"There" is whatever objective you're playing towards. I enjoy playing towards the economic, leveling, and score aspects of the game. As such, "there" for me is reflected by countries with high income, high level, and high score. This can be counterproductive because factors necessary for a high level and high score, don't always translate to a high profit.
We all compete against one another to some degree. Last month, it was my goal to be #1 for President for LU, KB, and FB. I didn't really have any competition for LU, but had some serious competition on KB and FB. In the end, I got #1 for LU and FB, and #2 for KB (damn you, Green Starfish!). Whether or not the others I was competing against even knew I was competing against them is irrelevant to me.
Others enjoy having the biggest army or best managed army. You see frequent wars across the worlds with only the thinnest of justifications (no
I see, I see. Thanks for the insight from a top player's perspective. Is it then virtually impossible for a single individual to "conquer" a world, continent, or region (if one was so inclined)?
D
Daelin (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
Well, Little Upsilon is the smallest world with only about 3500 countries. It's difficult to maintain a highly profitable empire with more than about 10 countries. Once you start going above that, the General Cost of Government costs start increasing dramatically.
Good to know. Government costs then are sort of a like SimCountry throttle governor once one gets above a certain number of countries. Got it. Much obliged.
W
whiteboy (Fearless Blue)
All worlds
That is certainly a good way to put it Arwcw.
Good job Daelin ;)