Instr

You're in anarchy because you deployed to under 20% of your population. Situations where you can self-anarchy: -Deploying to under 20% of your population -Selling to under 20% of your population Situations where you won't self-anarchy despite having less than 20% troops: -Buying to under 20% of your population -Increasing your population so that your soldier count is less than 20% of your population. You probably got to this situation through the last method. You won't be able to switch out of anarchy for another 2 days, and there's no way you can get out of anarchy until the timer elapses and you're allowed to change your government. In Standard Edition, the timer is 3 days, in Tournament Edition, the timer is 2 days.

The reason the game is dying is because the game is old. It's hard to get set up in a new alliance these days, and with the tech change, a long long time ago, that determined the dominance of elite alliances, there's no real point to recruit.

The difference between a rogue and a warrior is an 11 digit warchest. The one question is: Is Stukov going to back out 3 months later and just delete?

Got a 99% there, on 46, -81, 45, -80

It's just the evolution of the game system, it'll be interesting because the game is then refocused almost entirely on time-dependent NS boosters like nukes and navy.

We should have a few three-month rounds for fun.

You're right, that's a concern. The idea isn't to make it so that there's no penalty for starting out late, but to make the penalty more subtle and to give nations that start out later a chance to be important in the game, so if an alliance wants to come into being on day 20, they can do so without being that far behind the curve. I'm not really familiar with growth curves these days, if the curve is being set too aggressively (set the end of the curve to 3, or 15 million by itself, or set the end of the curve to 2 in combination with infra-cost scaling), let me know, but I think the problem is real and the idea is fundamentally sound. The second idea I'm a lot more enthusiastic about, because it deflates initial infrastructure advantages and also lets nations fight at higher NS levels. You always wanted to nuke rogue a 6,000 infra nation, didn't you? In combination, however, the numbers need to be tweaked because the second idea slows down effective nation growth significantly, making the rogue threat a lot more severe. For 3: the base of the exponent is 1.018479 , or 8.66 million on day 30 and 15 million on day 60 For 2: the base of the exponent is 1.011619 , or 7.07 million on day 30 and 10 million on day 60

At the current moment, population tends to spike as the game starts, but soon afterwards players stop joining as they join at a severe disadvantage. Compared to existing players, they start with nations that are too small to make any significant contribution to the game. Consequently, players tend not to make nations once the round has started. === I am suggesting that this problem be resolved in two ways. The first is that nations start with starting cash based on the number of days that have elapsed since the round started. I suggest 20m as a peak, for 60 days of gameplay, and for the function to work on an exponential basis. This means that, if day 1 is counted as day 0, the formula should be 5 million * 1.02337^number of days since day 1. This means that after 30 days, nations will start with about 10 million cash as starting capital. The curve can be adjusted as needed, but I think an exponential curve best matches the exponential growth rate of nations in this game. === The other suggestion is that infra costs be reduced over time also as a exponential function. That is to say, currently, the space between infra jumps increase by 1.161944% per day, and the cost of infra is reduced by 1.161944% per day. This means on day 60, costs of infra are reduced by approximately 50%. The easy way to program it is to first feed the current infra amount into a discount function before new infra-costs are calculated. This means that it's a lot easier for nations that have lost growth due to spending time at war to catch up with the current leaders, and by evening out the nation growth of all nations, the number of possible alliance wars increase.

Transcription: DT-Colossus Treaty "This is plain Sithy" Article I: HAI! We the people of the subtitle of this thread do ordain and establish these principles. Article II: LIFE It is probably not going to be all that funny to hit each other. Article III: LIBERTY We reserve the right to hit others when it is not funny that they hit one of us. Article IV: Pursuit of Happiness If at any time either party signs with NSO [Bob specifies NsO] this union is dissolved. Any other reason will have a 48 hour non-aggression [illegible] in effect. Signed for Colossus: Bob, Viceroy of Colossus. Signed for DT: Myworld, Supa, and Titan: [Illegible] Bob High Templar of Foreign Affairs Also, Baskan

In the game, clicking on community links to www.cybernations.net/forums , which then redirects to forums.cybernations.net Is this the intended behavior, or should the link be changed to forums.cybernations.net?

"Trading harbor" has inconsistent capitalization. It should be "Trading Harbor". I personally would be more amused if you fix it through the opposite approach and bork all the capitalization on the other forums, though.

Congratulations.

Updted

This TC is only missing Sugar Water right now.

Is "The Multis" considered a legal AA name for TE?

updated

The same applies as the 3BR I'm working on, but this is even lower priority. Of course, I will bump this to peak priority if this circle somehow hits 5 members. This is an FJ/AP. It's missing only Coal Gems right now. Coal Gems Gold Silver Fish Furs Wine Uranium Pigs Sugar Wheat Cattle

I'm working on circle recruitment via PM as well, but this is currently on my back burner. If it somehow hits 5 participants without my notice, I'll make this a priority. Missing: Sugar Water

I thought of this before, but really, the foreign aid system means that most people can't make real capital investments in this game. The throughput is just too small. Try finding an alliance that's willing to build you up to self-sustainability, or sell tech to older nations for a bit of margin.

Resolved: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30839&st=0&p=818098&hl=+nuclear%20+power&fromsearch=1&#entry818098

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=164513 I own NPP. I switched from civilian nuclear power to nuclear weapons build-up as a government position, and back, and I discovered that civilian nuclear power reduced my happiness by approximately 1 point. Why was that?

That's more than 2 years of hard work we're looking at, people. Congratulations to Basketball Ninjas.

I can't fit this guy into my own TCs. Mathias - Cattle Iron aqua http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=259917

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1308977568' post='2740949'] inb4 all votes in this alliance are decided by coalitions of outside proxy voters who buy votes for little real reason. [/quote] Think about it the other way; this is a small alliance that needs funds to build its small nations. Buying votes for very little reason: Axis gets meaningless votes sold in order to fund its growth prospects to avoid forcing its nations to tech trade.

My main concern is the ability of the game to survive, and one critical aspect of it right now is the ability to achieve alliance formation and for new alliances to grow and become politically relevant. This is a great initiative because it means that this initiative allows micros to become part of a larger community, even if the total community has the total diplomatic footprint of only one alliance. By letting micros feel relevant, you encourage them to grow, to improve as alliances, and perhaps one day to join the big leagues.