I voted for "Yes, one week", but I'd like to add the following qualifications to that vote:

1) This only applies on random spawn worlds. If we do custom-spawn in the future, there's too much potential for abuse.
2) It automatically expires when a nation exceeds 500-1000 sectors. I don't know how quickly someone could do this, but once you're that big, you've been given enough of a starting chance and will be fair game. (If you're just stumbling around, use the sandbox).

IMHO, anything longer than 1 week is too long. However, 1 week is almost pointless. (yes, I'm not accounting for sea units, but I want to keep this simple. By land, countries would have to be less than 160 sectors apart in a straight line to even be able to reach each other in one week, and that's only if both countries send jeeps on bee-lines straight for each other the day one of them is created.

I agree with Gopher here.

There should be some set size as well.

The time totally depends on two factors -- 1 how big is the world. 2 how long has the game been running.

Maybe these can be accounted for by looking at the average size of existing countries. For example on Cerato the top 10 looks like this:
driver down 659,316+8,033
DeMeow 609,076+5,775
Landover 542,189+12,025
Orange Free State 464,243+7,029
Pimptonia 436,536+9,091
Fuggleland 430,472+3,347
TheEyeOfGod 273,045-1,433
Johns Red Empire 254,336+186
United Federation 236,973+6,257
Sauer 231,739+3,015

Realistically, is anyone of size less than 50,000 going to be anything other than a bug to these guys?

nope. if anyone starts within nuke range of me, they're going to have a bad day.

I believe the rest of us are the ducks from old duck hunt on Cerato. We kick each other until we get rolled. The object is to be the last one before the world goes nuclear winter.
IC
Ochoocho.

What's stopping someone from getting a friend, or someone from their alliance already defeated, from joining and abusing the invincibility? It can become quite an annoyance.

I'd suggest also adding a clause that says that if you attack another country you lose your invincibility. This limits potential abuse to just being able to block a certain area (which can still be quite annoying).

i believe that in johnny's system, he's already stated that any country on vacation won't make money while they are away, and they won't be able to set attacks either.

that's Blake's point.

A country on the verge of defeat would be "considered" useless and worthless. Thus, if his alliance decides to abuse the country by having it block off someone and then go on vacation, allowing that near-dead country's alliance take advantage of the blockade and attack the enemy country they are blocking.

Country A is almost dead, his capital lost, etc. etc. etc.
Country A is allied with B and C
A, B, C wants to kill D.
Country A decides to set up some sort of a wall and goes on vacation, effectively blocking D from doing anything.
Country B and C crushes D.
Country A returns from vacation and expand without opposition.

the problem with this is that your statement means that if i attack one country in my lifetime, i don't get to ever take a vacation.

but the thing is, if i put in for vacation and then attack someone, my forces just sit there. whoever i attacked, as already explained by johnny, can simply amass troops and wait for the invuln to expire.

this really is a silly thing to cry about.

I was talking about Starting Invincibility. You know, the topic :P.

hahahaha

too many tabs open and i mixed up the topics. carry on.