Chairman Cao
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Chairman Cao
-
-
The unofficial wiki site has a page listing many, see link here. I'm not sure if that all of them but it wouldn't surprise me since it's a wiki.
-
Very nice, obviously took a lot of effort.
Would it be possible to display total NS values just to the nearest million though? This would make it more readable at a glance. (Or comma separated etc.)
-
There are a quite few mid-high level 'unaligned' nations but almost all of them are either sitting in red for NPO protection or have direct protection from an alliance which they're effectively a part of.
Then there are a very few mid-high level genuinely unaligned nations who try it for the challenge, but you can guarantee every one of these only got where they are by being in an alliance first. To even stand a chance you'll need a full set of nukes which will deter many opportunists, but there are still enough raiders who don't mind losing the infra and will risk the overall loss, so almost nobody stays unaligned for very long without being raided to oblivion.
-
Nukes per Member - 31/01/09
Kronkia has kindly agreed to let me post regular updates in this thread to the nukes/member stats I provided last week, since I realised many ppl would never notice them if left on the PC forums - so without further ado here are this week's.
All listed alliances with over 10 nukes/member
(Bold value is nukes/member, values in brackets are overall rankings for avg NS, nuke count and total NS respectively. Green/red text for rankings indicates gain/loss in position compared with previous week, not change in actual value represented.)
1) Grämlins - 18.4 ----- (1, 4, 9)
2) Umbrella - 17.8 (+0.4) ----- (4, 8, 26)
3) PC - 15.6 (+0.6) ----- (5, 15, 39) - Overtake TOP
4) TOP - 15.5 ----- (2, 3, 6)
5) Molon Labe - 14.2 (+0.2) ----- (7, 25, 57)
6) Old Guard - 11.2 (+0.4) ----- (3, 31, 47) - Overtake Vanguard
7) Vanguard - 10.9 (-0.3) ----- (9, 24, 50)
8) TORN - 10.0 ----- (17, 17, 44)
9) Global Order Of Darkness - 10.0 ----- (16, 16, 42) - Newly Qualified
Aircastle - Out: <10 nukes/member
Order of the Black Rose - Out: No longer listed (<20 members)
For the following, colour does not indicate gain or loss, rather,
Red: >10 nukes/member
Blue: 5-10 nukes/member
Green: 3-5 nukes/member
Top 20 by NS
NPO - 3.5 (+0.1)
IRON - 4.1 (+0.2)
MCXA - 2.4
MHA - 2.5 (+0.2)
Sparta - 2.3 (+0.2)
TOP - 15.5
Fark - 3.8 (+0.1)
Ragnarok - 2.3
Grämlins - 18.4
ODN - 1.4
TOOL - 2.6
NpO - 2.0 (+0.7)
TPF - 5.4 (+0.3)
VE - 3.5
FOK - 5.7 (+0.5)
GPA - 0.1
GGA - 0.9
Valhalla - 8.0 (+0.6)
Democratic Order - 1.0
Echelon - 6.4 (+0.1)
Other top 20 by nuke count (outside top 20 by NS)
Umbrella - 17.8 (+0.4)
Poison Clan - 15.6 (+0.6)
Global Order of Darkness - 10.0 (+0.1)
TORN - 10.0
RnR - 4.1 - Out: No longer top 20
Miscellaneous Stats
- The global average nukes/player is 2.01, an increase of 0.01 from last week.
- The top 20 alliances by NS together comprise 29% of the global membership, and hold 48% of the global nukes.
- The nine alliances to have >10 nukes/member together comprise 2.7% of the global membership, and hold 19% of the global nukes.
- Biggest weekly gainer in terms of nukes/member is NpO with +0.7
- Biggest weekly loser in terms of nukes/member is Vanguard with -0.3
All data as at 31/01/09 PM
-
Oh, I apologize, I thought we were talking about capable opponents, ones who keep warchests.
No problem, it wasn't suggsted anywhere though.
Even against those with significant warchests having nukes will still save me money - though I can't bill lock them I can still take out their aircraft and navies much faster, as well their infra and tech, all of which will lower the damage they can do to me and thus save me money. Someone who has enough warchest to fully buy back all the infra in addition to aircraft and navies over the course of a long war would be an exception.
-
The Manhattan Project won't save you any money, but it will however make sure your opponent pays for the damage dealt to you.
If I can get my opponents into nuclear anarchy and bill-lock it certainly will save me money because they won't be able to do any damage, so I'll have to rebuy less military and more importantly less infra at the end. MP works both offensively and defensively.
Granted that SDI is probably the better first choice in pure money-saving terms though, but it's not half as fun
-
If you want or think there's a reasonable chance of you getting into a major war then certainly get MP early on.
The costs are not as significant as some people suggest, the daily bill costs for even 20 nukes is only around 0.25mil depending on your resources, or you could get just 10 and cut the bills to about 80k. You also miss out on some income by having MP over an economic wonder but it's not that massive a difference either - at 4999 infra I'm getting 5.10 mil taxes a day atm compared with about 5.35 mil if I had bought NRL instead of MP.
