Count Rupert

That's because the original link you clinked on was for his land purchase screen and not his publicly viewable nation dispay screen. I notice that it's been fixed.

It would be interesting but no better a measure. Too many factors go into the creation of casualties to be able to properly interpret the data. For example. is someone with 50k attacking casualties verses killing 500k of the other guys really good, or someone who benefits from nuking a lot?

Is java enabled on the computer you're using?

Last I saw numbers it was 52% positve and 48% negative.

In what way? If already had the nuke, he can still fire it even if he's under the 1000 infrastructure. He just can't buy any new ones.

I don't think so. If successful was simply a typo for unsuccessful the grammar of the sentence is wrong. Here is the original type of message you get for a successful spy mission in which you suffer the same spy losses and identity being revealed. The bolded sentence is identical. A while back there were complaints about the message given when you spied someone with the HNMS. I believe the complaint was about the mission indicating success when in fact because of the HNMS, no nuke was destroyed. Apparently people didn't notice the presence of the HNMS and continued attempting to spy off nukes and it took several days to realize their error. So it looks to me that Admin took the original message and modified it to inform about the HNMS and the lack of success because of it's presence.

The DA doesn't have to be first. To get a DA you only need have one remaining GA. So you can launch a GA; have that attack drop the target's odds of winning below 5%, issue a DA and then later in the day after they have rebought troops or if you're able to redeploy use your second GA.

Sounds like maybe your spy op would have been successful were it not for the target having the HNMS.

Great to see the TAB Forums coming back online.

Well, it does include any land captured during wars. Purchased land is just a category to differentiate it from natural growth. Purchased land can be purchased/captured/destroyed/sold, natural growth can not.

Your understanding is incorrect. Infrastructure upkeep is always increasing the greater the amount you have. Always. Jumps are points in which the upkeep and/or the purchase cost increase over what those costs were under the jump (we're talking about the rate of increase, not just that the upkeep is higher as in if you were paying $1 a unit for something and the price jumped to $1.50 a unit). So if you have say 2999.999 infrastructure and you buy .001 infrastructure, because you crossed the jump, your overall income drops because the citizens gained by the purchase do not overcome the increase in upkeep that crossing the jump caused. The idea behind getting to 3200 or some other number over the jump isn't that upkeep drops, it's that the increase in citizens is now large enough to overcome the jump in upkeep costs. Generally 200 infrastructure over a jump is seen as a safe point at which the increase in citizens is enough to start increasing your net income. But that number is going to depend on your resource build and what improvements you have. If you have no population modifiers in your resource build, it may take more than what the conventional wisdom calls for. So you're focusing on the wrong thing in looking at the upkeep cost. That's going to keep increasing as you buy infrastructure. The focus on jumps is about net income.

Land isn't as hard to destroy as you make out. The game's lost over 2.5 million miles of land since the war started so it's hardly all simply being transferred to a new owner. A fair amount of land is lost in ground combats. Most land in the lower ranks is destroyed and not captured. Even up in my ranks I've fought nations who when they did win an occasional ground combat the land was razed, not captured. And with the war lasting as long as it is, you have a lot of nations fighting who are 13 days or more inactive and nothing is captured then, it's all lost. I've fought 3 nations all who had above 5000 miles of land when my war them started. They all ended the wars without any purchased land. That seems to be a bit extreme to have happen in a mtter of a week. A nuke taking out only 200 land is a fairly small one given the base damage is 150. My nukes were doing 450 in damage and I'm by no means near the top. There were nations doing over 700. The problem is in land you have something that gives very little value for the cost to buy and it's something very easy to lose in times of war. Proportionally much more so than infrastructure given nations will continue to buy infrastructure because there are a ton of modifiers you can get to reduce it cost. Land is purchased only out of extreme necessity with few modifiers available.

