Broke system is broke

[enderland]

Hello everyone,

I come here today to offer some two cents on what I believe to be completely broken with Cybernations. That is the way nation strength is calculated and its effect on the war declaration ranges.

The nation strength acts as a guide to help you determine how well your nation is doing in comparison to the other nations of the world.

Currently, my nation is sitting with almost none of the "expendable" military. I have 10% soldiers, but max planes/19 nukes. My nation strength is about 34,600. This nation strength is a figurative evaluation of my fighting capability.

For starters, let us find some nations of similar nation strength. This guy is almost identical in strength to me. According to what our nation strength tells us, our nations should be very comparable. On a more analytical note, here are our comparisons of the stats mostly relevant to NS:

My Nation for reference

Me Him

Infra 4999 7740

Tech 2400 760

Land 2733 1348

NS 34610 34693

We have very similar military makeups, he has an extra nuke and max CMs, and about 16k more soldiers. Same trade set, comparable amounts of wonders and improvements.

Now the question is, are these two nations comparable? Does the near identical nation strength mean that our nations are comparable?

There are two ways to look at this. The first is from a purely economic standpoint. It is clear that I do not generate anywhere near as much income, having just under 3,000 MORE than me. Percentage wise, this is just about 50% more than me. So clearly the advantage here does not go to me, or even come close to going to me. In fact having 1.5 times as much (1.548 to be exact) infrastructure is a HUGE advantage regardless of whether or not you are looking at an economic stand point or a military standpoint. Without a doubt my nation cannot even come close to comparing.

Next up, technology. What's it good for? Both of us can purchase Level 9 planes and will likely be able to for quite a while. In a nuclear war, it is possible that his tech would dip under 500 and therefore an advantage would be mine. Technology doesn't really represent anything to your nation other than a bonus in combat (which compared to the 1.5 soldier disadvantage would be irrelevant). It also almost hurts my nation in that in a prolonged war, it is unlikely that my tech would drop at a comparable rate to my infrastructure, and it would be potentially greatly negative to have say 1500 tech and 2000 infrastructure. Tech really represents nothing as far as a nations strength militarily is concerned (at least once you have above a certain point) other than to somewhat show that your nation can endure a prolonged nuclear war and not be stuck using Level 5 planes.

Land. Basically worthless as a method of comparing our nations, my additional land does allow me an additional 280 citizens (woot?). It also provides a slight defensive boost in war, again, no where near the initial soldier disadvantage. In terms of the definition of Nation Strength, it shows that my nation has progressed and obtained more land the further along it is in its growth.

This doesn't really tell anyone anything they do not know however. Everyone *knows* that nation strength does not really represent your strength militarily. This example should show that to be 100% true. Some of you may be ready to put "ya, we know, NS doesn't truly represent a nations strength.

Now let's say that I decommission my air force. I will be 2700 NS lower, so roughly 31,700 NS. I am therefore able to declare on nations 50% as large of me. So for example, this poor nation is someone who would be in my range of potential targets. Now, it is clear who would win this fight. I have a 2300 tech advantage (about 20 times as much) and 1.67 times as much infrastructure. My standing army will be at least twice the size of his. It is obvious that in every aspect my nation is superior. There is no chance for him to anything other than hit me with CMs twice a day (potentially win with ground attacks). By attacking without an air force, and maxing my military, I will jump a good 10k NS, and be about 40k or so NS.

This is simply silly. Given what nation strength represents in this game, the current brackets do not make sense. It is far to easy to fight nations who literally have no chance. If several other large nations did the same thing, the second person in my example could easily be facing 3 nations all with almost twice his infra and tons more tech. Something here needs to change, either NS calculations or the bracket determinations. Even in a one on one contest there is literally zero chance for that nation to have a prayer. The easy relatively simply ways to change my nations strength (I can change it by 20% at a whim) allows me to "extend" my low range of NS targets by around 4,000 NS. It would be my thought that the intent of nation strength and its effect on war declarations is to allow nations to fight reasonably similar in abilities (ie so a 4000 infra nation does not declare war on a 500 infra nation). Due to the flexibility of a nation's strength and its inaccurate representation of "actual strength," the current war system allows for some very strange things to occur.

