Blacky

At 2,999 or so infra (depending on your alliance) Buy 5 sets of 50 tech and get different friends in your alliance to hold them for you for 10 days. Then buy another 50 tech. After 10 days do an improvement swap, and ask to get all 250 tech back at once. You'll have 300 tech (max eco benefit) and be able to collect your 10 days taxes with the new economic benefit. At that point on it'll be easier for your nation to grow, as you'll be collecting a greater amount in taxes. Good Luck, On your never ending quest for tech.

Yes, you lost 4k NS total, does that mean it has become easier? Definately not. Before other nations could have purchased tanks too. It would have been possible for them to reach the range in that way. Now, nobody has the advantage of tanks, so it's not fairer or less fair in terms of standing soldiers and tanks. Where the unfairness comes is in the increased nation strength of nukes. Because all of the relative numbers went down, that only makes the error in this increase in NS worse! Not better. You see prior to update there could be three nations (fictional numbers) Before Update: X - 39,000 NS (0 tanks, 20 Nukes) 5.0% [7,500 infrastructure] Y - 38,999 NS (5000 tanks, 20 Nukes) 5.1% [6,000 infrastructure] Z - 38,998 NS (5000 tanks, 0 Nukes) 5.2% [6,300 infrastructure] (Considering X has 1,500 or so more infrastructure than Y and Z who have almost equal infrastructure.) After Update: X - 42,000 NS - 5.0% Y - 36,999 NS - 5.1% Z - 33,998 NS - 5.2% How much harder did it just get for Z? Z = Anyone who has not yet purchased nukes. It's too much. A better solution would be one of the following. a) Reduce NS bonus of nukes to 0. B) Change the nuke requirement from Top 5% to Top 10% c) Wipe all existing nukes.

*Blacky facepalms. Prior to the update you're mentioning, one of the main purposes of tech was to inflate your nation strength. It served no other purpose after 300 tech. At which it stopped benefiting your nation militarily and economically (It may also have lowered bills slightly, but with the high NS value it wouldn't be by all that much.) So when it was changed, the purpose of all that tech was lost. There was no need for it, and thus everyone had bought way too much and it was going to ruin the tech market. Except... The game was changed again (a few days after) A change was made on the tech requirements of an airforce. A change occured in the effects of tech on military (it was capped at 300 but now there is no cap) And also it became more beneficial for lowering infra maintenance because the NS value of tech was lowered. That's why it didn't make as much an impact, infact it became for the better. However this suggestion can be tweaked for the best also. (By perhaps changing nukes effect on NS or making nukes not even have an NS requirement.) If left the way it is though. This will be one of the worst updates in CN history.

:lol: Sure, you keep telling yourself that. Giving existing nuclear powers a 3,000 NS boost (About a 9% increase in NS at the threshold) doesn't make it any easier or harder now does it? Dude what you're suggesting is so preposterous that it's funny. Also, to the guy prior who doubted between 1200 and 1400 nations (there are 1600 nations in the top 5%) gained over 3,000 NS. You need to understand how the basic ingame functions work, before commenting on the more advanced ones. (You can check how many nuclear capable nations there are, and how many of them have nukes) So on average 1300 nations at or around the nuclear range have grown 3,000 NS simply because they have nukes. (It doesn't matter that they may have bought them by pushing themselves over the line) and now it's harder for any other nation to purchase nukes. Werst Opdate Uver

