After dropping this idea in the defeat alert thread, I've decided to create my own suggestion, because I'd really like to see this in the game.

Right now, people can buy as much infra as they can afford. Growth-wise, this doesn't really create any problems. However, it's changing the nature of warfare. People now have warchests that will by far outlast their infrastructure. As a result, people can easily stay at 1,000 infra nuking their enemies for months, possibly more than a year if they have a big warchest. This is not fun for both sides. Someone with a 1bn+ dollar warchest could last for half a year.. who really wants to fight for half a year? War is fun, but it requires a high level of activity to fight a war properly in CN, and it becomes quite tiresome after a month. You should fear someone because he is strong, not because he'd be extremely annoying for half a year if you attacked him.

So, I propose an infrastructure purchase limit of 200 per day. When someone is ZI'd, they should be out of the game. Numerous short wars (<1 month) are more fun than a few tedious vietFANs. I believe this would add a whole new dimension to war. Infrastructure is limited, and once you run out, you can't fight anymore. The importance of peace mode cycles to rebuild during war would be increased, as would the importance of preventing someone from entering peace mode. Buying infrastructure while fighting, even at higher infra levels, would be a viable tactic. Expensive, but it could allow you to beat your enemies. I also believe it would put less of an emphasis on warchests, which is a good thing. Having to not fight any wars for a year so you can save up enough money for a good one is not fun. I fear that, with the current system, many people will have 5+bn dollar warchests within a year or two, and no one will want to start a war out of fear of being bored to death for 2+ years.

I believe this, combined with uncapped defeat alerts, would do well to simulate a defeated nation, instead of conjuring 1000 infra and 2 nukes out of thin air even though your nation is ruined. You have no infrastructure left, no army, and your enemy is quickly destroying all of your remaining stuff. When you are overrun, it's time to surrender.


EDIT: It's possible to make the cap apply only when you're at war, which makes sense because you won't have as much resources/manpower available to construct infrastructure when you're at war.

The tsaritsa sends her blessing. Capping infrastructure would influence an enormous change in the way warfare is carried out, as well as the dynamics of alliance growth.

while im not oposed to this suggest the cap you suggested if far to low instead a cap of 400 would be better as it still would take 3 days to grow enough infra to nuke someone but wouldn't significatly slow growth that significantly.


I also think this is only 1 of the problems that needs to be adressed in the war system and that a far bigger problem is that the caps and limits set for wars and wonders are almost all competele outdated. For example how a person needs a mere 1000 infra for a nuke while most nations now don't even consider it until 4-5 thousand infra and the nuke was orignianlly intented for nation in the top 5% which now means most people who would have the nuke that way now have 10,000 infra plus. And of course their is the fact that you can't even deal enough damage to large nations now to make them feel it unless you spend months at war due to the damage caps being so low.

I agree with the principle of wanting to shorten wars, but I disagree with your methodology.

I think a cap of 400 is too high. You probably won't be able to damage them enough to offset the 400 infra they purchase every day, which means they'll still be able to stay at 1k infra for a very long time. I think growth is a moot point, you'd simply have to start purchasing it sooner so you can finish buying your infra right when you want to collect taxes. The only difference is you'd be paying a little higher bills.



I don't think such a change is necessary if infra purchases are capped. In fact it would be rather annoying to spend $100m on a Manhattan Project that only works for a week or so. I don't mind the ability to nuke while you are going down, it's the inability to go down completely without many months of war that worries me.

200 is far too low. That can be wiped out with 1 nuke pretty much. At least 300-400 should be there. However, unless you are going to cap all purchases for basic resources (land, infra, tech) i see little point in capping infra.

Tech is practically capped, for most people it's very expensive to buy, especially nations that used to be big (they often have quite a lot of tech left). Land disappears faster than anything in war, and doesn't serve much of a purpose.

