NEW NATION strength calculations

[enderland]

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?

How much stronger is Y than Z in a 1 v 1 war? Significantly. At least 3k NS (which equates to 1000 infrastructure or 600 tech)? Definitely. I will fight any nation 1k infra larger than me without nukes 1v1 and by the end we will be comparable in infrastructure. I will fight any nation 1k in tech larger than me without nukes and by the end, have caused a massive amount more damage.

Nations with nukes are significantly stronger than those without them, regardless of how many tanks or soldiers or cruise missiles or planes you have at any given time.

Therefore, this change makes sense to better represent nation strength.

Case closed.

If you want to argue anything continue to argue that the requirements are unfair. But stop basing your argument of Nation Strength because Nation Strength is now MORE accurate than it has ever been.

[SlayerX46]

Thanks for only addressing the second half of my post. The main point was that making it harder for more nations to get nukes is not a bad thing in any way. Nukes are the most powerful weapon in the game and thusly should be reserved only to those larger few nations.

Addressing your edit: Since when is it wrong to have to work towards the top level of the game? I do agree with you that the people just below the 5% line may have gotten stiffed, but in time it will level itself back out. This happens with all updates. For example: When technology was reduced from 20 NS/pt to 5 NS/pt the nations that were very tech heavy suddenly were reduced significantly in NS. However, people changed their strategies to accommodate for the update and in the end it all worked out.

[Blacky]

How much stronger is Y than Z in a 1 v 1 war? Significantly. At least 3k NS (which equates to 1000 infrastructure or 600 tech)? Definitely. I will fight any nation 1k infra larger than me without nukes 1v1 and by the end we will be comparable in infrastructure. I will fight any nation 1k in tech larger than me without nukes and by the end, have caused a massive amount more damage.

Nations with nukes are significantly stronger than those without them, regardless of how many tanks or soldiers or cruise missiles or planes you have at any given time.

Therefore, this change makes sense to better represent nation strength.

Case closed.

If you want to argue anything continue to argue that the requirements are unfair. But stop basing your argument of Nation Strength because Nation Strength is now MORE accurate than it has ever been.

I do not believe you just argued that point. But nevertheless I'll take this victory you handed to me in a platter.

In a 1 v 1 war, of these two nations which will have an advantage? Obviously Y, because Y has 20 nukes. So not only can Y continue to fire nukes at Z. But because of the new NS advantage Y will be able to buy-up to 20 nukes again. Even though the Z started with an infra advantage, Z still can't buy nukes. So because of this update, Y has been put in a position where the only way for Z to get into the 5% threshold is by hundreds of days of chasing Y's shadow (hopefully not being caught into a war in that time) or having X declare war on Y.

In reality, this update screws over all the Z's on Planet Bob. (Z = nations not in the top 5% at the moment and without nukes.)

Edited April 18, 2008 by Blacky

[Count Rupert]

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.

Whoa, where did I say it was dishonest, I said the more honest route. No one questions whether you broke the rules if you use an exploit or loophole in a game or not, it's technically allowed, ie within the rules, but by using it you do skirt the intent or letter of the rules. The use of military in this fashion and in attacking bordered on an exploit. The fact that it has been closed would support that contention. That's all I was alluding to. There were many nations that didn't use military to make the top 5%. Those that did, fine, it was within the rules (and now it's not) and I have no problem with that or consider it dishonest.

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.

The fact is, it's not much harder. The nuke line before the change was at around 37,300 NS and now it's at 36,206. So the nuke line moved downward by around 1000 NS. Any nation who was growing into the the top 5% and had minimum military only lost about 1000 NS, so their relative psoition to the nuke line remains unchanged. Unchanged, that means they have just as much change of growing into the top 5% as they had before the change. The only ones affected are those who used their military to get into the top 5%. But they too have the same relative position they held before using their military based on their NS at minimum military.

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.

Okay let's look at the theoretical example.

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.

