NEW NATION strength calculations

[Blacky]

The change hasn't made it any easier or harder for a small nation to grow into nuclear range.

: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

[myruler]

Making it harder to purchase nukes is good. It may not be good for individuals close to the line, but those that have played the game realize that less nations with nukes is a good thing. They can damage a nation very much and now it takes skill to get a weapon that does that for you. It is good for the game.

[Blacky]

There was just as much screaming and shouting after the amount of NS tech received was adjusted. There were predications that it would totally destroy the tech market. Well, that certainly hasn't happened, if anything the tech market is more robust than ever.

*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.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Blacky

[Drai]

If left the way it is though. This will be one of the worst updates in CN history.

That is a very subjective viewpoint as you have already seen a number of nations who like the change. Though I can see your point, and I do think it is slightly harder to get into the top 5%, I don't believe it's as hard as you're making it out to be.

[SynthFG]

: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

Personally I was tank heavy so despite having 20 nukes lost about 4k in total NS,

Do remember when I hit top 5% through growth being military light I found despite having +15% pop and +8 happiness from 5 ongoing events that buying 30 Infra and 1 nuke a day I was still needing to add a few more soldiers and tanks each day to stay top 5% as every other bugger was doing the same thing, and thinking this couldn't be right

With the changes a nation breaking into the top 5% deserves to be there

It's now a given that non nuclear nations with the best trade setups will outgrow both those who maintain big armies and those lugging nukes along,

Also note that before the recent changes the NS requirement for Nukes had shot form 27,000 at the time of the technology change (20-5) to it's current level in the last 4-5 months,

As said before the main factor in this inflation is the current period of stability,

The only thing that will bring an end to this is the next full on GW

Edited April 17, 2008 by SynthFG

[Count Rupert]

*Blacky facepalms.

This is a discussion, that was hardly called for.

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.

Even without the changes to uncapping tech for combat and the increase in tech needed for aircraft, it would not have destroyed the tech market. Afterall, even at 5 NS per point, it's still the most efficient means of adding NS. And besides trying to crack the 5% barrier for nukes, there is the drive to be one of the best nations in the game if not the top nation in the game. That was fueling a lot of the tech before the tech change and would have continued after even without the other changes that occurred three days later. That has the effect of pulling others up as nations under them strive to keep in range and those under them. The tech market would have still prospered, maybe not to the point it has today, but certainly at the same level it was at before the tech change. All I was trying to illustrate is every time a major change is made there is a loud outcry. It's only later that nations begin to adjust to the new realities and realize things weren't as bad as they thought they were going to be.

[Mirreille]

Blacky, what did you think of the suggestion of requiring everyone to buy a Manhatten Project to get nukes? That sounds drastic, but might be fairer overall. Of course you would not touch the nukes that already exist, but it really does force a commitment if you want to become a nuclear power under that condition. It's an interesting idea I think.

[Bob Janova]

Yes, it is harder to get nukes now. You need to be in the top 5% of the game. Which is as it was meant to be. The ability to temporarily militarise from 8-10% to buy nukes, and shed that military at bill paying time, was a exploit in my opinion, and it is good that it is gone. If Admin wanted 10% of nations to get nukes, the line would be 10%, not 5%.

A nation with 20 nukes loses $290k per day for the upkeep, plus $7.50 base income per citizen, plus two environment points. A nation at 4999 infra makes around $600k more if it has no nukes, enough to buy 20 tech (100 NS) on the open market, so it will take 40 days to catch a nuclear nation. (Nations at this size do not make enough that their slots are filled with tech all the time.) I think that is a fair balance between nukes being a 'closed shop' and there being a fair representation of the strength of nukes – a 3000 infra nation with nukes will defeat a 5000 infra nation without, which would be at least a 6000 NS gap.

Nukes can't be compared to tech over 300 in the old system, as nukes do have a value. Having 20 nukes makes you much stronger in combat than having 10 nukes: you can nuke for longer, and if SDIs are involved you have a much higher probability of getting a nuke through before you run out.

[Logan]

You guys are assuming that larger nations never get beat down or leave. I remember when I first started playing I never thought I would get in the top 5% and I did! Then in UJW I got beat down from 5.6k infra to 2k, and look I'm in the top 3% again! Isn't it amazing how being a good Nation Leader can affect the growth of your nation? Oh yeah not to mention I have aided out 10's of millions of dollars.

