Tag Archives: Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 free

Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Download

Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Fit girl repack is a free to play a game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 igg games an ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11

Now to download and Install Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Download

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 download
Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 download
 Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

So your earliest turns are based around the construction and getting people assigned. When a turn ends, you’ll notice some orbital bodies have moved, and you’ll get an update on the bottom. Sometimes, so much has happened that information can be buried. But it does highlight important stuff, and there’s a log you can look at for details. So the game does try to help you manage all this information and doesn’t leave you completely to the wind. It’s rough but manageable. Your starting solar system is also a test. If you find it too hard here, you’re not gonna make it in the rest of the game. So, while your initial planet management is pretty… well… manageable – it’s when you deal with space flight that things can get tricky, and I suspect a lot of people drop out here. Building one does have more convenience features than other games, but it also has some drawbacks. So, here’s how you build a ship: what the ship is gets decided by the parts you put in (this thing up here doesn’t mean anything – it’s for Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 update download).

The designer will just flood you with these stats, but adding a part to your ship is as simple as clicking it. You don’t need to manually add in all the crew support stuff too, that games like “Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 download” will do. It will automatically give you the bare minimum and adjust if you take something away. Simple enough so far. I noticed something fairly quickly when I was building my first ship – and that’s: I couldn’t see any engines. That’s because you have to DESIGN your first engine. Nearly every ship component in the game can be customized this way. Even the engines you put on your missiles can be customized. I don’t think I can remember any other game that does this. What about the missile design menu? Oh my God… Missiles are… extensive, to say the least, so we’re not gonna deal with that. As for engines, big, fuel-efficient ones are what you want in your civilian ships.

The game will tell you if it thinks it’ll be better for a civilian ship or a military one, but it’s your choice. It’s not over yet though, because then you need to go to the lab and research the engine. Any other parts you wanted on your ships, like sensors or lasers, also need to be researched. So you might need to study hard before you go up into the stars. You also need to factor in the deployment time of your ship, so you’ll need to measure the range of how far it will go out and how much fuel it will use on its journey. The last thing you wanna do is build a ship just to get it stuck somewhere. The first ship you build is typically a survey ship. This is because you wanna be scanning for materials as quickly as you can. So, once it’s to your liking, the design is saved. This is why you want to have your shipyard tonnage in check – it can’t be built if it’s too big. So, when it does fit, then you retool the shipyard to build that specific kind of ship you wanna build.

Doing this for bigger ships later can take a long time. The ship takes a few months to build, so just work on other stuff in the meanwhile. Then the day finally comes – you built your first ship. But why does it say “shipyard”? Sorry, I hope you weren’t expecting to click around with your space ship… You give orders through a special “Fleet” menu, and your first fleet is usually named after your shipyard. You can give manual orders like shown here, but also add on to them conditional orders, like dropping everything and refueling at a certain tick.

This is done in a separate tab of the same menu. It can be a pain to set up, but once it’s working, it’s pretty nice. Orders can be cycled an infinite number of times or a set number. So, something like constant resupply to a colony is a pretty easy setup. If it’s set up right, the ship will start moving with the turns. Yeah, see? Look at it go! Surveying your solar system is where the game starts picking up. This is where you start developing colonies and mining ores – all that good stuff. There are some detailed survey reports that help the player best decide where to mine, but they won’t be 100% accurate unless you form a science team to land on the planet and do a ground survey. I’m not gonna get into those, but it gives some other scientists something to do. “Aurora” is interesting, and probably more realistic, in that you don’t need to have populated colonies. You just need to send automated mining equipment there. You might not even have to send it yourself. The private sector is simulated in “Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 download”.

