My post bonus needs me.

Isn't the time for getting bonuses (besides the forum) based on the time for voting?

So how did you fascist farmers do this set?

I think they should be removed. I never liked the idea of rewarding people for not playing the game they are being rewarded in. It's counter intuitive.

My plan to devalue food is working >.>

Thoughts, opinions, and biases?

Why don't YOU switch?

How about I run a farmer and sell all my food dirt cheap?

No it isn't. Tech points are the representation of technology in a given area. A building or structure is a physical thing that can be refitted. It doesn't make sense to change technology you get from an enemy. Though you could argue it would make sense for you not to gather any technology you do not need and instead automatically sell it. Your argument is incredibly fallacious. Apples and oranges are both fruit but they are not the same. Buildings and technology points are both assets of the game but they are not the same.

No because that makes no sense and technology points can be sold. Should people be able to sell buildings? Derp.

You refit Industrial Complexes to farms by making them food processing plants. You refit oil rigs to farms by dismantling the oil rigs and building silos and machinery out of the parts (ok that's ridiculous, lol).

The basic idea though is why is it sane for countries to save buildings they will not use and then have to demolish and rebuild them when they could be refitted or recycled in some fashion. Particularly for a government that would be predisposed to not waste resources.

They should either be able to be refit or they should be destroyed in the grab. Getting buildings intact from a target is supposed to be a good thing. Not a burden (however slight).

What exactly is fun about this PDM?

I too think people should join GDI if they want some protection. I don't agree that the suicide situation is as bad as some people complain though. My original point though is that most people trying to net as much as possible cut corners to do so. It's been legitimized and protected (to a degree) and when that is disrupted people complain. Instead of complaining they shouldn't cut corners on their defenses.

How is it rewarding the lazy if it's only one government type that gets the bonus? I can see your argument for the construction sites but I don't think you even bothered to read my full suggestion. Which is nothing new when it comes to this board.

There is nothing about rewarding the lazy in any case. It would still benefit to find those with similar strats because you still have to PAY for the refit buildings. You don't have to spend turns but you still have to pay. Not to mention that finding targets with similar strats is not always easy.

As for it making sense that you take someone else's land and it has their type of building on it, DUH. I mean really did you even read the reasoning I put forth in my OP before you replied? I explained how it makes sense to refit a building for use rather than SAVE IT during a military invasion. It would make sense for some recycling of a building to take place or for you to instruct your military not to save buildings you will have to tear down anyway.

I think there should be a government bonus or dependent on construction sites, where a percentage of the buildings that you get from grabbing a country an be refitted to buildings you already have instead of any that you have 0 of (obviously not CS though). The cost of this refit should be taken out on the turns of the grab (destruction cost plus building cost or a percent of them combined). The advantage of this is you won't have to spend any turns building the empty land you would have cleared to rebuild on.

I don't know exactly what percentage would be appropriate (really think a government with this bonus would be best) but I think it could be a useful addition to the game that wouldn't affect very much in the way of balance.

I'm not ready to speculate on what government should get this particular bonus. I just think it's a good idea that makes sense. It doesn't make sense that I attack a country take their land (while destroying a bunch of their buildings) and then save buildings I have no use for and will have to clear at a cost and rebuild.

Nah, that's fine. I've considered the answers to my questions and while I accept that some of you believe in those answers, I do not. I have seen more than enough evidence for crippling retal policies and intra-clan politics. That may be something you all enjoy (which is WHY I asked in the first place what's the appeal), but it's not something I enjoy.

I would like to comment on Rockman's "answer" to my retal policy question though.

He said, "5) Retal policies are pointless, grabs between alliances are so rare now. And intra-clan politics can easily be ignored."

This doesn't solve my problem with this issue. In my opinion there should be grabs between alliances and whatever comes of that should come. It's stifled activity to me if there is some sort of understood taboo away from being adventurous in a set.

So while there also isn't a rulebook per se (so it's claimed) there are many understood and unspoken rules that stifle activity away from anything creative.

Maybe my issue is I haven't seen or heard of a decent enough clan (member count wise) that has a laid back and creative approach to playing a set. I'm not talking about just being on top in some specific way either or fighting a war or two and lol-killrunning targets (though that's not bad in and of itself).

The advantages I see personally of solo servers over Alliance or Team is that whatever I decide to do I can do and I am not beholden to anyone else or holding anyone else back based on such a situation. I've played more serious sets and I've played more laid back sets depending on what I wanted at the time.

Maybe I'm wrong about there being any clans like that though. However if I am then those clans must not be very visible or interesting because I haven't noticed a difference between them and any other clan in anything being talked about.

Oh and I realize that my opinion of how I would like a clan won't be liked by very many people (likely anyway) and I'm not asking or demanding any change. I was just asking originally about what's the appeal of certain things and being provocative because that gets responses faster than just asking boring questions. So maybe some of you can try answering me again or not (I don't hold anyone's opinion against them in this anyway).

Oh sorry, I assumed that was just a typo.

So what exactly is the problem? :)

The o is there because Ivan has too much street cred. It's better to be original, yo.

Don't let my deduction capabilities mystify you. I am not psychic.