[Noob Cake]

I mean I am pretty decent sized nation at 0.3%, I still have MP.

Nothing matters when you have a HUGE warchest + MP. Soldiers/tank doesn't mean crap.

[Blacky]

Personally I was tank heavy so despite having 20 nukes lost about 4k in total NS

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.

Blacky, what did you think of the suggestion of requiring everyone to buy a Manhatten Project to get nukes? That sounds drastic, but might be fairer overall.

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.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Blacky

[Count Rupert]

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.

Since these numbers have been constantly posted throughout this thread, I took a little time to come up with the actual numbers.

First some general at large numbers:

There are a total of 2,410 nations in the game with at least 1 nuke. Of this number, 1128 have 20 or more nukes with 95 having 25 nukes.

There are 158 nations with the Hidden Nuclear Silo and 237 with the Manhattan Project.

Numbers for the top 5%

The top 5% consists of 1575 nations based on 31,193 (yes it's 15 over but all those nations show as 5%). The nuke line is at 36,206.397.

Out of the 1575 nations in the top 5%, 155 have no nukes at all, 375 nations have less than 20 nukes which leave 1045 nations with 20 or more nukes, 85 who have 25 nukes.

This means 83 nations received the nuke NS boost of 3000 NS and it didn't help them stay in or rejoin the top 5%.

[Blacky]

Since these numbers have been constantly posted throughout this thread, I took a little time to come up with the actual numbers.

There are a total of 2,410 nations in the game with at least 1 nuke. Of this number, 1128 have 20 or more nukes with 95 having 25 nukes.

There are 158 nations with the Hidden Nuclear Silo and 237 with the Manhattan Project. (irrelevant)

Numbers for the top 5%

The top 5% consists of 1575 nations based on 31,193 (yes it's 15 over but all those nations show as 5%). The nuke line is at 36,206.397.

Out of the 1575 nations in the top 5%, 155 have no nukes at all, 375 nations have less than 20 nukes which leave 1045 nations with 20 or more nukes, 85 who have 25 nukes.

This means 83 nations received the nuke NS boost of 3000 NS and it didn't help them stay in or rejoin the top 5%.

Errrr....

You're saying something which everybody already knows.

Regardless of whether or not 83 nations of 1,128 nations have been able to rejoin the top 5% it still makes it harder for everybody else to get in the top 5%.

So basically you just wasted all that time to prove something, which shows nothing, and confirms what I'm saying. Those 83 nations who are not even in nuke range (with 20 nukes) shows that they've been awarded for a past game mechanic, and now everyone else not nuclear (and below the line) is punished for their actions.

Thanks for proving my point with actual numbers. It's very useful. (Refer to my theoretical example above of the effect)

Edited April 18, 2008 by Blacky

[Noob Cake]

Generally, I am in support of an remap of the nuke system;

As CN grows, in general it becomes harder for newer nations to move into the top 5%. Its a sort of an issue with starting point; you cannot hope that a 0 day nation will catch up to a 750 day one (but the 0 day nation should not catch up anyways). The argument that you could get into the 5% is very valid, but we should give newer nations a easier path to nuclear weapons. (Clearly, I am not advocating giving more than 5% of the CN population a chance to buy nuke)

However, I believe CN needs to adapt the LW system of nuke buying, where a very high infra and/or tech barrier [on the magnitude of 6500 infra and 1500 tech or 2000 tech] (fixed, instead of the ever increasing NS) should be used. A fixed rate of growth is incompatible with the ever increasing nuke barrier. However this system can run into major problems in the future as average NS in the game rises dramatically.

Fun fact: average NS has doubled since GW II (for sanctioned alliances), despite numerous wars, and two NS nerfs. (Heh, this NS nerf is mild compared to the last one, it caused like 400 nations to have 49-51k NS.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Noob Cake

[Blacky]

Generally, I am in support of an remap of the nuke system;

As CN grows, in general it becomes harder for newer nations to move into the top 5%. Its a sort of an issue with starting point; you cannot hope that a 0 day nation will catch up to a 750 day one (but the 0 day nation should not catch up anyways). The argument that you could get into the 5% is very valid, but we should give newer nations a easier path to nuclear weapons. (Clearly, I am not advocating giving more than 5% of the CN population a chance to buy nuke)

However, I believe CN needs to adapt the LW system of nuke buying, where a very high infra and/or tech barrier [on the magnitude of 6500 infra and 1500 tech or 2000 tech] (fixed, instead of the ever increasing NS) should be used. A fixed rate of growth is incompatible with the ever increasing nuke barrier. However this system can run into major problems in the future as average NS in the game rises dramatically.

