مشاركات جديدة

69

What a bank should be is to have 3% city income increase every week along with less unit upkeep. Then people would buy a bank. Say New York is around 530 income at the start, and aw usually increase income over time unless bombarded into kingdom come. But with buying a bank. Income will increase faster. Say turn 20 nyc makes 1100 and that's without any attacks on it

You could just peace a player or ally them. If you don't want to have peace or alliance anymore you can always choose to end it with them . During that time you can't be attacked and can do what ever you desire during that time period.

End of discussion

Edit: in scenarios, map makers can only put implement teams. After turn 1 you can attack the other team. However you can't peace the opposing side. But in reality your objective in team games is to eliminate the opposing force.

There's no way around it unless it's PvP then TvT

Following the Capitol Insurrection, Apple and Google decided to cut ties with Parler as well as Amazon cut Parler's web services.

What do you think of this? Do you think it was justified for them to do this?

Console.WriteLine("Real competition");

اقتبس:

كتب بواسطة Froyer, اليوم at 16:04

Fixed

DAMMIT i shouldnt have said that

كتب بواسطة PleaseMe, اليوم at 15:59

Teach me Froyer, Mr. Best east player of all time

Fixed

Fuck you froyer, Mr. I only know Ukraine.

But I agree with you. I don't play low elo players because its BORING. Not because I am scared of losing precious elo.

I have played more duels than you have games on AtWar DJ. I think it's safe to say i've done my fair share of dueling. Let people do what they want. The system is fine.

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 14:37

كتب بواسطة ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

كتب بواسطة Andartes, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

كتب بواسطة International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

ok bud.. don't even go there. If China didn't have a strict government the country would be a god damn disaster. I DOUBT the country would stay in one piece, and it wouldn't the superpower that it is now. A nice example of your imaginary "perfect democracy china" would be hong kong, the place where riots devasted its economy. Even in homeland America, remember the BLM Protests and the Insurrection at the Capitol? I do too..

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

Explain to me how absolutism does not hold back innovation.
Explain why industrial revolution happened in England and not for example in glorieus china or glorieus islamic world.
Yes hong kong was close to being a democracy, if you had any knowledge of why they went protesting heavily, its because they are losing their democracy. Stop being so ignorant.
Demonstration and protest is good for a country to become better. Otherwise only a small elite will keep deciding what is good for a country.

The chinese started from rock bottom, for them the only way is up. And they wont be close to Western wealth size in nearly 50 years from now.
The chinese arent prosperous, they are just having surplusses of money because of their export growth etc. The chinese way was to copy the west and make profits out of it. Keep large western companies out of china. Google, FB, even keeping a limit to hollywood films.

When a country has 1.3 billion people and they will not experience large scale war then obviously they will accelerate and become richer. However their system lacks of becoming innovative. And that will always be a totalitarian problem.

Lets put it this way:
When the book print got invented and countries wanted to accelerate the production of it. What did the absolutist countries such as the Ottoman empire do. They banned book print, why? because this new technology will be a danger to their power control of the country.
The same thing applies to any country that has a totalitarian regime. When an innovative product comes as long, which threatens the elite power, they will ban it. Hence, there will be loss of economic opportunity because of it.

China isnt leading in trade nor technology. Nor is it close to being a superpower. It is getting closer by year, but as of 2021, they dont pose a threat yet to USA. The exact moment that changes, is the moment they will invade and annex Taiwan and USA wont do anything about it. I dont see that happening in the coming decades.

كتب بواسطة KhilafahSharia, 09.01.2021 at 06:13

This is fucking Orwellian. Trump supporters leave twitter after Trump's ban and flock around Parler. Guess what Google and Apple does?

Removes the app from their app stores xD. And people talk about free speech in America and how there's a free market competition. That's utter bullshit.

Guess what happens when Trump supporters can't vent their frustrations online- they vent them on the streets. I think that if Congress impeaches Trump next week, and it's likely that the swamp Republicans vote for it, then I expect there to be riots across America. The impeachment would ban Trump from running for office in 2024, effectively burning his future political career. Every Trump supporter sees the election fraud as a coup (from their perspective, not mine), and impeaching him will be seen as overthrowing the President.

They are so detached from the psychological reprecussions of their actions that it's ridiculous!

The US Is a dictatorship controlled by lobbyists and corrupt politicians, also social media influence this country to terrible heights.

Western imperialism at its finest

كتب بواسطة ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

كتب بواسطة Andartes, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

كتب بواسطة International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

ok bud.. don't even go there. If China didn't have a strict government the country would be a god damn disaster. I DOUBT the country would stay in one piece, and it wouldn't the superpower that it is now. A nice example of your imaginary "perfect democracy china" would be hong kong, the place where riots devasted its economy. Even in homeland America, remember the BLM Protests and the Insurrection at the Capitol? I do too..

