just a gut instinct, I know the numbers do not add up to this being true. (maybe it's more of looking at market prices and the food spike... i just haven't found it yet.)

I'm still thinking a Fascist farmer should be able to consistently out-perform a rep casher, but for some odd reason it does not.

either the game is out of whack or market prices at the times I play are not optimum, to make this a reality.

note to self: join Rockman's alliance to learn his secrets :)

congrats on becoming a grandpa :)

actually it goes to show a commie or rep is just as effective destocking without the switch to Demo or Theo ;) Which cannot be said about the Fascist.

I still think the fascist gov. has a lot to offer if it is allowed to flourish.

Lol, there must have been a really bad experience in the past and peeps want to make sure the fascist gov type never gets the power to go truly aggressive.

------------

basically with the amount of players on the servers for land to be comfortably available: One of these needs to occur

1. Increase the length of the resets
2. Shorten the time between turns
3. Increase the explore rates.

The solution I'm suggesting is increase the explore rate but make it so it's a player decision by how much or if they even want to. Have it cost something vs. just changing the back end explore rate for all countries.

Actually I feel because the stocks are slightly larger and the land would be a bit higher the comfort level would be there.

of course this is subjective.



not if there is a dump outlet as it exists in express oil would never drop below $71 a barrel (or what a democracy can clear barrels at) and the upper limit could still be high because the PM sets it at about $337 a barrel. It would probably work out close to where food is at today. More oil cheap being bought for stocking means it would be easier to go aggressive. One of the big drawbacks is price of oil when weighing whether or not to land-grab.




lol, maybe I am on crack :p

but I still feel it would be an easier decision to make if a country is already land-fat with acres to spare to go on a land grabbing spree ;) Acres aren't quite as precious, so retals would not hurt as much.

------------------------------

Anywho here is the percentage by gov type of top 10 finishes so far.


Tourney 13 Rounds 130 Top 10 Countries

Gov Top 10 Percentage
CG --- 29 --- 22.31%
DG --- 23 --- 17.69%
FG --- 02 --- 1.54%
HG --- 48 --- 36.92%
RG --- 28 --- 21.54%

Before saying there is not enough data to represent an accurate statistic here is Express ;)

Express 73 Rounds 730 Top 10 Countries

C --- 177 --- 24.25%
D --- 077 --- 10.55%
F --- 029 --- 3.97%
H --- 263 --- 36.03%
I --- 004 --- 0.55%
R --- 175 --- 23.97%
T --- 005 --- 0.68%

Now this goes to show that a fascist is not exactly up there with Republics and Commies or even Demo's for that matter. This is before they nerfed the PM food prices.

currently an all-x it is played defensively, the transition to an aggressor country would be based on an ability to defend land taken. In most cases the land grab is not worth it unless bottom feeding, or hitting a country that is half your own net-worth or below this mark.

basically if a country twice my size hits me I need to decide: 'do I want to jump in networth @ near their net with jets to take the retal or let it go'. in other words destock or partially destock to take a retal. End result we are defensively equal at that point and can land trade, but open to external interference, and a potentially lower networth finish.

In most cases the jump is not worth it, just like stated someone is grabbing smart. or someone is maintaining a 60/40 ratio of jets to turrets along with healthy tanks and troops. Which translates into hitting someone @ just a little over 1/3 their size. 3 mil net hits 1.2 mil net = relatively safe while still retaining decent returns.

what occurs with the added explore bonus is the land trading would occur more often as it would give the All-x country more of an incentive to partially destock. They can recoup the potential losses thru the augmented land if they decide to go back to exploring.

The added oil bonus would also give them the oil needed with a few rigs without offsetting their cashing or teching balances.

We would see a lot more retals taken, and potentially a lot more countries going aggressive, because the comfort level to transition from an all-x defensive posture and an aggressive one would be provided, thru the added land.

