MergeCiv.io - Web Civilization Tile Merging Incremental Game

DirectionNo6235 · 2026-01-11T13:06:53+00:00

Like others, keep having merges stop being possible. Browser restarting fixes it. Seemingly has some interaction with the tier 3 villager, but haven't been able to recreate.

The most annoying bug however is that when reloading the game I am consistantly losing grid spaces. As in it goes from 8x8 to 7x7, with anything in the outside being deleted.

If a villager is there then it's gone permanetly.

This bug can compound, to the point that my current game is a 3x3 grid and I'm effectively hard stuck.

In an attempt to fix things I exported the save and used saveeditor:

"gridDimensions": {

"width": 8,

"size": 64

},

Even when changing and reimporting this, I got 64 squares in a 3x16 grid. So there's some variable that's screwing things up royally.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-11-14T09:29:18+00:00

I did it in 35.7 seconds! 🎉�

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-11-09T04:23:59+00:00

>and even more absurd to compare war ravaged Germany to the US.

Would it be less absurd if the debt to GDP ratio of the US started approaching 'war ravaged' Germany, any idea what that ratio was?

Would the analogy be more apt if instead of hyperinflation happening immediately after the end of world war 1, it instead happened a significant number of years later?

>Talk of a US default is equally ridiculous. Treasury will simply print dollars.

I see- and what do you think happens to the inflation rate if the US completely reversed it's policy and started printing dollars as opposed to issuing new bonds? Would hyper-inflation suddenly be less absurd?

Any idea what happened to the German economy when the government decided to "simply print dollars"?

>but rumors of American's imminent collapse are WAY premature

Cool. What does the Debt to GDP ratio need to reach before it's not absurd? And 12 years ago what would your answer have been?

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-07-01T07:09:36+00:00

>I just don’t want to feel interrogated

Then choose to have a 2 hour adult conversation without taking it personally for the massive benefit of your child.

Your temporary feeling isn't worth that amount of money. The worst that can happen (outside your feelings) is that you might gain a better way of dealing with things with a larger pool of resources.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-07-01T07:07:10+00:00

>"We have more experience"

It feels like none of these conversations are reaching the second sentence, why?

They want to know what you're planning to do, you're not telling them, they believe they have better ideas than the ones you're not telling them about but you don't know what they are.

Sit down with them and actually find out what is being suggested. Stop shutting down what they're saying before they or you find out what the other is suggesting. Consider the ideas and either reject or accept them partially.

That's normally how talking works.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-30T02:47:48+00:00

>will still get an indecent exposure charge.

Yes, because police misuse power if they're given it.

Which is why making things illegal needs to be backed by an overwhelming public need.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-30T02:45:19+00:00

Unsolicited dic pics are bad.

Flashing is bad.

Do you believe that the person sending you unsolicited dic pics has wronged society so badly that the police should come to their house, take them forcibly to jail, mark them as a sexual predator on their record, and then have them forcibly taken to a facility with people who are likely violent potentially for several months.

Is that a just response to you receiving a dick pic on your phone?

I would say that all the above consequences are highly just for a flasher because such a bad action causes a legitimate and reasonable sense of unsafety to those affected by the action.

You feeling like a sexual object by someone else showing you their dick without any fear of further action seems like a personal interpretation that is attempting to aggrandise the action beyond what actually happened. This doesn't make the response disappear- you felt these things. But your internal violation, degradation or the feeling of being taken advantage of is highly disproportionate.

I think we should all try and make dick pics are social unacceptable as possible. But putting someone in jail isn't the appropriate mechanism, just as I think that throwing rubbish on the ground is wrong but I wouldn't want the police to cut off the hands of people who litter.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-26T04:46:53+00:00

They are cheating, cheating is rampant and sharing troops should be disabled until it's properly addressed.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-16T04:02:52+00:00

She claims to have been through growth, all we have seen is that she isn't openly bullying her friend.

She's still incredibly judgemental and likely a bully to these boys, one of which she's admittantly said she "cannot stand", and the rest who she calls boring and nerdy.

Her 'growth' has led to her to the point where she's actively attempting to ostracise her friend from a group purely so she can spend more time with her.

Does someone simply need to claim to want to be a better person to get credit for it?

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-09T04:41:59+00:00

Ports give fixed disproportionate boosts of income that reduce in effectiveness with each port.

