Currently a very powerful nation can buy all sorts of improvements, wonders, and nuclear weapons, sell off a lot of their infrastructure while keeping them, drop down into the low ranking nations, and beat the everloving tar out of anyone without their opponent being able to do much other than fire some cruise missiles and "turtle up". I don't believe that this is how the game is intended to be played and it's an exploit used to grief less powerful players. For the same reason that we can't declare on nations well outside our strength ranges, I believe that this exploit should be at the very least discouraged. Several alliances in recent months have used this as an organized tactic to ensure that players they don't like don't ever get a chance to build back up, or to build up at all. 5 guerrilla camps and 5 barracks do a number on someone who doesn't have any improvements. Since this is used generally as an organized tactic, the negative effects on the griefer nation's economy are nullified through foreign aid. That is what this is by the way. It's griefing and no good game like CN should allow it.

What I propose is that if someone sells infrastructure, they should be forced to delete improvements as they go. I don't propose that they lose wonders as I think this would be a little bit too harsh, and I don't think people should lose improvements if they lose their infrastructure through combat. I'm sort of at a loss as to what should be done about nuclear weapons - sure it's easy to build back up from a nuke when you've only got a thousand infra to start with, but since you're not even remotely able to get nukes yourself I really don't think it's fair that they have them... however I don't see a good way of making that fair for both sides. Maybe someone else does?

CN as a game needs new players to stick around. Letting them get beat on by someone ridiculously more powerful than them that they can't even possibly hope to effectively counterattack due to improvement and wonder bonuses isn't conducive to that happening. Sure it's not entirely common for people to do this but it's common enough that I am sure quite a few people could tell of their own experiences on the receiving end.

Approved for discussion.

I do agree with this.

Regarding nuclear weapons, the only thing is that with the Manhahattan Project it's possible to get them now with far less than 5k NS, so :\ There really isn't a good solution to that one, barring changing the MP to be only top 60% or something arbitrary like that..

I can't think of a reason why any nation would sell hundreds of millions worth of infra just to "beat the living tar" out of much smaller nations, and in fact I have not heard of it happening. If it does happen they are already taking the hit of essentially losing the hundreds of millions of dollars that they spent on infra.

Additionally improvements are designed with the specific requirement that "You may only purchase one building per 1000 citizens." The game currently has no limits on how many citizens you need to support the improvements. It would also create the dichotemy that some nations would be able to keep their improvements if they are beaten down, but nations who sell would be unable to. In both cases it is entirely possible that both nations could have significant reserves saved up and would be able to "beat the living tar" out of nations at their level. Situations like this should not exist in the game.

If anything instead of making nations remove them nations should be forced to disable or "temporarily close" certain improvements when they fall into negative improvements and as a result they would lose access to the benefits of the improvements themselves but not lose the improvements that have been built. They would then not be able to "reactivate" the improvements until they have enough citizens to support all active improvements plus the ones they are "reactivating". The cost of reactivating improvements would be 1/10th of the original cost of the improvements and the upkeep on disabled improvements could be reduced to 1/5th of the actual cost.

This would mean that all nations who fall down below their original level, whether by their own design or through war, would be on a level playing field.

As to the nuke issue, the minimum infra level required to buy nukes is the issue there. The very purpose of Manhatten Projects was to allow for proliferation of nuclear weapons in levels below the 5% limit so I don't personally see an issue with them being used at lower levels against nations who don't have the Manhatten Project. In fact the high price of the wonder itself is the offset to this.

This is exactly what I was thinking, and it could be extended to Wonders as well if admin sets a "minimum" infra level at which each wonder would be effective.

How about, if you sell infra, you can't declare for 5 days? A simple idea, to be sure, but it's similar to other things in the game, the 5 days similar to peace mode/war mode preference, and it's similar to how you can't delete with aid out, or how you can't sell soldiers after attacks.

There was a time when this forum was filled with complaints about how beaten down alliances could not fight back at all. Now that seems to have been forgotten and we are worrying about beaten down nations from losing alliances being too good? Quite a turnaround considering that game play has not changed since then.