I do go all-x because I do not want to add more pressure to the countries already under attack, it's really not rocket science to land-grab smart. But hitting a country 10-20 times on a daily basis to get an extra 10-20k acres by end of reset just isn't my style. hitting 3-4 0 DR countries once per reset every day if they can be found may be worth it assuming they fall in the safety net range. But even then the odds of finding 180-240 countries thru the whole reset which meet this narrow criteria is pretty slim.

realistically oiler is not going to get more demand unless prices are cheap enough to make it stock-able commodity. In other words it would need to be sell-able on the PM as it is in express. the downside is that production is not high enough to make it worthwhile for PM sales. If farmers did not have a PM outlet it would saturate the market, causing what you see occurring with the oil if production was increased.

The fascist being fine is subjective, however from quantifiable perspectives it is not fine i.e.(# of top 10 finishes compared to other strats) ;p How often do you hear an alliance leader saying we are going to war I want everyone to go fascist? Alternately during a netting reset how often do you hear the top netters (looking for a top 10 finish) saying they will be running a fascist farmer? yet fascist is fine. When was the last time you saw a clan take top average networth while running fascist farmers as their strat to accomplish this? yet fascist is fine.

over powered exploring with a counter-balance, which would need to be taken into consideration, in any strat redesign. This definitely is not a 'we get more acres for free" proposition.

How are you quantifying the fascist gov is fine?

Complexity would depend on existing code-base and how the code is modified to implement to the additional calculations. I am unfamiliar with the existing code base so cannot speak to the complexity or simplicity of implementing something like this.

I have seen all-x get some really decent finishes, so I do know it is competitive (under the right circumstances). Over time though it would still balance itself out where land grabbers would just get more land and all-x would still rely on market conditions to get their competitive finish. However there may be a tipping point where an all-x could out explore the land grabbers and it would make for an interesting challenge.

#1 Fascist Government is fine

While the the fascist gov type is fine, it is by no means a competitive strat outside of the alliance servers. i will say it is a strong strat defensively, but this leaves very little room for an aggressive stance. Fascist gov is basically the balanced average country, good enough, but it's not about to outshine anything else on the servers.

#2 Oil tech would weaken oiler

Where the supply may bring prices down, the proposal is to counter balanced this with a need to buy more food or to build more farms to offset the penalty. So countries would need to sell their oil a little higher or produce less.

#3 Explore gains do not need to be increased.

Land is where the fun of the game is the more land is available the bigger the countries the more people can land grab. the explore gain would give an all-x country a fighting chance. It can still be counterbalanced with a food penalty so we do not get rep cashers going completely out of control ;)

---------------

I just think it would add an interesting twist to the game, and make it more interesting to play as new strats are explored by the changed dynamics. My though is that with a food penalty attached to using the new tech it would keep most govs including the fascist in check from outpacing other strats.

for example you may be producing 3x as much oil but you are only producing half as much food. like-wise you maybe exploring 2x as much land but you are producing 40% less food.

Strats would need to find a happy balance for these new variables. This would affect all gov/strats and perhaps it is some other gov and strat that comes out on top in exploiting the new dynamic. who knows; for one techers would probably benefit greatly from something like this as would republics too.

now this here is the thread of the day :)

suiciding on a suicider should be seen as lending a helping hand :p

a last act of good faith maybe?

Space and Exploration ..Tech

I know this has been asked for many many times, but i would love to see it happen.

-------------------

Basically the new tech would increase oil production and the explore yield. Give the Fascist Gov type a new life as the dominant strat.

maybe balance it with agri tech similar to the biz/res tech

where an imbalance of more space_explore tech hurts food production.

for oil production allow the tech to increase it by 300%, but producing oil rigs affect food production.

ranked 27th

... lol at the start of the round I sold 1.2 mil turrets on my private market, instead of bushels, and the public market was actually dry 0 turrets...

so for about 120 turns I was completely defenseless :p

Only a few hours left...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/Skynet_%28satellites%29

The Trump Congressional Board Room

Trump: So tell me senator how did your party do with balancing the budget? Do you think you did a better job then the other party?

