Jump to content

NEW NATION strength calculations


sayton

Recommended Posts

No there shouldn't. That would result in everyone having nukes rather quickly. Imagine we're sitting a year ago having this discussion, where would we have put the absolute requirements? Maybe 4000/1000? The Manhattan Project is 3000/300, so it could well have been closer to that, but say it was 4000 infra/1000 tech. Today, we would have somewhere in the region of 4000 nuclear capable nations (13%); in a year's time it would be 50%, and then nukes have lost their status as a special weapon to be feared.

The MP is a good absolute requirement. The problem I have with the current system is that those in the top 5% don't have to purchase it, which doesn't make sense and is quite unfair. They're already bigger.. Why give them free stuff too?

Edited by Viluin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The MP is a good absolute requirement. The problem I have with the current system is that those in the top 5% don't have to purchase it, which doesn't make sense and is quite unfair. They're already bigger.. Why give them free stuff too?

But if the change was made to require the MP to be able to buy nukes, the top 5% WOULD have to buy the MP if they wanted to be able to maintain their nuclear capability. During a war faced with spy ops against their nukes and actual usage (possibly against targets with the SDI) their arsenal will be quickly depleted. Without it they would be like any nation now who bought nukes and dropped out of the top 5%; have no ability to replace lost nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MP is a good absolute requirement. The problem I have with the current system is that those in the top 5% don't have to purchase it, which doesn't make sense and is quite unfair. They're already bigger.. Why give them free stuff too?

I played the game long enough to deserve that "free nuclear capability" you keep blabbing about. If everyone gets nukes, they won't be much of a deterrent anymore. Nukes are supposed to be hard to get, which is why the top 5% rule is perfectly fine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the change was made to require the MP to be able to buy nukes, the top 5% WOULD have to buy the MP if they wanted to be able to maintain their nuclear capability. During a war faced with spy ops against their nukes and actual usage (possibly against targets with the SDI) their arsenal will be quickly depleted. Without it they would be like any nation now who bought nukes and dropped out of the top 5%; have no ability to replace lost nukes.

That's my point. If the newer nations outside the top 5% have to purchase an MP to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time then why shouldn't the top 5%? In the end, everyone should purchase a MP because it's a good strategy, but nations in the top 5% don't necessarily have to to get a stockpile of nuclear weapons. That doesn't make sense. If new nations have to purchase one to get nukes then everyone should have to do the same.

I played the game long enough to deserve that "free nuclear capability" you keep blabbing about. If everyone gets nukes, they won't be much of a deterrent anymore. Nukes are supposed to be hard to get, which is why the top 5% rule is perfectly fine!

It just sounds like you are opposing such a change because you don't have a Manhattan project. Anything that happens to this game is fine unless it has a negative impact on YOUR nation, right? Ridiculous.

You've played this game long enough to deserve that older date next to "Nation Created:" and more time to build your nation. Other than that, playing longer doesn't mean anything.

Edited by Viluin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've played this game long enough to deserve that older date next to "Nation Created:" and more time to build your nation.

And getting nukes is part of building a nation.

In my opinion the MP was actually a mistake, because it is a step towards allowing everybody to have nukes. Imagine for a moment that the MP cost $1,000, and nukes were just like CMs: everyone would have one, and they would no longer be at all exclusive. Going nuclear rogue would happen 20 times a day, unpopular nations would be in nuclear anarchy for 20 days at a time simply from rogues. A MP that costs $100m is half way to that, although fortunately so far only nations approaching the 5% have been able to afford it. But that won't last; in a year, I guess 10% or more nations will own the MP, and nuclear roguery will become that much more common.

Watch FAN for a demonstration. Under the 5% rule, 'VietFAN II' would have permanently destroyed them as a threat, as they can't grow anywhere near 5% in peace mode. But with the Manhattan Project, saving up the $100m is simply a matter of time, and nations up to 50k will be struck by nuclear rogues ... time and again. At present this is only available to a very dedicated group of rogues, but as the game continues to inflate and MPs become more common, random 'I'm bored' rogues will become much more of a problem, in a way that they wouldn't with X% exclusivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. If the newer nations outside the top 5% have to purchase an MP to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time then why shouldn't the top 5%? In the end, everyone should purchase a MP because it's a good strategy, but nations in the top 5% don't necessarily have to to get a stockpile of nuclear weapons. That doesn't make sense. If new nations have to purchase one to get nukes then everyone should have to do the same.

It just sounds like you are opposing such a change because you don't have a Manhattan project. Anything that happens to this game is fine unless it has a negative impact on YOUR nation, right? Ridiculous.

