Join the new world

First denied.

- All nations in eRepublik deserve territorial integrity
- The United States will seek equal access to markets, raw materials and finished goods for all nations

How would you combine these 2? How can a nation with 0 resources and one with 15 be equal, if you want to keep the original borders?
How are original borders that allow something like this fair in the first place?

And what would you be doing in this game if not figthing, the one thing the game is build one? Without wars, economies get ruined, people quit the game, even short periods of peace have proven this.

In my view those two points are not in opposition. Equal access to markets, raw material and finished goods can come from the marketplace. Access does not equal ownership.

"How are original borders that allow something like this fair in the first place?"

Fair? I'm not in the business of judging fairness. In my view this condition just is. It's a fact of life in eRepublik. Taking territory at the point of a gun is definitely not fair, however.

"And what would you be doing in this game if not figthing, the one thing the game is build on? Without wars, economies get ruined, people quit the game, even short periods of peace have proven this."

There will always be wars in eRepublik. That much I am sure of. What I am saying is that this US Government will not condone nor abide by expansionist or imperialist policies of others. If some other country wishes to make itself a target by pursuing wars of aggression and expansion that is their choice. This US Government will stand for the Seven Points outlined in my article.

"Access does not equal ownership."
Exactly. If you have a high iron region, i get the taxes from producing guns, and you get the taxes for producing guns and iron. Why should i accept this, when i am a better player then you?
To compare it to RL, it would be like a caste system: those born with the silver spoon in the mouth will always have it, while others can never get it.

Also, what you are proposing sounds like a very boring game in my opinion. Just sit around and wait for somebody ot attack? Doing exactly what in the meantime, clicking 7 times a day? This is a game, and games are about trying to be better then the one you are playing against.

This is really disappointing. I was willing to stick with the eUS through all the mistakes and losses. I was prepared to continue fighting for the eUS even if it was wiped off the map. However, basing our policies on silly moralistic arguments that have no place in a strategy game is something I simply will not tolerate.

If this is the way the eUS is headed, I'm defecting to EDEN.

Yes, but better at what? There is NO monetary market that can be played. There is NO other activites to be played. Suggestions call for a more active market and something other than WAR to get the game moving

Korin, don't look at it that way. It's simply a statement in opposition to wars of aggression and occupation. It's not a silly moral argument against war but rather that war for conquest is really a bad idea.

Clawy:
"Exactly. If you have a high iron region, i get the taxes from producing guns, and you get the taxes for producing guns and iron. Why should i accept this, when i am a better player then you?"

Because that's how the admins have decided the game should be constructed. They make many decisions that "aren't fair". And better how? That's a loaded statement.

"To compare it to RL, it would be like a caste system: those born with the silver spoon in the mouth will always have it, while others can never get it."

I disagree. There are always ways to build a strong economy without producing RMs. The biggest asset a nation has is its populace and it's no coincidence that the nations with the highest populations are also the most economically powerful.

"Also, what you are proposing sounds like a very boring game in my opinion. Just sit around and wait for somebody ot attack? Doing exactly what in the meantime, clicking 7 times a day? This is a game, and games are about trying to be better then the one you are playing against."

There's more to eRepublik than two-clicking and fighting in wars. Part of the allure of this game is the social aspect of it and leadership, organizing, diplomacy are some intriguing areas. I think you're really selling this game short if your enjoyment comes primarily from the war module.

Well. Native eAmericans were supported in their struggle for freedom. So the you should destroy eUSA accomplishing point 5.

In the past, it has been easy for our enemies to rally support against us when we have played the role of the conqueror, so I agree that we would be better off playing the role of liberator. However, when you make statements like "I cannot correct the slights and wrongs of the past but I can unequivocally say that I am truly sorry for the actions of my nation.", it certainly seems like you're making a moral argument.

I have no desire to repeat the mistakes of the past, but our mistakes were strategic and diplomatic blunders, not moral wrongs. I'm not sorry for anything.

