Reformentia

Yes, it does. Even after an anarchy expires you will see it negatively effecting your income for another day or two.

While I could comment on threads like these with extensive analysis of what I think makes the best combat optimized nation... the thing that most people who participate in these threads tend to overlook is the one single factor that REALLY gives you an advantage on the battlefield over another nation is if they don't know how to do it themselves. Number 1 tip for optimizing your nation for combat? When you figure out how it's done DO NOT advertise how to do it to the entire planet on the forums... because you're just pissing away your efforts. I know the temptation to show off your amazing knowledge and nation building skils is tempting, but stop and think first. I've succumbed to the temptation myself to comment once or twice on some point or another on this topic, but when I'm thinking clearly I keep my mouth shut regarding anything to do with optimizing combat capabilities anywhere in public. I'd really very strongly suggest that course of action to everyone. And why am I giving THIS advice then you ask? Because every time some random person pops in here with good advice it lowers my relative combat effectiveness against every single nation that listens to them... and the day may come when I find myself (just as you may find yourself) on the other side of the battlefield from one of these people you're handing free tips to. So, in summary... "Shhhhh!". Except for the people who don't know what they're talking about. You guys yap away as convincingly as you can. And no, I'm not saying whether anyone who already posted here is in one category or the other.

Shrink the list. The main reason people in alliances opt out in the first place is because they want people to vote for someone else in their alliance as a Senator instead of having the votes be diluted. It defeats the purpose of the exercise if, by opting out, you are probably putting another candidate on the voting list who isn't even in your alliance at all. I was actually unaware that the opt-out resulted in having the next closest to eligible nation become eligible, I had assumed the opt out would function as JoshuaR is suggestion since the alternative makes opting out counterproductive.

$2/happiness is the base income effect. Before applying modifiers... like Banks, Foreign Ministries, Harbors, Schools, Universities, etc... If you have 5 banks for example then the effect of 1 point of happiness is $2*(1.35) = ~$2.7. Of course I haven't verified that in a long time, but I haven't heard anything about it changing.

Potentially, yes. If the alliance you join ends up getting drawn into a conflict with another alliance then anyone flying their affiliation naturally becomes a target on the battlefield. However, if you do not join an alliance you are effectively a permanent target of opportunity for every jackass in the world who feels like beating up on someone who has no real serious defenses against it so they can steal your stuff. It's true unless they're lying. And if they're lying... leave. It's doubtful they would be interested in you paying it back. It's to their benefit to build you up so you are a more effective soldier in their ranks, they're being compensated by your presence on their roster already. You have a couple ways you can go. 1. You can join one of the truly major powers. This tends to leave you more secure during relatively peaceful periods in the world, but if there's a truly major inter-alliance war (it's only a matter of time before it happens again somehow) the major powers also tend to be so extensively tied into mutual defense and aggression pacts that you're almost definitely going to end up in combat. 2. You can join a smaller alliance on the fringes of the major power blocs. Slightly less security in general but usually still more than enough to shield you against casual acts of violence, and greater flexibility to place yourself somewhere where you won't end up being dragged in the next time Armageddon breaks out. Of course there are a lot of other considerations as well, but those are probably the two major categories you'd be looking at. For the first, just click on "Display all alliances" on your nation control panel and browse around those ones up around the top of the list until you find one you like. For the second you'll have to dig a bit more, there's a LOT of smaller alliances in various nooks and crannies of CN. And of course, whatever way you go you want to end up with a group of people you won't want to strangle after interacting with them for a week... (Edit: ODN I see... they're good orange people. Make sure you get some cake.)

As greater and greater numbers of nations hit the 2 year mark it will be. I'm being pre-emptive.

Told them they should have added this to the FAQ....

He clearly did the 20% thing instead in an attempt to make me cry... heartless monster.

Or, the other answer that's going to be getting more and more relevant now that we're into the second year: --There is no two year anniversary bonus. Shocking, I know, but true. You get a bonus for a week, but 2 years passes by unrecognized.

