Czar Kiev

I've been in the NPO tech corp and at this point run about 50 of my own tech deals with individual buyers. I feed your need efficiently and easily. Send $3million as soon as you can and the first one to do so is the buyer. I only have one available slot, so act quickly! The tech must flow!! o/

Bump

All we need is one partner who is willing to do a longterm trade on Red. As soon as you post interest, we can get this trade circle started! I have to move today, but I will be on a few times in the afternoon so if I don't reply immediately it's because I can't [size="4"][u][b]Resources Needed[/b][/u][/size] - Gold - [nation=406432]Czar Kiev[/nation] - Rubber - [nation=406432]Czar Kiev[/nation] - Wheat - [nation=336491]mrjames20[/nation] - Fish - [nation=336491]mrjames20[/nation] - Lumber - [nation=419836]Rogal Dorn[/nation] - Iron - [nation=419836]Rogal Dorn[/nation] - Lead - [nation=419849]Jenni888[/nation] - Coal - [nation=419849]Jenni888[/nation] - Oil - [nation=361782]King Frederick[/nation] [b]- Marble - - Aluminum -[/b] - Cattle - [nation=361782]King Frederick[/nation] *Pigs/Sugar/Uranium* - wildcard [size="4"][u][b]Bonus Resources:[/b][/u][/size] [b]Asphalt [/b]- Lowers infrastructure upkeep cost -5%. Requires Construction, Oil, and Rubber. [b]Construction [/b]- Reduces infrastructure cost -5% and raises the aircraft limit +10. Requires Lumber, Iron, Marble, Aluminum, and a technology level greater than 5. [b]Automobiles [/b]- Increases population happiness +3. Requires Asphalt and Steel. [b]Steel [/b]- Reduces infrastructure cost -2%. Lowers all navy vessel purchase costs -15%. Requires Coal and Iron. [b]Microchips [/b]- Reduces technology cost -8%, increases population happiness +2. Requires Gold, Lead, Oil, and a technology level greater than 10. Lowers Frigate, Destroyer, Submarine and Aircraft Carrier navy vessel purchase and upkeep cost -10%. [b]Radiation Cleanup[/b] - Reduces nuclear anarchy effects by 1 day. Improves a nation's environment by 1. Reduces global radiation for your nation by 50%. Requires Construction, Microchips, Steel, and a technology level greater than 15. [b]Scholars [/b]- Increases population income +$3.00. Requires a literacy rate greater than 90%, Lumber, and Lead. [size="4"][u][b]Better military support for a slightly lower income boost. Very good wildcard flexibility. Best choice for nations with Lead. Can be used as a compromise between [5A] and [8A].[/b][/u][/size] [b]Income boost [/b]- Citizens: +20.14% to +22.47%, Happiness: +6.5 to +7.5, Income: +$6 [b]Infrastructure modifiers[/b] - Infra cost: -35.2%, Infra UpK: -21.34%

What is with buyers refusing to send the money first? The procurers need the cash to build the tech.

The reason people send money first is because small nations need to buy the tech in the first place. Refusing to enable small nations to buy tech on your money is ludicrous. This is a terrible deal for newbies who don't know how tech dealing works.

Well, it is a game called Cyber[i]nations[/i], not Cyber-nuke-a-lot.

Is there a graph of the historical GRL available?

I'm looking for a topic that I can't seem to locate again. The seller was organizing a 40-60 day tech deal that would boost his nation up fairly quickly. Included was a graph of either his success story, or someone with a similar story to share... I'd really appreciate if anyone could point me in that direction - I've browsed the first 10 pages of this forum, in addition to trying to search from it. Thank you in advance, sorry for the unconventional approach!

If you need tech, I am active and able to feed your need very quickly. I was a member of NPO's Tech Corp, so I'm experienced, active and capable of running my own. Send me a message or aid in-game, and I would love to do business with you The tech must flow!! o/

If you need tech, I am active and able to feed your need very quickly. I was a member of NPO's Tech Corp, so I'm experienced, active and capable of running my own. Send me a message or aid in-game, and I would love to do business with you The tech must flow!! o/

If you need tech, I am active and able to feed your need very quickly. I'm a member of NPO's Tech Corp, so I'm experienced, active and capable of running my own. Send me a message in-game, and I would love to do business with you The tech must flow!! o/ 1 slot opens tomorrow, one of the last guys I traded with was impatient and didn't understand why I was out of tech when he clicked accept. For future reference and as a disclaimer, I offer the 50 tech to all 5 buyers on the same day and rebuild it throughout the day of and the next day of. That means the first accept drains my tech until I rebuild it, then the next buyer can accept it, and so on.

Baldr, that's not the point. I understand that the aircraft contribute to the potency, but talking about the raw ordinance an aircraft carrier has on board it is mostly light to medium anti-aircraft capability. Even modern aircraft carriers remain barren of large bore guns and cruise missiles. Stack up a carrier to a battleship, guns only? Battleship win. This is a ranking based on littoral "strength". Stack up a carrier to a battleship, guns and planes? Carrier win. This is a ranking based on "force projection". Which brings me to my original point, which some are confusing: If "strength" is based on littoral attack power, then they are completely out of order. If "strength" is based on force projection, then they are still somewhat out of order, though markedly less. As is, the current strength ranking of ships is out of the ordinary, to say the least.