How it is relevant at all? You cherry pick a set of statics to prove your point. And apply them to the broader picture as if the set of "facts" you setup apply to everyone equally. I could just as easily provide an example that proves the opposite. Fact is you overstated the actual changes possible to make your case. You applied 3000 NS to nation X when it's virtually impossible for him to have gained 3000 NS from the change (unless he were in anarchy with absolutely no soldiers). Let's assume X has the minimum soldiers needed to stay out of anarchy, roughly 15,000 soldiers. That translates to 1500 NS before the change and 300 after. So he lost 1200 NS in the exchange. So the best he could have done was gain 1800 NS not 3000 as you imply which laces him at 40,800 NS not 42,000 NS. That's for the best case scenario, the vast majority of nations with nukes lost NS overall and have lower NS than they had before the changes occurred. The 3000 NS gain from having 20 nukes meant they simply didn't lose as much as they would have otherwise. I lost 10k NS even with the 20 nukes. Further you assume because he was at the 5% threshold that he would continue to maintain at 5%. But the top 5% isn't based on just his nation, there are nations above him who were there based on maxing military who would have dropped out of the top 5%, moving the line downward (which is what happened for the nuke line to drop 1000 NS). If X represents the nuke line before the change as you seem to imply, then he moved up in the ranks and was no longer at 5% since we know the nuke line shifted downward by 1000 NS from before the change making new nuke line after the change, 38,000 NS, not as you are implying 42,000 NS. So Z isn't competing to past X, he's competing against A which based on your example (X being the original nuke line) and what actually happened (nuke line dropping by 1000 NS) with the nuke line is at 38,000 NS.

You have understated Y's NS even without accounting for soldiers. The tanks themselves were worth 5000 NS before the change and 1000 NS after the change. So Y lose 4000 NS and gained back 3000 NS for having 20 nukes. That means he only lost 1000 NS and not the 2000 NS you're charging him with. That puts him at 37,999 in the exact same relative position to the nuke line now at 38,000 NS as he was before.

You understated Z's NS even without accounting for soldiers. The tanks themselves are worth 5000 NS before the change and 1000 NS after the change. That means he lost 4000 NS not the 5000 NS you're charging him with meaning he's at 34,998 compared to the nuke line of 38,000 NS. No where near the 42,000 to 33,998 differential you suggest. And if we look at his relative position before the change in regard to the nuke line of 39,000 without maxing troops, he's at 33,998 compared to 39,000. And after the change, he's still at 33,998 compared to the nuke line of 38,000. So his position as regards growing into the top 5% actually improved (technically since you didn't include soldiers, at minimum he basically stayed the same relative to the nuke line). The only thing he lost is the ability to use military to speed up the process. That's the only thing harder about it, he has to actually develop his nation to get his nukes instead of instant gratification through military. He can still go the Manhattan Project if he feels the top 5% is unobtainable.

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?

Well, I think you'll find most of those sitting around the threshold, either were there by using their military and are no longer there, or don't have 20 nukes yet. So it's by no means all those nations receiving a 9% increase. There were a quite a few nations who improving their ranking and entered the top 5% from the changes and bought their first nuke. And some of these will drop out as others close to the line spend the swap collection they just collected and leapfrog them. Your contention may be more correct in terms of pentrating say the top 3.5% but around the line has always been influx and will remain so.

[SlayerX46]

Another hole in your logic, Blacky: The nations with 20 nukes MAY have gained NS due to being relatively non-militarized otherwise. HOWEVER, 20 nukes rack up quite a lot of bills. Therefore, the nations without nukes would be growing more quickly than those with nukes due to having significantly less bills. This would allow them to catch up much more quickly than you seem to be assuming.

[Viluin]

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

You're acting like nuclear capability was the only thing you got from purchasing infra.

The fact is, you got a larger army and a higher daily income. Nations who must now purchase a MP to become nuclear capable within the next year don't get either of those benefits even though they still have to spend a lot of cash on it.

Another hole in your logic, Blacky: The nations with 20 nukes MAY have gained NS due to being relatively non-militarized otherwise. HOWEVER, 20 nukes rack up quite a lot of bills. Therefore, the nations without nukes would be growing more quickly than those with nukes due to having significantly less bills. This would allow them to catch up much more quickly than you seem to be assuming.

