Golan 1st

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.

I actually think that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to climb the ranks after the first few thousands. I think it is somewhat problematic for a game trying to attract new players because they start with a gap which is very hard to close. But there are many many nations whose are far from optimizing their growth and those who are ready to make an effort can climb the ranks and reach nuclear capability in a matter of a few months. While I see the reason in setting a fixed requirement for nukes (after all, in the real world, what you need to get nuclear weapons does not change over time), CN is not obliged to do this. It has always been "a bonus" (I could not find a better word) for big nations and it is 100% fair to leave it this way. I actually think that a Manhattan Project, in most cases, is self destructive for a nation. Getting nukes is not the holy grail of CN and, while they are of course very valuable for war, you can do very well without them. Buying a Manhattan Project, IMHO, is wrong for nations who are not very active militarily for a few reasons: 1. Usually, for such nations, the upkeep price of nukes is a big part of their daily income. They could better use it elsewhere. 2. The money spent on the MP itself can help a nation much more if spent on infra. 3. The same for the money spent on buying the nukes for nations this size. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I feel that people whine too much about how the game is not enough in their favour. The biggest CN nations got there by working hard on optimizing their nations. It is true that age is an advantage, but I cannot see how this can be wrong. Instead of complaining about how hard it is to grow your nation, do what is necessary to make it grow faster.

PMed in game

For some strange reason, the soldier upkeep cost for lead and pigs don't stack (the maximum reduction you get if you have both is -0.5$). Also, some bonuses don't multiply, but add (for example, happiness).

Actually, it's not really simple.You don't need to mobilize the whole nation to make a well planned strike. All you need is a well prepared attacking force, which can be, in the case of an air raid, a very small force which is insignificant comparing to the rest of the military. This is not the same when you are attacked. Since the attackers has the initiative, they can achieve a local superiority in numbers and quality, even if it's much smaller than the defending force.