March (Little Upsilon)

Imagine a real world building. The sign on the front included the word "supermarket" and the door said "open". The door opened automatically when you entered. The building had isles of food and you filled a cart (available in rows at the door). You then wheeled it back towards the front door. When approaching the isle an angry young man in an apron scowls and shouts "HEY! IF YOU PUSH THAT CART IN MY LAIN I AM GOING TO CHARGE YOU FOR EVERY ITEM IN IT". After acknowledging and placing an item on the conveyor belt the man gets red in the face and screams "HEY A__HOLE I SAID IF YOU BRING THAT D__M CART IN MY LANE I WILL CHARGE YOU. NOW F__K OFF! Don't push me! I mean it!"

My dilemma is that I am not sure what the appropriate response would be. Where I come from, swearing and yelling at people is not appropriate public behavior. I do not go to supermarkets in order to annoy clerks. In the U.S. I n

Well spoken.

I concur, but look again at what you have written.

Is it clear who the real enemy of your enjoyment of this game is?

P. Sheep and like-minded individuals, come to Fearless Blue. You're wanted here.

Jojo,

When I first read the website I had planned on building on fearless blue after learning basics on WG. The basic setup on FB is not conducive to aggressive war gaming. If you have to heavily defend the leader country you also need to build a large economy to support the defense. A major portion of your efforts has to be the economic game.

The secure country allows you to rapidly build a strong economy with much less effort. A strong economy can then crank out strategic weapons and purchase offense. I believe far more ammunition is in motion on LU.

I recently considered setting up a CEO of fearless so that I could profit off of paranoid countries. I don't want to put the time or gc into building another CEO.

Farmerbob,
I am enjoying the game fine. It was an MSN discussion that inspired the supermarket story. My MSN is off.

Interesting. Is the basic setup on LU more conducive to aggressive war gaming?

The basic setup on LU makes aggressive wargaming possible on any world

A proper empire on LU means you can generaly make an ass of yourself anywhere and be effective.

Not that any of you are being an ass, I refer mainly to myself quite frankly...

An LU empire is truely a gem.

The perception of the opposite is created mostly by W3C. On the world descriptions they emphasize fearless Blue as a war world. The reason they emphasize FB as a war world is because players can lose the leader country. W3C is covering itself so that players ejected from FB will try again on planets were the leader country is secure.

If you want to spend your time fighting wars the other 4 planets are better [assuming you can find opponents]. You can build a large leader country and pile offensive weapons. Then you could conquer and liquidate or not. Either way you do not have to rebuild the leader country. If building an economy is a chore that prevents you from playing then LU is a much better choice. Even if you win on FB you will end up with a seriously depleted offense which will require an extended period of time for reloading.

I think the FB set up might be ideal for players interested in diplomacy.

A se

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't a person just buy war protection for their leader country on FB? Since WP is a booster, and boosters used on the main country extend registration, the actual cost of buying WP for a leader country on fearless blue is nothing.

The 90 day reset thing could be interesting. Other browser games use that setup to get around the problem of older players vs. newer players and it works well there.

"A setup W3C should consider is a small world that resets every 90 days and has CCCs with populations around 25M."

Interesting, but the incentive to build is taken away with resets. For example, If I wanted to build a nice empire and wage a war here and there; the reset would destroy my work.

It could still be interesting *IF*, you maintained your positive growth after a reset.

If person A.- played three months conquered or earned 200T in assets, then maybe it would be converted to GC and credited directly upon reset.

If person B._ played three months and fell below 30T in assets his/her debt should be converted to GC and debited from his/her account upon reset.


I think war gaming would be alot more fun *IF* the cost of war reduces as it has been, ammo is even more readily available, and MIB didn't just defend tagrets they are deployed to, but act as the def interceptors do when

Oh. What a #*?!ing stupid loophole. We Huns slow sometimes. But wouldn't it be even cheaper not to play the game at all?

Shcyzmatica,

Yes, once the reset date was approaching it would be a total waste building up a long term economy. In the last weeks your weapons would only have value if you fire them. That would make it a better setup for war gaming.

I thought there was a limit on how long you can sustain war protection. I've never bought war protection.