Azaghul

If the intent is to help upper tear nations trade with each other I would submit that the wonder instead of just adding 50% to the cap doubling or tripling it.

A nuke rogue who planned months ahead to get the 3 wonders related to nukes could really do a ton of damage. The federal Aid Commission is not very useful if it only works between nations that both have one. Normally nations high enough to get a wonder would be unlikely to be aiding each other. I think the requirement that the recipient has to have one should be dropped.

It is a very small factor, so it's not particularly important to worry about. I was just curios what the formula is in order to make a calculator more accurate.

A friend and I are trying to make a population calculator, but we don't know how the environment enters into the formula. Does anybody know?

How about diskord? He has 1.3 million attacking and 940,000 defending casualties and he proposed this change. See his defense of it here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=7670

Solution to number 1: join an alliance so you have people to back you up if you are raided. If an alliance lacks the intelligence to prepare for war when an enemy is preparing for war, they deserve to be screwed over by failing to prepare at all while their enemies gave them plenty of warning. Plus, while defcon 1-5 is significant, it is not impossible to fight in defcon 5.

You could still have them at the start and then destroy them once you need to collect. You lose the chance for 5 other improvements (which depending on your size and how many you start with, could or could not be a great loss) that you would have at the end of the war but the 175% bonus while you had them would be significant. At least they would be more valuable than barracks, which though you would have them after you collected, provide a much lower bonus (only 50%).

1) Just anticipating the change. I understand that 2-4 are useless now. But with the new change being in 2 instead of 1 gives me a day less till I'm at 5. 2) Do people collect taxes during war? If you have to do that you can just destroy the guerrilla camp. Even if you might have to later, for an initial attack where you have plenty of money you could buy guerrilla camp, do quad attack, destroy guerrilla camp and replace with previous improvement (which costs some money to do the swap but gives you a huge 175% soldier efficiency bonus.) It's the same principle as with labor camps, they are useful but just don't collect while you have them. Your edit: That's a fair point. But guerrilla camps can still be useful for as you say, the high level nations or use at the beginning when you can swap improvements quickly for an attack, and don't have more improvements than your current citizen count can support.

1) I'm in defcon 2 because I collect in 3 days, so I change to 5 in time to collect (assuming this update goes forward in the next day.) 2) So disprove me with numbers than. 3) Why not if you aren't collecting? I've bought them as part of an improvement swap cycle before and no harm was done except adding some cost in switching improvements. Switch them out just as you do with labor camps. 4) For the academic fun of it. I have little material interest in it, you are right.

More then the 225% bonus that having guerrilla camps and barracks have? A nation with 100% (defcon 1 but no camps or barracks) is less than someone at 240.5 (325x.74, has those improvements but at defcon 5). Of course their are other bonuses but I think I've made my point.

Rhetorical questions.

If both sides are at defcon 5, how is it that different from both being at defcon 1?

Good point. But is it more decisive than several other factors? Having full soldiers? The difference in how many soldiers each side can have in a fight? Military improvements (especially guerrilla camps)? Coordinating attacks? Being around to refill your defending soldiers as you are attacked? Technology levels? Edit to add: I don't think its likely that one side in an alliance war would all be at defcon 5 and the other at defcon 1. Unless they tricked the other into thinking the war would be with a different party.

Isn't the original suggestion from someone who is famous for being good at war? Anyway, I have fought 10 rogues, so I've seen how battle odds work and how different factors contribute to it. Defcon is just one of several.

I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.)

It's a 24% penalty for being in defcon5. Guerrilla camp adds 35%. You do the math. Plus, in most alliance wars the alliances should roughly be on the same level as far as what defcon they are at. Unless one prepares for war without the other thinking they are the targeting or noticing that they are preparing.

Because most people are so used to always being at defcon1 in war that they don't understand that defcon5 really isn't that terrible?

Not that big. Considering that a guerrilla camp adds 35% effectiveness. A one guirilla camp difference makes a bigger difference than one guy being at defcon 5 and the other at defcon 1.

What people don't understand is THE PENALTY IS NOT THAT BIG. Your soldiers fight in defcon 5 with 76% effectiveness. THAT ISN'T THAT BAD. Nor is the 4 point happiness difference between the different defcons. Also, in alliance wars, if it is a surprise attack both alliance's nations will be in defcon 5, so they'll be on equal footing.

Perhaps the spy feature should be changed to two options, "raise defcon 1 level" or "decrease defcon 1 level"

To quote my post in the suggestion thread: I like this idea. A few points to counter those bashing it: - You can still initiate a surprise attack. It just is slightly less effective. Also, if it it really is a surprise attack, your enemy will also be at defcon 5 and so you will be on equal footing. You will actually likely be on slightly better footing as you will be a step ahead on getting to defcon 1. - Alliances can have people switching in and out of higher levels to have a standing force. Should be a natural part of improvement swap cycles anyway to not collect for long periods. - You can still fight at levels 2-5. The penalty isn't that huge. Just like you can still collect at levels 1-4, the penalty isn't that huge. I don't know how people get the idea that you can't fight at defcon 5. You just don't now because it would be stupid not to switch to 1 to attack, as it isn't a big deal to switch to 1. And its stupid to collect not in 5 now because its easy to switch into it before update and switch out afterwards. But just because its stupid not to be in 1 to attack and 5 to collect now due to the ease of it doesn't mean it won't kill people to not do it once the change happens. - It is realistic. You can still fight a war on the fly. It just takes time to be ready to your maximum advantage. - Changing to +/- 2 will just make levels 2 and 4 worthless. +1 is realistic. Taking 4 days isn't entirely unreasonable. Though I think 3 would be the better. That could be changed by only having 4 defcon levels instead of 5.

The GPA has official trade rings that made getting my trades put together very easy.

What about rogues?

There is a big difference between using it to hide members during a war, and having members switch AA's so your alliance can fight a war without declaring or getting all your members involved. Both are of course legal within the game (not subject to moderator intervention), just like ghosting and ghost rouging is. The GPA never would engage in, encourage, or condone such an act and breaking of our neutrality. Nor would we readmit a member if we knew they had left so they could temporarily fight a war and then come back. I know this is all hypothetical, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this would never happen.