Senator: We did an excellent job everyone was on board with slashing and cutting expenditures. We not only balanced the budget but have an amazing surplus.

Trump: Any problems with your teammates? Could some of them done better?

Senator: they all performed exceptionally well so it would be hard to say one of my teammates was not up to par.

Trump: You do realize the other team beat your budget by more then 10%. You were chosen as project manager, tell me why I shouldn't fire you :)

I was thinking dictator too, but there is only 1-2 that are land thin enough to get thru my spal with impunity, and this is assuming they are sitting on about an equivalent of a mil spies.

So just looking at land thin countries for now regardless of gov type. Hoping to narrow the list to under hundred.

only if you get too big for your britches and decide to retal :p

--- ^^^ I have proof ;D

thanx for the clarification :)

it does narrow the gap, but it is still quite a few countries to swim thru, but it may well be worth the effort ;)

just might do that Alex :)

I did not know GDI helped with spies, learned something new today. thanx Rockman

dunno yet, dunno if I can PM you when my spies catchem or not,

maybe a mod can clarify, prefer not getting a country deletion over satisfying someone's curiosity ;)

wow and still walked away with 22K acres, not bad.

preemptively killing your future countries...

welcome back iScode good to have you back playing a country ;)

I'm putting this in my sig if that's ok ;)

hmm I wonder how many acres will be satisfactory for this stolen cash :p

cash stolen / (turns left in reset * cash generated per acre) * 3/2

is the above fair?

of course I will need to worry about them retaling with missiles and what not so wasted turns diffusing missiles and extra burden cost of jets and oil ... hmm might as well farm them into oblivion?

For whoever it is that is stealing cash ;)

it is just a matter of time before you fail a spyop...guess what happens next ;D

22 PsuedoCode (#79) 12,685 $12,231,718 HG

It's been a long while since I've played a casher, stayed monarchy til the very end of set.

Rank Country Land Networth Special
1 banana hammock (#59) 22,315 $29,919,470 CG
2 k2 (#133) 17,876 $28,610,683 CG
3 single digit country (#9) 7898 $21,716,146 DG
4 Walls Of Stalingrad (#118) 12,101 $20,111,682 HG
5 Ella EnchanteD (#69) 13,590 $20,081,802 RG
6 i am number (#6) 11,283 $19,852,523 DG
7 shaney (#78) 7000 $18,793,064 HG
8 RETALIATION (#16) 9202 $18,621,994 HG
9 LifeGivesULemonsPaintfluffGold (#63) 14,146 $17,378,147 RG
10 NA REUNION SET (#91) 15,919 $15,936,488 CG

11 Tim the tool man Taylor (#17) 8327 $15,934,748 RG
12 Where Eagles Fear to Fly (#27) 13,110 $15,275,388 HG
13 BUTTLAND (#127) 15,342 $15,227,875 TG
14 I am going to finish 12th (#105) 14,507 $15,120,533 DG
15 All Turret Defender (#77) 14,244 $15,095,143 HG
16 neex (#81) 10,777 $14,734,006 HG
17 Taylor Swift is StendhalSyndrome (#111) 16,017 $14,276,009 HG
18 Egg (#125) 11,523 $13,822,391 D
19 I do it for the ghost acres (#35) 13,833 $13,386,940 HG
20 Nissin Waffers (#122) 15,892 $13,282,898 CG

21 Where The Shadows Lie (#136) 10,700 $13,177,180 RG
22 PsuedoCode (#79) 12,685 $12,231,718 HG
23 SiNgApOrE (#113) 10,019 $12,048,338 RG
24 morning dump (#116) 11,217 $11,962,365 HG
25 NorthviewDriveDilapidatingKrew (#54) 15,132 $11,427,277 F

CKHustler

while the post office does run at a deficit there are some easy ways of fixing this. most of the deficit is related to infrastructure maintenance, which is no longer needed as the business shrank.

the social insurance side however is going to be growing, and is already running at huge deficits, much larger then the 8 billion pegged by the post office. The system itself needs to be revamped, modernized and streamlined. There is a tremendous amount of red tape and paperwork which is manually handled. One of the big pluses in allowing businesses to purchase their health insurance or retirement insurance from the gov is the innovation they would bring with them. Currently the social insurances are at a individual level, which is costly. Business would introduce group level policies and more importantly system consolidation and integration. To give an example of a company doing good providing supplemental insurance I will simply point to AFLAC.