The reason this post is in Gameplay Discussions is because it is not a suggestion yet. How to solve this problem is unknown to me. But it is something which should be changed.

Thanks for reading, and DO NOT TROLL. This thread is meant for "Gameplay Discussions" not "call the mods to lock/warn/delete posts!-ing" (I <3 you guys ).

If you do not have something constructive to say, don't say it at all.

[Lavo]

Sheer brilliance. Hopefully NS calculations will improve... For the better.

[oinkoink12]

Thats the price you pay for being overteched, I have sortta the same thing, cause i have 10k land and 5k tech, even when im fully decommed im 65k, people in my 50% range, like 39k mostly have the same infra as I do.

Allhtough i think you are correct about some things, i'm not seeing any good solutions in your post.

Personally i think that tanks are overpowered NS wise, (8 k increasement for 8k tanks wtf?)

For nations to be actually bigger and smaller, i'd say UP the Nuke ns

Lower the tank ns (.5 per tank)

that would atleast cover it a bit

Edited April 15, 2008 by oinkoink12

[Syzygy]

the admin already took a look into the NS-adaptation suggestion in the suggestion box, this brings hope he will reduce the impact of troops and increase the impact of the really hurting stuff [nukes] soon. also with decreasing soldier/tank NS we would get rid of this lot of fluctiation when building/destroying armies and the nation itself counts more.

but basically I agree, 50-200% is way too much, 75%-133% looks a lot more adequate, so nations have to fight enemies in their own league, not just stomping guys only half as big, which is in any case a secure win.

Edited April 15, 2008 by (DAC)Syzygy

[sayton]

Ok.. I am not flaming nor am I saying anything but rather will point out the same thing.. but not support your side of the arguement even though i will show something that PROVES you right..

me

infra-15400

tech-7300

military soldiers-40000

NS-96800

Action Jeff (another nation)

infra-12000

tech-3,842.87

military-118,226

NS-103,185.968

these stats show.. i have literally 4000 infra more.. 3000 tech more.. military is neglicable. .and yet hes HIGHER NS?? does that mean hes more effecient and effective ina war.. i guess.not.. :-D

so what im trying to say is.. there is ALOT of cnfusion and factors into what determines NS... my only arguement is that tanks and soldiers have WAYYYYYYYYY to much factor in the NS calculations..

[ugexe]

Anyone who is attacking nations half their strength certainly isn't helping their alliance unless thats all thats left.

[sayton]

Now let's say that I decommission my air force. I will be 2700 NS lower, so roughly 31,700 NS. I am therefore able to declare on nations 50% as large of me. So for example, this poor nation is someone who would be in my range of potential targets. Now, it is clear who would win this fight. I have a 2300 tech advantage (about 20 times as much) and 1.67 times as much infrastructure. My standing army will be at least twice the size of his. It is obvious that in every aspect my nation is superior. There is no chance for him to anything other than hit me with CMs twice a day (potentially win with ground attacks). By attacking without an air force, and maxing my military, I will jump a good 10k NS, and be about 40k or so NS.

just to talk about what you said here.. NEVER EVER EVER ever!!! underestimate anything.. it might LOOK like you can beat him.. and you call him poor guy.. but honestly.. do you really think he stands no chance at beating you?? its all about how you fight.. you attk him two times aday at random times.. and he attked you four times at update and throws you into anarchy before you throw him into anarchy and he keeps you there.. just owning your $@!..

i dont believe in judging how good or strng a nation is in the nation they possesss but rather the knowledge of warfare they have and that is much more impirtant... some alliances and nations know how to fight, some dont, thats all that matters. Yes infra and tech are often good factors as well but if you do not know how t ofight.. you suck!

i dont mean that in any bay way.. im just saying.. you cannot just ASSUME.. youll beat him cause of the resources given.. e might be the best war mongler out there.. you never know..

