"when you change the rules, you change the environment and the market"
-Bernie Madoff

what we should do is analyze how the influx of ag tech, the loss of a possible boom in F's secondary market in oil, and the increased risk of an LG inherent in the reduction of the number of Fs has impacted players' decisions to play the gov type.

"you are trying to make every strat equaL"
no
like the admins, i am trying to bring creative diversity to the game. what good is a game if one strat has a decided advantage over every other? where is the creativity in that? where is the skill and joy of the game?
that is why when the rules favored dashers they changed the rules
deciding which strat to play and why should be an important part of the game but not the only part

"farmers were recently given a sizeable advantage in mil tech"
we are several sets in to this rule change and it is time for an analysis
there were thre competitive Fs in the greggset
12, 35 and 66
all three were pounded repeatedly and were in constant DR
none of the three were able to get much ag tech let alone a luxury like mil tech
since i spied on every country in the top sixty this set i can say that they were not using much tech including military tech and that includes cris, 35, who normally runs with a ton of tech
the mil tech advantage rewards D farmers handsomely but does not aid Fs
the decline in the number of Fs has accelerated under the ALCSA but as i said earlier i trace it to the flood of ag tech
if someone thoughtful would like to respond to that i would appreciate it

fordy would no doubt say that next set there will be a bunch of farmers,
trust adam smith's invisible hand

however
the price of food did not rise in the greggset nor in ALCSA3GREGG1 set
because D farmers filled the void

ask yourself this question
if i wanted to run a fully teched farmer under this rule set
would i run an F or a D or even a C?
under the current rule set
F is a target for every predator
F has to pay full market commissions on sales and purchases
F has no chance of hitting the lottery with oil
F can not play the market and has no tech enhancements
F is not a viable option under the current ruleset

"just because farmers have had a few bad sets"
the issue is Fs not farmers, it is important to draw that distinction. any gov type can farm and Fs have lost their advantage.

we are down to 3 out of 100
how low is low enough to do something about it?

when you change the rules, you change the environment and the economy.
having changed the F's environment and havein given their competition (the farming D ) a competitive advantage, we are driving F to extinction