Fun fact: average NS has doubled since GW II (for sanctioned alliances), despite numerous wars, and two NS nerfs. (Heh, this NS nerf is mild compared to the last one, it caused like 400 nations to have 49-51k NS.

This man is intelligent. I support this idea wholeheartedly.

[Count Rupert]

Errrr....

You're saying something which everybody already knows.

Regardless of whether or not 83 nations of 1,128 nations have been able to rejoin the top 5% it still makes it harder for everybody else to get in the top 5%.

So basically you just wasted all that time to prove something, which shows nothing, and confirms what I'm saying. Those 83 nations who are not even in nuke range (with 20 nukes) shows that they've been awarded for a past game mechanic, and now everyone else not nuclear (and below the line) is punished for their actions.

Thanks for proving my point with actual numbers. It's very useful. (Refer to my theoretical example above of the effect)

The numbers you've been using were 20-40% larger than actual though, a bit high margin of error for "something which everybody knows". And you read something in my mind I don't know was there. I didn't do the exercise to prove something as you put it, I did it so we knew what the numbers really were. I made no claim that they proved anything.

QUOTE (Blacky @ Apr 17 2008, 09:48 PM)

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.

I don't know that the numbers support your contention that this is the worst update ever. It achieved what admin wanted, which was to stop the use of military to obtain nukes and force players to grow into the 5% more honestly or buy the Manhattan Project. Is it slightly harder to get into the top 5% now with the change? Definitely if you were expecting to pop into the top 5% using your military from the 12%. Those developing into it probably not as much. It's supposed to be hard. If anything the numbers support the contention that there was a lot of the buffing up to climb into the top 5% to only fall away at some point. There are 1010 nations outside the top 5% and over half don't have the maximum number of nukes which shows just how fluid the line was due to the practice of using military to achieve NS.

I still don't see the problem, if you don't want to develop your way into the top 5% because it's too hard, you have the option of buying the Manhattan Project. I've seen your claim on forgoing economic development is too high a price. Well, that's really up to the individual players, but if $100 million of development will not get them into the top 5% (which conventional wisdom says it will at the moment for nations around the 5k jump), then buying the Manhattan Project will be a bargain. You're past the 5k jump so you're already starting to experience what those ahead of you already know, that at the high levels of infrastructure, that $100 million doesn't buy much economic development due to the increasing upkeep on the infrastructure. At some point the new citizens gained simply don't make enough to cover the increased costs of upkeep. So right now, nations will probably continue to grow into the 5%. As the line moves upward though, the Manhattan Project will become more and more viable as an alternative.

[Blacky]

I don't know that the numbers support your contention that this is the worst update ever. It achieved what admin wanted, which was to stop the use of military to obtain nukes and force players to grow into the 5% more honestly

Right, it did that my making it easier for nations who dishonestly got into the top 5% more secure and in a better situation than nations who chose to take the honest route.

It was perfectly honest militarising to get into the top 5%, it harmed nobody, and it broke no rules. So I dislike you calling it dishonest. But for the sake of attacking your argument, I'll use your definitions.

Is it slightly harder to get into the top 5% now with the change? Definitely if you were expecting to pop into the top 5% using your military from the 12%.

You're going to give me an aneurysm, seriously, please just stop if you're pretending to be this clueless.

It is MUCH harder, for nations who were NOT in the the 12%, but infact it has possibly effected nations legitimately in the top 5% or nations that would be in the future.

This isn't even a point of contention it's just plane fact. Look at the theoretical example, and the two real examples I've posted in the past.

I still don't see the problem, if you don't want to develop your way into the top 5% because it's too hard, you have the option of buying the Manhattan Project.

It wouldn't be hard if the value of 20 nukes who are at the threshold didn't just gain a 9% increase in Nation Strength. Now would it?

Edited April 18, 2008 by Blacky

[sayton]

why is everyone fighting.. we should all holds hands and sing kumbaya lol

*holds peoples hands next to him* *kumbaya my lord.. kumbaya!!!*

[TheDave]

Black. I am at 2.1% I have NO nukes I have lost 2,000NS as a result of the change. I WAS at 2.3%

I GAINED places despite having no nukes. Despite having no nukes and being surreounded by nuclear capable nations. YOU need to understand what you are talking about.