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

Watch for Panzer General VII coming soon to an atWar game near you.

كتب بواسطة WHlTE, اليوم at 12:58

Yes I should trust some screencap of an excel graph by someone who is too much of a coward to make his tweets public so I can look at his charts/data in more detail. I'm not disputing that bellweather counties were wrong, it's just highly suspicious when people make their tweets/profile private.

Oy vey its like anudah armenian genocide 6 gorrilion armenians die every day in Azerbaijan, that is why we must take 20% of Azeri territory, remember the armenian genocide goyyy we need to defeat this islamist in Azerbaijan.

كتب بواسطة T3mpest, اليوم at 09:45

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 09:14

كتب بواسطة Khauman, اليوم at 09:06

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 08:43

The censorship of trump is one thing, but google and amazon fucking decided to kill parler because its dominated by conservatives. thats basically an attack on free speech.

basically, be conservative = be censored

Also, incite violence = be censored

Why not censor Twitter then? Parler didn't encourage anyone to go to the capitol and riot.

Dumbass, Twitter only needs to censor Trump. Trump also encouraged his supporters to raid the capital. Also why you even talkin bout America, you ain't even from America.

I wasn't talking about trump, I was talking about Parler being removed. wut u going on about xD

This is how you learn, you have to get thrown in the deep end and you'll either swim or die. Sure, some people might die occasionally, but we get a stronger overall community

Thanks SwampNewts for open this game.

PS :The host of the game, will not produce any units during T1.

But movement during T1 is not prohibited, because it will not be possible to control every player joining the game.

It is broken OP in old aetius maps

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 09:14

كتب بواسطة Khauman, اليوم at 09:06

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 08:43

The censorship of trump is one thing, but google and amazon fucking decided to kill parler because its dominated by conservatives. thats basically an attack on free speech.

basically, be conservative = be censored

Also, incite violence = be censored

Why not censor Twitter then? Parler didn't encourage anyone to go to the capitol and riot.

Dumbass, Twitter only needs to censor Trump. Trump also encouraged his supporters to raid the capital. Also why you even talkin bout America, you ain't even from America.

Sorry but farming low elo isn't fun we are not all like lion sin retard, I can't have fun when i'm dueling mecoy so imagine if it's a 1300 elo.
High elo players don't need to play lower skilled player it won't make you stronger lol, you will get used to counter noob moves and will get raped by better players, just look at lion, he has a 60/50% winrate against mecoy and hineni when he has +150 elo, farming low elo noob doesn't make you stronger.

I vote for mute dj003 for sevedays

A loss is a loss, get over it.

كتب بواسطة Khauman, اليوم at 09:06

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 08:43

The censorship of trump is one thing, but google and amazon fucking decided to kill parler because its dominated by conservatives. thats basically an attack on free speech.

basically, be conservative = be censored

Also, incite violence = be censored

Why not censor Twitter then? Parler didn't encourage anyone to go to the capitol and riot.

Somewhere along the way I fear the majority of comp atwar players developed a misunderstanding of what elo is and its purpose. Quite simply put it is a numerical figure which was designed to illustrate the strength of a player relative to the playing pool that the player is a part of. An extremely important feature of the system is it was designed to be SELF-CORRECTING. What that simply means is the model assumes as the sample size increases through more games being played that the system will correct itself by assigning the appropriate value over time. So for example if a player received an extraordinary performance that is actually an outlier that it will be corrected with time.
If you have a "high" elo and by playing players with much lower elo you eventually lose elo, all it means is that the system is correcting itself because the number that previously reflected your elo is NOT an ACCURATE representation of your playing strength relative to your playing pool. When the number of games played is small some players will be overrated while others will be underrated. Only by playing more and more games against a range of opponents do you allow the system time to correct itself.
Elo is not something that you can control, you can control playing strength and performance. It is not money , so you store it and when you see a worthwhile investment you invest hoping to make some gains.
I joined a chess website earlier this week and within 2 days I was able to be in the top 0.2 % of players. Why do I mention this? Simply because chess is the example of where elo does what is is supposed to. If everyone just played games I am confident players who want a high elo would eventually get one because practice and experience helps one improve, it would also create a healthier playing environment, more activity can only be good for all. Does it mean some guys will lose some elo, sure but as you improve you will regain it without problems. Which is better? To be weak players with fake numbers or to just be strong and have fun?

كتب بواسطة Fatcheek, اليوم at 08:43

The censorship of trump is one thing, but google and amazon fucking decided to kill parler because its dominated by conservatives. thats basically an attack on free speech.

basically, be conservative = be censored

Also, incite violence = be censored

The censorship of trump is one thing, but google and amazon fucking decided to kill parler because its dominated by conservatives. thats basically an attack on free speech.

basically, be conservative = be censored

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE0wfjsybIQ

Finally...