I am torn between my desire to be helpful and my aversion to giving out valuable strategic advice in full public view for everyone and their grandmother to utilize, considering how vital economic management is to the prosecution of large scale conflicts... For now the aversion is winning. I'm sure someone incredibly eager to show everyone how brilliant and well informed they are will be along soon to spill their guts though. There always is. Edit: There's no point in holding CMs really, but for larger nations the upkeep is negligible anyway. No harm in that one.

So Pentagon boosts tanks as well, but gives no cost savings on upkeep which makes their effects pretty close to a wash. You're still looking at paying 600 times more for a Pentagon than a barracks for something that doesn't do anything better. And you can stack 5 barracks. An extra deployment per day would make it useful, as is it's weak.

No it wouldn't, it just gives you more deployment flexibility. Valuable, but not overpowering. Perhaps you're thinking about an extra attack per day? That would be overpowered.

Which, at a 10% strength increase, is pretty anemic for a Wonder effect... heck, Barracks are superior. They add on an upkeep cost reduction on top of a 10% strength increase and they only cost 50 grand. Which is why Pentagon and the Foreign Aid Commission are the two last wonders I will ever buy. What it should do is give you an extra troop deployment per day. Now that would be a Wonder-worthy effect.

Now you seem familiar. Did I just recently exchange pm's with you in game? ... <checks inbox> ... Ha! I did. I asked you a couple days ago if you were finding that "Not inactive" tag in your bio to be effective deterrent against raiders and you said you weren't worried about them... Ooooh... I really have to keep a reign on my power to inadvertently twist fate with the spoken word. I see you're applying to IRON so I'll skip the recruitment attempt and just wish you good luck.

I concur with the Sir above me, the odds have clearly been altered since the 10% figure was stated. Yes, just because the odds are 10% that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for a few nations to go 30 or 50 or 200 tax collections without ever getting one. In fact, in a sample size of 30,000+ nations it would hardly be unexpected. But the average nation should be receiving at least close to one event every ten collections, and while there probably are some who actually manage that figure I don't know a single one who even comes close. I've had 2, perhaps 3, events in the last year... I just recently received what I am fairly certain was my first in 6 months or so, and I don't usually tend to go long stretched without a collection. And that is not at all an uncommon figure among the people I've spoken to about this subject. It should be a possible but rare thing if the odds were really 10%, but it's closer to being the norm. I would judge the odds closer to 2 or 3 percent. Maybe 4.

Why not just Kills*(Attacking tech/Defending tech)? Make it a straight ratio. Easy to calculate, it scales to all tech levels, and it makes practical sense in character. If someone has ten times the tech of their opponent frankly they deserve ten times the kills. It's tanks vs. pitchforks. If on the other hand they have 100 tech more then their opponent, but their tech level is like 3000 and their opponent is at 2900, then a massive kill advantage is a bit much considering it's only a disparity in tech levels of like 3%.

At the current price structures I don't see spies being useful. Ever. At all. Everything costs far, far more than it's worth with the one single possible exception of Intel gathering. And that's only potentially useful for two pieces of information provided, the rest are pointless. If I ever think it's a good idea to spend a quarter million dollars (ON TOP of the initial spy purchase cost of course) to possibly destroy 10 grand worth of enemy tanks for example, somebody please have me committed.

Ok, situation... I'm nationsitting the nation of Noctaurus: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...?Nation_ID=1144 Today I logged in and their tax income was cut in half. The nation still has all it's trades. It's only been in peace mode a few days, I expect a small impact but not this. No events expired, although no event could account for it anyway. Happiness level in the nation is still over 50 but gross income per individual per day dropped to $135, It was up near $300 with happiness just a bit more over 50 last time I collected so it should still be in that neighbourhood. So, what's up? And before anyone mentions it, yes I saw the other thread over here complaining about the same thing: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1826... and saw that Admin has responded in it. But the response only said the date at which foreign aid restrictions kicks in is off. Nothing appeared to be mentioned about why tax income suddenly dropped in half when the happiness penalties don't account for the change.