As has been pointed out already - your 1200-1400 figure is well off.

Edited April 18, 2008 by TheDave

[kswiss2783]

The only "fair" solution would be to remove the 5% requirement entirely, and make a Manhattan Project the only way to become nuclear capable.

Life isn't fair. I spent a good amount if time to get into the top 5% when I first started, and to see that requirement vanish would simply be wrong.

[Viluin]

Black. I am at 2.1% I have NO nukes I have lost 2,000NS as a result of the change. I WAS at 2.3%

I GAINED places despite having no nukes. Despite having no nukes and being surreounded by nuclear capable nations. YOU need to understand what you are talking about.

As has been pointed out already - your 1200-1400 figure is well off.

You gained places because the people above you had large armies and you did not. The NS requirement for nukes, with a peacetime military, has gone up about 5k. That's 5k extra NS you need to get via infrastructure and tech purchases. Not only that, but the NS requirement will only go up over time.

It most certainly is a lot harder to gain nukes now.

EDIT:

Life isn't fair. I spent a good amount if time to get into the top 5% when I first started, and to see that requirement vanish would simply be wrong.

Why? You got your free nuclear capability already. To me, it just sounds like you don't want any changes to be made to this game that may have a negative impact on you.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Viluin

[Compstomper]

I'm not near the oldest nation in the game. I have lost roughly 5k infra, been through every GW including a few smaller conflicts, and sent out over 800+ million in aid to nations while I have received none. I have had nukes most of the time since I was 6.5k NS. I also own 20 nukes and I don't have as many wonders as most nations do. I have only been doing donations to my nation for about the last year. I have never LC swapped or done anything of the such. On the rare occasions I have had events they are usually bad ones. In this most recent update I lost over 10k NS.

Yet, I still rank 118.

It is not even close to impossible to grow into the top 5%.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Compstomper

[SlayerX46]

It is MUCH harder, for nations who were NOT in the the 12%, but infact it has possibly effected nations legitimately in the top 5% or nations that would be in the future.

You really make this sound like it's such a terrible thing. Nukes are supposed to be hard to acquire. Also, what would having an increase in nuclear nations do for anyone? They're just about outlawed in every aspect of the game, except dealing with nuclear rogues.

And I have a similar situation to Compstomper's. I am ranked 130 and have ZERO nukes, yet I continue to gain ranks. It's not so impossible as you make it seem. If you really want nukes that badly, then simply be better than the other nations. It is a competition, so stop complaining that other people are better at the game than others.

[kswiss2783]

You gained places because the people above you had large armies and you did not. The NS requirement for nukes, with a peacetime military, has gone up about 5k. That's 5k extra NS you need to get via infrastructure and tech purchases. Not only that, but the NS requirement will only go up over time.

It most certainly is a lot harder to gain nukes now.

EDIT:

Why? You got your free nuclear capability already. To me, it just sounds like you don't want any changes to be made to this game that may have a negative impact on you.

How was it free? I spent tons of cash on infra, way before massive aidings of new nations was common.

[Blacky]

And I have a similar situation to Compstomper's. I am ranked 130 and have ZERO nukes, yet I continue to gain ranks. It's not so impossible as you make it seem. If you really want nukes that badly, then simply be better than the other nations. It is a competition, so stop complaining that other people are better at the game than others.

When did I even state this has anything to do with my nation? And how am I complaining. I really hope for your own sake you're trolling because your argument is fundamentally lacking in every conceivable way. Infact it's painful to watch really.

To deal with your point, where you used yourself as an example, wow, you proved something didn't you?

No. You proved nothing.

I didn't say it would be harder for a nation ranked 130 to get nukes. Neither did I say it would be difficult for such a nation to gain ranks.

What I did say was it would be harder for nations who have not yet, or were only by a small margin passed the nuclear threshold. If you looked at my example, it clearly showed the gap which will exist between nuclear nations and non nuclear nations. Where a non-nuclear nation will need to not only "catch up", with infrastructure, tech, land, etc. But they will now need to gain more NS than the extra 3,000 added by nukes.

So again to show the effects this has on nations getting into the threshold:

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?

Edited April 18, 2008 by Blacky