Tryptamine

I'm very skeptical of this chart; in fact, I don't even agree on some of the extrema. For one, it seems to totally neglect the AP+FJ+St BG set, which is one of the highest income arrangements in the game. What were the criteria upon which you based this? Does it stand upon some sort of mathematical rigor, or is it more of an "in my experience" construct? It's a good idea, and I like the way that you presented it, but I think the actual assignments need to be reconsidered.

DRA Followed closely by WRC

Heh, the FSS can actually be quite beneficial in the hands of a skilled player who knows how to use it. However, I think you made a good choice picking MP as your next military wonder. Otherwise, though you may be nuclear now, in even a small-scale war, you would not be for long. I'd probably spring for the GU next, though, so as to make that $150 M price tag more reasonable without totally depleting your war chest.

People will post if they're interested; that's how it works. Your continuous bumping of your post will only serve to annoy people. Also, a tip: the going rate for tech is $3M/100 tech, so don't expect people to be jumping all over your offer.

Might post something more extensive later, it's late, so two basic points: -There comes a point at which purchasing additional infra is no longer profitable. -The comparison of "cash invested in tech" becomes moot reasonably quickly, when it becomes very difficult to spend even a considerable fraction of income on tech. Cost is not a limiting factor. Considering six aid slots and standard $3M/100 tech deals, a nation with perfect slot economy is spending only $6M every ten days. It's cheap additional damage with no cap.

Unfortunately, in real life, more infrastructure does not necessarily correlate to higher population. Ignoring that, in order to reflect proper populations, infra levels would be off the charts... Way beyond our realm of experience.

That's not quite how it works, though. Large amounts of tech mean large amounts of damage dealt, too, particularly in alliances with a lot of nukes and WRCs.

Another thought would be to alter nuke/SDI effectiveness to be based on technology differential between attacking and defending nations. It doesn't make sense that a high-infra, low-tech nation would have the same effectiveness shooting down a nuke from a lower-infra, higher-tech nation as vice-versa.

You, sir, are too clever for your own good.

Yeah. Won't respond to PMs or emails, either. I know of at least two other times he's tried to leave the game and been pulled back in. Assume he was trying to make a clean break this time.

Rest in Peace, Lord Sharpe. The community will miss you.

The Democratic Order has moved its public channel to #TDO on Coldfront.

That'll happen when membership doubles in three months, haha. Edit: Typo ><

I'm looking for someone to participate in a single-slot tech deal. I have an open slot and will send money immediately. Please PM me in-game: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=127948

More advanced weaponry costs more.

I hung through 25 pages of discussion, but I've started to lose the wherewithal to continue to follow. I've run into a logic stop, and I apologize if it's already been addressed. Some nations, it has been said, do not enjoy the nation building/optimization aspect of this game. That's totally legitimate. The definition of "enjoyable" will vary based on your objectives in playing the game. If you're more geared toward politics and war, there's a great thing about this game: You can wage war at any level... You're not limited by your NS or level of development. If your focus is war, this update should not have hurt you, as you should be properly prepared for war if you're expecting to succeed at it. Additionally, you can be politically involved without being a top nation. Look around at the leaders of some of the most successful alliances in CN. Few of them are in this group of "top nations," yet they've been indisputably influential forces in shaping the political dynamics of this game. Syzygy, Diskord, and a few others have been major forces in the more mathematically cerebral aspects of this game. The argument that this update makes the game less enjoyable because it makes optimization more challenging is hypocritical and thus falls on its face. You like to fight... As such, you'll probably never be a nation at the very top. You can fight wars at any level... Why are you so against additions that make the game more enjoyable for the people who are focused on development and the puzzle aspects? It may not make the game more fun for you, but does the fact that it keeps someone else playing actually bother you? Does increasing their enjoyment decrease yours? People play this game for different reasons, as has been acknowledged. Players need to come to terms with the fact that not every update will please everyone, and at times, groups of one inclination will benefit more than groups of another.

I'm looking to buy 100 tech in a 1 slot, 3 week arrangement. I'll pay $3M, and if all goes smoothly, I'll be interested in dealing again immediately after. Please be prompt in your delivery dates. Contact me in-game: http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=127948 Scammers will regret applying.

I'm looking to purchase 100 tech at a time at $3 Million each deal. Ideally this would be a long-term arrangement cycling every 20 days. Please PM me in game if interested. Edit: Thank you to those who replied. I'm full for now, but I'll likely be looking again before long.

My apologies, because I'm sure this has been addressed somewhere since the introduction of the latest batch of wonders. Does the Nuclear Power Plant only continue to function if the uranium trade is maintained, or is it possible to pick up the trade, build the plant, then drop back to former resource set? I'm having trouble figuring out exactly how it works from the Info Index alone.