Says the guy who hides behind his alliance and picks on countries much smaller than his own.

Tyr/Dict spy heavy landthin techers are for pansies. I'm redefining TMBR by running spy heavy tyranny MBRs for war.

When your clan farms them first, maybe your clan's good members would be wise to not pick fights with countries that can go jet heavy and cause problems.

Mercs Retal Policy

The first 4 attacks per 24 hours or 6 attacks per 48 hours by another alliance against us will all be retalled 1:1, regardless of whether or not a country attacks or is attacked multiple times.

Any hits beyond the first 4 in 24 hours, or the first 6 in 48 hours will be retalled 2:1. We will attempt to make FA contact before doing 2:1 retals.

We do not expect this policy to cause any problems. If an alliance hits us more than 4 times in 24 hours, or more than 6 times in 48 hours, they are looking for trouble, and are likely trying to provoke a war with us regardless of what our retal policy states.

We will conduct 1:1 retals in a 48 hour window, and we use a 48 hour window for RoRs. The retal window will be extended to 72 hours if a country is due more than 1 retal. We will do 2:1 retals on RoRs.

Any country from a tag with 8 or less countries, or any country that has been grabbed by its own alliance at any point during the set will be retalled land:land if they grab us. If a country is attacked by its own alliance in the 72 hours prior to grabbing us, or after grabbing us and before we finish our retals, then we will do land:land+buildings retals, and we reserve the right to choose any country from the offending alliance to get our land back from.

So what you're saying is that Mazooka and I need to tagkill TKO?

So the solution is to make farming an untagged no longer a low risk method of gaining land.

Yes, because their tech effectiveness bonus makes their SDI better which ..... makes it easier to kill them??

On the other hand, they have an easier time getting all their war techs up to decent levels, and they can boost their SPAL from a pre-war 20-30 up to a difficult 80 to 120 far faster than any other strategy.

because we all know that FDPs are meaningless unless you come up with a lame tag extension and have all the alliances at that to the end of their tag

Because I've been in 7 different tags this set.

I'm curious as to the age demographic of the protesters.

I'm too busy producing warfare tech instead.

Netting is what people use in Africa to try and avoid getting Malaria.

Nope, only one person has sabotaged my missiles, and he is currently a parking lot.

Ah, so I get farmed to the ground in alliance and enjoy it, yet I would get physically angry any time someone attacks me in primary?

And yet you say



On the alliance server, my countries have been attacked:
264 times, 1113 times, 1395 times, 808 times, 300 times, and 187 times (my current country). And that's just for this set.

There are numerous alliances that would accept me if I decided I was tired of getting attacked. Yet I choose to play knowing I will get farmed to the ground.

And by farmed to the ground, I mean actually farmed. Not being hit once or twice like Alex's allies; I mean often getting hit hundreds of times in a day.

When you keep changing your mind and then stating that your new theory is 100% bulletproof, at some point you have to realize that you're just guessing, that you don't know for sure.

Theoretical physicists tend to be the best at realizing the possibility that they are wrong. Physics theories about subatomic particles and quantum mechanics have been qualified with far more cautions about the possibility that they are wrong than have theories in other fields.

Mathematicians actually have the ability to be correct, since they deal with the abstract, rather than forming theories in response to data, and forming new theories every time they get unexpected data. The standard of proof for mathematicians is inherently different than that of all other fields.

Economists live in a fantasy world and don't rely much on data at all for their theories, thus they change their theories less often than most. They tend to be too idealistic, and theorize about what should happen, rather than attempting to properly integrate psychology into economics. To allude to Bertrand Russell's statement, economists often assume that man is rational, yet Russell wisely noted to have not yet seen proof of this assertion.

Biologists have vastly overstated their understanding of evolution and the strength of the evidence for evolution. There are still big holes in the completeness of both micro and macro evolution theories (especially macroevolution), but their response is to associate anyone who criticizes the incompleteness of these theories with being a creationist.

It is similar with those who question the completeness of the assumptions on global warming. They've had to rename their global warming scare into climate change, because they now believe that Europe's temperature will drop as a result of the melting of polar ice caps and the thawing of permafrost in Siberia. Scientists on both sides pick and choose their data to attempt to come to a conclusion, because the comprehensive use of data will show that we are still clueless.

I call them clueless idiots because they are unwilling to admit how little they know.

Rockman is tagged Rockman

The biggest danger is fearmongers who don't care about truth at all, and spread fear just to make money. That applies to both scientists and media personalities.

The real truth is that the media and academia are both full of clueless idiots, and the only thing that saves them is that the public is also full of clueless idiots.

Having played all-explore countries that get suicided without provocation, I can assure you that people suiciding & missiling without provocation is not a rare occurrence. You've just not built good enough all-explore countries to see this first hand.

This is partly a war game, but picking a fight with someone who isn't looking for a war and didn't provoke a war would be like a level 85 in World of Warcraft going around ganking lowbies. It is lame, cowardly, and takes no skill. If you have any decency, you'll pick a fight with someone who deserves it, or at least with someone who is looking for a fight.

Alex - your three points are completely invalid.
The first point is invalid because it is impossible to defend yourself adequately from an enemy who wants to destroy you. You cannot have sufficient turrets, tanks, and SDI to defend yourself against someone who is given the chance to stockpile and find and exploit your weak point.
The second point is invalid because I have never advocated a double standard. I have differentiated between doing something to benefit your own country and doing something just to harm someone else. I have never asked for a different standard to apply to me than I apply to others.
The third point is not valid because I know how often there is no provocation, and I am quite sure that dantzig's suicider was unprovoked. I know first hand that suiciding without provocation is quite common.