If you believe what you're saying I feel sorry for you. I hope you are taking a position because it benefits you, honestly, that's what I hope. Because you're so wrong right now. I gave you not only math but a simple dose of logic. In return all I got was something verging insanity by many different people. If the only change, was a change in the amount of nation strength added by tanks and soldiers, then it would be unfortunate for non-nuclear nations, but perfectly understandable. It would have changed to be a better and more balanced system. But what has happened is something much worse. Many, many nations have gained upto 3,000 nation strength just due to the fact that they had 20 nukes. (I believe it was around 1200-1400 nations who have done so.) Now you see, that two equal nations in every way, except for the fact that one has 20 nukes and the other doesn't, are in a complete different standing. If a war broke out between the two, the nation with the nukes can continue buying nukes (with his 4,000 NS bonus) whereas the other who did not buy nukes before the update, or have any yet can not. That nation would be forced to take the nukes and not be able to purchase them. Infact the system has become one, where in order to become nuclear not only do you have to match the other nations growth with nukes. You must now also surpass their nation strength by several thousand points. (upto 6,250) So you see this system makes it ever more difficult for new nations to get in range. Not only because the nations already in range are higher. But also because now their NS is inflated. It's simple logic really. The way the system is designed it would take several hundred days or severe economic loss to reach the nuclear stage. Worst Update Ever

You still don't get it do you? There are only two uses for Nation Strength that I can think of right now. 1) Is the war system. 2) Becoming nuclear. Now with this change, Nation Strength is needed to become nuclear, and once you've become nuclear there is a large bonus in NS. Leaving anyone else who wants to become nuclear not only having to catch up, but having to overtake you, by a large enough margin to overcome the 4,000 NS advantage. So it's not a matter of merely catching up anymore. That's the problem. Moreso, nations who got into the range by abusing the old system are now awarded, whilst many nations who had attempted other routes (reaching top 5% by Infra, Land and Tech) have been punished.

Saber. Did you miss what I've said many times already? roughly 5000 nations have gained an average of 2,000 NS. Many of those nations themselves abused this to get in reach of the NS required, and now they contribute to making it ever more difficult. Basically what has happened is those nations have been solidified, and infact not only have they gotten away with their "abuse" of the system, but they are in a stronger position because of it. You obviously do not understand what it is exactly that has happened though. (Look up to the two nation links I posted. One nation who is barely at the 5% range because of his 20 nukes, and another who was doing it fairly now is way behind because he only has 2 nukes.) If you do not see something wrong in that design then you're too near-sighted to be debating these changes.

Read my reply to Syz. I agree. But if you say that nukes should have a say on the strength of a nation, then strenth should not have a say on nukes. You can't have it both ways, as it creates an instability. Where inorder to reach the 5% threshold, a nation must not only match the other nations (ie; catch up), but they now also have an extra 3,000 or so NS to overtake aswell. That coupled with the former makes it ever more difficult to attain nukes. Right in hundreds of days they would have chased the shadow of a nation ahead of them for long enough to pick up a few nukes. If they're not involved in a nuclear war before then ofcourse. In which case they will be annihilated.

Can't you say the same for infrastructure and technology as well? Infact you can make the same argument for anything. But you can not make an argument that 2 + 2 = 5. And thus you must concede that this a design flaw.

Manhattan Project's cost is money your nation will never see in infrastructure (something all past nation who became nuclear even within the last fortnight, did not have to lose). It's also a wasted slot for a National Wonder.

Nobody is arguing for that. Also, didn't you say you were going to stop arguing? You can't. And I never have. And if I were there then, I would have said what I'm saying now. However this isn't a slight advantage or a minor hindrance. This is a complete punch in the testicles for all nations at around the top 15% range of Nation Strength who have yet to purchase nukes. That's why you create a balanced system. NS requirement for nukes should always have been a solid number rather than a percentage. Or better still an infrastructure requirement. The current system with the current changes is completely flawed. 20 nukes is four times powerful than 10 eh? 2 + 2 = 5? Actually YES. YES it is. By giving nations already with nukes an advantage as wide as this we have created, it has become more than significantly harder to reach the top 5%. What are the infrastructure requirements from now and prior to the update? A whole lot different, I can assure you of that. Right you go on that tangent buddy. You're completely missing the point I was making. I never said there was no way to get there. It's possible, after a hundred or so days, to chase the shadow of the person infront of you for long enough to buy a few nukes. If you survive that time. If you're not killed off before it, ofcourse. 1,400 nations gained a 3,000 NS boost. Another 5,000 or so gained a 2,000 NS boost. If you don't see how that makes it way more difficult for nations who did not become nuclear prior to this point to become nuclear now. Then you're in serious denial. Edit: Worst update ever.