If you need tech, I am active and able to feed your need very quickly. I'm a member of NPO's Tech Corp, so I'm experienced, active and capable of running my own. Send me a message in-game, and I would love to do business with you The tech must flow!! o/ Edit* 1 slot remaining open - get it while it's hot

The Pacific campaign is definitely a good example of a modern carrier battle group, but remember what we're actually comparing here. And as I said before, it may very well be the case that their "strength" measures force projection. (though shouldn't a landing ship be beneath an aircraft carrier?) The reason these naval units are used in-game are to demolish naval defenses and then support ground troops. Since airbases are obviously not an issue (in the sense that your air force can apparently circumnavigate Plant Bob), the actual power of an aircraft carrier - an air force - is moot. Unless you're telling me 4 RIM7s and CIWS are superior to the USS Missouri's 16inchers?

Possibly this guy? He was looking 5 days ago in pacifica.net. I've sent a message. Lead - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=369419"]Rotairia[/url] Marble - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=369419"]Rotairia[/url]

o/ UPN Congrats wana

o/ RNU! o/ NPO! Glad to be working with you fellas

This isn't - technically speaking - a suggestion. It's a discussion about gameplay If mods want to move it, mods will probably move it. Also, I'm hesitant to post actual suggestions because as you know, I'm quite new Would rather have people tell me I'm wrong and show me why.

In order of 'strength', we have a Corvette (1), Landing Ship (3), Battleship (5), Cruiser (6), Frigate (8), Destroyer (11), Submarine (12), Aircraft Carrier (15. The numbers in parenthesis are the relative strength values of the ships. That strikes me as odd, for a number of reasons. I don't know if I'm allowed to assume a period that these belong to, but since the role to be filled was that of the Aircraft Carrier, I'll assume a 1930s+ period rather safely, I think? Since the 1930s until modernity, the relative strength of surface ships to each other do not reflect the list above at all. Firstly - an aircraft carrier would never be the most powerful surface ship in the fleet. Furthermore, a landing ship (I'm assuming a [i]Wasp[/i]-class LHD) is similar to a 'light' aircraft carrier. Secondly - a Battleship and Cruiser would never be weaker than a Frigate or Destroyer. Thirdly - submarines are by most accounts the most dangerous and powerful naval vessels. What I do like is that Frigates fulfill an ASW role, in addition to being 'weaker' than Destroyers. I do like that Corvettes are the weakest ships and most 'adaptable'. So what's everyone's opinion? Is it worth it to create a more realistic 'ranking' of ships in CN, or does this serve adequately? Is it even substantively wrong? Arguably, this may be in terms of force projection which admittedly vessels like carriers and subs do the best.

Add me, Gold & Rubber.

[quote name='Itsuki Koizumi' date='02 June 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1275531799' post='2321564'] i think this ought to be moved to the suggestion box. but good suggestion overall to the realism but probably wont be popular. People are already angry enough over the GRL [/quote] Yeah, I saw the link to this in the wikia [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=23159"]thread[/url] and noticed that people were pretty pissed anyway about environmental changes. That's definitely why I'm hesitant to 'officially' suggest this, due to more environmental problems just being a pain in the butt and this exacerbating it.

[quote name='Choson' date='02 June 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1275526075' post='2321316'] No, our name is "GOONS" It stands for "Goon Order of Oppression, Negligence and Sadism". Our name is a pronoun, not a noun. Thanks for playing though. [/quote] Hopefully that was intended to be ironic. If not, ah well. Thanks for playing!

Long story short, I was watching something about Pearl Harbor and it struck me that there is a significant amount of real life damage dealt to the environment due to an act of war. Lots of smog is produced, oils slicks are created, forests can be burned... So is adding a very small amount of environmental 'damage' to your nation in CN if you get attacked a bad idea in some way? [b]I came up with three possible criticisms:[/b] [b]1)[/b] Environment shouldn't play a strong role in war, because you're already at war and don't need any more negative !@#$ happening [i]- Possible solution, make it a very small (realistically so) role. The more people you have attacking you, the larger damage they would do to your environment. For example, the firebombing of Dresden destroyed a large portion of the surrounding forest in addition to the whole city. However, it was _one_ city and _one_ forest - not the nation.[/i] [b]2) [/b] This would never be noticed if it were a small effect, so why bother coding it? [i]- Valid point. I readily accept that it wouldn't be necessary if it would hardly be noticed. For the sake of realism is a possible contention, but I'm new so I won't press the point myself [/i] [b]3)[/b] Could be abused in some way that I'm not aware of? I would appreciate any feedback you're willing to give, I'm honestly just curious if there's a reason this has never been implemented if suggested before, or if there's a reason to [b]not[/b] implement it at all. edit* Cleared some stuff up

[quote name='dalstrs' date='13 May 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1273801656' post='2297429'] Darksol, this happens in all our threads. Some people see the alliance GOONS and their mind is made up before they even read the first sentence. [/quote] Duh, your name IS "goons". [b]goon [guːn][/b] n [i]1. a stupid or deliberately foolish person[/i] 2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) US informal a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation, esp in an industrial dispute edit* Decided to keep definition 2, if you choose that one.