As I see it this is just a method to create an incentive for alliances to offer terms. As long as (formerly) large beaten down nations are capable of causing significant harm at the lower ranks for a long period there is an incentive for the winning alliance to offer terms. If we prevent that from happening guerrilla wars become even more hopeless, this is not good for the game.

I could agree on penalizing those who sell their infra, but if you lose it in war then having other penalties added would be far worse for the game than the grief some small nations get under the current system.

Overall I like the current system as it does give guerrilla war fighters a chance, not a good one, but at least the opportunity to keep fighting for a much longer period, obviously rogues can do the same thing, but comparatively they are a minor concern, and can be dealt (to an extent) with by sanctions.

If someone is willing to spend the time and effort building up to get all of the improvements / wonders etc before ripping there nation apart then they deserve to be able to kick the living snot out of any smaller nations

And as any change in this area raises the possibility of harming victims of a beat down by making them also get shot of the extra improvements then I have to say no

We should not be adding more negative effects to war, if anything the game needs more means for nations to fight using strategy, however simple those strategies may be.

Which improvements would be destroyed first, or who would chose which improvement is to be destroyed? Is it a random improvement taken away, or can the nation owner chose which one is destroyed/goes inactive?

I think alot of people missed the suggestion in the OP or are going off of an alternate suggestion by Lord Emares.

ES was saying that you would not be allowed to sell infra if it would take you into a negative improvement slot. The suggestion would only apply on the infra buy/sell page and should be some quick coding to implement it.

And yes, people do abuse this system. I myself sold down to 2k infra just so i could find tech raids (in a previous alliance) and due to the tech I had boosting my NS, i was attacking nations with 2k-3k more infra than me, and they didn't have a chance. It wasn't the tech that took away their chance...it was my 5 GCs and 5barracks. with the other improvements and wonders i had even with the income penelty from holding 5 GCs i still made more money than other nations at the same infra level.

After doing it, I believe it is an exploit as well. And as far as the improvements, it can very very easily be fixed just by putting some code in the infra buy/sell page to check number of improvements vs citizens.

If a minimum infra level was established for every wonder, then that too could be put into the infra buy/sell page. If Admin was to put a min infra level on everything, i would set it at 3k infra since as far as i know, nobody is buying wonders before they hit 3k infra right now. (EDIT: this would just be for wonders that do not already have an infra requirement)

For nukes, minimum infra is 1k to buy. so on the infra buy/sell page disallow selling of infra below 1k infra if nation is in possession of nukes.

Again, this ONLY happens on the infra buy/sell page. anybody that loses infra in any other way (war, trade loss, events, etc) would not be affected. the only change needed would just be to check some things when selling infra.

I believe there are two ways to solve this;

1) put both improvements and wonders part of the NS formula. After all, if we compare a 1k infra nation with say, 4 improvements to a 1k infra nation with 15 wonders and 80 improvements, should they both be in the same range? Considering the fact that wonders put a nation at a considerable advantage to those that dont.

A simple NS change formula to include improvements and wonders :



Thus putting the 1k infra nation with wonders + 6k NS, far from the 1k infra nation.

2) Change the god dang war system so smaller infra nations have a chance.

Obviously we all know which is more realistic

EDIT : Changed the formula, dropping the multiple factor down to 5

This would have the side effect of pushing the 1k infra nation into the range of 5-7k infra nations, possibly with nukes (especially if the 1k infra nation has a lot of tech) in which case ground battles are completely hopeless and turtling is the only option.

However, I do think nuclear weapons should have a MUCH bigger impact on your nation strength. Being nuclear capable should boost your NS by 50% or something like that. Since nukes more than double your damage output I'd say their current impact on your nation strength is laughable.

I don't think a change is needed here, honestly. Most nations which are down in that range with silly improvements are down there because of losing 5000 infra. To build 20 improvements and then sell back down is going to cost you $100m+, I doubt this is common enough to be a major problem. If it is considered to be deliberate griefing then a better policy is to make a moderation policy and start giving people in game warns/bans for using beefed up military nations to keep people at war indefinitely.