[enderland]

just to talk about what you said here.. NEVER EVER EVER ever!!! underestimate anything.. it might LOOK like you can beat him.. and you call him poor guy.. but honestly.. do you really think he stands no chance at beating you?? its all about how you fight.. you attk him two times aday at random times.. and he attked you four times at update and throws you into anarchy before you throw him into anarchy and he keeps you there.. just owning your $@!..

i dont believe in judging how good or strng a nation is in the nation they possesss but rather the knowledge of warfare they have and that is much more impirtant... some alliances and nations know how to fight, some dont, thats all that matters. Yes infra and tech are often good factors as well but if you do not know how t ofight.. you suck!

i dont mean that in any bay way.. im just saying.. you cannot just ASSUME.. youll beat him cause of the resources given.. e might be the best war mongler out there.. you never know..

You have no idea what you are talking about...

First of all, it would be difficult enough for ME to solo anarchy HIM in an update strike, let alone for him to anarchy me. Being the aggressor, it would happen the first night almost assuredly (if a blitz was done) but from then on out, it still is not an easy thing. The way anarchy is created makes it difficult for single nations to anarchy others, and in most cases (such as this) practically impossible for a smaller nation to anarchy a larger one.

Secondly, anarchy really does nothing (and keeping me in anarchy would actually be impossible unless I was a complete moron) other than make me wait a few extra days to collect. Anarchy would actually help me as it would allow more soldiers to be deployed on my part without worrying that I put myself into anarchy. It's unlikely I'd even bother collecting during a week long war anyways.

If you are implying that the 2999 infra nation could do more damage to me than he receives, I make this challenge to you: find a nation of 3000 infra or less and the 100 odd tech willing to fight me for 1 week who can cause more damage to me than they receive and I will donate 18mil every 10 days to whoever you want for the rest of my nations existence. I do not care how big of a war monger you are, I don't care if you've fought in every single major war of Planet Bob to date. I don't assume that I will beat someone of 3k infra/100 tech. I WILL beat someone of that size.

That's not under estimation. It's a fact.

[admin]

the admin already took a look into the NS-adaptation suggestion in the suggestion box, this brings hope he will reduce the impact of troops and increase the impact of the really hurting stuff [nukes] soon. also with decreasing soldier/tank NS we would get rid of this lot of fluctiation when building/destroying armies and the nation itself counts more.

but basically I agree, 50-200% is way too much, 75%-133% looks a lot more adequate, so nations have to fight enemies in their own league, not just stomping guys only half as big, which is in any case a secure win.

With today's strength update nation ranges are much closer now. I will consider an update to the attack range from 50-200% to 75%-133% if that is what is necessary. If I am to update the strength range we should also consider if the 50,000 cap is adequate or even necessary anymore. Discuss.

[sayton]

Peterson, Alden

Honestly.. You didnt understand what i said. I do not doubt that you will do more dmg to that nation. I said its an equal shot and oppurtunity to anarchy and to fight. I mean, his cm's and aircrafts's and spies etc etc.. still do dmg to you.. If not nearly as much as yours do, they still do damage. The winner of the war is NOT who does the most dmg but the one can get the other nation to stop fighting because the cost of it is more.

for ex.. you might do 500 infra dmg to him (hypothetical.. i know MUCH more is possible) that 500 infra dmg costs him lets say.. 100 million.. (also hypothetical.. its much much less)

and he does to you 350 infra dmg... which costs you 150 million tro rebuy.. ALthough you dmged him more.. its "easier" in a sense for him to get back to his original infra.. and costs more for you to get it..

