NEW NATION strength calculations

[Compstomper]

Y'all also have to realize that many of the nations in the top 5% have also lost NS.

[Noob Cake]

Lets see; I use 1m to buy 9000 tanks and 90000 soldiers. I get like 12k+ NS. If I spend 1m on infra, I get like 4 levels.

Stop complaining about your NS; military cost next to nothing compared to infrastructure and tech (cost time).

[Drai]

Or is it harder?

The people who are in nuke range will probably have more infrastructure than the people not in nuclear range. This allows them to buy more soldiers, which allows them to buy more tanks. Because of this, the 5% region is harder to get to.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Drai

[Ch33kY]

Admin

I lost 5,000 NS, dropping me about 1% of all nations, which means I'm out of range to buy nuclear weapons - I had 2 more to go.

But I actually agree with the Admin on this recalculation. Tanks were completely overated beforehand. I only bought tanks to inflate my NS so I could get those nukes. Couldn't you have waited 2 more days!?

[V The King]

I feel the cut on NS provided by tanks and soldiers was a tad harsh (a 80% cut), but overall, I think it was for the best.

[Count Rupert]

QUOTE (Mirreille @ Apr 15 2008, 05:56 PM)

Yes, and I understand that this may just be quibbling. However, I don't see why the throw away CM should have gone from 1.5 in the old system to 10 in the new one, while planes which are even more expensive and permanent items remain at 5. If anything the planes should have gone to 10 and the CMS gone to 5.

Planes already supply more NS than the CM's. It's 5 times the level aircraft which means a level 9 aircraft is worth 45 NS each. The only aircraft that are not equal or better than a cruise missile are level 1 aircraft.

[Blacky]

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.)

Edited April 16, 2008 by Blacky

[Clarinch]

Right in the middle of getting nukes too, THANKS admin.

[sayton]

Hehehe.. I actually do want to add. that NOT EVERYONE LOST NATION STRENGTH.. Everything did get effected the same way... but not everyone lost. As a matter of fact.. i think the good nations GAINED NS.. I personally gained NS.. Drai gained 3000..As im sure a lot of others have too. If your military was minimzed with NO TANKS.. than you pretty much gained NS if you had nukes.. And its all good :-D its perfect actually..

Finally, people cant spend SOOOOO LITTLE to gain soooooooo much.. as was previously stated with the 12k NS on military for 1million compared to the 12NS you would gain from infra...

[Zangmonkey]

NS should be a measure of your true size, not how much you can swing your military.

Considering I can buy a massive army on a whim, it isn't a good indicator of my strength.

Now, if military actually took time to assemble then I would be in favor of higher NS for military.

for example, you may only purchase up to 10% of your tanks per day... or drafting your full military takes three days or something. That would make sense because building up military would take time and deter you from infra growth.

However, with military as it current is.. a toggle switch... having a high NS based on it makes little sense.

Nukes are a good example here. You can only buy one nuke per day, which makes them a good symbol of strength. They indicate that you maintained a high strength for almost an entire month... not a swing.

[Zangmonkey]

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.)

No, the guy without nukes can earn about a million more per day than the guy with nukes... this makes it easier for him to catch up by buying more infra/tech

[Blacky]

No, the guy without nukes can earn about a million more per day than the guy with nukes... this makes it easier for him to catch up by buying more infra/tech

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?

[sayton]

NS should be a measure of your true size, not how much you can swing your military.

Considering I can buy a massive army on a whim, it isn't a good indicator of my strength.

Now, if military actually took time to assemble then I would be in favor of higher NS for military.

for example, you may only purchase up to 10% of your tanks per day... or drafting your full military takes three days or something. That would make sense because building up military would take time and deter you from infra growth.

However, with military as it current is.. a toggle switch... having a high NS based on it makes little sense.

Nukes are a good example here. You can only buy one nuke per day, which makes them a good symbol of strength. They indicate that you maintained a high strength for almost an entire month... not a swing.

agree about increasing military NS then... BUT it would make wars VERY difficult then.. so i dont really favor it..

[elginrocks]

I dropped about 8 NS holy crap nice lol better get more nukes

[Ceremony]

I dropped 25 ranks or so. Still within the top 100, so I'm not complaining...too much. (now #79 which may change if more people log in and freak out)

I suspect a lot of GPA people rose in ranks, since they had no military to begin with, and all those nations which were ranked above them purely due to military now fell below.

