Zero!

Colony Effectiveness: 50% Location: -6.00000, -99.00000 Mine Effectiveness: 80% Location: -81.97243, -42.18750

I liked the flag. Good luck, it's a jungle out there!

Hello All, The Brigade currently needs to [b]buy[/b] a lot of technology. We have about 20 nations who will be devoting 2 or 3 slots to purchase additional technology. We will follow the standard rate of [b]3 million for 100 tech. We will send money first,[/b] and you will send the two aid packages of 50 tech afterwards. If you have any problems with repayment, you are to let us know so we can resolve it as smoothly and quickly as possible. These are long term deals, so we'd like to continue them for as long as possible (3 to 5 times would be ideal). [b]If you are interested, please provide the following information in your reply:[/b] Ruler: Nation Name: Nation Link: How many aid slots are you using: How long would you like to do these deals for: I understand the terms and conditions of the deal (Y/N): If you are approved, you should receive the 3 mil payment from one of our nations within 24 hours. I look forward to a mutually beneficial transactions. Please recommend this service to nations who you think may be interested. If you have any questions, please PM my nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=39175 Thank You for your time, Zero! Edit: Spelling.

It's never too late to admit you're wrong. Never thought I'd say this but: o/ GGA

[quote name='Omicron Persei 9' date='08 March 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1268035444' post='2217820'] Does anyone see any great difference between moon and mars wonders? I'm leaning towards mars but I'm not sure. Second question, does anyone do moon/mars resource swaps? As in do mars mine owners pay their bills with basalt and collect taxes with sodium (or something similar like potassium?) I'm in a position where both basalt and sodium are useful to me but I'm wondering whether it's cheap enough to swap and people find it worth the risk (I read it's random so the ability to control change seems lost). Or is it the consensus that you just find a helpful enough resource and stay on it? To my nation two mars resources (magnesium and potassium) are helpful but two aren't, it might be a waste of money to consistently change resources. And lastly just checking I hear changing your resource via random choice is NS * 10. Is this correct? [/quote] Changing resource is more like 100x your NS... (it's 10x you NS to move your mine without moving your resource) so it's not really worth it. As dealmaster13 mentioned, you're better off just finding the one that fits your trade set.

Congratulations and Good Luck!

http://www.cn-utilities.com/Default.aspx Edit: NM.

Good luck guys!

Both Baldr and Rich333 have made some pretty good points. I understand it's important to give an incentive for older nations to keep on playing the game. Let's just have a civil discussion. [quote]The nations they are fighting aren't newbies. You talk about them being at ZI and having massive tech. Look what that tech does. 10,000 (which is large, but I wouldn't call it massive) puts them at 50,000 NS due to the tech alone. That doesn't count infra, soldiers, nukes, or anything else that adds to your NS. At 50,000 NS and more, you aren't fighting newbies.[/quote] I don't doubt the extensive preparation that is needed, and like you, I am very impressed by TOP's performance in this war. But in fighting a prolonged war, a nation with a significant higher infrastructure level will have to have significantly higher bills. So say a nation with 10,000 infra/tech is fighting a nation with 1,000 infra and 10,000 tech. In terms of CMs, Aircraft and Nukes they should pretty much be on equal footing (though you can argue that if one's navy is depleted, they may lose access to some defensive planes). The advantage the 10,000 infra nation holds is in the ground attacks and defense (and I won't deny that). However the 1,000 infra nation still retains the underdog bonus (correct me if I'm wrong, but some of nations I've fought have "defeated me" despite having less than 25% of my defending tanks and troops). However the 10,000 infrastructure nation must also have to endure significantly higher bills for infrastructure, troops and tanks (with a WRC and high amount of tech, this figure can easily be double to triple the original bills). This makes a large warchest even more imperative. In the long run, the 1000 infra nation will pretty much negate any advantage the 10,000 infra nation had (assuming that both nations are making relatively little money on collections). In the long run everything really evens out. That was the reason why I felt that nations below 3000 infra should suffer a slight penalty in only being able to purchase one nuke (and with a HNS... most of the times we're just left praying for the best.), and the nation with the significantly higher infrastructure should enjoy that slight advantage. I agree, my argument does hinge on the fact that the GAs can still cancel each other out (correct me if this "underdog bonus" is non-existent). So again, you guys have brought up some good points. I apologize if I sound like I'm overly complaining. I play a lot of RTS (particularly Starcraft). In that regard the player with the superior economy and macro (the equivalent infrastructure) enjoys a huge advantage. CN is obviously not Starcraft, but I guess that's where my thoughts originated from. Edit: Spelling.

It's been an interesting year.

[quote name='Rich333' date='04 March 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1267728565' post='2213843'] I really wish people would stop making threads like this. Every time there's been a curbstomp, [i]every single time[/i] for the past four years, there's always been one or more threads wherein the winning side has complained that "it's not fair" that the losing side hasn't had months or years worth of nation building work nerfed completely into irrelevance for no other reason than that they're on the receiving end of a curbstomp. As things stand now, about a thousand people already quit the game during every major war; giving people even more reasons to quit in disgust isn't good for anyone. [/quote] I wasn't proposing that we make the change right now, in fact I believe most of the people have suggested this as an idea to change after the war has concluded. In my (humble) opinion, I think the system is unfair and somewhat unrealistic. I guess you can argue that nuclear rogues have used it since the beginning. However I still think that high infra nations don't need to punished even further (especially with the additions of the WRC and the Space wonders that make it virtually impossible to score a real victory).

I think maybe after war we should make some minor changes. The 3k Infra requirement to purchase a [b]second[/b] nuke (with the WRC) seems pretty reasonable (regardless of their infrastructure, they should still be allowed to purchase one nuke). Given that we already have SDIs, I think this is somewhat more reasonable. It makes turtling a little harder, but also gives two levels of "turtling."

Congratulations and have fun!

Currently I'm looking to buy donations for the months of December and January. Please feel free to PM for nations if you wish to make offers. Thanks. Nation Link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=39175 Edit: Clarification.

I'd like you to PM me here with your offers: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=39175 And before you PM something outrageous, take a look at the offers floating around. I'm willing to pay a little extra here and there though! I need it for the end of August but I could probably get you payment soon.

Message sent to nation.

I need a donation for the end of July. Will around 15 and 18 million in tech/cash equivalents, (maybe a bit more if you ask nicely). Please PM here or my nation and I will get back to you in a day or two. Thanks