You've played this game long enough to deserve that older date next to "Nation Created:" and more time to build your nation. Other than that, playing longer doesn't mean anything.

I could buy the MP easily if I wanted to. Yes, I've had more time to build my nation, which is why I have nukes. It should take some time to get nukes. Playing longer should mean something. Everyone shouldn't have nukes! That would be RIDICULOUS, right?

EDIT- @ Viluin, I supported the tech change back when and I lost 25K ns.

Edited by kswiss2783
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If new nations have to purchase one to get nukes then everyone should have to do the same.
No!!! New nations (or any other nation, for that matter) don't HAVE to buy nukes. They possibly WANT to buy them.

I personally think that they should not for many reasons, mostly because at the early stages of the game, nukes are more destructive to the nation holding them than for its potential enemies (by average, of course). This is why I recommend everybody who wishes to listen to not by a Manhattan Project, unless you think that a war is around the corner.

In the past, new players had to work hard and climb the ranks up to the top 5% to get them. Now, they have a shortcut that allows them to get nukes before making it to the top 5%. They may still take the old route for nukes (if they want them at all), take the time, develop their nations and get to nuclear capability "naturally". This is actually the better way to get nukes. But I have no illusions about

To punish the old big nations with a requirement for an MP just because some new players can't wait to get their own nukes will be completely idiotic and unfair. So, please, stop whining and if you want to waste 100M on an MP, do it. Don't demand the same from me just because you are not ready to invest the time and effort necessary to develop your nation.

That said, I also see a problem in the fact that climbing the ranks is increasingly more difficult for new players. Some changes recently made by admin brought this problem to acceptable levels. I hope he will keep paying attention to this issue.

Edited by Golan 1st
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!!! New nations (or any other nation, for that matter) don't HAVE to buy nukes. They possibly WANT to buy them.

I personally think that they should not for many reasons, mostly because at the early stages of the game, nukes are more destructive to the nation holding them than for its potential enemies (by average, of course). This is why I recommend everybody who wishes to listen to not by a Manhattan Project, unless you think that a war is around the corner.

In the past, new players had to work hard and climb the ranks up to the top 5% to get them. Now, they have a shortcut that allows them to get nukes before making it to the top 5%. They may still take the old route for nukes (if they want them at all), take the time, develop their nations and get to nuclear capability "naturally". This is actually the better way to get nukes. But I have no illusions about

To punish the old big nations with a requirement for an MP just because some new players can't wait to get their own nukes will be completely idiotic and unfair. So, please, stop whining and if you want to waste 100M on an MP, do it. Don't demand the same from me just because you are not ready to invest the time and effort necessary to develop your nation.

That said, I also see a problem in the fact that climbing the ranks is increasingly more difficult for new players. Some changes recently made by admin brought this problem to acceptable levels. I hope he will keep paying attention to this issue.

Once again the only argument I see is "I don't want to buy a Manhattan Project!".

"Punishing" big nations with a Manhattan project? Unfair? Please..

Edited by Viluin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the only argument I see is "I don't want to buy a Manhattan Project!".

"Punishing" big nations with a Manhattan project? Unfair? Please..

Your only argument is "I don't want to invest the time and effort made by the big nations to reach nuclear capability without shortcuts. I want things the easy way".

Nobody is forcing you to buy a Manhattan Project. If you want it, buy it, if you don't, don't.

So, please, either start spending the time you spend here whining on developing your nation or waste your money on a wonder you don't really need.

Don't ask admin to force others who gained nuclear capability the hard way to buy it just because you want it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your only argument is "I don't want to invest the time and effort made by the big nations to reach nuclear capability without shortcuts. I want things the easy way".

Nobody is forcing you to buy a Manhattan Project. If you want it, buy it, if you don't, don't.

So, please, either start spending the time you spend here whining on developing your nation or waste your money on a wonder you don't really need.

Don't ask admin to force others who gained nuclear capability the hard way to buy it just because you want it..

What? I already have 20 nukes and I'll be back in the top 5% within a week. I can assure you that removing the top 5% privilege would not be in my nation's best interest. It would, however, be fair to everyone who now has to buy a Manhattan Project to become nuclear capable without having to play catch-up for a year.

And you are wrong. Not buying a Manhattan Project when you're a ~5k infra nation well outside of the top 5% is stupid. Nukes more than double your damage output (Vs 1 nation) in a war. If you don't have them at that point you are screwed, because chances are the people who declare on you will be nuclear. Unless you're in a 100% neutral alliance, you are indeed practically forced to buy a Manhattan project.

Edited by Viluin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't see is any reasoning to have a system based on NS.