I don't think 200 is too low. If you are getting nuked daily, then you should be ZI'd. If you're not getting nuked, you still stand a chance against 2-3 players if you're good enough. They would have to coordinate very well to destroy that 200 infra, and if they have weak air forces it'll be nearly impossible.

I disagree.

Infra jump nation could only buy 200 infra, when going past the jump. 200 infra is not enough to get a benifit from it. 300 is better.

So lets say, put the cap at 300.

200 infra is often more than enough to make an infra jump, and you can easily perform a jump in 2 days. If you time your infra purchases and tax collections well, a purchase limit of 200 per day shouldn't make much of a difference at all. The only difference is you can no longer avoid paying bills for much higher infra levels while still collecting taxes at that higher infra level (people buying 1000 infra in 1 day and then collecting).

EDIT: A compromise would be to remove the cap when you're not at war. I've added this to my OP.

Rather than make all of the little nations suffer for your bloodlust for ZI, why don't they just have percentage caps on money rather than numerical. That way a 1bil warchest could be whittled away much easier, but at the same time can help an experienced combatant destroy a nonexperienced one.

Any suggestion such as this ought not be biased towards a defending ZI'ed or likewise. Warfare should be fair. Quicker? Sure. Less of a standstill? For sure.
But even so, it always ought to be "let the better ruler win".

Just increasing the percentages of money stolen/destroyed doesn't work. Defeat alerts are rare, and money stolen in ground attacks works both ways. In fact, if you increase the amount of money that's stolen, curbstomps are more likely to be profitable.

If there is a cap on infra purchases, the better ruler will indeed win, because simply having a ton of money won't save you. Unless the better ruler is outnumbered, then he has a problem, but that's only natural.

Sorry, I'd have to go with a no.

I like buying infra and continually nuking people in wars at 1,000.

of all the suggestions this one gets through?

Lets role play here. Lets assume I am mat miller, and I have me a double digit billion war chest. Now, all of a sudden, im fighting the three strongest gremlin nations. Thankfully, my nukes can do 1,000 infra damage a pop so I can hurl a relatively large boulder on their faces. *yes* this also means that their nukes do roughly about the same as well (give or take a hundred). Within two rounds, I get knocked down do less then 2,000 infra. By the next round, I get slapped to less than 1,000 infra. Now, obviously, I would have to rebuy up to 1,000 infra for me to at least be able to purchase nuclear weapons-but heres a kicker- theres a cap. It doesnt matter my war chest size, my technology (which alone would put me in the 80k NS range), or my military capabilities. Just beacuse I got knocked down from other higher tier nations, I can no longer defend myself properly. Tell me, does that seem fair to you?

Lets try a different scenario. Lets say I'm one of the many reconstruction nations right now looking to regain some of my lost infra. Due to my large amount of wonders, I can collect insane amounts of cash at low levels of infra due to having a major happiness advantage. Because of this, it gives me the ability to jump 1,2, even 3 infra LEVELS at once. I do this so that My improvements can once again have a positive number instead of a negative, so I can be prepared for the next war whenever it may be, I do this so I have more money to spare for my fellow alliance mates, and so that I can work once more on my war chest which by now is beyond drained. But, oh wait, I cant. Theres a cap on infra purchasing so reconstruction will take MONTHS instead of merely one month to get back to my original level. Not because I don't have the cash, but because of the infra cap because someone doesn't like wars being dragged on....

Wars will happen regardless. There are people who will fight to their last pixel just because they can. There are people who dont care about reconstruction. Putting a limit on those who do would in no way aid the situation. All you're doing with a infra cap is stopping large nations to rebuy to 1k infra just so they can purchase a nuke or two in order to fight back. Because heck, chances are, their technology level would require it (I know that mine did, I was still in the 35k NS level despite having less than 1k infra).

If I recall correctly you were bill locked pretty quickly during the Karma war.. a month perhaps? I assure you it was quite boring after 3 months. If you have several billion dollars, wow. Full out war for a year is not fun at all, the thought alone depresses me, it feels more like work than a game. There needs to be some peace every once in a while, a break, or you will burn out.