It'll be interesting to see the effect on alliance score (OG dropped from 8.89 to 8.32, while NPO dropped from 63.55 to 59.35 (damn...) Looking forward to the Great Sanction Race update

Edited April 16, 2008 by Ceremony

[agafaba]

Thank you admin... the NS drop lowered my bills

(as in, less NS from military means your tech is more effective at lowering infra bills)

Regardless of the time to get nukes, I will make more money for less... this is good.

[Blacky]

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.

[SynthFG]

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.

Manhattan Project ?

And as has been said buying and maintaining nukes costs a fortune, especially if you don't have the Nuclear Power Station wonder,

Nations with lower Infra and no nukes should catch up very quickly

Remember a large nation may make more in cash, but infra purchase cost and upkeep is also massively increased so the base amount of infra they can purchase each day is less when compared with a non nuclear nation with the same trade setup, after the penalties from owning nukes are added in

ergo the small nation will grow faster

[Blacky]

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.

[magicninja]

I love it. Since I keep my military at minimum unless doing some combat I went from around 36k to around 40k. From 6% to #%.

Muahahahahahahahaha!

[Blacky]

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.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Blacky

[Ch33kY]

No, the guy without nukes can earn about a million more per day than the guy with nukes... this makes it easier for him to catch up by buying more infra/tech

You probably haven't reached that level then, otherwise you would know that when your nation is big enough to buy nukes 1 million a day in infra, while helpful, recieves a lot less NS than the nuke it could have bought.

[Meer Republic]

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.

It takes a 167 days to save up for a MP by your figures right, I'm guessing most of the nuclear nations are fairly old right? Should we just reset the game everytime a new nation wants to join because otherwise they'll have to play catch up?

The fact is a nation that's been here for 600+ days will be bigger than a nation that's been here 300 days more often than not. You also ignore that a nation with 4999+ infra which I would say would be the minimum to even think about nukes would be making 3(ish) million profit a day so say around 1 month of pure saving for a MP. Rather than 167 days.

All the people who are whining just seem to want everything on a plate and want it now!

[Blacky]

It takes a 167 days to save up for a MP by your figures right, I'm guessing most of the nuclear nations are fairly old right? Should we just reset the game everytime a new nation wants to join because otherwise they'll have to play catch up?

The fact is a nation that's been here for 600+ days will be bigger than a nation that's been here 300 days more often than not. You also ignore that a nation with 4999+ infra which I would say would be the minimum to even think about nukes would be making 3(ish) million profit a day so say around 1 month of pure saving for a MP. Rather than 167 days.

All the people who are whining just seem to want everything on a plate and want it now!

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)

[Steelrat]

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.

You are wrong, get your math correct. IT IS between 610k and 1m per day.

Assuming both nations have the same setup, one with 20nukes one with 0. Both have 3BG with Uranium.

The nation with nukes suffer through nuke upkeep: 290k

The nation with nukes suffer due to lost income of Uran

Reduces infrastructure upkeep cost -3%. Allow nations to develop nuclear weapons only if that nations government preference supports nuclear weapons. If a nations government preference favors nuclear technology for the use of nuclear power plants but does not support nuclear weapons then the nation will receive +$3.00 per citizen and +$0.15 for every level of tech purchased up to level 30 but loses -1 population happiness. If a nation owns nuclear weapons but does not have uranium the cost to maintain nukes is doubled.

means loosing "+$3.00 per citizen and +$0.15 for every level of tech purchased up to level 30 but loses " equals: +7.5$, now do the math, count in modifier, tax rate.

Leads to (with 30% tax rate)

• 6k Infra (70k citiziens) it´s roughly 330k, sums up to ~620k more income per day, 18.3m per month
  
• 7k Infra (80k citiziens) it´s roughly 370k, sums up to ~660k more income per day, 19.8m per month
  
• 8k Infra (90k citiziens) it´s roughly 420k, sums up to ~710k more income per day, 21.3m per month
  until
  
• 12k Infra (with 140k citizens) it´s roughly 650k, sums up 940k more income per day, 28.2m per month
  

Got it now? If you aren´t able to get into the 5% mark you are doing something wrong.

You argumenting with wars too. Now that is funny what have wars to do with your chances to get into the 5%. If you are at war you will suffer anyway so better avoid it or deal with it.

Side note:

If you are going into a nuclear war you should have MP anyway, especially between 6k and 8k infra as you will drop out the 5% anyway, so your argumenting is complety flawed as you would have dropped out of the 5% mark under the old system aswell.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Steelrat