At the same time, those 5-6k infra nations would also get a boost.

As for the nukes, they already have a large enough impact on NS (a total of 6250 with 25 nukes)

I feel that just because a particular nation with a particular personality at its head (continually?) finds itself under attack by another nation(s) is not justification for a change to the game. I seriously doubt 'new players' have a problem with year old (or more) nations with multiple wonders and/or nuclear weapons selling infrastructure in order to do battle; this should be considered a risk of participating in world politics.

I think that if someone wanted to blow away their infra to fight at a lower level that they should be allowed to do so. Additionally, I like the idea of having improvements and wonders be calculated into nation strength. However, I think that only military wonders/improvements should matter there.

I'm not so sure, economic improvements and wonders factor in too.

After all, labor camps I'm pretty sure you'd classify as economic. It increases your net income per day.

5 labor camps means 1/2 daily bills, which means the nation lasts effectively 2x longer in war. Do you increase NS based on it or not?

What about factories? People get it to buy infra, clearly economic. But it also reduces tank and cruise missile cost considerably. Is it going to increase NS?

Clinics? They give increased citizens, more income, clearly economic. More citizens also means more soldiers. Increase NS based on that?



And of course just general income increase means faster growth, bigger war chests, and faster bounceback after a war.



I say if you make any improvements increase NS, all of them have to do it.

I agree with what ES said in the OP. This tactic has been used by nuclear rogues almost since the term 'nuclear rogue' was used. Even though it is not used much, preventing this tactic should certainly be a must.

Also, the requirements to obtain nuclear weapons ("Your nation will need a technology level of 75 or greater, an infrastructure level of 1,000 or greater"), should be needed to even use nuclear weapons, or if you don't have the requirements it limits the nukes abilities by 50%. And maybe increasing the technology requirements to 100 or higher be added too.

The best way to do this is to simply make improvements and Wonders matter towards NS. This could prove very difficult in regards to balancing, as others have noted.

Alternatively, something that would be easier to code is to simply have the sell infra script check the improvements of a nation. If a nation has negative improvements, then said nation is not allowed to sell infra.

As for nukes, Admin could do something similar to what was done with the Navy: make it so that a nation with less than X amount of infra could not be nuked. Alternative ideas could include stopping a nation from nuking if....the nation has X less infra than the nation trying to nuke, or if a nation has fallen out of the normal war declaration range for the nation trying to nuke (which would allow a few nukes to fly from the "grief"ing nation, but nothing permanent).

I also think the NS value of tech should be reduced to 3 or lower. If you have 10k tech, you will probably still have 8k left when you are nearly ZI'd, putting you in the range of MUCH stronger nations. The tech bonus simply does not compare to an overwhelming infra advantage, I never understood why tech was worth more NS than infra.

You can be a nation as small and underdeveloped as North Korea but still have nukes. The weapons and other technologies is worth a lot more on the battlefield than roads and highways. Yes its a lot slower to move places, but its like fighting a Sherman tank with an Abrams tank in 1944

That has absolutely nothing to do with the game. High tech and low infra vs. low tech and high infra means the latter will win nearly all ground attacks, draining your warchest and funding their war. Your only chance is if you have nukes and they don't.

Tech is accounted for in the battle calculations, though I'm not sure how strong the effect is. Additionally, the high tech nation will do a lot more damage with its airstrikes, CMs and nukes. Tech was already devalued once, and since then it has been given a much larger positive effect, so I wouldn't support reducing its NS further.

You'd be wrong there,
In the last war I took on two opponents with much more infra but much less tech and land than myself and was finding no problem winning ground battles both offensive and defensive despite my opponents fielding more troops

The effect is pretty large, but a nation with 1k infra 3k tech still stands no chance on the ground against a nation with 3k infra 1k tech (despite having more NS!). It's true that the nation with more tech does more damage, but when you lose most ground attacks your warchest will be depleted very fast while you are giving your enemies money to fight. The extra damage really isn't that much anyway, and a little extra infra damage doesn't matter all that much when you've been knocked down to 1k infra. At that point it becomes a battle to keep your warchest up so you can keep nuking.




