[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

I guess it doesn't hurt to make a small leap in FFA. Malcolm X

Good call man. You have to be making a lot. Did you even bother teching?

I didn't realize my posts were "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages".

There must be only one farmer this set. Whoever it is, they're making a killing with bushels at $60+.

Prove you all wrong? I never said CI was best govt. I asked the community to explain why dictator is better. Democracy is obviously the best govt. If you have the patience and time to play with market there's really no other gov't that has a chance.

Ok- I was reading through the announcements from back in 2010.

And found something nobody pointed out and I wasn't aware of.

Dictators capture more buildings than any other govt.

Dictators capture 80% buildings, whereas all other govts capture 48%. This is what I was looking for. Does it compensate- no idea- but it certainly adds a huge bonus for attacking. Especially if you're attacking a country with the same building type: ie if you're a dictator farmer you attack another farmer thus saving the turn to build those farms. Granted another govt can do that too, but with the dictator penalty being construction, this extra bonus helps a great deal.

Hehe...

Yo Deez you in Tourney B? This is Arizona.

Try rebooting your machine and clearing out your internet browsing history. I hate windows!

I'm about to try something drastic in Tourney, just to experiment. So I'm going to seriously drop soon. I probably should have got more land first though., but oh well. I'll be doing that soon too.

[ Irrelevant ]

It's just a game dude, relax. I could care less if you killed all my countries. Nor am I bragging. I'm merely citing my ability to jump to #1 as evidence that I understand the pros/cons of stocking at a lower networth; furthermore, I cited my #1 country in tourney as evidence that I understand the pros/cons of riding the top 10.

You're interpreting that I'm not listening. To the contrary! If I wasn't listening I would completely ignore their post; but, if you notice, I address the major flaws in what they are trying to explain to me. My whole argument states that commie has better netting & war capability. It seems some people jump in and throw their 2 cents in without reading the whole thread. The last person offered a scenario that I can't agree or disagree with because I haven't tried it yet, but with a dictator farmer, you can't start a scenario with two govts with exact same stats because a commie will get there faster. So though I understand what he says is true, (that if both had same stats dictator has the advantage), my argument is that if they both started from zero and had to build up a certain point (whatever point that may be) with equal turns for both govt, (if you include tech then you must consider that the farm money you use for buying a military will go towards tech instead) thus giving the commie a larger army. If they both buy tech together, the commie will be able to buy more, simply because his output is greater than that of a dictator's farms. Not to mention, with the tech bonus commies get, they will reach near max faster which means less $ spent on tech. Overall, this is my argument. And unless someone explains a scenario or method that proves otherwise, you'll will continue to believe that I'm not 'listening'. Insulting me with personal attacks doesn't contribute nor does further persuade me to change my mind. Maybe if I were in elementary/middle school your method would work.

Not accurate at all 'The Cloaked'. Again, where are people dreaming up these bizarre conclusions? Where do I ever mention in any posts that I warred with a CI? Is that an assumption?

I'm not new to the game and I think I've stated this three times. I may be new to the forums, yes, but I'm not new to the game. I played this game back when it was in its infancy. Fact: the game has changed quite a bit since then, but, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say I'm new.

I do appreciate the math you did. That's what I like to see and use. So, I'll look at what you said very thoroughly tomorrow. I'm off to bed! It's been a long day for me. I'm uncertain with the #s with a casher, but I did look into dict farmer on a smaller scale.

You can't really compare a dictator with same acres and same amount of tech because if you start them both off with nothing it will take the commie a shorter time to achieve max tech than for a dictator. I totally agree if both had the same stats in the middle game, the dictator farmer outproduces for sure; but, the problem is, they will not have the same. The commie will always have more quicker. (Near max tech quicker, attacking larger targets (resulting in more land), (faster construction on that land <no construction penalty>)

But again- im going to thoroughly look into how long it would take a dict farmer to reach the scenario you mentioned vs the commie reaching the scenario you presented for that govt. I'm quite certain, but, I may be wrong, that the commie should get to that goal much quicker, thus making more. But we shall see.


side note: I don't know why you keep saying I don't understand costs. I'm #1 in tourney. Don't you think someone in top 10 realizes costs vs those who are just stocking their profits into bushels? I get it. I just prefer not to be a target. I think there's a way to stay #1 the entire set. But that's what this game is all about... one person's idea vs another.

Trust me- I recognize both strats and I'm experimenting with both. In FFA I could move to 2.5 mil net which is easily #1 right now. The current #1 isn't even 1/2 that number.

In tourney I'm hovering around top 2-3 sometimes #1, and I see the price of a costly military. I get both strategies.

Hmm... I'm not sure where you got your conclusion from Symac. I never stated that.

As for Mrford's statement, yes, it's true you can earn more with a smaller military by *hiding*. I think the old trick was to maintain a 30% smaller acreage than the surrounding net's on the scoreboard, to minimize your chances of getting attacked while stock pilling your profits into bushels on the market. But if you're #1 or top 5, the chances of you getting land grabbed are quite slim, unless you're super land fat. Whereas at a lower net, multiple people could ruin your entire set. A person would think if a country has low land that they were packing a super military, but if people still use that strategy, you'd be surprised.

So I guess it's sorta like the bigger the risk the greater chance for reward kinda deal. But, I'm looking for a more of a concrete approach that eliminates most of outside variables.

[ Irrelevant ]

A person with references and data. Nice post Cloaked! I'll check it out.

Haha,... I don't only play express. I'm #1 in tourney too. Im experimenting though. So let's see how my experiment goes in a few days.

2 mil in the first 6 days isn't bad on FFA. Nobody has 1 bil net in the first 6 days.

Not to sound arrogant, but I don't see any clans that have any decent nets currently showing on free for all server. So I'm going to wait and see who pops up from stocking. Then I'll join one.

You have to admit that Muf guy is pretty funny. At least I'm LOL'n reading his posts.

Yup AZ Cardinals is my team! I'll be glad once football season starts too. I hate we lost Washington to a one year suspension though.

[ Irrelevant ]

This entire game is numbers. The more money you can stockpile the easier it is to win. And really, it requires 0 turns.

Ok but my calculations are right too. I bet I can jump to 2 mil net right now on free for all server. That's x2 the net of the #1 spot.

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]

[ Irrelevant ]