The fiscal commission report above though pointed out something that shocked me:

there is 1.1 trillion dollars in earmarks embedded in the current tax code. getting rid of these earmarks alone would be a huge step forward. It's larger then the defense budget, personally I would love to have a better understanding of where this money is actually going. That's a lot of skimming occurring, outside of the published budget.

just a place holder for later:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/...omentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

here is a research report showing what the higher education budget actually looks like.

Trends in College Spending
Where does the money come from? Where does it go?

http://www.deltacostproject.org/...ds_in_spending-report.pdf

and here is an awesome graphical representation of the US Federal Discretionary Budget:)

http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

on #4 I sort of view like the post office vs. Fedex and UPS.

While the post office may not be as efficient as Fedex and UPS it still forces those companies to remain competitive. It also provides for innovation as these companies do what they can to get and keep their share of the market. the gov of course will always be able to provide lower cost, and as it learns from Fedex and UPS can and does become a better service provider.

For #5 I normally shy away from subsidized solutions or penalties being levied for non-conformance to standards we believe should be enacted outside of our own borders. I just can't think of some way to level this playing field against a global economy, where countries allow major environmental damage to occur and/or do not come close to providing a living wage for their workers.

#1 cannot occur without addressing fundamental issues which affect our economy. we either lower our standard of living and shrink the economy or we close down programs which are actually safety nets. An easy solutions could be to lower our own global footprint by shrinking our military involvement globally. This however also means we would need to let go of strategic positions we consider crucial to our national interests. What this actually means is American corporations abroad exploiting resources and labor resources would be left defenseless to face the wrath of some local populations. A huge portion of American involvement abroad is to ensure governments remain friendly to these types of exploitation.

It may sound like the right thing to do especially when considering how our national interests are being represented abroad. however this would translate into much higher prices within the G-8 countries. We also have the SCO currently jostling for global dominance when it comes to trade. So it definitely would not create a vacuum if we were to step aside. It would just give rise to a new power bloc dictating who gets what, and I doubt we would be very high up on this totem pole.

As harsh as it may sound, we may be headed into a repeat of the great depression. Unless we find a way to revitalize our manufacturing sector and this does not necessarily have to be cars or electronics. It can be medicine, green energy, advanced composite materials, whatever it takes as long as it is profitable. Which points to another aspect of the problem wherein vast amounts of R&D expenses paid for by taxes in academia, is not recouped. The R&D results are exported oversees where it is cheaper to commercialize. So in reality other countries are capitalizing on this research at our expense. This has to stop somehow, this R&D is expensive and we are giving away major strategic advantages every-time this research ends up in foreign hands.

Federal R&D Funding by Agency:
http://www.proposalexponent.com/federalprofiles.html

umh on the solo servers especially this one you will get your country banned/deleted if you plan or organize outside of the game. I would be very careful with this, or agreeing to participate in some form of organized activity.

just a fair heads up to those considering the possibilities.

We cannot seriously address issues much less provide solutions to the problems we face without identifying the root causes.

Is there a serious discontent in the citizenry vis a vis politicians they voted into power? Is there a disconnect between the solutions politicians are bringing to the table and what their constituents want? If so then what is the cause of this disconnect?

If not then the constituents are happy. All these constituents need to do is remain vigilant over those representing them. Politicians would simply need to continue providing solutions matching the mandate provided to them from the people.

Do we even understand what this mandate is? I'm willing to bet it is simple and has a lot of common ground regardless of which party a person claims to be from.

