that higher or lower than a nemesis?

So if LAF goes ahead and FSes MD (assuming MD backs down from the fight), will SOL abandon their pre-arranged war and hit LAF instead? I guess we'll see how deticated to the principle of 'even wars' SOL is.

At least half the game is getting the most land without prompting a suicider. You failed by over exploiting a few countries. Learn from your mistake and don't farm people so much.

Thanks for the confidence boost. Somebody has to be the smallest.

The problem is most evident in Express, but stored turns also make the first 48 hours of war in FFA or 1A critical. My suggestion is to release one turn every 3 turns, instead of every 1 turn.

This means max stored turns on Express would take 72 hours to be played instead of the existing 24 hours. As such, you have to play at least half the reset to get full use of turns.

In 1A/FFA, it would take 120 hours to dispense all stored turns making it much more risky to stock up for a FS and reducing the size of Day 2 and evening the load across Day 2-6 instead.

My second war in Earth was NLS vs Monsters, just for the heck of it.

So who will SoF war? PDM or Sanct? Or TIE again? Your Express Spam Recruiting says there will be a big SoF war this reset anyone lower than TIE is about half SoF size.

My guesses are:

SOL vs LCN/imag
LaF vs MD
SOF vs EVO

You lose 14% of bonuses like you lose 14% cash, military, and technology when switching for anything but a Monarchy.

Why can't we all just get along? Dagga, you are one of the reasons why I didn't come to SOL this reset. Stop spewing vile insults and address the issues with facts, not emotional ramblings.

Did you change governments?

5 * 0.86 = 4.3

BTW, Canada has more firearms per capita than the US, but less gun crime. The long gun registry was expensive to start-up, but the maintainance costs were relatively low.

Tough on crime, soft on guns. I guess the École Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal didn't worry to many Westerns.

Some related articles:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/.../2012/02/120215143116.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/.../2012/01/120112193430.htm

Average global temperature is meaningless and masks the fact that some regions are cooling, some warming, and some static.

For example:
http://www.c3headlines.com/...allest-ever-recorded.html

Global warming is a misnomer. Climate change mostly results in the intensification of weather events.

I used to work in Azerbaijan, so it was something I picked up on my travels.

Azerbaijan is on a fault-line, so the earthquake resistance is a great addition. Much more attractive than the oil rigs as a sea-side view now. Sea-level may be rising, but the Caspian Sea is shrinking.

Fair enough, just didn't want restarts to be farmed into the ground having 2k acres and <40k turrets (spending all cash on military).

imag has divisions with 18 people?