Yes, it does seem fair to me. Your nation has been overrun, like hell you should be able to continue nuclear warfare. What's not fair is being able to nuke other players for YEARS with your double digit billion dollar warchest. A game is supposed to be fun, and being unbeatable is not fun. Many months of war is also quite boring for both sides, there's only so many times you can show up at the update with excitement. I think many people will change their minds about this when the big guys get into a real war. The war system is not extensive enough to be fun for such a long time, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people surrendered out of sheer boredom.



There doesn't have to be a cap if you're not at war, I edited it into my OP a while ago.

Yeah, I think by the end of the first month my warchest gave out, but I was below 1K before that due to taking on opponents stronger than me.

Just a checkin for here, there is NO way, that's right, NO way to beat the game. Thus everyone is "unbeatable".

I just see this suggestion as someone who cries about losing pixels. What happens when my nation goes down to under 1k infra and my land and tech shove me up to 60k NS? You expect me to just swallow nukes without giving any back? Because thats all your trying to stop doing, to give a fighting chance to higher tier nations during a curb stomp.

If you dont want inflation to the point where you have double digit billion dollar war chest, then Kevin needs to add in a better economic system where you can dumb your cash into for benifits that are worthwhile (and im not talking about wonders). But seeing as how the only economic system we have is technology, well of course there will be inflation. But apparently Kevin likes the inflation level cause otherwise he would change it.

Dont like it? Tough its how the game is and forever will be. You can always go and make your own text based game.

Just wanted to state I'm totally against capping infra purchases. It is bad enough you can only purchase a certain amount at once.. this seems like it'd screw over a lot of people who have actually prepared for wars. I find this a pointless and one-sided suggestion. Yes it sucks to be on that side.. but why punish people who put lots of time into preparing their nations just because you don't like their advantage >_>

Agreed with Craven, I am against such ideas as well.

I would have to say that I agree with Energizer. Rulers have worked far to hard and long to have things be turned upside down on them. It would make their efforts pointless. I say no as well.

Dude, No. Just no. If a nation earns the money to buy his infra, let him buy it. This is a nation simulation game, no nation is capped out how much it can buy.

There's no way to beat the game, but you can beat nations and alliances. If you're bill locked (or ZI'd if there's an infra purchase cap), you have been beaten because you can't do anything.



I'd expect you to surrender or suffer more damage, because your nation is in ruins. Fighting chance? Get real. You can't win, you can only be a major pain in the $@! for a long, LONG time. This acts as a deterrent for all wars, because no matter how lopsided (or not) wars are, chances are you'll have to fight for many months.



What could possibly be more beneficial than near immortality in war?



I don't think you understand the purpose of a "suggestion box".



If by prepared for wars you mean avoided wars, then yes. This suggestion is not one-sided. In fact, I've only been on the side that was at 1k infra nuking others for nearly 3 months until NPO surrendered. It's extremely boring for both sides, and god forbid you meet another nuclear 1k infra nation, you'll be throwing attacks at eachother with no visible amount of damage done.. yippie. Wars are often decided within a week, any fighting beyond that has no influence on the outcome, so forgive me if I hate the idea of fighting for a year even though the outcome has been decided.



A nation simulation game? What nation rebuilds its cities and roads during war while they're being bombed to hell on a daily basis? That's not an argument at all. Especially because nations in real life can't instantly build as much infra as they can afford.

I simply can't believe anyone would enjoy neverending wars. Perhaps you have to fight non-stop for several months to understand what it's like. No peace mode, no breaks. Having to log in every single day, often multiple times, to do the same thing over and over again. You can't skip a day because you'll suffer far too much damage, and war is much more time-consuming than the usual nation management. It really does start to feel like work if it draws out too long. People say "just surrender". But what if you're on the winning side? Surrender to an inferior opponent because you don't feel like fighting them for months?