This has not changed at all with the update, so I fail to see how it is relevant in this discussion. The fact still remains that nations need to get to 37K NS with just infra/tech purchases, whereas 32K NS + military would've been sufficient before. Not a single non-nuclear nation has gained NS with the update, so every single one of them that was outside of the top 5% has only been knocked down further. Sure, they may have gained a few ranks, but that's all relative. They have been moved further away from the absolute NS goal they need to reach to get into the top 5%, which is all that matters.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Viluin

[Compstomper]

You're acting like nuclear capability was the only thing you got from purchasing infra.

The fact is, you got a larger army and a higher daily income. Nations who must now purchase a MP to become nuclear capable within the next year don't get either of those benefits even though they still have to spend a lot of cash on it.

This has not changed at all with the update, so I fail to see how it is relevant in this discussion. The fact still remains that nations need to get to 37K NS with just infra/tech purchases, whereas 32K NS + military would've been sufficient before. Not a single non-nuclear nation has gained NS with the update, so every single one of them that was outside of the top 5% has only been knocked down further. Sure, they may have gained a few ranks, but that's all relative. They have been moved further away from the absolute NS goal they need to reach to get into the top 5%, which is all that matters.

They may not have gained NS but some did gain rank.

[Viluin]

They may not have gained NS but some did gain rank.

I already explained why that didn't matter. Sure, you may have moved from 10% to 9% but if the guys at 6% have a higher NS than what was required for nukes before the update it doesn't matter.

37K base NS now vs. 32K base + military before the update. It's pretty obvious which one is harder to reach.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Viluin

[Compstomper]

It is not harder to get into nuke ranger but rather it just takes a bit longer.

[Viluin]

It is not harder to get into nuke ranger but rather it just takes a bit longer.

That's what I'd call harder, especially because making the 5k jump is pretty much a requirement now and everything slows down after 5k.

[enderland]

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.

Ok. Here's the only thing that this thread really addresses "worthy" of addressing is this point. Whether or not artificial strength inflation made it easier to buy nukes is obvious: of course it did. Not everyone with nukes (and in fact a lot of them did not) carried a full military, which meant that any nation near the 5% mark (in the 6-7% range or even further away) without a full military could fairly easily jump the percentages with the purchase of nukes.

The only reason this worked was that many of the larger nations who were either near 5% did not have their full militaries.

You say this strategy harmed nobody, broke no rules? The entire point of NS (you can look up the explanation if you like) is NOT to be a quantity that varies +/- 20%. It is intended to be a representation of your nation strength. Period. Being able to jump 10k NS simply by spending 1,000,000 is completely not the intent of nation strength.

Second, this addresses the idea of "Top 5%." There is no point to making the range the Top 5% if nations two, three, or even much more outside that range can randomly be a part of it, then sink back down to no longer be in it. If the intent was to allow nukes to be that freely available then there most definitely would have been different restrictions for purchasing nukes.

Jumping as many percent in the nation rankings that were allowed under the old system clearly was not working in the desired manner.

For those of you complaining about the economic cost of 100 million to purchase nukes via the Manhattan Project, tough. I have been suffering roughly 600k loss daily for about a year now (not to mention the initial cost of the nukes, somewhere around 20 million each of the four times I have purchased full nuke arsenals). That is far greater than the value I would have now had I put that first 100 million into a MP.

So this is almost gratifying for me (a nation who, starting at 3999 infra and now at 4999) who has ALWAYS had max nukes and an uranium trade to help with allowing access to them. Finally, I have a return for all that money I have invested, both literally and indirectly, in maintaining my nuclear stockpile. Nations who were sitting at 4999 infra with no nukes made significantly more than me and now are suffering the consequences. Tough luck. If you had simply bought the nukes when you had the chance (and increased the 'strength' of your nation) then you would have them. You chose to go the more peaceful route, the less strengthening route, and now, after about a year or so of getting away with it, are finally starting to pay the price. Tough luck. I have NO sympathy for nations in the 6k infra range who are now unable to get nukes because their NS dropped enough. If you didn't deem it worthwhile to get nuclear weapons prior to this change, don't come crying to me about how unfair it is that you can no longer buy nukes at your whim.