I'm talking about situations where your enemies have 2, 3 or even 4 times more infra than you. Possibly more if you have tons of tech. You have over 9k infra, I'm pretty sure you weren't in one of those situations.

I was 2k infra with 2k tech and i was taking on and winning against nations that had 5-6k infra. Of course part of that is because i had more wonders and improvements than they did. (and I sold infra to get there). Getting this suggestion back on the topic of selling infra is an exploit and how to fix it, would probably be better than bringing up a discussion on changing the NS value of Tech, as it has no bearing on the topic.

If they didn't have guerrilla camps, then sure. Otherwise there is no way you consistently won anything, even if you deployed 100% against their defenses you'd probably only get 30-40% odds max.



I disagree, these two problems are of the same nature: 2 nations that are in the same NS range even though one is no match for the other. Right now, Nation Strength does a terrible job at actually representing someone's ability to fight.

Winning Ground Attacks isn't really that important.

It adds up. But the point of this topic isn't just limited to ground attacks. when i was running at low infra, i also had 105 planes, because i still had the improvements needed to support my aircraft carriers, and I had my FAFB. very few had both, so i ruled the air, especially as i was sending out tech and was further reducing my NS so I could hit lower and lower ranges. I had sats and MDs so not only would my cruise missles cause more damage, i would take less. I had a CIA so they couldn't take away my nukes and I could take away theirs (if they had them). If not I had the MP so i could buy nukes when they couldnt. Due to all my wonders and improvements I made more money in relation to my bills than they could, even without swapping labor camps and GCs.

The fact was, I could take on any nation in my range and cause significant more damage than I could take, and there was not a thing that they could do about it. I laughed at their misfortune for being in my targets. Now that I've done it...I recognize it as an exploit. There is no way that admin intended people to deliberately sell infra so that they could have an unfair advantage against other nations. Thats what it is. It is an unfair advantage that no growing nation can overcome, the only way to combat it is to also sell infra.



Actually no, its not the same nature. One is about people deliberately exploiting game mechanics to give themselves an unfair advantage against nations that are playing the game as it was intended. The other is about trying to balance NS. Those are different topics.

When your warchest starts shrinking you WILL want to win those ground attacks. Losing a mil per attack is lethal at $100m or lower. Ground attacks are second only to nukes when it comes to importance.



It's all related to Nation Strength. You were able to declare on people even though you really shouldn't be able to, because you were many times stronger than them.

I have no problem with people that get blown up in a war having the improvenemt/wonder advantage. It is those that sell infra to abuse the system that i have a problem with (and yes, I include my past actions in this).

Also, if anything, i think tech is under valued on NS, because as delta said, its not just about ground attacks. If i have more tech, i cause much more damage. I win with my navy more frequently. My spys are better. it goes on and on. Also, check your ground attack formulas again. Tech does play a significant effect in ground battles. If you add up everything, tech is worth more than infra. The most important things in this most current war have been said to be warchest and tech. not infra.

I don't really see the difference between being blown up and selling infra. Instead of selling infra you could just go rogue on a big nation first, same effect.


I've fought many, many nations with 3000-3500 infra and <500 tech. I have 1000 infra and 1800 tech. Guess what? I couldn't even defend against their attacks, they'd still win almost every time because of the sheer amount of soldiers they could deploy, not even 100% of my forces were able to fend them off. If they had the majority of their forces at home and I deployed as much as I could without self anarchying, I'd only have like 30% odds. Good luck with that. I had to nuke and bomb them for 5 days straight before I could compete with them on the ground, and even then they still had a slight advantage. I can only imagine what it'd be like if I had no nukes, that would've been horrible. They had less NS than me and they'd still beat the living crap out of me.

$100 mil or lower is not a real war chest.

And a war that doesn't cost you nearly all of your money is not a real war. You try fighting for 2 months, see what's left of your warchest.

