Boondock Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 My point is this change effects everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fox Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 My point is this change effects everybody. Obviously it affects everyone, However many people see a positive hit from this, Those with barely any military. So now it would appear that if you have a very weak military you'll be able to climb higher in NS, While those who have a large military simply drop in NS. I don't quite see the logic in it all really, But it's just how I see it really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayton Posted April 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 My point is this change effects everybody. i know.. im just playing with you. .but i know what you mean.. :-D.. it does affect everyonethe same... just affects the nations with tanks and military "more" in a sense.. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I'm so glad people can't inflate on tanks now. I never did it, and now my ranking has risen from around #205 to #96. Thanks admin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 This also makes the Manhattan Project much more appealing for larger nations who are in the 4-6k infra range but not the top 5%. Nice work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 (edited) I dont agree with anyone who says this is a true refelction of NS...a nation without a military is not a strong nation...basically they made a standing army worthless when it comes to describing how strong a nation you are... All this did was separate nuke nations from non-nuke nations even more...so I can buy a bunch of CM's now...and decomm all my tanks..pay the same amount in upkeep...(lower than 50) and my NS doesn't change...my CM's shouldnt matter more than my tanks...trading one for another seems a waste of a change in calculation... why not make improvements/wonders ad more than they do to NS...if all it takes to define a strong nation is the amount of non military assets you have... ADMIn..making the game boring...more military required means more chances to use it... Edited April 15, 2008 by Hakim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I dont agree with anyone who says this is a true refelction of NS...a nation without a military is not a strong nation...basically they made a standing army worthless when it comes to describing how strong a nation you are... When people routinely decom and buy their entire militaries it doesn't really reflect your nation strength, no? If to create soldiers/tanks took a period of time instead of being instantaneous I would agree with you but since you can spawn the maximum sized army possible for your nation instantaneously, it doesn't really reflect anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayton Posted April 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 yes very much so agreed.. i think the items in the game that can be bought and gotten rid of the fastest should be considered the least Ns.. infra.. tech is harder to get therefore they are the most.. thats good.. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I know Im just mad...cause I had hardly any military just enough to keep me out of anarchy..was playing by the old rules..Infra and tech proportionate...had gotten to 5.6% was looking to get my first nuke next week after sled...and then this...and somehow I dropped down to 7.0%. I dont understand it as I had hardly any tanks or soldiers? So why did I drop so much? Just frustration that every time I get close..admin changes the rules..I will get over it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 All I know is that I blame myself for this and the previous update. On both occasions I had crossed 50K NS the day before. The first time, I was knocked down to 32K. This time I went down to about 48K NS. So it's my fault, not admin's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgonV Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Your NS is updated as soon as you log in, right? When I logged in 2 hours ago, a friend of mine was at 12,500 NS. Now, after doing nothing but logging in, he's down to 10,000. So you can't say anything about your new position until 95% of the players have logged in again. Who knows, the guys above you just have a lot of tanks. I'd wait a day or two 'till you draw conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I dont agree with anyone who says this is a true refelction of NS...a nation without a military is not a strong nation...basically they made a standing army worthless when it comes to describing how strong a nation you are... - with 50 CMS you make *for sure* 100 times the damage to your opponent then with any tank number you can maintain. all these tanks are dead on day two and if you are a bit unlucky you even lost all ground battles. A CM is an almost "safe hit" which destroyes between 5 and 15 infra, depending on MDs/Sats of both nations. That 10-30 "safe" damage per day. Tanks NEVER give you that advantage. Even the costs alone justify such a change: 1 CM $20,000, 1 Tank ~$100. Thats a rating of 200:1. But they only give 50x more NS. Could 50tanks to the same damage as 1 CM? Hardly, you must be DAMN lucky to see that. - 20nukes bring 4k NS more. Compared to full airforce, CMs and 100,000 Soldiers/10,000tanks that looks about right. Now how are "weak" or "non nuclear" nations prevented to catch up? These 20nukes make the nations income drop by around a million daily [580k upkeep (290k with uran but you miss the income from uran then), -1 happiness, -3environment]. The non-nuclear nations can invest more cash into land/infra/tech and therefor over time catch up with growth (which is nowadays worth a lot more). This complaint is totally not thought about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 A good change! The decrease in tanks is a little excessive (5000 tanks should be 500-1000 NS, not 100), planes should have been lowered some (plane strength*2), and I would have had nukes increase NS linearly (say, 200 NS per nuke). But overall this is a much better calculation than the previous ones. And insures that getting in the top 5% means you are actually in the top 5%, instead of like it was where getting nukes meant getting in the top 8-10% and maxing out military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Obviously it affects everyone, However many people see a positive hit from this, Those with barely any military. So now it would appear that if you have a very weak military you'll be able to climb higher in NS, While those who have a large military simply drop in NS. I don't quite see the logic in it all really, But it's just how I see it really. Under the former system military was distorting the calculation Emphasising Infra and Tech over how may soldiers and tanks a nation has on hand reflects a much truer picture of comparative nation strength Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 (edited) It's a good change, although CMs increasing in value is an anomaly. A nation can buy an instant hit of CMs and aircraft as well as soldiers and tanks, so they should have been reduced imo. However, overall it makes the NS a much fairer reflection of a nation's actual strength. I dont agree with anyone who says this is a true refelction of NS...a nation without a military is not a strong nation...basically they made a standing army worthless when it comes to describing how strong a nation you are... When you can decom or repurchase your entire military in a day, for a quarter or less of your daily income, that is an entirely expendable commodity and doesn't reflect anything apart from whether you have decided to buy military. Edit: The only slight issue is that 20 nukes give you 4000 NS, which will make it harder for non-nuclear nations to get into the top 5, as they'll need an extra 1300 infra or 800 tech to compensate. But because of the penalties for holding nukes, that will happen surprisingly quickly. Edited April 15, 2008 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavo Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I gained around 4k NS... I think. I did shoot up from like #610 in CN to #408. W00T! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 It's a good change, it actually reflects Nation strength rather than military strength now, there was to much room for manipulation of stats before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Good change. I am quite happy that all those with bloated military to boost their NS, had it blow in their face. And for the record, those who have high military were not discriminated. All that happened is that artificial boost they had has been reduced, so cry all you want . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 No, now it's just become almost impossible for any new nation to get up to nuke level. There will now always be a 4000ns gap. Good job, so much for trying to encourage new nations to join. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 No, now it's just become almost impossible for any new nation to get up to nuke level.There will now always be a 4000ns gap. Good job, so much for trying to encourage new nations to join. You can cry, or read what experts (Syzygy for example) have said. Income penalty from nukes means that any nuclear armed nation will lag in growth behind a non nuclear nation. So non nuclear nations will be able to overtake a nuclear nation. Also, please explain to me how did this hurt you, other then remove an exploit that allowed nations to slide into 5% just to buy nukes. Those at 7% who bought massive amounts of military to buy nukes are not top 5% nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fox Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I don't quite understand people saying this gives a more fair view of how strong a nation is, In reality how strong a nation is is counted by that nations military power, Not how far the have advanced in their infrastructure. Say a nation can house a few milion people, But has no military they would get slaughterd if war should ever be declared on them. Now take another nation, Perhaps a nation that can barely house a milion people, But has a strong military force they would have alot better chance of winning a war than the nation without any military. It just doesn't make any sense to me the way it's calculated now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 (edited) It's a good change, although CMs increasing in value is an anomaly. A nation can buy an instant hit of CMs and aircraft as well as soldiers and tanks, so they should have been reduced imo. However, overall it makes the NS a much fairer reflection of a nation's actual strength. I agree with this. CMs are cheap, so there is not much point holding onto them except for NS inflating purposes. They can be bombed away too, so it is a tossup whether to build them and let your enemies potentially destroy them while paying the maintainence, or just saving X amount of $$ and risking that your enemy will steal it in battle. For something that can be cheaply bought and just tossed at your enemy, I don't see why they should count so much for NS. Unlike planes these are single-shot items. I know the damage is great but I don't see any pressing need to maintain a large number of them except for NS inflating purposes. Can anyone tell me why I should think differently?? Edit: I lost almost a quarter of my NS,because I am very low tech due to tech dealing, and carrying a lot of military to both dissuade raiders and possibly avoid anarchy if I get hit by a lone wolf. I'm perfectly happy with the changes, it both makes a lot more sense, and gets rid of people manipulating their NS to either get nukes or hit people below their normal range. Also it makes the Manhatten Project that much more desireable without changing the wonder itself at all and that is a good thing. People who now think they can't catch up with the 5% crowd will have to pursue that wonder instead. Edited April 15, 2008 by Mirreille Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I don't quite understand people saying this gives a more fair view of how strong a nation is, In reality how strong a nation is is counted by that nations military power, Not how far the have advanced in their infrastructure. Say a nation can house a few milion people, But has no military they would get slaughterd if war should ever be declared on them. Now take another nation, Perhaps a nation that can barely house a milion people, But has a strong military force they would have alot better chance of winning a war than the nation without any military. It just doesn't make any sense to me the way it's calculated now. the point in CN is that you can build a "massive army" with 3 clicks. So if you compare a 3k Infra nation with no soldiers vs a 1.5k infra nation with max soldiers and tanks, the 3k infra nation wipes the floow with the 1.5k infra nation ANY TIME, no matter if it acutally has soldiers or not. It can just buy all the soldiers needed for that within 1 minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I agree with this. CMs are cheap, so there is not much point holding onto them except for NS inflating purposes. They can be bombed away too, so it is a tossup whether to build them and let your enemies potentially destroy them while paying the maintainence, or just saving X amount of $ and risking that your enemy will steal it in battle. For something that can be cheaply bought and just tossed at your enemy, I don't see why they should count so much for NS. Unlike planes these are single-shot items. I know the damage is great but I don't see any pressing need to maintain a large number of them except for NS inflating purposes. Can anyone tell me why I should think differently?? well Airforce and CMs cost as significantly amount of cash and are almost "safe hits" on your enemy, what ground forces are not. and 500NS are not a "significant" boost for any nation which is able to afford 50CMs. Same for airforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I don't quite understand people saying this gives a more fair view of how strong a nation is, In reality how strong a nation is is counted by that nations military power, Not how far the have advanced in their infrastructure. Say a nation can house a few milion people, But has no military they would get slaughterd if war should ever be declared on them. Now take another nation, Perhaps a nation that can barely house a milion people, But has a strong military force they would have alot better chance of winning a war than the nation without any military. It just doesn't make any sense to me the way it's calculated now. In reality a nation can't build and dismiss a massive army overnight. As for people complaining about nukes just buy a manhattan project that's what it's for. If you can't afford to save up and build one you obviously can't afford and sustain a nuclear stockpile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.