Capping infrastructure purchases during war is a simple yet effective solution. It keeps the game fresh by preventing very long wars and giving its players some peace to prepare for the next war. This suggestion benefits the losing side too, their warchests won't be drained when the war ends, they will be able to rebuild very fast and get into another war quite soon, one they might be able to win if they play the political game well. Unless they're bound by year-long surrender terms I suppose, but since the war will be less damaging for both sides, I believe less reps would be demanded as well. That's something the players have to decide.

That is part of war too. Being able to have staying power even when your outnumbered and outgunned by fighting using somewhat unorthodox methods. Being able to stick it out is what wins a lot of wars.

Which war has been won because the weaker side stuck it out and the stronger side surrendered out of boredom? And why does this idea not sound ridiculous to you? If all wars are going to be based on willpower we might as well stop building our nations. The side with more strength and/or skill should win. Not the side that gets bored less easily. A war driven by willpower is per definition not fun, which is the wrong approach for a game.

The United States revolutionary war against Britain, for one.


Also, I WANT to fight for half a year.

If you can' get them to surrender, then maybe give them eaiser surrender terms. If your on the winning side of a war, it is your job to make it more beneficial for them to surrender than to continue nuking you daily. They want to inflict as much damage as possible on you because you have destroyed them already. They just want to even things out, so unless you are able to get them to surrender quicker, get use to long wars. The only reason wars draw out so long is because of stubborn alliance leaders who want massive reps because they are winning.

While I understand what you are trying to do but just imagine you are the guy that is beat to a pulp and can't buy infra even though you have money.....this seems like a perfect way to drive more people to quit the game.

The six-month war should end by diplomacy that is the other/better side of this nation simulation game anyway.

If this gets implemented people will leave the game, imo.

I was referring to wars in Cybernations, they tend to be different.

Everyone wants to fight for months until they experience it, it's not nearly as cool as it sounds.




Maybe they have most wonders already.. maybe they aren't in a hurry to rebuild at all? Maybe they want YOU to surrender even though they have clearly been beaten? How's that gonna work out?



If you have been beaten to a pulp and can't buy infra, maybe you should surrender. People are already leaving the game because of how silly wars are, the gaps between old (unkillable) and new nations, and because the extreme emphasis on money forces you to spend the majority of your time saving up.

IMO, the worst part of your argument is this whole "if you're being beaten, you should stop and surrender." Okay, go back in time now and tell that to anyone on any alliance's (P)ZI list. When that person can't fight back, I wonder how many said, "okay, I learned my lesson, can I surrender now?" Next line? "No, we don't think you have. Wait until you hit 0 infra, and we'll most likely let you go." or something of that sort. I realize you mean well, as you do have a few decent points, but a huge side effect would be assisting in curb stomps like none other. Because more often than not, the winner gets to decide when the loser surrenders, not the other way around.

a. He only had 5B
b. There were 5 Gremlin nations and another nation if I recall
c. MM's nooks only did 700 or so, EB's did 800, none of us were doing over 1k in straight nook dmg a day even though we were all doing over 1k infra dmg per day.
d. MM was ZI'd within the second set of wars and continued to buy up every day to nook.

Just though I'd add that in.

There already is a limit on infra purchases: you can only click CN a certain amount of times before you get locked out for the rest of the day.

voting no. Want to remove the effectiveness of war chests? Raise the cap on war spoils from 1 mil to 5 mil.

sorry if my exaggeration didn't fit the circumstance.

EDIT : Nippy, that wouldnt solve anything either. What needs to happen is that Kevin needs to rewrite the war system so it can take into account with people who have massive war chests, and to actually make it strategy-like instead of cm-cm-air-air-nook-attack-attack-rinse-repeat. Though again, we're still waiting on slot less aid, so for a new war system, well shoot you mind as well buy yourself a cane now.