Then your only experience must have been fighting nations with extremely high infra levels.

In all wars I've had, nations with more tech won, in the first theatre of war I was involved in in this current war, I took on 4 nations (1 SSSW18 and 3 TOOL). I had more tech than 3 of the 4, but less infra then the 3rd of those 3 and the 4th nation. I dealt out more damage to each of those 3 nations who had less tech than me than all of their damages combined. The 4th nation however had more tech and thus did more damage than I did to him.

If tech didn't effect the war aspect of the game, no nations would have more than 500.


Viluin, your examples of how tech isn't effective is flawed because the nations you are fighting are 3 to 4 times your size in infra, of course tech isn't going to do much. However, if you had equal infra and more than 1k more tech, you would own them completely.

EDIT: line above

Thats your difference... you go rogue on somebody you are losing very large amounts of cash. You are spending large amounts of money on bills on your way down, and people are stealing or defeat alerting your cash on the way down.

If you sell off infra, you lose nothing except future earnings, however your bills/income ratio now puts your warchest that would have lasted 30 days of war, to one that will last 300 days of war, so you really have no need of those future collections.



With that tech advantage, you may have been losing on the ground, but you would have been tearing them to peices with your nukes/planes and CMs. If you tied in turtling, you are causing extreme amounts of damage in comparison to what you are taking. We all know that the ground war has problems, but that is NOT the point of this topic. I'd recomend you take these arguments you've made and make a suggestion to further balance NS, that way this separate discussion can take place separately. Nothing you have said addresses the problem with the system that the OP points out which is

To reduce the NS level of tech actually exacerbates the problem stated in the OP, because now nations that do it can have more tech and hit even lower NS nations.

It just doesn't make sense that I have more NS than them (due to my tech) and they;d still beat the living hell out of me if it wasn't for my nukes.




If you go rogue and turtle, you'll lose nearly all of your infra in 2 weeks. The money lost is minimal, $5m a day + the cost of nukes + bills. You'll end up losing maybe 10% of your warchest. It's basically the same situation, fixing this infra selling "exploit" doesn't change anything, except that these so-called exploiters will now nuke high-level nations and do a crapload of damage before they start beating on low-level nations.

Imo, tech should have a smaller effect on your NS, but military wonders should give a slight boost. Being nuclear capable should be a huge boost, since it's basically an "I-WIN" button if your enemies don't have nukes. You could pit a nuclear nation with 20K NS against a non-nuclear nation with 75k NS and the first one will still win (I know there aren't any non-nuclear nations at 75K NS, but it's just an example).

As someone who has pretty much ONLY fought people with more infra (4 in the Karma war, currently 3 in TE ) the biggest or only way to counter the inherent disadvantage is nukes (or a few tricks in specific situations).

By firing a nuke, I can easily win GAs against people with 2x or even 3x my infrastructure level. However without nukes this is almost impossible to pull off. Nations without the advantage of nukes or an MP would essentially have no ability to attack those with significant infra levels higher than them, barring the situation in which they got knocked down very far and had 5x Barracks/GC on hand, against nations who were unable to have them.

This is why I think SDIs should be able to block a maximum of 2 nukes a day, as without the ability to nuke, an overwhelmed defender has almost no options.

I also think the SDI needs to be changed in a way, but that's a different topic. The SDI is basically the mother of all dogpile wonders. When you outnumber your enemy it's amazing, but when you are outnumbered you might as well not have it, because your enemies can buy more nukes than you will block. It's the only wonder that's biased in that way. I'd prefer something like a 25% chance to block, but you'd only be able to launch 1 nuke even if it's blocked.

I absolutely do not agree with lowering the NS value of tech.

However adding an NS to wonders and improvements would be a way to address the issues outlined in the OP. My only problem with adding NS to wonders and improvements is balancing. there are 22 types of improvements (most of which you can have 5) and 28 wonders. As economic improvements and wonders do affect the fighting ability of a nation you cannot just leave them out of the mix. (see seerows comment http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1628840 ). If you add an NS value to them you must balance out what there effects are, and if they are better when they stack and how much. Failing to balance these properly will lead to a disaster.