Lastly, I am a warmonger who has no interest in netting. However, I won't go around ruining people's countries without provocation. Such actions will lead to the demise of Earth Empires. However, if someone picks a fight with me, I will wreck them and/or their alliance.

I've been attacked thousands of times this set in alliance - literally. And I've not complained about it at all. I enjoy it, in fact.

The reason I called you guys idiots was that I clearly said in my posts that hitting someone without provocation was lame, and you chose to ignore that I had qualified my statements with the requirement that the actions were done without provocation. I have no qualms at all about grabbing/suiciding a person who has hit or farmed me. In fact, I don't even feel bad about grabbing and/or suiciding a person who is merely in the same alliance as someone who has farmed me. But I won't go around farming, missiling, or ABing people who have not provoked me AND are not hiding behind the tag protection of an alliance that has provoked me.

P.S. does either of you idiots know what "without provocation" means?

And yet it was none of those enemies that hit him. If it was someone he grabbed, your idea would be legit. But given how even all-explore countries will get missiled without provocation, your post shows how clueless you are.

Attacking someone to benefit yourself is very different from attacking someone to your own detriment and without provocation just to be a douchebag.

Its sad that you fail to see this difference.

To some people it is a war game, to other people it is an economic game. Ruining someone else's experience without provocation or benefit to your own experience is something that should be complained about.

Any good retal policy will give that impression. You don't want people to be encouraged to grab your alliance, you want people to think that grabbing your alliance might start a war.

Don't call it a marriage, call it a civil union. Marriage between two gay alliances is not legal yet.

P.S. if you're not gay, why does your 'marriage' announcement focus so much on hairy men?

Is it worth grabbing someone 3x if you know they'll start a war with you over it?

And with how long you had to grow your restarts, thats still not a challenge.

Just call him what I call him - The Arrogant Noob.

Mmmmm Beer

Picking on a netting alliance that has already started dropping their stockpiles, what else would it be?

Bobby - stop using logic and start drinking the kool-aid

I don't want to get involved in other people's personal grudges. I don't know enough of the political climate here to know which alliance to join.

I wish to either net in peace this set, or to war/suicide against an alliance that picks a fight with me. I don't wish to go around picking fights or fighting other people's fights. As much as I dislike some alliances on the alliance server, I wish to keep the servers separate and to not let anything carry over. I wish to start off from a blank slate and I will pact anyone that wishes to pact me.

Contact me through personal messaging here, or on the EarthEmpires IRC channel.

Thats why I don't try netting anymore. But warring can still be fun.

If they nuke over single taps, they'd be in trouble with their own FA for breaking their retal policy :-)

I really thought a tyranny techer with 4% warfare tech would deter people from multi-tapping a bit more than it has. Especially if said country is heavy on tanks.

Are people just not looking at a person's warfare tech anymore when they grab them?

I like the concept of nukes as retaliation for double taps and above.

They are only courageous if they had something to lose. They put nothing at risk. They had nothing to lose. They did not lose the opportunity to be the pests they take pride in being, they did not suffer harm to their reputation, and they did not suffer from decreased enjoyment of Earth Empires since they have made it so clear that they do not mind getting beaten in war. If you claim they are courageous, what exactly were they putting at risk?

They probably did the right thing by going to war, but doing the right thing doesn't always take courage. Fighting a war you know you'll lose, when the consequences of losing are meaningless, does not make one courageous.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume that everyone is either courageous or cowards. Imag is neither one.

If being willing to fight a fight that you'll lose, and being willing to be killed over and over makes one courageous, then I'm one of the most courageous players this set. And I assure you, that is not the case.

Their reasons may or may not have been valid, but they were not courageous in choosing to fight a fight they knew they would lose.

No it doesn't. It doesn't take any courage to get killed over and over in this game.

You picked a fight with an alliance when you had no intention of winning that war, your only goal was to screw them over as much as possible.

Are you saying that the lack of a survival instinct makes one courageous? There's nothing courageous about picking a fight that you intend to lose.

TAN - this is the internet. The internet is almost the fountain of youth - it makes everyone act like they are young. It just doesn't actually make them young.

And why should grabs be part of the game? Yet stealing tech from countries isn't part of the game (outside of war), and neither is missile retals or AB/BR/GS attacks (outside of war).

And pre-arranged attacks between countries isn't part of the game (unless you are RD). The one alliance trying to make it part of the game has made enemies merely by attacking themselves and not harming anyone else.

Interesting that attacking a target who is a willing victim is not acceptable, yet attacking a target who is an unwilling victim is considered acceptable.

And while untaggeds can be farmed, they are not allowed to attack any alliance back to generate more land.


Logic does not dictate why our current rules are the way they are. They are merely the whims of bullies, which are in no way linked towards fairness or what is best for the game.

And why is grabbing someone who can retal you a necessary part of the game?

I don't give a damn whether or not its a topfeed. What use is a retal policy if it doesn't punish someone for attacking me? A retal policy should deter hits.

If a country has enough jets, it makes sense to landkill it. One of my untaggeds this set was being farmed all the way down to 400 acres and probably would have been landkilled if I hadn't logged in.

Why is it that we use alliance:country retals?

What's wrong with using alliance:alliance, country:country, or country:alliance retals instead?