Does anyone else here play Nation States? It is an RP-based game where you have a nation, territory, and must make decisions that will affect how it evolves, how large your economy becomes, and what type of government you'll have. Like managing a real nation, very fun if you like this kind of stuff and like to role-play.

My nation is the Duxburian Union and my NS Wiki entry is Here.

The map of the Northlands that my nation is in is just a small part of the world map.

Never played it, I like games like that though. I like this game a lot :).

I am currently in the process of creating alliances and making trade agreements with 5 other nations in the region. A very good way to work on diplomacy skills and working with other people. NationStates is now one of my favorite activities, seeing as I am on the regional forum more often than I watch TV.

I started an account a while ago, but I just respond to the issues and stuff.

I got into a region with several people I know from water wars, with a map, alliances, wars, diplomacy, colonial expeditions, and just about anything else that can be role-played.

I started an account when I first read the topic, I also convinced most of my immediate family to make on to.

Sh*t! I just lost my "All-Consuming" Economic rating and $8,000 off my GDP per capita. :angry: I hate when issues bring effects you didn't want. The economic rating is especially important because we use it to determine how much our nations can spend on defense, how satisfied our people are, etc. We don't use the NS populations, since they don't fit well with our 1802 time period. [1729 in Namuran time] As you can see, our region role-plays well beyond the simple given issues and ratings. :rolleyes:

Nice RPing I hope my region starts something like that soon. Just wondering though, what formula do you use to determine GDP?

Yeah, NationStates is pretty fun. I'm really enjoying my own account, however it's kind of turning out like a dictatorship, even though I didn't want that. Still really fun.


It kind of forces one to wonder that if our own politicians played this game everyweek, they might be a little better at the real thing.

I havn't the slightest idea how I got that one... :lol:

When you choose an issue, the result is often to one or another end of the spectrum, rarely does it have a moderate impact. I usually don't mind what the text says, I'm more concerned with the ratings, especially economic. Losing the full level [dropping from All-Consuming to Powerhouse] hurt my nation. Not dramatically, but I had the 2nd highest GDP per capita in the region, and now it is the 5th, out of 9. :(

NS Economy calculates all your economics: your currency exchange rates, unemployment %, how much you spend where, if you have a trade deficit or surplus, etc. Every issue affects your NS Economy stats.

Here's my region's economic stats and entries. You should have no problem finding which country is mine. :P

Your nation's status appears to be directly connected to your decisions, I guess you can figure out what political view you REALLY have. I'm not exactly sure what Dux's view is, though. :D

Check out his SSC profile.

If you want to figure out your political view, we took this test in history. It gives you a graph at the end with a dot where you fall. Out of the whole class, I was the farthest left and the second farthest down (I believe I was -7 in each direction). :lol:

I was about -1.5 left and -3 down. I was kinda surprised, seeing as those whom know me stick me about as far left as one can go socially. Economically, I tend to lean right. The SSC profile is also vague because Progressive/Purist is an odd mix: Idealistic, left-leaning, but also supports what is in the best interest of the common people, which may swing left or right.

My nation reflects this, with the ratings high in freedom and economy, which is usually hard to do.

I was -7.63 (left) and -4.05 (down). I never really bother classifying my views. As long as the heavy majority of people are happy, there is little exploitation, low poverty and crine levels, and people can do most things that they want, I'm happy.

Nation States would be more fun if you could make your own laws. All you're given is a choice, which I do not find adequate to express my desires for the coutry. If I had my way, we would be a true democracy (not the United States' so called "Democracy") communist (again, true communism, not Russia) country. Everyone would work towards a common goal and no one would have more power than anyone else. Only problem is it would be incredibly difficult to prevent corruption and maintain order.

If you go the RP-route, you can make your own laws that affect your nation in all ways except the NS ratings. Heck, many of my laws and actions often contradict what is in the NS text and the such.

I would love to see a US also with a true democracy, but with pure politicians whom would put the nation's real needs first and take strong action to protect our future as a world power. Radical ideas are needed to save us from the fate of Rome and all the great powers that have come before us. We could be off oil, loved by other countries again, have no immigration problems, less polarization of our own country, etc. if people could only see what they are doing when they take up their political beliefs. If they could see the damage they are doing to our future. Politics make me depressed because I see things others don't. America could be on the way to assured power, and instead we are going the way of Rome more rapidly than one would think. If I wrote a book on how I feel about politics, it would be the most moving and depressing thing you would ever read. :(

Proper representation is almost impossible to achieve. Everyone has different views, so everyone would need to vote. No candidate can predict what the people he/she is representing want.