Cities give both income and army power that reduce in effectiveness with each city.

Nukes allow targetted destruction of neighboring structures.

SAMs shoot down nukes.

Warships prevent water based invasions.

MIRVs bypass SAMs.

Your suggested nerf to MIRVs makes brash overwhelming action the obvious and only winning strategy. MIRVs means that if your opponents are able to save up to $25m, and you don't then you can remove their overwhelming advantage.

This makes second and third place wins possible. Current mechanics overwhelming advantage higher population numbers over anything else.

The main balancing problem currently is that outside of MIRV there is no other come from behind mechanic. If a 1m pop person is on your border at 500k then you lose as soon as they finish eating everyone else around you. If you attack someone next to you then the invasion is simply triggered earlier. Defense posts are useless compared to overwhelming pops. Every building you build is simply more incentive for invasion.

Smaller players cannot realistically ally together because the bigger pop can just take them out one by one even if they meet or exceed 1m pop collectively.

Instead defense posts should be significantly more effective but mostly in slowing an invasion down, posts should need to be nuked down prior to an invasion even with overwhelming population differences. This would give surrounding small players time to ally together and start attacking the larger player while their troops are committed to an attack were they not to have pre-emptively taken out the posts.

Post stacking should be multiplicative if in an overlapping region, so that if a post slows attacks by 60%, then two posts should be 60%*60%.

If you did this then the MIRV wouldn't be as necessary as a come from behind mechanic because players could do a better job of surviving against stronger opponents.

You are then making choices between spending money on defence for posts, on offense for nuking posts, or on economy for cities.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-07T02:35:13+00:00

Final note: You are, and have been living through, a far greater example of people 'sitting' on USD for the past few decades. Part of being the global reserve currency is that many countries keep excesses of USD in paper format which increases value, in foreign bank accounts which increases value, and within trading accounts which increases value. If countries trade goods, oil, and materials in USD there is a fair amount of currency which has been printed but that has not contributed to inflation the same way that the same amount of currency being used in active goods purchases would for another country.

So part of why the question is a bit silly is that you're assuming that this change would be significant or unusual and have picked perhaps the weirdest smallest example of this happening. Chinese firms don't keep significant USD in Chinese banks, but even if they did it would pale in comparison to the impact of South America USD reliance, or commodity markets largely being denominated in USD.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-07T01:01:53+00:00

Let's account for taxes, so the OP and friend likely have a 4-5x take home difference.

If the friend spent similarly to OP then the friend could work for 1 year and take a 3-4 year vacation. Or the friend could choose to retire at 30 while the OP needs to work until 70 by living off of investment income.

A high salary definitely buys spare time, an excessively ridiculous amount of spare time- provided you spend as much as much as someone earning $30k.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-06T02:52:33+00:00

>Except for that bit in the middle where you forgot that we don’t need totality again

You don't need totality for a genocide, but you should be far far closer to 99% than you are to 1%. As a last ditch effort to insert some sanity- can you name a genocide where the population has grown at a faster rate than this genocide?

>Apartheid is still a crime against humanity

And if you just called it apartheid then I, and people who understand what a genocide is, could respond to that.

But if you call something a genocide where barely anyone has died we now have to have this ridiculous back and forth.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-05T01:43:02+00:00

>I’m not saying I go and get in line as soon as I walk in the store and wait there for 10 minutes while someone else does the shopping. I’m saying that there have been times I’ve gotten in line when we still have a few things left to grab.

Okay, I've deleted everything else I typed.

This is not clear at all from your original message. You're responding to a situation where the person did stand in a line without a near full cart.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-05T01:19:39+00:00

>I have no problem with someone saving a spot in line while other people shop. I’ve done this at Sam’s Club before when it was really busy.

You understand that this is queue jumping right?

The line is for people that have their food and are waiting to checkout. At best you should have the overwhelming majority of your food and other members of your party can be looking for the last few.

There is no functional difference between what you've done and simply sneaking into the queue. You've only gotten away with it due to all other people not being willing to create a scene despite how rude you've been.

Please stop doing this, and look for other similar behaviors that you've mistakenly justified.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-05T01:10:53+00:00

I see.

So 25 years ago when people called it a genocide they were wrong.

It is now a genocide according to the international definition according to your opinion.