Argumenting? That's a new word to me. Regardless, my NS losses are irrelevant. The problem is not the loss of NS, but rather the disproportionate gain of nuclear capable nations NS. However, if the militarisation option on its own was removed, I would be discontent, but not to this point. What has in effect happened is a permanent inequality. A line was drawn that says "anyone that became nuclear before this point will have a major lead", and that's what has happened. The increase in NS of nukes (1,400 or so nations increased 3,000 NS, and another 5,000 or so increased by around 2,000 NS.) That coupled with the reduced military inflation of nation strength, makes it impossible without arduously and slowly growing with a slight economic advantage to the point which one may eventually reach after a hundred or so days, the nation aheads shadow. The whole while being completely vulnerable to nuclear war. This is a terrible change! You need 1,200 infrastructure to catch up to nations equal to you in every way except having nukes. And then even by the time you've reached that 1,200 infrastructure you have to reach again. This time maybe 800 infrastructure. And so, on and so forth. This situation is unacceptable, nay untenable for newer nations or non-nuclear nations. It's basically solidifying a system of inequality. Nobody is arguing that. Look at the two examples I provided. A smaller nation who took advantage of the old system is making it harder for larger nations to get into nuclear range by having their NS boost created by nuclear weapons. That is unacceptable. Worst update ever.

If pointing out serious flaws is considered complaining then no. I did not complain when the aircraft requirement changed. Because it's not impossible to attain 500 tech, infact it's quite easy. It's still not exclusive, it's a solid number. Edit: This is the worst update in modern history of CN. Infact, you might as well close off registrations or create a nation age requirement before going nuclear.

Well we can agree it might fluctuate a little, but it wouldn't exceed by far considering we accept uranium as the best trade. Even if the daily upkeep cost rose a few hundred thousand the principle remains. The time it would take to overtake them, or worse still to buy a Manhattan Project will be at the very least a hundred days or so. Even then, I don't need to tell you the negative economic effects of switching out a regular National Wonder for a Manhattan Project (one which is quite permanent). So even if we take your approach that's 100 days (and x-amount of lost income to having a manhattan project) or 200 days to be in a worse off position (the same nuclear effects) if regular growth is maintained. If you recall we're talking about two identical nations whose only difference is one purchased nuclear weapons under an older system. And yet they would still have to suffer a 200-day set back to becoming nuclear, or losses equivalent. How can you justify that? I disagree with this statement completely. A nation prior to the changes could have inflated nation strength, but using an own growth method, one must take a long arduous path of economic superiority for hundreds of days, and even then we must accept that as our own nations grow, so do to the other nations with the negative economic effects, and then ours do again when we purchase nuclear weapons. It becomes an unwinnable race at this point. That doesn't explain how 20 nukes are worth four times the nations strength as 10. That's a problem in itself. The top 5% isn't in itself a problem. An example of a few nations who have boosted the nuclear threshold under the old system, and thus make it harder for other nations to become nuclear: http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=130166 http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...?Nation_ID=9493 How long till they purchase nukes? 300 nations out of thousands is not a solution to this problem. As it is now, you can not deny (and infact you've conceded) that it is now harder for a nation to reach nuclear stage. And worse still, nations who are already nuclear have an unfair advantage on others. You most likely wont see the problem in this until you're in that position. Basically we've creating a system where we have reinforced nations who purchased nukes using the old method, and made it ever more difficult for newer nations or nations who haven't purchased nukes. I bought my nukes at 6000 infrastructure a few weeks ago. (and many others did the same) we all have an advantage on all other nations who didn't. Infact ot get in the nuclear range you need a much higher relative NS (infra and tech) than before. Again, I probably wont be able to convince you, but unless the nations who gained nukes using the old system are brought back down to level of what nations not yet nuclear will have to face, there will be an unfair system in place. However on its very own merit. If nukes require NS, they shouldn't increase NS. It really is simple logic.