Currently there are 10 factors that determine NS (counting all planes as one factor as the NS values for difference in planes are already balanced, same with navies). Tech, Soldiers, tanks, and nukes have all had their NS values changed in an effort to balance the system. If you were to add in improvements, first you would need to balance 22 improvements against eachother, then you would need to balance the improvements with the rest of the NS formula. Repeat for wonders. Now what happens when you have an event take out the use of your wonders? (there is one that will make your MIC or i think Stock market be useless for a month). You would be talking about months if not years of testing to balance out the system if you introduced so many new variables. And after that when it is implemented it will likely still be imbalanced and it will take many more months to tweak it to get it correct again. Implementation of new wonders or improvements would become a much more difficult process as you would have to work very carefully not to upset the balance.

Adding NS == months of work, likely problems that could seriously affect a very large portion of the playerbase
adding checks when selling infra == at most a weeks worth of coding. Can only affect nations who sell infra.

looking at it from a standpoint of amount of work and possible negitive affects on gameplay, adding NS to improvements and wonders is clearly a worse choice.

Now looking at why one would legitimately need to sell infrastructure (aside from what the OP and myself are calling the Exploit). Only thing possible is if one is in severe bill lock and collections are about to be reduced because of it. I suppose you could also say if somebody accidentally buys slightly over an infra jump (1000.01 infra for instance).

If my suggested change is implemented, in the first case of bill lock, nations need to reduce upkeep fees. Selling improvements helps towards that goal, therefor they are not unfairly impacted by the change. Nations above an infra jump wouldn't have enough citizens to purchase an improvement, so they would have no loss.

So implementing this change affects nobody negatively aside from those that exploit the game mechanics to give themselves a military advantage that growing nations have no chance of matching.

Months of work? Hardly. With the equation I give, its the best way to put in improvements and wonders into the NS formula, no hard work involved, just a simple addition to preexisting code. As seerow stated before, both econ and military have their merits come war, which is why they cant be "balanced".

On the more on topic matter, adding in improvements and wonders in the NS formula, would give players a boost to their NS, and thus prevent the scenario from happing that the OP suggested. OR if it does happen, the said nation would be either really low on infra/land, or would of sold most of his/her improvements/wonders to get that low. Simple solution for a simple problem.

This formula?


You're kidding me right?

your formula that you proposed offers 5 ns per improvement, yet some improvements are vastly stronger than others. In a fight 1 guerilla camp is worth more than 3 barracks, yet your formula has them equal when one is obviously stronger than another. A hospital is better than a clinic by a factor of 3, yet your formula rates them as equal.

Why do you have wonders as a multiplier? how does an SDI improve the strength of a nations existing improvements? Is an SDI less powerfull if i only have the 6 improvements that are required to opperate it vs having those same 6 plus 2 banks?

I have 79 improvements, so my NS would be boosted by 395 * 23 wonders = about 9k NS. My NS from just planes is over half of that, but my improvements and wonders are worth 10 times that amount in a fight at least.
How about 2 nations, both with the same 50 improvements and 2 different wonders. first with MP and SDI, second with SM and SSS. how could that be the same NS? How could you measure either of those nations as having only 500 more NS than a nation that has zero improvements or wonders.

I'm sorry, each improvement would have to be looked at to see what strength it should get. Each wonder would have to be looked at to see what strength it should get. Once figured out, those strenghts will have to fit in properly with the other NS factors so it is a big enough effect to accuratly represent their strength, but not so big that it devalues the NS of the other factors.

Your formula treating improvements and wonders as the same NS wise would be the same as makeing all planes have the same ns regardless if they are level 1 or level 9. It would be the same as having an aircraft carrier have the same NS rating as a landing ship. Just as the different ships have different strengths, the different wonders and improvements have different strengths, and you cannot just lump them all together and think that things will work out. It would make NS a more inaccurate reading of a nations fighting strength than now. The time and effort it would take to properly assign improvements and wonders NS is measured in weeks or months, because somebody has to analyze each improvements actual strengths in regards to the other NS factors..