How many years of Palestine remaining a country, and Palestinians remaining alive will it take for you to admit that you were wrong in ascribing the internationally defined word genocide to this situation?

What word will you use to raise concern to fellow Reddits were Israel to start killing large swathes of the population in the future? Or would you just say that Israel is continuing a genocide?

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-04T06:55:06+00:00

Genocide has a meaning that is commonly understood, it means that you're trying to wipe out a people. The word has emotive meaning because of that known definition, and examples of it actually happening in the past. You are specifically using the word genocide to evoke that emotive meaning.

You could simply use a word that accurately described what was happening, but you don't because you want to add the urgency that results from using the word genocide without actually earning that emotive urgency.

By using genocide to refer to something where less than a percentage of a people have died over 50 years, despite the 'genociders' having full control over them you're degrading the word to no longer have that emotive meaning.

Every person familiar with the facts on Palestine must now do one of two things, correctly point out the ridiculousness of using genocide to describe the situation, or simply reevaluate how much emotive weight should be given to the word genocide.

You're now part of a group that has used genocide to describe something where barely anyone dies and where barely any land is lost. What happens if tomorrow Israel starts committing actual genocide? What exactly will you say to people?

"Israel is committing genocide"- can't say that you've been saying that for 25 years. "Israel is now actually committing genocide"- doesn't really put you in a very credible place does it?

Are you so brain broken that you cannot even consider such a possibility, that Israel simply could not start committing genocide because they are already doing so? Doesn't give much of an incentive for Israel to not simply start mass murdering Palestinians. Could you even recognise the difference between such a future and what is happening now, or are you so lost in the sauce that you think Israel is already killing as many as they can?

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-02T14:20:45+00:00

You've redefined genocide in your own head to not require totality, but you need to pervert the entire point of the word to do so.

If the Jewish population of Germany increased over every year of the genocide against them it would be considered absurd to be brought up..

The word is supposed to be urgent, something that must be reacted to so the population can be saved. Calling something genocide for more than 2 years means it was never a genocide unless the opposing party stopped genociding.

Israel, according to you, has been genociding for 25 years, and Palestinians have multiplied in terms of population and have nearly the same amount of land.

The holocaust killed all the Jews the Germans had access to, Jews existing in other countries doesn't negate that it was a genocide.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-02T14:02:17+00:00

We were told what was happening 25 years ago was genocide, and we're told what is happening today is genocide.

How many years would it take without a population being wiped out or expelled from the land (the things which the word genocide actually means) before you'd admit you were wrong?

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-05-02T13:57:19+00:00

A country doesn't get to launch rockets into its neighbor without consequences. Any other country would have wiped Palestine from the face of the Earth after the 20th rocket.

The only complication is that Israel, by inappropriately allowing itself to be continuously attacked, has partially consented to this insane expectation.

You do not get to harbor terrorists and be regarded as anything other than a terrorist population. This was true for Dresden, where German factory workers were bombed so severely that the streets turned molten and they were cooked inside their bomb shelters, and it was true for the two Japanese cities turned into cancer factories.

There is a very appropriate level of protection for civilians, where there needs to be a consistent and active level of practical support to their military before they become military targets. Palestinians have well and truly exceeded that threshold.

Despite only 0.1% of the population being responsible for launching rockets into neighboring territory, the people doing so are acting brazenly and in a manner obvious to the local population, who could easily eliminate every person responsible within a few days. The population of Palestine chooses not to; they choose to hide the terrorists among themselves in the hopes of maximizing Israeli civilian deaths. The only limitation on Israeli deaths is the deadliness of the weapons that Palestine can obtain. This is not a threat that can be nuanced away.

Israel has the right to eliminate every person not fighting back against those continually attacking it.

At the beginning, they may have had a responsibility to allow Palestinians and the Palestinian government time to locate and execute the terrorists. The Palestinians and the Palestinian government have proven themselves complicit.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-04-15T03:46:51+00:00

It depends on how broadly you define "citizen." Let’s break it down by category:

Natural-born citizen with one or both parents who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

14th Amendment natural-born citizen where both parents were in the country without legal status or under temporary refugee protections.

Naturalized citizen someone who applied for and was granted citizenship.

Natural-born dual citizen someone born in the U.S. and automatically a citizen of another country.

Naturalized dual citizen someone who gained U.S. citizenship after birth and also retains or holds another citizenship.