Utter nonsense. Even if we want to take the approach of realist. Everything about the calculation sytem is wrong. 10 nukes = 1,000 Nation Strength. 20 nukes= 4,000 Nation Strength. Not only does this fail in every other way, it also fails mathematically. Isn't the reason this was put in place to be more realistic? How is 20 nukes 4 times stronger than 10 nukes? That's just retarded, and again enforces the idea that this was poorly thought out. Anyone supporting this really needs to pull their heads out of their backsides. In a few months you'll be hearing "I told you so" if you don't realise how silly this is.

You speak alot of words but make very little sense. And also you're wrong in what you've said. We've already established that highest cost for nuclear maintenance is about $600,000 how're you constantly pulling larger numbers out of thin air? Taking into consideration the likely costs, the nuclear nation will be paying $6,000,000 in maintenance ever 10 day cycle. Still before being able to catch up to a nation with a 4,000 NS advantage they would have to buy around 1,200 infrastructure. At that size as I said even with the advantage would take around 300 days. So I don't know whether you're pretending not to see this or you're really daft enough not to. This is unfair to nations who don't already have nuclear weapons. And by the time they can catch up (after hundreds of days), just because the other nation decided to buy their nukes a few days earlier, and hopefully if they aren't a target of a nuclear war, then they'll get nukes too. In which case they'll be subject to the same negative economic effects, and always be in a downwards spiral in which they can not overcome.

You are so completely wrong. Lets assume two nations at around 5,999 infra and with 1,000 tech and similar troops and tanks exists. One of these nations (recently) bought 20 nukes. The other did not. Now it has become virtually impossible for a nation to get 20 nukes in that short period of time. Hence the inequality. The inequality lies not merely in the reduction of tanks or troops, or the increase in strength of cruise missiles. No, it lies within the increase (huge increase) in NS attained by nuclear weapons. As I've stated - 1,400 nations have raised that boundary by 4,000 NS each. And that's just nations with 20 nukes. Currently there is roughly 1,600 spots for nations to reach the top 5% With this recent change, many of those nations will be nations whose NS increased with the purchase of nukes. Infact looking at the 35,000 avg I presented (an estimate) you can see these nations are those on the brink of entering the top 5%, so many of those nations themselves were not even close to reaching the top 5% naturally. This just enforces the mistake and solidifies it. When I said it takes 167 days, I was comparing what somebody stated was a negative effect on nations who already have nukes. I showed that it would take 167 days to "catch up", using a Manhattan Project, or 300 days to catch up using an increase in infrastructure. Also in the theoretical I stated these were equal nations. Whose only difference was one had purchased nukes before this update, and the others had not. In order for them to "catch up" now it would take many, many days. Your idea of a new nation trying to catch up is totally acceptable. But I was explaining how old nations who just hadn't gotten around to purchasing nukes yet. I was recently in a nuclear war and lost 3,000 NS in battle. And I also fired 12 nukes. Alone my loss would be 3,000 NS and I could repair and rebuy nukes. (In a few short weeks if done properly using the tank method), now because of me losing those 12 nukes, I lost a potential 3,4000 NS. That's the difference between 20 nukes and 8 nukes. Funny that isn't it? It just goes to show you that this was poorly designed. And it creates an untenable situation for nations not yet nuclear or at the top tier either by having bought nukes with the old method, or already having nukes. WUE (worst update ever)