Im sorry, but to say that your formula is the best way to put them into the NS formula is naive. Your formula is greatly flawed because it doesn't even try to balance anything, and if implemented, while correcting the OP, would open up huge problems in regards to nations true strengths.

YOUR kidding me right?

How would you rate a clinic and a barracks? One gets you extra income, other drops bills. One raises pop for more soldiers, the other increases soldier efficency. There are so many improvements that are like that, so it would just be easier shotgunning them and making them all equal. you cant tell me not one improvement does not have its merit and downside when paried up against other improvements. Plus, if we did raise the muliplier of the formula, then we're getting out of hand. Right now if a nation had full improvements and wonders, that raises their NS to a little under 12k, which is enough to keep them from the lower levels. If you were to increase that number, then your forcing nations at the level of more developed nations only because of their wonder count (improvement count wont matter as much because everyone gets that benifit which is usually directly related to infra).


As seerow pointed out, econ improvements = faster rebuild time and bigger warchests, while war wonders give more damage. They both equal themselves out.


Yet improvements and wonders are not weapons of war, they are nation buildings to help aid its growth. That is the true purpose of every improvement and wonder in the game and I bet anything for you to prove to me otherwise. Whereas warfare weapons are intended to be built and constantly improved to do the maximum damage to the other nation. You are beliving that the two are the same when infact they are not. All the improvements and wonders have the same purpose, which is why it can be all equal, whereas war weapons cannot.


Because those nations who can develop and maintain wonders, obviously are well built enough to be in the higher ranks. Wonders are a symbol of development and time spent in the game. Do you not believe that NS should reflect that?

and in your example, it depends. If the SDi is your only wonder, then yeh. But I think the bigger question is why would you buy an SDI without even having full banks yet o.o You need to be realistic.


So, your sayen that my formula is flawed cause it adds in a boost of NS to those nations who are more developed? So its perfectly fine for a 28 wonder nation to be at the same level as a 0 wonder nation? Yeh makes TOTAL sence.

Yeah, i misunderstood that too. This i can agree with actually and it does make sense.

Economic improvements and wonders do not directly affect a nation's ability to fight. According to that logic having a large warchest should boost your NS too. The only improvements/wonders that need to increase your NS are Barracks, Guerrilla Camps and all military wonders. The others don't make enough of a difference to warrant a NS change. Maybe the satellites / missile defenses if you feel like it's important.



I agree, it would take a lot of testing. As a side note, I don't think planes should add NS. You can buy max planes on a whim, and max lvl 9 planes can add ~2250-4500 NS. People decom their planes to lower their NS so they can attack weaker targets, it's the same story as when soldiers and tanks were worth a lot more NS. The ability to buy X level planes is what should raise your NS.



Adding checks when selling infra doesn't solve anything at all, someone will just go rogue until he's lost enough infra, with minimal money losses. I only lost $300m when I went from 9100 infra to 1000, and that's because I bought new planes every day, lost ground attacks etc. if I turtled I'd probably only have lost 150 mil max.

Leave it alone. If I build my nation up to 14k infra and get everything then want to sell down to the lower ranks, why shouldn't I be able to? Because it's not fair? Says WHO? It's all a matter of opinion, and to me it's not an exploit. I bought all of that stuff when I had the required levels and spent A LOT of time getting there, so what I do after it doesn't matter.

yeah, it would be easier, but you just stated that they provide different benefits, so how can you rate them as the same? if everything was the same there wouldn't be recommended improvement or wonder orders. A movie industry and a stadium are identical aside from cost, so shouldn't they provide the same NS boost? If you are going to do something, you don't do it the easy way, you do it the correct way.



EXACTLY MY POINT. some improvements are better than others, some are worse. you can't rate them as the same because they are not the same.