Does that make more sense..? and if no nation accepts peace.. the war will just continue, and both nations will do unneccassary dmg..

ps: its not my job to find you a nation to land/tech raid.. find one yourself..

[hornguard]

With today's strength update nation ranges are much closer now. I will consider an update to the attack range from 50-200% to 75%-133% if that is what is necessary. If I am to update the strength range we should also consider if the 50,000 cap is adequate or even necessary anymore. Discuss.

A quick look at total nations over 50,000 NS.

Blue: 101 nations

Red: 33

Orange: 68

Black: 65

White: 25

Yellow: 7

Maroon: 17

Pink: 3

Aqua: 19

Brown: 8

Over 340 nations over 50,000. I think that's more than enough to eliminate the 50,000 ns attack all takers cap. Let them fight in their range.

I'm all for the change to 75-133%.

[sayton]

as for those calculations... its not just 340 nations... keep that in mind..

i mean a 50,000 NS nation can go ALLLL the way up the 340 above him OR the 2000 or so nations under him up to 25000 NS.. but yes.. i agree with the 75%-133% nations as well

[enderland]

Peterson, Alden

Honestly.. You didnt understand what i said. I do not doubt that you will do more dmg to that nation. I said its an equal shot and oppurtunity to anarchy and to fight. I mean, his cm's and aircrafts's and spies etc etc.. still do dmg to you.. If not nearly as much as yours do, they still do damage. The winner of the war is NOT who does the most dmg but the one can get the other nation to stop fighting because the cost of it is more.

for ex.. you might do 500 infra dmg to him (hypothetical.. i know MUCH more is possible) that 500 infra dmg costs him lets say.. 100 million.. (also hypothetical.. its much much less)

and he does to you 350 infra dmg... which costs you 150 million tro rebuy.. ALthough you dmged him more.. its "easier" in a sense for him to get back to his original infra.. and costs more for you to get it..

Does that make more sense..? and if no nation accepts peace.. the war will just continue, and both nations will do unneccassary dmg..

ps: its not my job to find you a nation to land/tech raid.. find one yourself..

I could fight a war indefinitely against someone of that size and never lose infra (because I make enough each day to buy any I lose back). Level 3 planes do NOT do damage against Level 9 planes, ask starfox and rebel virginia about that. The amount of damage I figure I would take daily, assuming that no bill lock happens, is 5 x 2 from CMs, and 20 from ground attacks (the underdog 1/2 damage attacks). That's 30 damage a day, which is slightly over 1/3 of what I net each day in rebuy costs.

I guarantee that an opponent would quit due to mounting damages before I would. Using 15 for CMs, and possible spy attacks, it'd be possible and likely to cause (15 + 15 + 5 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) damage a day, or 120 infra damage each day. 110 without spy attacks, which would soon become impossible due to slipping NS.

350 infra would cost me about 25 million to re-buy, which could be done in less than 5 days (starting from 0 cash).

[sayton]

You STILL think that you would GAIN infra while fighting.. AND thats not posible.. you calculated 20 infra in BOTH attacks.. because of "underdog" ?? That bull.. Those are statistics.. If he knows how to fight, he WILL do more than 30 dmg a day.. your completely underestimating everything.. and this isnt about just YOU.. and a baby nation..Are you saying the same thing goes for me and a nation that is 45000 NS? half of mine?? that he will do dmg smaller than i can rebuy per day.. BULL SHYT!! is all i have to say.. dont think of your nation alone.. think of every nation under YOUR circumstances.. and i gaurenttee.. i can find atleast ONE nation who will do more than 30inra dmg on your nation in one day.. THAT I CAN DO. .as opposed to finding a nation that can beat you in a war.. THATS A DEFINITE..