There are two type of penalties for being in peace mode. Happiness penalties which start to take effect on day 4 and go up every two days based on this chart: 4 days = -3 population happiness 6 days = -5 population happiness 8 days = -6 population happiness 10 days = -7 population happiness 12 days = -8 population happiness 14 days = -9 population happiness The -9 happiness on day 14 is as bad as the happiness penalties will get. At that point the -9 happiness will last until you exit peace mode. The second type of penalty is an economic penalty. This kicks in on day 6 and is roughly 50% of your economic development. This is on top of the happiness penalties above. The economic penalties last until you exit peace mode. Remember, you must collect taxes on the day you intend to exit peace mode.

The best your environment can be is 1 + GRL. With the GRL sitting at 5 right now and for the forseeable future, that means the best environment score you're going to see is 6 (barring having the Radiation Cleanup bouns resource which halves the GRL) or 2.5 stars. This cannot be improved no matter how many border walls you buy or whether you're government provides a positive environment bonus or not. You had more border walls then you needed to maintain an environment of 1 without the GRL added in. This is why you saw no change when you switched governments from Communist to Democracy. Your nation's environment was already at one, the lowest score possible and no improvement was possible. Should you get rid of any excess border walls not needed to keep your environment at 1+GRL? You'll have to do the math and determine which garners you more income, the 2% of your working citizens each wall costs; or the +2 happiness you gain for taking the 2% loss in citizens.

The only penalty for not collecting is facing deletion for inactivity on day 20. The 20% on income you are referring to has to do with not paying your bills for 20 days. From the CyberNations Information Index

I think the script was at one time done manually at a random point during the day and any nations 20 days inactive got deleted then. But much like donation system which was once handled entirely manually and is now automated, Admin automated the deletion process as well.

This is correct. You don't recover fully from regular anarchy until the update after you switch to a new government.

However even without them having enough land, you can attack his ships. As long as he has ships, the naval attack operation is available to you (the others are not due the land situation). So it's only like have a second FAFB if you allow the carriers to continue existing.

Depends on whether you need the environment bonus or not to max your environment at 1. In which case Monarchy is excellent as it provides the happiness point bonus the Democracy does for collecting and it provides the infra cost reduction that Capitalist does for buying infrastructure.

You can request a name change to match your nation's name or ruler HERE. Be sure to read the OP and follow the format for making the request.

Sounds like you're confusing issues. There are two point at which penalties kick regardling soldier to citizen ratios. The first point is once your soldier efficiency exceeds 60% of your total citizens. This triggers an environment penalty. The second point is once your actual soldier count exceeds 80% of your total citizens. This triggers a happiness penalty. One uses soldier efficiency and the other uses actual soldier count.

It would have been helpful too to have provided who you're treatied with.

What those threads were referring to is nukes. You can only suffer one "defeat" a day and a nuke counts as a defeat (if you do not have the FSS) as does a GA with greater than 95% odds. So if you're nuked, ground attacks occurring after the nuke will not cause a defeat alert regardless of the odds. You can inflict a defeat alert and then nuke however.

I'm guessing that would be Ruckland. He's 14 days inactive. Once he hit 13 days inactive, nations attacking his can no longer benefit by capturing land/tech; instead anything that would have been captured is destroyed instead.

Well, in the context of how you're using your actions though, all clicks can be considered military related. I think it's been 1000 actions a day for a while now. I seem to recall reading somewhere that after the BLEU-Continuum War last summer it was never returned to 1500 actions a day as was the previous practice and the 1000 actions represents the standard regardless of the war/peace status. Gridlock at and around update has had times far worst than you suggest by using "15 minutes after update". At it's peak it was starting to occur 30 minutes before update and extended 45 minutes or more after update. I recall one night not being able to log in until 50 minutes after update. While it may be true that no one is using all their actions at update; many will use a fair piece of it hitting refresh. The higher the number of actions available, the greater the problem since they can use even more at update without affecting the actions they think they need the rest of the day. I happen to like the 1000 action limit. It's a resource that needs to be managed same as soldiers, tanks, missiles, planes and ships and who you attack, when and what order, etc. Those who are more skillful at using that resource benefit over those that aren't.