I'm not saying to change the multiplier, im saying to throw out your proposed formula because it is flawed. Instead of improvements*5*wonders it should be (improvement ratings) * (multiplier) + (wonder ratings) * multiplier. the problem lies in figuring out what the improvement and wonder ratings should be. and it is something that will take a very large amount of time, and would be extremely difficult without massive testing of the various combinations. As i mentioned before, the previously implemented NS formula has had several changes to at least 4 factors because after gameplay it was found that the NS formula was flawed. Whatever gets tested and ultimately implemented will eventually have to go through some more revisions because there will be so many more variables.



Find me where he said that they equal themselves out. All he pointed out was that he thinks (correctly) that some income improvements provide bonuses that should also affect NS. It is only your flawed opinion that states that they even themselves out. How exactly does a church equal a guerrilla camp? In terms of nation strength it is obvious that a nation with 5 guerrilla camps is going to kick the snot out of a nation that has 5 churches instead, therefor you cannot possibly give them the same NS rating.



how does a guerrilla camp aid a nations growth? in fact it impacts its growth.
there is zero reason to have a WRC except as a weapon of war as it provides no benefits other than military.
how about a pentagon...does that provide more income, or does it give an increase to battle strength?

these 3 things are built to do the maximum damage to the other nation.

There i just provided 3 examples that prove otherwise.


I never stated that i didn't think that adding NS to improvements or wonders is a bad idea. what i stated is that your formula to do so is greatly flawed, and that to do it correctly would take more time than any programmer is willing to spend for the benefits provided.


OK swap out banks with any other improvement. my point still stands, how is an SDIs strength reflective of how many improvements a nation has? how about an MP? or an FAFB. Missile Silo? Fallout shelter? tell me how ANY of these wonders should have their strengths dependent on number of wonders? Also how about if a nation has no wonders? are their improvements not worth anything? because since its a multiplier it would make them worth zero if there are zero wonders. Just yet another flaw with your formula.


Straw man
I am not saying that your formula is flawed because it adds a boost of NS to those nations who are more developed. Reread the above and my previous posts and you will see that i think your formula is flawed because it fails to do any kind of balancing.

Here i'll quote you what i had said before so you dont have to read up


I never said the idea was a bad one, i just said your implementation of it was bad. I said the work involved in implementing it correctly greatly outweighs the benefit provided.

sorry for the double post, but who knew there was a limit on quote blocks...



I think planes should add NS, just not anywhere near what it does now. When tanks and soldiers were lowered NS wise, planes were forgotten. But that becomes another side discussion. (i may just make a suggestion about that when im done with this post, if i can't find one that somebody else already made). I don't think the ability to buy planes should mark ones NS though.



how much tech would you lose? how much land? take 2 identicle nations, have the first sell off infra, and then have the second get their infra wared off until they are both at the same point, say 9k infra to 1k infra such as yourself. How much tech did you lose? how much land?
now put them in a 1v1 fight. the one who sold off infra will have a large advantage. because he will get the military boosts of land and tech, and due to having larger amounts of tech, will be able to cause much much more damage. I know this may feed into your argument of TECHs NS value as those nations may end up out of eachothers ranges, but the basic point stands. a nation that sells infra will be in a better position than one that has it blown up, and it is an unfair advantage.



A few days ago people were able to avoid defeat alerts if they self defeated. Before Admin decided it was an exploit, it wasn't. Who said that wasn't fair? It was a matter of opinion. When NPO was recovering from GWI (i think) it was allowed to send out more Foreign aid than you had to give. It wasn't an exploit back then, it was part of the games mechanics. You used to be able to leave peace mode without having to collect taxes first. Wasn't an exploit back then, it was how the game was programed. Perfectly fair to use since everybody could do so.

My point is, every exploit that has been closed was not considered an exploit at the time. The person that determines ultimately if this is an exploit or not is Admin, and if he does, it is no longer a matter of opinion, it is a fact. If he doesn't, then this thread eventually gets buried.

Losing land and tech is a good thing, you want to shed as much NS as possible when you're down at 1k infra. Ever tried fighting 5k infra nations with your 1k infra? It's not fun.