Effects of the New Nation Strength change. 1,400 nations gained 4,000 NS from nukes. The vast majority of these nations are at the 34,000 NS area. (In reach of becoming nuclear.) This excludes all the nations at 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, ... nukes. I just counted nations with exactly 20 nukes, and that number was 1,400. Alone the nations with 20 nukes displaced nations in their range from purchasing nukes. In effect we have strangled hundreds and hundreds of nations from achieving nuclear status. Whereas we've further secured nuclear capable nations in their position. Considering we take the route others have on the cost of a Manhattan Project and nuclear maintenance. (We'll be daft for a moment and pretend it isn't a waste of a wonder, or it isn't money that could better have been spent on infratructure to increase income, and military.) It costs between $300,000 and $600,000 to maintain 20 nukes daily. The cost of a Manhattan Project is $100,000,000. So even if we take the most expensive maintainence cost for 20 nukes. 100,000,000/600,000 = 167 days. That's the difference in cost in buying Manhattan Project. Now how about if we consider buying infrastructure to make up the 20 nuke difference. In order for a nation to grow the needed 1,300 or so infrastructure needed to gain the neccessary 4,000 nation strength. (At the now minimum 6000 or so infrastructure.) That costs what? 200m Using our above formula even at the most expensive cost it would day roughly 300 days to catch up to a higher nation. And still, you don't buy 20 nukes at once. The point is a nation can never catch up. If you're not in the top 6-8% now the only way you'll get nukes is by getting a Manhattan Project (Most likely) If you're less than 15%, you should take nukes out of your mind completely. Not only do you have to catch up to the top nations, the nations who have nukes, the nations who bought nukes with a Manhattan Project, but you also need to overtake their NS. Your best bet will be to be 1000s of infrastructure below the top nations to get your few nukes. (With expensive Manhattan Projects) They'll have SDI's ofcourse so you'll be reduced to dust before doing much damage at all.

Depends from nation to nation. But around 2500-3000 infrastructure if there are no aid/growth programs.

It costs what, $300,000 or so per day to maintain nukes? That's almost insignificant. Besides, you're imagining we live in a cyberverse where we're constantly in a state of peace. That's simply not true. If one side of the table can bring the heavy fire power and the other can not due to stupid game restrictions that only effect nations not already on the top, then they're going to lose out. This is completely unfair, and prevents nations from becoming nuclear and thus also prevents new superpowers from forming. You might aswell permanently close off registrations too. Also MP? That's way too expensive. Buying an MP to get into nuclear range means you'll always be even further behind than the top tier nations. 100m you'll never see again.

It's completely unbalanced now though. The only way to even create a semblance of balance now would be to do one of the following. 1) Reduce Nation Strength Bonus of Nukes to 0. 2) Lower threshold for nuclear capable nations to 10-15% 3) Wipe all nuclear weapons.

It's not a million a day. And how long does it catch up to 1000 infrastructure? And what happens if a war occurs inbetween that time? If this stays in I really am going to have troubles justifying my time here in CN. Making the stronger stronger and the weak weaker?

V The King, the idea that this was for the best of everybody is preposterous. Lets say theoretically there were two identical nations in every way (at around the 5% marker) one has 20 nukes, and the other has 0 nukes. The guy with 20 nukes managed to recently buy them due to inflating his military. Because he purchased 20 nukes under the old system, he would have an additional 4,000 NS. Meaning any nation below him in every way except the nukes, will be unable to reach the same level of NS to purchase nukes. Even the other nation who just put it off for a while. Basically although everyones NS was lowered in the same way. The value of nukes rose. So even though there are still 1,600 or so nuclear capable nations. A large portion of those nations will be nuclear nations who rose up due to having already purchased nukes. And the same is true with every other new nation (not just those who haven't purchased nukes); they will be unable to reach the 5% threshold without not only matching the other nuclear capable nations NS by infra and tech. But now they also have to overcome their nuclear advantage too. Basically, because NS is needed to aquire nukes, nukes should not effect NS. If you want to make nukes effect NS, then you need to reduce the effect of NS on nuclear capability. I say lowering it from 5% to 10%. That will achieve a much greater balance. Otherwise, a complete do-over. A restart of cybernations. (ofcourse with the donations passing over at the lowest level.)

The new calculation allows nations in the top 5% to not have to worry about smaller nations becoming nuclear. Unless It's easy to "overtake" them. You know, growing 1,300 infrastructure over what they already have in addition to catching up to them. The way it is now the only way for new nations to get nukes will be the Manhattan Project. Which means that's $100,000,000 their nation will never see in infrastructure. It's basically like racing a train now for any nation not in the nuclear range. This is one of the worst updates in history.

I feel dirty just reading this thread. Selling yourself is bad, mkay?