Is it true that for a new nation it will be more difficult to buy nukes? No. There is this really cool indestructible wonder called the Manhattan Project. No matter how poorly you play your nation (within reason XD), eventually you would be able to purchase it and buy nukes. This means that any nation reaching 3999 infra essentially can buy start buying nukes in roughly 30 days (I assume most nations net at least 2-3 million a day after bills in this range, this might vary depending on trades/improvements/other wonders/etc.

Any of these nations who have been affected who really want them can have max nukes in a maximum of 50 days from right now.

Guaranteed. Stop complaining.

[TheDave]

Right. This is the last post I am going to make in this topic, I would far rather spend my time introducing my head to the proverbial brick wall.

Nations have gained 3000NS for having 20 nukes.

5% NS strength has dropped

That can only mean that nations lost more than 3000NS from their military.

Therefore many of the top 5% was already maxed out on military.

You wouldn't have caught them maxing out on military (or you would have and been nuke capable and we wouldnt be hearing you whinge)

So, as is fair, you have to catch them on real, genuine economic growth rather than a massively false strength rating that has been fixed.

I have NO sympathy for nations in the 6k infra range who are now unable to get nukes because their NS dropped enough. If you didn't deem it worthwhile to get nuclear weapons prior to this change, don't come crying to me about how unfair it is that you can no longer buy nukes at your whim.

Thread could have been 10+ pages shorter if this was said sooner

Edited April 18, 2008 by TheDave

[TheDave]

was supposed to edit above post

Edited April 18, 2008 by TheDave

[Compstomper]

^ What a wonderful post.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Compstomper

[Blacky]

So, as is fair, you have to catch them on real, genuine economic growth rather than a massively false strength rating that has been fixed.

I'll let evidence speak louder than words. Which of these nations legitimately deserves to be in the top 5%?

Nukes:

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=117602

No Nukes:

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=62458

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=87712

(Just randomly selected nations)

Also, "catching up", is not enough. As you can see the nations with no nukes are already ahead. Or, they would be had it not been for this update. The 4,000 NS advantage from nukes is a flawed design.

[Azaghul]

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.

I think I get what is happening. You are one of those people who thinks that the more people that can do stuff the better, as your wanting to change the limit to top 10% implies. You don't seem to get that nukes ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXCLUSIVE. And why should we wipe all existing nukes? Will I get a 20 million refund for my 20 nukes?

With wars, the significant economic penalty of holding nukes, and the fact that most top 5% players don't have full tech deals, getting into top 5% competing with those who have that NS advantage from nukes isn't that hard.

[Count Rupert]

I'll let evidence speak louder than words. Which of these nations legitimately deserves to be in the top 5%?

Nukes:

<a href="http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=117602" target="_blank">http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=117602</a>

No Nukes:

<a href="http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=62458" target="_blank">http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=62458</a>

<a href="http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=87712" target="_blank">http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...Nation_ID=87712</a>

(Just randomly selected nations)

Also, "catching up", is not enough. As you can see the nations with no nukes are already ahead. Or, they would be had it not been for this update. The 4,000 NS advantage from nukes is a flawed design.

Well, first, the nation you selected as an example of someone with nukes who probably shouldn't be in the top 5%, isn't in the top 5% any longer which was kind of the point in making the changes.

Second, neither of the nations you selected with no nukes would have been ahead of the nation with prior to the changes despite your statement. Third, the benefit he got from the nukes after the change is only 3000 not 4000 since the nukes were worth 1000 prior to the change. Flawed argument.

Nuke Nation: Current Strength is 36,177.393

He has:

47,840 soldiers, worth prior to the change 4784 NS and now worth 956.8 NS

4700 tanks, worth prior to the change 4700 NS and now worth 940 NS

So his soldiers and tanks were worth 9484 NS and are now worth 1896.8 NS meaning he lost 7587.2 NS due to the change. Subtract out the benefit change in the nukes (7587.2 - 3000) and you get a lost of 4587.2 NS lost from his previous score. So 36,1777.393 + 4587.2 = 40,764.593 NS. So his previous NS was 40,764.593.