TNT that should happen more often to level everything and force people to run adequate defenses instead of running as lean as possible and inviting attacks.

NOW3P you need to stop being so easily offended. It must have hit a sore spot to get such a rigorous defense. Maybe a little truth breaking through your conscious wall of optimism about how things are?

:>

Why not prevent bonus points from being spent during protection on express instead of decreasing the expiration threshold?

>.>

Where was I whining? I asked questions. Also I haven't run a alliance or team country in a long time so it isn't being butthurt either. Rockman is the only one who attempted (I stress that word) to answer the questions. Even if his answers were abusive rather than informative.

By the way the defensive knee-jerk reaction was hilarious :)

What's the appeal of Alliance or Team servers?

What's the appeal of stifled activity?

What's the appeal of having to consult a clan rulebook before you decide to do anything?

What's the appeal of having to run a strategy based on the whims of those running a clan?

What's the appeal of retal policies and bloated intra-clan politics?

Theocracies should have to pay 8% on the public market instead of 6%. In exchange the maximum technology penalty they have should be lowered from -35% to -20%. Theo/techer is too strong in my opinion and often sits at the top ten lists. The disadvantages to advantages of the country are not properly balanced.

A techer produces technology to sell it on the market for money. So the maximum amount of technology you can have or the effect it gives you personally don't matter much in that regard.

There are too many theo/techers (or techers in general) please don't make one.

Can someone join if they have no desire to be a team player, follow clan rules, or otherwise be a boring cog in someone else's machine?

There is no math if you play the hardest strat, Randomositer. It's easy and operates on its own rules. Here is how it works.

1: You come up with a randomly generated country name.
2: You assign each government type a random number. You roll dice to pick your government type and NEVER CHANGE IT.
3: You assign numbers to every building type and then roll dice to pick your building strategy EVEN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT TYPE.
4: You assign numbers to every military unit type and then roll dice to pick the one type you will buy AND NEVER BUY ANY OTHER TYPE.
5: You assign numbers to every technology type and then roll dice to pick the one type you will invest money or time in (if you rolled in research labs for buildings) EVEN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT TYPE OR IS USELESS TO YOU.
6: If you can attack (you have a unit capable of attacking) then you assign numbers to the 12 countries closest to you on the score list, roll dice, and then attack them EVEN IF YOU WILL LOSE BADLY.

If you survive a set then you consider how well you did and try again the next set and see if you do better. You are in a league of your own. The hardcore league.

I disagree as I like to buy it below 2k.

Your spies have been compromised and turned into double agents. They are feeding you false information. Be exceptionally wary of this if they had contact with a communist country. You can't trust the commies.

Mmmmm

So you're the guy selling the beluga caviar this set in place of the usual mcdonalds that my people deserve.

Decent set for farmers it seems to me.

A dozen nukes? That's a bit merciful isn't it?

I see no reason why you should abuse your desk with your face.

Seriously? Did you not read what I wrote? Basically I described a special unit that functions more as a boost to military power (like actual aircraft carriers) instead of adding another strictly combat unit.

Also lol@star destroyer

Aircraft Carriers. They must be built like a building but require no land. They should take many turns to complete (reduced by CS somewhat). They give a slight boost to attacking (either military strength or land gained) and the number of them you can have should be limited by total land.

Sorry I don't agree that people should be impervious fortresses without any effort in defending themselves. I don't think people should automatically be protected from "bad" things so they can net as much as possible. I think it all becomes meaningless when you put in too many protections.

Just so it's understood (for my minuscule pride) I only finished worse than 40th 3 times out of those 11 sets.

On a more important note though I don't think it matters what you are likely to finish either when it comes to suiciding. Not all those suiciding are picking targets based on some professional criteria or from the view point of a skilled player. Those that pick the top 10 (or near it) are just picking the most visible targets as any score list will feature them first. There are a greater number of douche attacks on targets in a set though that are not even near the top 10. They just usually don't have fluffing attached to them on the same scale.

Oh so the countries killed right out of protection looked like they had a shot at the top 10? >.>

I've played express for years on e2025 before earth empires and I've played 11 express sets since I found out about earth empires a few months ago. I've finished in the top 60 on all my sets so far, 3 times in the top 20, 5 times in the top 30, and 8 times in the top 40. More than half of my sets were me experimenting with different builds (mainly timing of builds, etc.)

I'm not some super player or anything. I feel my analysis on the current express server situation is valid though. My best runs were with GDI but the three runs I did that were not with GDI (except for one Facism oiler experiment) didn't turn out horrible. I wasn't plagued with assholes or witnessed too many wars in any of my runs.

So from my point of view the apparent issue is being inflated. Feel free to let me know how wrong I am on that though. I can't wait to hear about it. Though maybe the reason I avoided many problems is because I don't run risky anemic min/max builds where I have to hope and pray no one notices. Though in my opinion taking such risks should be oh I don't know RISKY and therefor not encouraged or PROTECTED like some crybabies seem to want.

My suggestion is a mass of cuteness then? >.>

I suggest you read my original suggestion a bit further up the thread.

Poor wording on my part. My main point was to take the pricing out of the hands of the oilers all together, add more demand to oil (via the suggestion I made), and have the price automatically fluctuate based on the amount of oil in the system.