1. Get the economy under control i.e. stop spending more then what is brought in as tax revenue.

2. Bring back good paying jobs, creating new jobs does not mean minimum wage and/or temporary employment without benefits. It means jobs allowing an average worker to save money and achieve their dreams. A good paying job means you can pay your rent or mortgage with a single weeks worth of take home pay <<-- this used to be the banking standard for making a home loans. This standard disappeared in the 70's as banks allowed couples to merge their salaries to meet the one week salary requirement. This devolved to a single 2 week salary covering the mortgage in the 80s and by the 90s this became 2 salaries for 2 weeks covering the mortgage. So instead of making sure salaries kept up with the cost of living they loosened the requirements to make owning a home accessible to those who under older standards would have been locked out. To top it off laws were passed wherein if the equivalent of a months salary was not enough to cover the mortgage then offer adjustable rate mortgages and sell it as a home for all program. We now have major issues but hey who could have possibly known this was going to go sideways.

3. Fix the education system so it is not measured on the ability of a student to memorize facts and figures. make it so students coming out of a k12 school system can actually do their own research and vocalize their own opinions. Analytical thinking skills is more important then the ability to demonstrate rote memorization skills.

4. Health care make it so the general public can buy into medicare or medicaid as an option vs. paying large insurance companies. This not only funds these programs, but provides a competitive atmosphere, which large insurance companies would need to recognize if they wanted to survive. Do the same with social security i.e. allow people to invest in their own accounts in lieu of or in addition to their 401Ks. There could be a minimum amount mandated to insure some form of baseline, but allow people to invest more pre-tax if they wanted to.Like a 401k make it so amounts invested above the minimum can be borrowed against in cases of emergencies. Also make the accounts transferable in the event of death, but can be taxed as a capital gain when transferred.

5. Environment: It is ok to mandate clean air, water, and resource conservation. however open up research and programs to make these initiatives affordable. Provide incentives to companies to meet these standards tax breaks, free land, or even subsidized retrofits. We do not need more companies leaving because the cost of meeting EPA standards make them less competitive in the global marketplace. Raise customs tariffs on goods coming from countries which do not require these types of environmental enhancements in the manufacturing of goods. Use the custom tariffs to level the playing field with countries that allow their populations to be exploited. Use the extra money to pay for the retrofitting of manufacturing plants or in building out a renewable energy grid.

The above are off the cuff ideas but I'm sure much smarter people then myself can hone these into something that is actually workable. What it takes though is some serious brainstorming sessions where ideas are thrown on the table with give and takes being explored for their actual value to our various societies.

for me its just fun to identify problems and think of possible solutions.

From the article: "Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety."

oh my we need to lock them conservatives up, soon, before they hurt themselves :D

There hasn't been a political party holding onto their ideals on either side of the aisle for well over 40 years. We are and have been run by a global corporate oligarchy for quite sometime now. The pretty boys standing in front delivering the speeches are just for show ;) It really does not matter what country you are living in or what your political leanings are. One way or another the majority of the money you make will end up in their pockets. Whether thru taxes, mandated health insurance, or the price of gas, you work to make them richer.

Political rhetoric is just a distraction making people believe that some politician somewhere in the massive bureaucracy is to blame for the woes of the world. If you had just voted the other way we could have avoided this snafu ... lol what a crock of BS ;)

What an average worker has at the end of the week or month after all the expenses are paid determines the health of an economy. If our worker can save money and still have the ability to purchase non-essential items, then the economy is strong. It means that jobs are being created. If our average worker is struggling to make ends meet due to rising gas or food prices then this means the economy is weak and jobs are being lost.

Take the above and it holds true whether it is at an individual or at a community level. The elephant in the room is credit because it is used to provide the perception of additional income where none exists. Credit is an instrument of power over men and nations. When these corporations cannot take something legally, they have the government there to provide a ways and means to grant them their wish. i.e. we must tax you more so these corporations can get their cut of these wonderful government programs we are providing you.