First No Nuke Nation: Current Score is 35,466.223

He has:

30,177 soldiers, worth prior to the change 3017.7 NS and now worth 603.54 NS

596 tanks, worth prior to the change 596 NS and now worth 119.2 NS

So his soldiers and tanks were worth 3613.7 NS and are now worth 722.74 NS meaning he lost 2890.94 NS due to the change. So 5,466.223 + 2890.94 = 38,357.183 NS. So his previous NS was 38,357.183.

Second No nuke Nation: Current Score is 31,329.995

He has:

15,000 soldiers, worth prior to the change 1500 NS and now worth 300 NS

So his soldiers were worth 1500 NS and are now worth 300 NS meaning he lost 1200 NS due to the change. So 1,329.995 + 1200 = 32,529.995 NS. So his previous NS was 32,529.995.

So the nuke nation had a NS score of 40,764.593 verses 38,357.183 and 32,529.995 for the no nuke nations respectively. So your example is flawed. You keep comparing nations to a single nation when the proper comparsion is no nuke nations to the nuke line, it's that relationship that is important because it's immaterial whether these two no nukes catch up to this particular nuke nation or not; it's whether they can reach the nuke line or not. And in that situation they're fairly close to where they were before the changes.

First No Nuke Nation was at 38,375.183 NS verses the nuke line at 37,300 NS. At first look we was harmed by the change, however he had slightly over twice the soldiers needed to be at minimum and he had tanks, so roughly he had around 2000 NS extra NS due to the extra military which places him just under the nuke line if we adjust his NS score for this, 36,375.183 verse the nuke line of 37,300. His current score is 35,466.223 verse the nuke line being 36,206. So he's not far off, a little bit moreso if we adjust for the extra military.

Second No Nuke Nation was at 32,529.995 verses the nuke line at 37,300 NS. His current score is 31,329.995 verses the nuke line being at 36,206. Relative position of his nation to the nuke line is almost the same.

The point is, you keep applying that 3000 NS benefit from nukes as if every single nation in the top 5% received it and that is not the case. If it were, the nuke line should have increased by 3000 NS, instead of dropping 1000 NS as it actually did. So whether any particular nation received the bonus or not is not material since the basis for comparsion is whether it is harder to get nukes which is a comparsion of individual nations to the nuke line (what it takes to get nukes). So far, your examples and arguments are coming up short in that department and you continue to offer red herrings by making nation to nation comparsions.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Count Rupert

[Blacky]

Well, first, the nation you selected as an example of someone with nukes who probably shouldn't be in the top 5%, isn't in the top 5% any longer which was kind of the point in making the changes.

Nope, you're completely wrong. Whether or not they're in the top 5%, nations much pass them to get into the top 5%, and that nation is at 5.1%, so a nation equal in every way, except hasn't yet purchased nukes. Will have to gain 4,000 NS to overtake that nation.

Second, neither of the nations you selected with no nukes would have been ahead of the nation with prior to the changes despite your statement. Third, the benefit he got from the nukes after the change is only 3000 not 4000 since the nukes were worth 1000 prior to the change. Flawed argument.

Second, that's completely preposterous. If they so chose to purchase nuclear weapons, they would have easily been in reach of the top 5%, but now, they're BEHIND a nation with more than 1,000 infra below them due to the new changes, which are illogical and benefit nobody.

*snip*

You just went on an on at this point. Regardless of whether or not nations in the top 5% were tank heavy, nations below the line could balance that out by purchasing tanks. And again, the playing field would have been level.

That is simply not the case now. Anyone with an ounce of common sense already knows that. There is no way to be on a level NS field with a nation that has a 4,000 NS advantage even when equal to your nation in every way.

What is the infra requirement of beoming nuclear thanks to this change? It's risen by a few thousand. (I bought mine at 6,000 infra.)

[Syzygy]

lol, the last one making a post here wins?

Sorry, but the change has been suggested, earned widespread support, was a logical betterment of the NS value representing battle-impact and has finally been made.

Deal with it, even if you argue 100 more days how unfair and bad all this is right now, its not going to be changed back, because it was worse before.