So the question is: do you think MP will save you more than you lose in income? For me the answer is certainly yes. Almost everyone expects the next big war to be nuclear, and with only 15% of nations in my range being nuclear, I'll be far more effective with the capacity to cripple the tough ones, and by losing far less infra will almost certianly save the amount I've lost in income. The same goes for SDI which I plan to get soon before a second economic wonder.
-
Never has there been assembled a worse grouping of alliances.
Yep, and the only way it could get worse is if you were leading it
-
False advertising, I want my merger )):
-
If you get an event, is the event you choose completely random? Over 10 days, I have gotten the same event 3 times in a row. Someone once mentioned the ratio of good to bad is 52-48 percent. The lowest numbers that would work is if there were 25 events. Wouldn't the probability of that happening be .000064, or .0064%. For both good and bad events, I had streaks like this in the past, one of 4 in a row I think, which would be .00000256, or .0000256%, if it was completely randomized. Statistically, I think these streaks are next to impossible.
Just wondering are supposed to be random or not? Not complaining about which events I get esp if I have a good streak xD, but its weird to get the same event so many times.
Thanks.
Are you sure there are 25 events? I wouldn't extrapolate anything from the 52-48 figure since whoever gave it would probably have rounded off anyway, and how were they to know that evey event is equally likely?
On the other hand I still agree with you that the events doesn't seem very random at all, just like the my iPod shuffle on 'random' which used to repeat the same string of 10 or so songs out of 3000
-
I'd agree with great temple followed by interstate for the reasons I gave in the other thread.
-
Alden is right, upkeep costs go up only very slightly - from a base multi of .17 to .1725 which is around 1.5% increase. Presumably whoever said you need 3 wonders before making the jump was just meaning that you should put wonders ahead of infra by this point, but there's no reason to stay on 4999 once you have enough saved for your next wonder, plus tech puchases and warchest.
Interstate vs great temple is a less clearcut choice and will depend on your circumstances. For example interstate will save somewhere around 10mil on the cost of the 4999-5999 jump, and .13mil/day on bills whereas GT will net you somewhere around .3mil extra per day. So if it took you 60 days to save the infra jump cost, these will balance out, longer and GT would be better. Ofc these figures depend highly on your nation setup so you'll need to do the calcs for yourself. And finally, if it takes you over 30 days to save the ~130mil which is most likely will, then you'd be better off buying GT first and interstate after like Alden suggested in the other thread.
-
Maybe you already know this but I thought I'd point out that GPA isn't allowed to have more than 13 nuclear weapons as per their surrender terms to Continuum. If all their nuclear-capable nations bought twenty, they'd have a respectable 500 nukes.
Yep I knew they were under surrender terms and can't help it, I didn't mean to insult them in the slightest
-
Nukes per Member
In celebration of PC reaching 3mil I decided to compile a more thorough list of alliance rankings in terms of nukes/member (because it makes us feel greater than we are). I've limited the rankings to those alliances with ratios above 10 only, as this makes it much easier for me to skim through the data and visually pick out the qualifying alliances rather than having to log values for all 198 alliances listed. Conveniently there happen to be exactly 10 falling into this category at the moment.
I've also calculated the ratios for all the top 20 alliances as ranked by NS and by nukes, these are listed beneath. There is obviously some crossover between the first list and the latter two.
I know not as many people are interested in these figures as the totals, so I won't hijack this thread by posting updates here, however I'll be posting this data on the Poison Clan public forums shortly and will endeavour to keep it updated there weekly, probably with gain/loss statistics similar to what Kroknia has done. So all you fellow warmongers, paranoid delusionals and stat whores - check out the PC forum for up to date figures here.
Data as at 24/01/09 AM
All listed* alliances with over 10 nukes/member (Bold value is nukes/member, values in brackets are overall rankings for avg NS, nuke count and total NS respectively)
1) Grämlins - 18.4 (1, 4, 8)
2) Umbrella - 17.4 (5, 7, 25)
3) Order of the Black Rose - 17.0 (2, 37, 74)
4) TOP - 15.5 (3, 3, 6)
5) PC - 15.0 (6, 15, 40)
6) Molon Labe - 14.0 (7, 22, 57)
7) Vanguard - 11.2 (10, 21, 52)
8) Old Guard - 10.8 (4, 30, 48)
9) Aircastle - 10.1 (48, 53, 126)
10) TORN - 10.0 (17, 18, 44)
* The pool of 198 alliances with 20 or more members
For the following,
Red: >10 nukes/member
Blue: 5-10 nukes/member
Green: 3-5 nukes/member
Top 20 by NS
NPO - 3.4
IRON - 3.9
MCXA - 2.4
MHA - 2.3
Sparta - 2.1
TOP - 15.5
Fark - 3.7
Grämlins - 18.4
Ragnarok - 2.3
ODN - 1.4
TPF - 5.1
VE - 3.5
FOK - 5.2
NpO - 1.3
GPA - 0.1
TOOL - 2.6
GGA - 0.9
Valhalla - 7.4
Echelon - 6.3
Democratic Order - 1.0
Other top 20 by nuke count (outside top 20 by NS)
Umbrella - 17.4
Poison Clan - 15.0
TORN - 10.0
Global Order of Darkness - 9.9
RnR - 4.1
Totally Random Interesting..ish Facts
- The global average nukes/player is 2.00
- The ten nations to have >10 nukes/member together hold 19% of global nukes, despite comprising just 2.6% of the global membership.