It's called war weariness where you and those around you become weary of fighting because of the toll its taking on everyone around you. A war driven by willpower may not be fun for you, but for others not being able to buy infra during wartime may not be fun for them. Part of being able to win a war is being able to stick it out after the initial wave. Anyone can win if they get enough people on their side for the first few weeks, but it takes effort to maintain that for months.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to vote no on this

True


Or just not go to war in the first place. How is never ending peace better than never ending war?
Long wars are boring. but an end to wars would be the end of CN itself.
Part of why people play IS warfare. Wanna put an end to never ending wars and bottomless warchests? Deflate the CN Dollar. Make $1.00 worth more than it is, Bring back the days when $12,000.00 had more purchasing power than it does now and them warchests take longer to accumulate.
and create another trade able commodity other then just tech.
RL nations trade military units aswell as technology. And make stuff cost more as you get larger. Capping infra is a bad idea trust me.
Infra and Tech increase in cost and upkeep as you get larger, Why not make military units more expensive as far as cost to purchase and cost of maintainance is concerned as you get larger?
Curbstomps would be extremely expensive and draining to carry out.
The major problem I see that makes wars drag out is Military units are a fixed variable, they cost the same for a 1k nation as they do for a 100k nation. and the bills are the same across the size spectrum. A 50k nation can reload his army as fast as you can destroy it, Cost of military units and upkeep of said units should go according to your NS.


and what player in this game likes never ending peace?


I oppose it and feel overhauling game economics as I stated above would be a better alternative. CN was better and more fun when $1.00 CN was worth more.

There's already something for this; everything military related costs twice as much when you hit 8,500 infra. Sorry, had to say it.




Seriously, though, I think this is an idea worth exploring.

It only doubles, that's only $402.00 apiece for tanks for instance.
What I had in mind is an escalating Price curve. say the price increases 100% for every 1,000 levels of infra. That would mean that at 8,500 infra that tank is gonna cost you $1,600.00 +-.
That CM is gonna cost you $80,000.00 - $100,000.00 +-. as it would increase by a factor of 8 as opposed to a factor of 2. That puts nukes at over 1mil apiece. People would really think before pulling the trigger. Diplomatic means would be pursued, Wars would happen, but they would be far smaller wars. How does that benefit us all? less server downtime during big wars.
Every time you buy 1 level of tech or infra, the price of the next level increases slightly.
It would work like this, every time you buy one level of infra, the next level increases slightly in price, The cost per unit for military units would also increase slightly in price per level of infra purchased for a total of 50% - 100% increase for every 1,000 levels of infra. And military unit purchase cost would also be influenced slightly by the price increase incurred during infra jumps.

this idea just makes it even easier to curbstomp people.

If you fight somebody that has a warchest and is nuclear capable, you should be eating nuke after nuke. A nation that is 3v1 is already getting the crap beat out of them, and you want to implement a suggestion that takes away one of the ways they can defend themselves?

How about instead of increasing the affect of the curbstomp we as a community work to find a suggestion to better balance gameplay.

So what if they have 10's of billions in warchest and nuke you for years straight. Stay out of the kitchen if you can't handle the heat. If you don't want to fend off nukes for years, then you could always surrender to them.

Your fix, breaks alot more than it fixes.

If you're in bill lock, you have a right to be bored. Either you screwed up, or the enemy is so much bigger/better that you wouldn't have a chance at all.


As for the OP, no. This would never work, and would just screw over larger nations that are turtling for the sake of smaller nations that would have to deal with it (smaller nations that will already be at war anyway).

That's a limit of, what, 7.5k infra (every purchase counts as 2 clicks)? Gee, that's useful.



This would alienate anyone who isn't a billionaire. It does exactly the opposite of what you say, it puts more of an emphasis on warchests.



Heh, I assure you if I was ever presented with the choice of fighting a nuclear war for a whole year or surrendering to an enemy I know would never come out on top after that year anyway, I'd probably quit. I have my limits.