Realpolitik :3 :3

How does this paper have only 79 subs?

"
Korin Dethanos
19
Korin Dethanos 5 minutes ago

In the past, it has been easy for our enemies to rally support against us when we have played the role of the conqueror, so I agree that we would be better off playing the role of liberator. However, when you make statements like "I cannot correct the slights and wrongs of the past but I can unequivocally say that I am truly sorry for the actions of my nation.", it certainly seems like you're making a moral argument.

I have no desire to repeat the mistakes of the past, but our mistakes were strategic and diplomatic blunders, not moral wrongs. I'm not sorry for anything."

Understood. I expected a reaction to that statement. There's been a bunch of discussions about just how we as a country ended up here. My apology is one of consistency, that is all. We can easily apologize for strategic blunders when they've obviously offended some.

Can eRep be played without a significant amount of war ?

Currently it seems difficult. The war module is key to ecitizens gathering experience. Current rules are too bias towards war, actually makes the countries stronger instead of having the devastating effects it usually has he real life. If we want that eRep plays like a strange war game, lets keep it like it is, but if you want eRep to be a society building game, you have to change the rules of the game.

Is it fair that only a few countries benefit from high resources areas ?

Probably it is not fair but this is part of the game. If the war module was not so dominant in the game would iron be more important than grain ?

Voted.

Combining a force for territorial sovereignty and open, non-protectionist markets could create a hyper-alliance of free states and bring the United States back to the forefront as the leader of an ideological pact of nations. The criticism that some governments would collect taxes on products and others wouldn't would be balanced by economic competition and a solid treaty of non-military intervention in those states that signed into this new Free World. Nations deserve their resources, and nations without resources should have lower populations than ones that have, they should not conquer for them, but they should also be free. This is an argument for an ideological realignment of the world, one that I think will play nicely with people's enationalism and the traditional role the US has claimed over the last half century.

God bless the RL and the eUSA.

😉

"I disagree. There are always ways to build a strong economy without producing RMs. The biggest asset a nation has is its populace and it's no coincidence that the nations with the highest populations are also the most economically powerful."

Wrong. There are many populated nations that have terrible economies, just because they lack the appropriate resources. While Hungary had no high resources, we had a terrible economy. When we got our high grain back, it got better. When we got high iron, it skyrocketed.

Just an example: the USA in its original state has high wood, oil and grain. Greece has high iron. Means that an US citizen working could produce 0.0084 gold per unit produced. A greek citizen would produce 0.0129 (i took the lowest prices, the difference is actually much higher).



"I have no desire to repeat the mistakes of the past, but our mistakes were strategic and diplomatic blunders, not moral wrongs. I'm not sorry for anything."

Allowing Croatia to due an eGenocide in Serbia was a very big moral wrong if you ask me. And i am sure i wouldn't want to wake up with my mailbox filled with nazi messages, as my Serbian friends did.

"Part of the allure of this game is the social aspect of it and leadership, organizing, diplomacy are some intriguing areas. I think you're really selling this game short if your enjoyment comes primarily from the war module."
Diplomacy is nothing without war. Take Russia: without wars, they could be the biggest jerks in the eWorld, got a trade embargo from everyone, and still have the best economy in the eWorld.
Organizing is really only important in wars here. And it was in PTOs. You do not need organizing in the economical part, more or less it is clear which tax levels bring the best results, those around 10%.

The only thing I dislike about this war is how Hungry and Indo think they have some kind of right to our land even after the war is over. I'm all for not attacking them and working towards the freedom of every nation. So long as we don't sacrifice our states I'm completely ok with laying on our own sword.

So eUSA is no longer a part of EDEN, because it wont help Poland, Spain etc - why dont you just leave, or do you have no balls?

See the image for EDEN setup:
http://i44.tinypic.com/213f311.png" target="_blank">http://i44.tinypic.com/213f311.png

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/usaballs-next-mission-1266100/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/usab[..]/1/20

tl;dr piginzen is wrong