- Aircastle are pulling far above their weight, making the >10 list despite an average NS of only 22k which is around half that of all the other qualifiers - we at PC salute you. (TORN are doing nicely on this too)
- The highest ranked alliance to have zero nukes is #113 - Aquatic Coalition Front. However with just 11 nukes between 215 members, GPA had better pray they never get into a nuclear war
- Grämlins and TOP are the only alliances to make top 10 in all four categories considered here.
-
Wooo grats us!
Next target: Umbrella's #5 avg NS position...
-
20 nukes has a 2 environment point penalty I believe, 0.1 per nuke.
I used to think this, but then realised it was 0.05 per nuke while buying up nukes when my own calc was showing the wrong environment values, changing it to this corrected it.
Edit: But I also recall ppl like Syzergy saying it was 0.1 so I wonder if perhaps the penalty per nuke is doubled when you have over 20 nukes? Just guessing, I'll test this with some other HNMS nations on IRC sometime...
I believe this is incorrect. There is no penalty for selecting option 2 or 3. The environmental damage is done by having a Uranium trade and/or the nukes themselves, not the government position itself.The gov options 2 and 3 do give a penalty of 1 env point, anyone without nukes will be able to test this out for themselves and if you don't have nukes but have uranium it can be used it to gain a temporary population advantage when buying improvs. The uranium trade and nukes give penalties on top of this.
-
Weapons per capita would also be an interesting statistic.
I was calculating this the other day to work out which alliances we still have to beat on this front, but I only logged the results for anyone ahead of us, so here are the top five alliances for nukes/member as at 15 Jan.
- Gramlins : 18.0
- Order of the Black Rose: 17.8
- Umbrella : 17.3
- TOP : 15.4
- Poison Clan: 14.2
-
schmutte693 is right - buying both is best. When you compare pure tech vs pure infra obviously infra comes out on top, but that's a pointless and unfair comparison since Techland would be piling up loads of cash if he's buying tech through deals at a rate of 18mil per 30 days.
What you really should be comparing is pure infra purchasing vs buying the maximum tech through deals alone, and infra with the extra cash, which works out as follows for your previous example.
Infra Alone: 10k infra purchasing 8k over 250 days - Cost = 2833 mil, NS gain = 3x8000 = 24000
...or spending the same 2833mil over 250 days but with 18mil going every 30 days for a total of 5000 tech at a total cost of 150mil, the amount to spend on infra is reduced to 2683 mil, which can purchase a mere 7691 infra, for a total NS gain of 3x7691 + 5x5000 = 48073.
-
I like the idea, provided a small delay of say 5 minutes is used. I don't think people should have the opporunity to respond quite in realtime ie. before the attacker and allies have finished their round of attacks, as that would gave far too big an advantage to the minority of people with unlimited free time.
-
The reason behind the current cautious play is IMO mainly the fact that past transgressions are used against you for a long time afterwards. So losing the game and keep on playing is not an option.
Agreed, but I also think it's reached a stage where a large amount of the players remaining are naturally 'cautious', by which I mean thoroughly uninterested in anything but growth, simply because many of the more reckless (only relatively so) have already been wiped out, PZId or become bored and gone rogue or simply drifted away quietly. This will be self perpetuating beyond a point, once the war-haters sufficiently outnumber the others. What I wonder is if that point has already been reached or not.
-
Sorry to hear but I fear you have no official comeback. I remember an old thread clarifying that in game deception (like not honouring tech deals) was allowed as an IC action and in no way punishable.
-
I wouldn't be against it in principle since it could make the game a lot more fun by removing the infra whoring which so massively influences current CN politics. Unfortunately while the change would gain many new players I think a great deal of the current population already fall into the above category and would permanently leave should their infra be wiped out, so a reset would be a great gamble in the long run.
-
Hold off collecting taxes and if necessary paying bills too until you get it sorted.
Were you requiring the final member to join yellow team? I'm surprised anyone would have anything against it if they'd be joining a yellow TC anyway, but since they are you might just have to accept the 1 happiness loss and take someone from a random team, it won't cost you anywhere near 5mil per week at least.
-
Ok, I'm not sure I really believe all that, but if studies of primative hunter-gatherer societies, and primate studies, and Bob studies all show the same behavior, maybe the thing in us that says "Why, its so wrong?", needs to think "Why fight our nature?"
Most humans despite believing in evolution tend to think that we're at least slightly about the primates; most people who understand the implications of Social Darwinism do not promote it.
On the other hand, many people especially myself play this as a game and either roleplay or use game-theory to decide their actions, from which POV curbstomping can arguably be justified. But not for the RL reasons stipulated.
Listing Events
in Gameplay Discussions
Posted
Could well be, I can't vouch for it at all, but I do know some are current.