Like he said, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. And very few nuclear wars go on for a whole year, and no enemy will ever stay on top forever. It's CN, like the real world, change is the only constant.

Wars are changing. The Karma war was just the beginning, NPO warchests were not in relatively good shape and yet many were still fighting after 3 months. There has never been a war in the past where a significant amount of people on the weaker side had huge warchests. However, it will come. With the way people are saving up big bucks, it's inevitable.

For some of us that doubles the amount of time it would take to recover from ZI.

Count your blessings.

No. This is just another way to give an advantage to the aggressors. Suck it up and fight the freaking war. God forbid you take damage while attacking someone.

If I cared about damage, I wouldn't have stuck through the entire karma war, being nearly ZI'd, losing 12000 land, 2900 tech and all of my money (I had exactly $3.50 left when my alliance at the time, NPO, finally surrendered, good luck rebuilding with that). My point is that the first month of the war was fun, but it just went on for way too long. I got so tired of it, but I had to log in and do my attacks every single day (otherwise why fight at all), often multiple times a day because I was coordinating with multiple people. Of course you can surrender, but that would be dishonorable, it certainly won't make you look good when applying for a new alliance. Anything longer than the Karma war would be horrible and I would be truly sad if the game degenerated into non-stop warfare like that.

Then obviously the problem is with the war system itself if it isnt "fun". But limiting capabilities just to save time is not a good enough reason to forfeit nuclear power for nations who get slapped below 1k infra.

I have my doubts that the war system will ever be completely revamped. If I recall correctly, it has been said before by the staff that it would simply be too much work. This is the next best thing I could think of.

I believe it is safe to say more people quit this game over lack of wars than overabundance. Wars make this game interesting.. people sit around plotting and preparing for months.. Very few people get bored with nuking other people.. It'd be quite hard to be at war with someone for half a year because eventually they'd fall out of range.. yes someone else might declare on them, but I doubt that person would complain too much. If you don't like war join a peaceful neutral alliance that never goes to war.

The words "NPO" and "bad warchests" aren't usually used in a sentence together. Just because their warchests didn't last a LONG LONG time after they would've expired doesn't mean it's a mechanics issue, it's a gameplay issue. That's up to the players to fix themselves, not the mods.

again all the comments in here basically lead me to one thing.

The battle system is broken and needs to be rebalanced. This suggestion is not a good way to do it as it further unbalances it in favor of the curbstomper.

Yes war is changing. Yup its likely that in the future, and alliance with an exorbanant amount of warchests will be on the stomped side. What would happen if nothing changed is that tons of nukes would fly around GRL would skyrocket, everybody would take a ton of damage, and perhaps during that particular war, alot of the inflation will be blown up as well. In the end the attackers would still win, but come away limping, and the defenders will lose, coming away limping and paying reps. Very very few alliances have the dedication to last in a war that rages on for 6+ months. Attackers will have a reason to try and work for a solution that brings the war to peace.

Now if your suggestion was implemented, after a couple weeks, the defenders would no longer be able to launch nukes, the attackers would now be able to cause as much damage as they wished without reprecusions. Likely they would even be able to start growing their nations again without any fear. There would be no incentive for them to end the war, so they will demand outrageous reps (CN history proves this at the end of everywar that turns into a curbstomp), and the defender will not have the choice to fight back. Inflation will get worse as wars will no longer have the same capacity to destroy stuff.

I'm sorry, I am against this suggestion because what you've stated as reasons behind it do not make sense to me, and this suggestion would only make curbstomps worse.

The matt miller example given before doesn't only apply to the goliaths in this game. Even mid sized nuclear nations will end up unable to buy nukes but facing nations that still nuke them everyday.

The battle system, from ground attacks, to nukes, to air should be as balanced as possible. Artificial advantages such as this suggestion will never help to balance the system, they only unbalance it more than it is.