^ It would take a while to get anything done, but if you cut out the middlemen (ie. legislators) you could have direct votes, which are 100% representative.

Like in the U.S. did you know that you don't even vote in the presidential elections? You vote for who in the electoral college gets to vote for you.

Somewhat. They are still free to choose whomever they like, although they usually go along with which candidate wins the state. In 2004, Minnesota cast an electoral vote for John Edwards instead of Kerry. If you look at older elections, states split their votes more often. New York sometimes split 4 ways in the early 1800s. :rolleyes:

Spliting the votes is the best way to do it, IMO. Then the results are a bit more true to the state's red and blue counties rather than sweeping a whole state, often with a bare majority.

2000 election was one by Bush, but the popular vote (number of votes, not of electoral votes) was for Gore. That just shows you how far we are from being represented properly.

^ There were even a few other elections like that (1876).

Splitting votes though would probably work better. Even not over-representing small states (they get one electoral vote even though they don't have enough population) would help.

That one was decided by Supreme Court, which probably shouldn't happen, since Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president.

I was 3 right and 1.5 up. I am not suprised. I am conservative.

Dux, I am totally in agreement with us and Rome. I am a history buff, and I see that coming, the downfall of the U.S. Either that or we will be a communist nation with all the socialism that exists today, and then will fall.

When our founding fathers first drafted the constitution they had to use the system that all states would get 2 electors from the senate and one (more if the population was higher) from the house. If they hadn't, the delegates from Rhode Island and other small states wouldn't have signed the Constitution, which would have made it MUCH harder to ratify. We have the small state delegates to thank for the electoral college, 3/5 compromise, as well as other things in the Constitution.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court decided who should be president, or the supreme court ruled that only the electoral votes count? Constitutionally, GWB should have (and was) been elected. From a more sensible point of view, Gore should have won.

They decided that only the electoral votes should count.

I wasn't reffering to the senate, that one seems fair enough to me.

What I find strange is that many now small states used to be part of a territory, but then split up. There are many territories that (seem to me) could easily stay one territory. Like the Kansas Territory, Washington Territory, etc.

That's in the Constitution. Anyone who's read it could figure that one out.

Then 1/3 of us would be living in Louisiana! :P

And that's why they decided that way. It also isn't 100% representative.

That would be a bit big for me too. :)

Which I why I said Kansas Territory, and Washington Territory. Since the Kansas Territory was part of the Louisiana Territory then having the Kansas Territory listed as an example would be redundant on my part.

Well, the only way to get 100% representation is by having people vote on every descision made by congress which would be incredibly slow in a country this large.

My 200th post!!! ;)

Well, I, for one, am glad Bush got elected rather than Gore, even if the popular vote was for Gore. Who knows what would have happened otherwise? What would Gore have done after Sep. 11? I can't imagine what.

Yeah, that would not be effective. :P And that's why you should elect people who represent your views as closely as possible.

Or what wouldn't he have done.....

Not supposed to talk about your views on polotics.

Maybe I'm wrong, but one of the allowed disscussions in this forum is politics. It says so on the description of the forums.

It's clause one of the Bill of rights not to go into politics

I'm now going to go add another edit to my post at iSoaker.

Read stickies that contain the word RULES!

Example: Off topic rules.

Sorry if I sound like I'm yelling, but I'm a little on edge after reading the iSoaker forums...

This was just a discussion on overall political views, not a debate style thread like those most likely to get into a flame war. I thought it was fine. And the SM bill of rights does say to "stay away from politics" but that doesn't mean a total taboo on the subject, since SM sticks to the founding belief of having no defined rules. All "rules" here are implied, basically we have an implied set of expectations on how to act on a public forum. B)

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause any problems. I though a disscussion of general views was fine.

You weren't particularly inflammatory to me. I think I overreacted/ took rules too literally.

So.....anyway....

My region finally has a forum to RP on!

My region is in danger of a world war. We are in 1802, with strong alliances. Any colonial wars in the new world could spill over into the old world and set off the alliance system. There is a war going on over there, and tensions over another part of the new world are also a problem. Nibordude's nation [Nibory] has been given land in the new world and will be moved to Namura [our region] on Sunday. B)

Sorry, it was on general views until Bush came up...

How does one have a world war, or any war for that matter?

Yeah, that's my #1 complaint with NationStates. Everything is pretend.

NationStates is based on RPing. It may be pretend, but some of Namura's NS Wiki entries look like history, not fiction. We do our RPing very well and very seriously. It is a load of fun, except when you are at war, and losing. To start a war, you would have to declare war, which you can only do on the forum for your region, if your region has one. Read our regional NS Wiki entries detailing past wars. It is far from the glory most would envision in role-played wars.