Moreso, I don't see an argument to make nukes augment that NS change.

It's a flawed system, and this new change which increases the effects nukes have on NS is only worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viluin, your problem is that you think about the short term only.

I don't know how much money you make, but a nation with 5000 infra can make like 6-8 millions after bills. The upkeep of 20 nukes is already a serious burden for such a nation, let alone the purchase price. If you add to it the price of an MP, you will find that if that money was invested in infra, it would benefit the nation much more, even if being hit by a nuke every few months.

More than that, this money, invested in the nation's economy, will allow it to get into nuclear capability in a few months, with a much bigger daily income to support its nuclear arsenal. It's true that it does not solve the problem of remaining above the nuclear capability bar after a serious nuclear conflict, but a nation strong enough does not have to deal with it, because it will take ages to knock it below that bar.

A nation with stronger economy can get a bigger war chest, avoid bill lock for a longer time, inflict more damage on the enemy, aid its allies and recover from a war faster. In the long run, strong economy = strong nation.

Now, again, all these calculation are under the assumption that your nation only fights once a few months and that war is unlikely in the near future. If you are involved in many conflicts or expect a major war in the near future, an MP may be a reasonable choice for a wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viluin, your problem is that you think about the short term only.

I don't know how much money you make, but a nation with 5000 infra can make like 6-8 millions after bills. The upkeep of 20 nukes is already a serious burden for such a nation, let alone the purchase price. If you add to it the price of an MP, you will find that if that money was invested in infra, it would benefit the nation much more, even if being hit by a nuke every few months.

More than that, this money, invested in the nation's economy, will allow it to get into nuclear capability in a few months, with a much bigger daily income to support its nuclear arsenal. It's true that it does not solve the problem of remaining above the nuclear capability bar after a serious nuclear conflict, but a nation strong enough does not have to deal with it, because it will take ages to knock it below that bar.

A nation with stronger economy can get a bigger war chest, avoid bill lock for a longer time, inflict more damage on the enemy, aid its allies and recover from a war faster. In the long run, strong economy = strong nation.

Now, again, all these calculation are under the assumption that your nation only fights once a few months and that war is unlikely in the near future. If you are involved in many conflicts or expect a major war in the near future, an MP may be a reasonable choice for a wonder.

A nation that is currently at 5k infra might be able to become nuclear capable within a few months. But what about a nation that is at 2k infra? He definitely has to buy a Manhattan project once he reaches 5k because he probably wouldn't even be in the top 10%.

I also think the upkeep for nukes is overrated, btw. With Labor Camp swapping I still make enough money to buy an average of 40 infra per day. That means I can grow just as fast as a 1k or 2k infra nation if I wanted to.

Edited by Viluin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forget that old nations also disappear. When I started I never thought I would be in the top 5%. And now I'm sitting at 3.3% and going to rocket up further soon. And thats after taking around 10 nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes old nations quit and get in wars and fall behind. My friend stevoland was huge when I started this nation and now I am way past him.

I never figured i pass him but he now is only 8000 infra and half as much tech as me but he does have nearly a million casualties.

Edited by Thorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past, new players had to work hard and climb the ranks up to the top 5% to get them.

Don't forget that before that, it was restricted to the top 300 nations.

Like Thorr pointed out Viliun, the people in the top 5% don't always remain in the top 5%. If you go sort all nations by creation date, you'll see quite a number of the oldest nations aren't even nuke capable. War happens, people drop in rank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that before that, it was restricted to the top 300 nations.

Like Thorr pointed out Viliun, the people in the top 5% don't always remain in the top 5%. If you go sort all nations by creation date, you'll see quite a number of the oldest nations aren't even nuke capable. War happens, people drop in rank.

What you are forgetting is that this does not happen exclusively to older nations. Nations of all ranks get into wars and lose NS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

war DOES happen.. trust me.. and we do get pushed down a crap load.. but keep in mind i have seen people gain NS in a war too.. if you know how to fight.. you can win.. :-D sooo yea.. its just a matter of knowing what your oing.. and making sure that you WANT to be nuke capable..

also keep in mind something very important.. a nuke capable nation does not necassarily have nukes..

i know of 2 people in the top 8 nations that do not have nukes.. and choose not to whic his reallly smart actually :-D

its there call

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are forgetting is that this does not happen exclusively to older nations. Nations of all ranks get into wars and lose NS.

There are nations that are old, and nations that are not old. If the old nations aren't the nuke capable ones, who does that leave? (Yes, I know the example is a little oversimplified, but my point still stands).

Edited by Amnesiasoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...