Interesting point if true.

What are you even talking about? Have you ever even played those servers? I suggest figuring out what the actual game mechanics are before making arrogant assumptions.

@Slagpit If countries start off automatically in GDI on creation, I'll agree with you and retract that part.

Incorrect. The best question should be, why does it take idiots like you at least 14 days to build a reasonably developed country? If LaF decides to claim that it takes them 6 weeks to build a reasonably developed country, should SoL kindly allow LaF 6 weeks to build a reasonably developed country? I think the answer is no. If Laf can have reasonably developed countries in 7-10 days, why should they be limited by SoL's inability to run reasonably developed countries in under 2 weeks, mainly due to SoL using the same outdated crappy farmer -> techer -> farmer strategy that flat out sucks. Maybe you need to come up with a new strategy, since your current one doesn't work.

Don't make the rest of the server wait for you to get warready; instead, you need to learn to not be incompetent.

Rockman you are perhaps the stupidest LaF lackey on the boards.

Do you argue that the 100 turn protection is a dumb idea? If it wasn't there I'm sure you'd be the first to condemn the alliance that didn't run a strategy of the first 60 turns getting their military up to prepare for a LaF first strike on turn 80.

It's not possible to play the game properly or enjoy it if you are countering fast starting indies or low acreage techers hell bent on hitting your unsuspecting alliance. If there were more disadvantages to first strikes then maybe your argument might hold water, but there isn't, so your argument is self serving and sucks. The FS is overpowered in its current state and this is amplified when the wars keep getting earlier.

If LaF can't be held to account in finding roughly even wars with valid reasons and not just starting grudge wars or paranoia wars, then it's up to game admins to change the game.

No, I don't think the 100 turn protection is a bad idea. But 1000 turn protection would be.

It is possible to play the game properly while preparing for a war in under 2 weeks, and you don't need to be a fast starting indy OR a low acreage techer to make it happen. LaF's techers aren't low acreage right now (they were about even in size with SoL's techers, except with much more military and tech).

My country was quite warready and was neither an indy or a techer, yet it was still in great shape. Why? Because it doesn't take me over 2 weeks to get a casher or farmer ready for war.

You know why it doesn't take me over 2 weeks to get a casher or farmer ready for war? Because I'm not an incompetent loser like you.

I seem to remember various other tags do effective OOP fs before imag even existed. IX being one of the tags that come to mind.
Although if we are just talking EE I guess imag always existed so I dunno who was the first to do an oop fs in EE

@dagga: it still happened but was much rarer imo. I guess what you are saying is that it's a political issue although I guess you feel that certain tags are guitly of perpetuating it which is fair enough.

Staff can't change game politics as easily as we can change game mechanics sadly. Personally I'm not involved in any politics. If the feeling generally is that it's a political issue then there's less motivation to change the game mechanics or at least do something that would be a quick and easy fix.

As far as "the right" to do something goes, that's sort of not a consideration here. Tags can do anything they like within the game rules. The game mechanics theoretically could be changed to act as big disencentives towards various types of player action (ie giving everyone lots of free missiles + getting rid of sdi would disuade netgaining for example). imo it's better not to make things black and white but rather change the in game costs of various actions (that are within the existing game rules) and then let players decide at what point it's worth the cost.

The only reason why early wars happen, is because getting the FS is such an huge advantage to be ignored.

I disagree, I believe its more to do with certain strategies having such a big bonus at the beginning.

Commie/Tyr Indy oop
Commie/Theo a week in
Commie indy/low land techer = week 2
Techer week 3

Then after week 3 missiles become more and more influential heh.

If you already set your eye on a tag to kill, you'll decide when you want to hit first before setting strats for your members, flamey.

I thought the story of the last few sets was: "Who is SoL going to FS this set with their week 2.5 mon farmer -> Tyr techer strat! Lets hit them before they tech!"

In that case the enemy strats can dictate when a war starts, not because of their fs power, but because their strat is optimum at that certain point.

true that

Something should be done to pervent early wars.

Before when the game was bigger, it didnt need a pervention because they never occured very often.

No one enjoys it when it occurs over and over again.

The reason why LaF FSed SoL at the time we did was primarily because of the country makeup of SoL. If SoL had more commies and less monarchies switching into techers which would have indicated prepping for an earlier war, or detected SoL storing turns (we track daily Avg NW and Land of every alliance) we would have FSed even earlier, and asked our members to switch even earlier in response. Not that it would have mattered in a 69 vs 42 war, but no sense in dragging out a 3 day war into a 10 day one.

The other reason why LaF prepped for an early war is because KJ contacted us and threatened us with an OOP war if we refused an arranged war with them this reset - we did exactly that, refused, and prepped for an OOP war. Yes, it turns out Evo was bluffing about FSing directly OOP, but a day 7 or day 9 war would still have been considered a OOP war instead of day 5.

Yes, we agree that FSes are powerful, and should be nerfed. Wars are inherently not going to be fair unless both sides arrange to FS at the exact same time as each other with the exact same size give or take a bit. It isn't that we like early wars; FSes are just too good.

FSes are incredibly effective because for every enemy country you kill, you effectively take out up to 240 stored turns, plus their production, and that is why reducing turn counts and maximum stored turn count is an affective way to reduce FS potency - at 120(120), you can pretty much output 120 turns for 3 consecutive days after the FS. I gave this as option (C) in an earlier post the previous page.