Anywho I'm watching gas prices go up, and calling the next economic downturn to occur in the next 6 months to a year. Meanwhile these corporations stockpile liquid assets to buy out the markets as it crashes. Of course the disaster in Japan and the turmoil in the Middle East will be seen as part of the key driving factors, and not the basic greed of a few board members.

cynical yet true ;)

South Park Conservatives ;)

How does socialism rise up from a lack of class consciousness???

Socialism is a construct of bureaucracy over a working mass dictating or enforcing the equilibrium of individual worth. In a strict sense it is a governed class system of workers and overseers.

While not entirely impossible to break out of the mold individual success is much harder under a socialist bureaucracy. If a person is serious about gaining personal wealth then they need to begin looking at the imbalance between countries and exploiting this for their own personal gain. Trade as in imports and exports is still the key.

Conservatism is nothing more than an attempt to establish a status quo, or glass ceiling if you will. How it stratifies itself is irrelevant, what matters is the perception and the establishment of guidelines ensuring those who are awarded power can be stripped of it in the event of non-conformance ;) It's just a basic carrot and stick approach to getting people to do what you want them to do.

Socialism on the other hand is a form of civilized agreement between those with power, and their workers to establish a minimalist peace of mind by providing a safety net for the workers. The benefit for those with power is to keep large masses from assembling and organizing in economic downturns. By providing the minimum needs for survival i.e. shelter and food, it insures an acquiescence of the masses, as long as the breadline continues to feed the hungry. The worst case scenario in a socialist state is when the breadlines fail, in which case the wolves come out to play.

because it's easier to fleece your population if you can keep them divided ;)

for 3 long years I've been trying to figure out which party Obama belonged to, after reading the above I finally figured it out...

he's a conservative ;D

lol, this complaint reads like:

I want to attack your country without any consequences for my actions.

play an all-x country and retal the hits made against you, sometimes you get to land trade and build up acres this way. When two players are at about the same strength and can land-trade then the game gets to be a little fun.

This quickly loses its charm when players attack much smaller players. So for me when the complaint starts out by stating "I attacked a much smaller player then myself"... then you basically deserved whatever came your way.

You might be able to get away with it on the alliance servers, this however is a solo server. The smaller players you go out of your way to exploit get to capitalize on your weaknesses as they see fit, without a whole clan killing them for it. If you want to exploit smaller players then build a solid country, not some half-lazy land-grabber with no defenses and then cry because some small player gave you a bloody nose for being a bully.

I have no pity for countries that land-grab, if you are playing the game in an aggressive manner then your expectations should be preset that you will get an aggressive response. I am quite certain the all-x countries you attack feel your land grab is uncalled for. I am also sure the response to anyone complaining about smaller countries getting land-grabbed would be

"This Is A War Game".

In which case all is fair game when it comes to war and love! So when you shoot first, anything that follows is fair game. If you do not like it then go play on the alliance servers where you can hide behind the skirts of your alliance.

this is my last reset as a fascist farmer in express the amount of times the poor country got land-grabbed @ the start was ridiculous.

How much defense should I get ??? Any help appreciated !!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
April Fools

Congrats Dragon :)

it helps the Theo Casher and Commies, which is probably the direction this was going in.

The only thing I can see now is playing a Fascist Grabbing country vs. an all-x strat. Rebalance with more land, to regain the lost income. Problem is the start-up, which completely leaves the farmer start-ups vulnerable now, especially non-fascists. (I will qualify the latter statement by saying on non-alliance servers.) Question being how much military can be purchased with the lower starting income? So commies are going to have a field day on anyone doing a farm startup. They already do, but this gives the commie an even bigger gap to play with.

Alternately early reset public bushel prices will need to be much higher to compensate for the loss in PM revenue and to keep up with the commies new found land grabbing power when starting up.

I foresee 30-40k acre commies in express with this change.

love the new FFA Control panel :)

This needs to be applied on the other servers!