[sayton]

pS: let me add.. You are in NV.. and i know for a fact NV is an amazing alliance.. so i dont see how you dont know what im talking about..

if you fought with the nation INDEFINITELY.. you would NOT end up with over 5000 infra like you have now.. you would LOSE infra.. TRUST ME.. you would.. noone can GAIN infra.. in a war.. you might regain more than you started with after collecting taxes after war is over.. but if its INDEFINITE... you wont be collceting taxds remember.. thats what you said before..

[Bob Janova]

1v1, a 45000 NS nation will win only a very small proportion of its ground attacks against a 90k nation. The current attack range allows for two forms of borderline griefing: the obvious declaring on someone half your size (instant anarchy, in many cases), and, in the higher ranks, declaring upwards in a nuclear suicide move to do 5 or more times the financial damage that you sustain.

[sayton]

i know that bob janova.. BUT alden will ALSO take a hit.. he wont GAIN any benefits from a war.. thats why tech raiding only works on inactive nations

[Raken]

i know that bob janova.. BUT alden will ALSO take a hit.. he wont GAIN any benefits from a war.. thats why tech raiding only works on inactive nations

I'm not you sure understand tech raiding completely, but thats a different argument for a different time.

[Syzygy]

1v1, a 45000 NS nation will win only a very small proportion of its ground attacks against a 90k nation. The current attack range allows for two forms of borderline griefing: the obvious declaring on someone half your size (instant anarchy, in many cases), and, in the higher ranks, declaring upwards in a nuclear suicide move to do 5 or more times the financial damage that you sustain.

this sums it up quite good. The current system results in two ways:

- nations boosting their NS to "go suicide" as nuclear rogue on top-nations twice their size without the inention of "fighting", just to sacrifice themselves and do as much infra-damage as they can, then quit the game after causing a billion of losses.

OR

- nations rolling over opponents half their size without them having even a chance to fight back properly. They cant win any significant amounts of ground attacks, they are most often instantly anarchied from the first waves of attacks, they have in most cases not even nukes or the needed tech to get a highlevel airforce to defend properly.

Both cases are highly annoying for the attacked players, while the attacker himself can always chose time and victim to his advantage. When have you seen the last "fair fight" in CN? Since a year everything we see is beatdowns and stompings. Everyone who is too weak [via treaties or NS] to fight back has written "TARGET" all over his back.

[Azaghul]

With today's strength update nation ranges are much closer now. I will consider an update to the attack range from 50-200% to 75%-133% if that is what is necessary. If I am to update the strength range we should also consider if the 50,000 cap is adequate or even necessary anymore. Discuss.

This would be a good change by making fights a little more fair and therefore interesting.

[Mirreille]

With today's strength update nation ranges are much closer now. I will consider an update to the attack range from 50-200% to 75%-133% if that is what is necessary. If I am to update the strength range we should also consider if the 50,000 cap is adequate or even necessary anymore. Discuss.

I think the update to the range idea is good. I don't know exactly what that 50k cap is referring to(over 50k NS anyone can attack you? Is that it?) so I will not comment on that part.

[PrinceArutha]

Ok.. I am not flaming nor am I saying anything but rather will point out the same thing.. but not support your side of the arguement even though i will show something that PROVES you right..

me

infra-15400

tech-7300

military soldiers-40000

NS-96800

Action Jeff (another nation)

infra-12000

tech-3,842.87

military-118,226

NS-103,185.968

these stats show.. i have literally 4000 infra more.. 3000 tech more.. military is neglicable. .and yet hes HIGHER NS?? does that mean hes more effecient and effective ina war.. i guess.not.. :-D

so what im trying to say is.. there is ALOT of cnfusion and factors into what determines NS... my only arguement is that tanks and soldiers have WAYYYYYYYYY to much factor in the NS calculations..

But look again, a LOT of his Nation strength is from land. He has roughly 3K more land than the next closest person in the game. So that helps a little bit.

[Dr. Dan]

With today's strength update nation ranges are much closer now. I will consider an update to the attack range from 50-200% to 75%-133% if that is what is necessary.

This would be the greatest change ever since bread was changed to...sliced bread?