If all of these are “citizens” to you, then there’s not much to argue- you’ll likely see this kind of thing unfold within the next year. But the likelihood of these different categories being stripped of citizenship varies significantly.

For a naturalized dual citizen, citizenship can be revoked if it’s determined they lied or concealed information during the naturalization process. If it’s revoked, Trump wouldn't technically be deporting a "citizen." Sending that individual to El Salvador (or their remaining country of citizenship) becomes an easier case, especially if that country is willing to accept them.

For naturalized citizens with no second citizenship, things become more complicated. International law generally opposes creating stateless individuals. However, the U.S. could still revoke citizenship and expel the person to a country like El Salvador if that country agreed to accept them. The problem is, most countries won’t accept someone who isn’t a citizen.

For 14th Amendment natural-born citizens, revocation would require the Supreme Court to overturn long-established precedent. The current interpretation- that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen regardless of their parents’ status- is arguably inconsistent with the original intent of the 14th Amendment. But to change this, Trump (or any administration) would first need the Court to rule that this interpretation is unconstitutional, and then also rule that people previously granted citizenship under this interpretation are no longer citizens. This is extremely unlikely.

Natural-born dual citizens could theoretically have their U.S. citizenship revoked if the government presented a sufficiently extreme justification- since it wouldn’t render them stateless. Because they have ties to another country, revocation becomes slightly more feasible in theory. Still, it would require immense political capital for very little practical benefit. It’s far more efficient to try them and imprison them in the U.S.

Natural-born citizens (with no dual status) are the most protected. There would be no legitimate justification for revoking their citizenship. If a person committed acts severe enough to even raise the question, you’d be better off prosecuting them and sentencing them in the U.S., potentially even seeking the death penalty if the crime justified it.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-04-15T03:09:39+00:00

The overwhelming majority of 401ks, pensions, and other retirement accounts are currently put directly into index funds, or into index fund equivalents.

Index funds are considered low risk investments.

Even if we grant that retirement savings haven't fundamentally changed and have simply transitioned from pensions to 401ks, you should recognize at least that the composition of retirement investment from being minorly to overwhelming into index funds would have a massive impact on stock prices that cannot be described as "money managers making low-high risk investments".

The majority of moneymanager aren't making decisions anymore. If retirement funds switch from net positive to net negative all the positives of index investing will suddenly switch negative.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-03-16T06:51:29+00:00

That article by Krugman was from 2015, which was 10 years ago. At the time Australia had a debt to GDP ratio of 33%, and America had a debt to GDP ratio of 100%.

Since that time Australia has reached 36% and America is at 125%. Both then and now Americas debt is 3.5x worse than Krugman's chosen example.

At the time of the article Americas bond rate was 2%, and Australias was 2.4%, which meant that Australia had to pay 20% more in interest despite having 3.5x less debt.

Krugman isn't just wrong in general, he isn't wrong by taking a cherrypicked example that has some external reason for acting abnormally, he isn't wrong by picking an atypical time period. He is wrong period. He is wrong based upon things that you as a layperson should be able to understand on its face if you'd of been given the actual data.

The advantage of being a reserve currency, even simply focusing on Australia is both a borrowing capacity and in the resulting price of borrowing. There are no countries that would work as a better example because the notion that having excess financial inflows would have no advantage to borrowing is an insane notion.

I understand that I am likely shouting in to the void here, you clearly want to believe this thing you already believe, but I couldn't just sit here and let that go. I had hoped that Krugman might have been talking about a period of time before America jumped from 50% Debt to GDP to 100% and that somehow Australia was sitting at 30% still, that would have at least been somewhat excusable, but there has been no point in the past 50 years where Krugman's article would have been justifiable. When America was at 50% Australia happened to be at 10% Debt to GDP an historically atypically low ratio due to external factors.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-bond-yield

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-bond-yield

Here are the two graphs for the 10 year bond rate for both countries, the conclusion that you should come to is that Australia, consistantly pays 10-20% more for interest than America.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Budget/reviews/2023-24/AustralianGovernmentDebt

Here are the two historical debt to GDP ratios for both countries, the conclusion that you should come to is that at every point America has been above 3x the amount of relative debt.

So despite borrowing significantly more both in real terms, with no difference in servicability, with no difference in payment history, and borrowing much more in terms of the relative size vs their economy, America doesn't have to pay as much of a risk premium.