If they have enough money, they’ll build their own ships, and sometimes found their own colonies. So you can save on building cargo ships if you just contract Papa John’s to do it for you. Just make sure to fill out the right supply and demand paperwork for it. Because in “Aurora”, deliveries between planets are done by mass driver. If you’ve made it this far into the video, you probably know what that is, so I’m not gonna explain it to you. In “Aurora”, building the mass driver’s also building the RECEIVING system for one. So what if you accidentally mess up your paperwork and send all your mass drivers on Earth somewhere else? This is a 30-ton rock, going nearly 55 MpH, and there’s no Bruce Willis to stop it. So guess what happens? (distorted) “Metro Sim Hustle 0.9.11 download!” So do your paperwork right… Deciding to make populated colonies is when things get even trickier. Populations become rebellious if they don’t feel protected, or they don’t have enough infrastructure. Now, you could just keep supply lines going, but terraforming is a much better idea. Unfortunately, it’s very time-consuming in “Aurora”. I said that I tried not to make this video a guide, but I’ve dangerously been in that territory. I’ve been doing this to make a point: the steps are simple – it’s learning the process that’s difficult. Building a new ship or researching new technology is a fairly straightforward thing to learn in other 4X games, but in “Aurora” it requires digging through multiple menus or at least reading some tutorials about it. So when you get to features like terraforming, that’s where the game really becomes a handful. In a game like “Stellaris”, you just need generic terraforming gasses and liquids and some money, and you’re good to go. By now, you should know what to expect from this game. My favorite examples for describing “Aurora” are either the missiles or terraforming. So here’s how it works.

You could build a terraforming ship, but moving over installations is easier at first. Once it’s moved to the colony planet, you move to the environment tab and that’s where you need to do the work. Remember the species’ tolerances in the character creator long ago? Yeah, that’s coming back… You need to choose the exact type of gas to inject into the atmosphere. Once that’s chosen, then you need to choose the AMOUNT of gas you add into the atmosphere. Messing up the pressure is a good way to kill everybody. This process takes years, and you need to monitor the atmospheric data.

You need gasses to balance out the first, greenhouse gasses to measure the temperature – you have to do EVERYTHING. This would be a simple deal in another game, but here it’s very specific. Honestly, that’s the best way, to sum up, the game: “it’s very specific”. This is its greatest strength and its greatest downfall. “Aurora’s” features are so deep and so smartly connected, it would take… Idunno… HOURS to explain it all thoroughly. It makes the thorough mechanic review nearly impossible. However, if you master your first solar system, you should be fine in others. Whatever you learn in your first system will apply to all the others, and the game does a good job of making you learn that.

Switching between them isn’t hard with a dropdown menu, or you could just use the galactic subway map. With one exception, there wasn’t anything in another system that radically changed my process of doing things. So what’s that exception? [dramatic music sting] Oh, cool, aliens! Combat’s the last feature I’m gonna talk about because some people don’t even get it in their games. The weapon systems on your ships can be placed into groups. That means, if you’re willing to, you can control every weapon on every one of your ships manually during a fight. And that’s pretty impressive. If you’re not willing to do that, there’s also an auto-fire option. Either way, these can get pretty destructive. You typically wanna change your turn to the small increments, so you can see how the battle is going. Ships can lose control of their systems if they’re damaged enough, and if they’re hit too badly, they might have to scuttle, or they just blow up. The ship damage system is very intricate. I find it a lot more enjoyable in smaller skirmishes because when it gets into huge fleet battles, things can get pretty hard to follow. Visually, you’ll see escape pods being marked, explosions, and also wrecks appearing. Battles can also be financially profitable since it has an “EVE Online”-like salvaging mechanic.

They could also provide useful military intelligence. A lot of battles can depend on who brought the best anti-missile missiles, but there are other things you could do, too. Like any strategy game, knowing which fight to take is your best bet. Ground forces can also be involved in boarding enemy ships or attacking enemy planets, but most of this isn’t visual. “Aurora” thrives from imagination. You could pretend that your favorite characters from “Starship Troopers” are fighting the enemies in their ships. Well, oka… This isn’t “Starship Troopers”. This is from, ehm… “Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy”, but… beh… You know… I wouldn’t call “Aurora” a bad game. I think it’s just not MY type of game. Let’s say, in theory, you work in some kind of office environment: you go home, you’ve eaten, decide to fire up a game, and then THIS stares back at you… I think, there would be a lot of days, where you just wouldn’t want to play it. For me, a lot of complexity with some tedious areas, on top of having a really visually unappealing design, is a fatal flaw. It’s worth noting that this is version 7.1, and Steve has been working on version 8. So a lot of the nastier bug squashing is probably not gonna be until then.

Ultimately, this is a game Steve made for himself and other fans of these older tabletop games. He was just nice enough to share it with the public and do it for free. It’ll always make me curious about what he could do if he had a budget and a team to work with. As it stands, calling this game “specialized” is an understatement, but hey, it’s free, so check it out.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.