Meh, doesn't flow nicely, but it'd be true >_>.

[enderland]

You STILL think that you would GAIN infra while fighting.. AND thats not posible.. you calculated 20 infra in BOTH attacks.. because of "underdog" ?? That bull.. Those are statistics.. If he knows how to fight, he WILL do more than 30 dmg a day.. your completely underestimating everything.. and this isnt about just YOU.. and a baby nation..Are you saying the same thing goes for me and a nation that is 45000 NS? half of mine?? that he will do dmg smaller than i can rebuy per day.. BULL SHYT!! is all i have to say.. dont think of your nation alone.. think of every nation under YOUR circumstances.. and i gaurenttee.. i can find atleast ONE nation who will do more than 30inra dmg on your nation in one day.. THAT I CAN DO. .as opposed to finding a nation that can beat you in a war.. THATS A DEFINITE..

I do not know why I'm bothering to respond. You honestly believe that a nation half my size could do anything other than be a nuisance to me? Without enough tech to buy anything more than Level 3 planes, the odds of his air attack succeeding and doing any amount of damage against my defending Level 9 fighters is practically zero. Sure it's possible but it's basically zero. Even if he had over 500 tech the cost of replacing planes daily would make it impossible to do anything other than eat air raids (because buying 20-50 Level 9 planes each day is a HUGE cost to nations below 5k infra and eats into a warchest very quickly) within a few days. Remember the more cash on hand, the more I steal each day as well.

Here's the deal. I net over 5 million a day right now. My infrastructure costs me about 85k a level. Devoting perhaps 1 million to military expenses (which is high most likely) I still have the abilities to spend 4 million on infra a day. That's over 45 infra a day I could purchase while at war. It is highly unlikely that a nation with 3000 infra and 100 tech would be able to cause that sort of damage to me every day of the conflict. My infra could easily remain constant each day of the war.

I assume I will take 2 Cruise Missiles each day also (at a 5 damage each hit, figuring the defending nation doesn't screw themselves even more by switching out for satellites).

I have no care what the similar circumstance is in your nation strength, because that does not change one thing in making the situation unfair for the nation I was referencing. Not a bit. My ability to completely dominate the nation I could have declared upon is independent of what you could do to a nation half your size.

The "underdog" attack I reference is an attack result for nations outnumbered greatly in which they cause half damage (10 infra, up to 37.5 land stolen, and 2.5 tech stolen) but do not loot cash and instead drop it. By allowing this as a probable option, for two successful attacks, I am actually giving the benefit of the doubt to my "opponent." Remember: his entire army will be barely 1/2 the size of mine. I can deploy half my soldiers and tanks and STILL have more defending than he has to attack with, not to mention the ability of mine to deploy considerably more, attack with aggressive attacks (most likely winning considering I will have a huge advantage with GC and Barracks, not to mention the massive tech advantage), and then buying back my lost military.

Regarding the NS ranges: I just maxed out my military, and can (with 4999 infra) currently hit:

4 nations with >14k infra

14 with >13k

35 with >12k

But get this. I can attack roughly 200 nations who have over double my infrastructure (10k or more). That means if I were to go nuke rogue, I have a huge range of targets that are *great* picks. Each one of them could dominate me 1v1, but it's still possible for me to go nuke rogue and really annoy some high infra nations by causing huge amounts of damage. Also remember that now each one of them could theoretically declare war against ME, and do the same to me that I could do to that other nation (granted I have enough cash to fight an air war, and nuclear war, meaning they would definitely take damage for their attacks).

Even with my maxed out military, I still can hit 5 nations with less than 3k infra. Plenty in the low 3k range. Only poor LJ Scott has less than 1/2 my infra and is in my range currently (but this is also with maxed military).

The question really becomes "should it be so easy to attack nations clearly superior or clearly inferior?"

[ROMMELHSQ]

I totally support updating the attack range.