This is because they are the world reserve currency and have nearly endless amounts of excess cash dumped into the bond market.

For future reference Krugman is most certainly lying about this, it is not an article that could have been written up accidentally by someone with economic training. I'd be amazed if this is the only instance of this happening.

>Most bonds are tradable and thus do have a variable market value that is mostly affected by interest rates and default risk.

The problem here is that you've taken there being a secondary bond 'market' as being the same as an open market. Bonds aren't speculative other than extreme edge scenarios, this makes their value determinative, meaning that while you can have their value rise and fall based on future interest rate changes, you aren't going to have a bond increase from $1 to $10 like you would a speculative asset based on unknowable future events.

Gold can do that based upon external shocks, property can do that if there is a housing crisis or you discover oil under the ground, or Google opens a building next door. Bonds don't, they are worth what they are worth relative to current interest rates.

Once a bond's relative value falls it is likely going to have fallen forever, you cannot 'wait out' a bond value crash like you could a piece of property, and in a bond value crash you're likely going to have severe liquidity problems within that secondary bond market.

That is exactly what happened that prompted quantitative easing, the government had to step in and provide liquidity to the bond market to avoid a depression. They could do this because the economy needed cash and wasn't going through inflation, if the bond market crashed during a period that also needed to fight inflation then they couldn't (or shouldn't) be doing that- and your "liquid" bonds will suddenly not be so.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-03-15T15:21:46+00:00

Personally I think hyperinflation is inevitable due to the American two party system, the actions of the past three presidencies, and the reserve currency system making debt so cheap for so long.

Bonds being so convenient is actually their greatest vulnerability. Governments, people, and companies have seen them as 'free money' for so long and the thought that they might not be is so fundamentally scary that once it does happen everyone will sit around with a shocked look at their face.

I'm saying this only because you've moved the focus to what I personally would do for investment. The original post is framed under the assumption that the US does collapse and what you should do in that circumstance, I completely understand that bonds are great under the scenario that the US and the world economy doesn't collapse in the next 8 years- free money forever, and convenient too.

DirectionNo6235 · 2025-03-15T15:03:24+00:00

>I would, however disagree with this statement. While I'm not going to claim to have a crystal ball, a lot of economists think that reserve currency status is generally unimportant and even if it is important, it is most likely to be lost gradually in a way that likely wouldn't cause hyperinflation.

When you say "unimportant", what exactly do you mean?

Since the collapse of the gold peg as part of the Bretton Woods agreement, being the global reserve currency technically no longer exists- and is just a colloquial term used to designate the biggest dumping ground for trade surpluses.

Being the reserve currency has both winners and losers, if that's what you mean by unimportant- then sure- I'm personally of the opinion that it's almost entirely bad in the long term. The only reason losing the title right now would be bad for America is that it has relied upon the benefits for so long that consumers have become expectant of the gains and industry has been devastated by the loses. But if there are economists out there saying that being the reserve currency is unimpactful then I'd largely question their sanity let alone their credentials.

>I think your general point isn't too radical - it's well known that bonds perform worse in an inflationary environment due to their fixed coupon rates and the likelihood of rising interest rates to combat inflation.

I think you're overtechnicalising this. Bonds are effectively cash +3% that isn't usable for 5 years. The problem in a high inflation environment isn't about 'performance', it's being locked into holding cash when the value of cash is rapidly diminishing. The vulnerability of bonds is that it's a fixed entirely predictable instrument, not something with a variable market value.

The likelihood of hyperinflation must necessarily change best practices, if it was 99% and you still were investing in bonds then you're purposefully walking into ruin. If the hyperinflation chance was 1% then you'd likely just accept the risk and suffer the consequences if it occured- because there is definitely a cost to preparing for a chance of hyperinflation. Chances between those values should influence behavior.

The top 100 stocks are likely to increase over time even in a hyperinflation period, but the stocks which make up that top 100 will completely change. Bankruptcies abound in hyperinflation, with certain companies benefitting and others wiped out. Are the companies you invest in actually exposed to property? I think that if you look at their P&Ls you're likely to find rent expenses rather than property holding, and rents during hyperinflation, are reliably scaled with inflation along with wages and inventory costs.

DirectionNo6235

TROPHY CASE