Your complete argumentation deals on a hypothetical scenario in which ALL nations ALWAYS grow with the maximum effieciency, importing full slots with tech, getting a donation every month, doing LC switches perfectly and so on.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Ther are MORE THAN ENOUGH nations to overcome if you do a very good job in building yours. There are more than enough guys quitting the game, going rogue or being destroyed in war all the time. There are more than enough guys not even nuclear armed or growing far from perfect in this game.

The statement that it has become almost impossible to get nukes for nations below the 5% range is just one thing: WRONG.

[Blacky]

Sorry, but the change has been suggested, earned widespread support, was a logical betterment of the NS value representing battle-impact and has finally been made.

....

Your complete argumentation deals on a hypothetical scenario in which ALL nations ALWAYS grow with the maximum effieciency, importing full slots with tech, getting a donation every month, doing LC switches perfectly and so on.

I wish it was all that easy but the fact is it's simply not.

Infact you've misunderstood my idea completely. Where I disagree with this change is not in the idea of growth, efficiency, or permanent stability in the upper tiers, meaning it's impossible for newer nations.

What I disagree with is not the NS calculations, those calculations are perfectly acceptable, and shouldn't be any other way, EXCEPT, when you have a system in effect like ours. If you've noticed, my argument was not against the Nation Strength calculation in regards to warring, or NS increase which results in higher Score, or any other such.

Where I disagree is with the production of nuclear weapons. As it is now, only nations in the top 5% or nations willing to sacrifice potentially hundreds of millions of dollars (money which could have been invested in infrastructure with a return, or a NW) to get a MP can aquire nukes. The fundamental flaw is in the idea of a "top 5%" to aquire nukes. If it is required that you attain a higher NS to aquire nukes, (which in itself is illogical), then the nukes should not increase your NS.

UNLESS, a system is in effect where the NS added by nukes does not raise your "percentage" in terms of rank compared to the rest of Planet Bob.

You see that is where the error lies, and this new update compounds on that by further creating a gap between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons which will worsen as time passes by.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Blacky

[Viluin]

I have been suffering roughly 600k loss daily for about a year now (not to mention the initial cost of the nukes, somewhere around 20 million each of the four times I have purchased full nuke arsenals). That is far greater than the value I would have now had I put that first 100 million into a MP.

What? Nations now have to buy a friggin MP AND suffer the 600k/day loss. The loss of daily income you suffered was so that you could nuke the hell out of another nation, which is obviously worth it. It doesn't suddenly give you the right to keep your free nuclear capability.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[Blacky]

What? Nations now have to buy a friggin MP AND suffer the 600k/day loss. The loss of daily income you suffered was so that you could nuke the hell out of another nation, which is obviously worth it. It doesn't suddenly give you the right to keep your free nuclear capability.

*Blacky high fives Viluin

lol, that was epic

Edited April 19, 2008 by Blacky

[Syzygy]

Where I disagree is with the production of nuclear weapons. As it is now, only nations in the top 5% or nations willing to sacrifice potentially hundreds of millions of dollars (money which could have been invested in infrastructure with a return, or a NW) to get a MP can aquire nukes. The fundamental flaw is in the idea of a "top 5%" to aquire nukes. If it is required that you attain a higher NS to aquire nukes, (which in itself is illogical), then the nukes should not increase your NS.

if that is the case, stop arguing against the new NS formula (see thread name), but go to the suggestionbox and suggest a change of the requirements for nuclear purchase.

[Noob Cake]

Wow; some nations are so dense.

This is arguably one of the best balance in the game ever. It is suppose to have NOTHING to do with the nuclear situation. It is just that some people chose to drag this NS change into the realm of nuclear discussion. Artificially inflated NS combined with the 200% war declaration was breaking the game.

Lets drop these moot arguments.

[Blacky]

This is arguably one of the best balance in the game ever. It is suppose to have NOTHING to do with the nuclear situation. It is just that some people chose to drag this NS change into the realm of nuclear discussion. Artificially inflated NS combined with the 200% war declaration was breaking the game.

Actually it does. Anything that effects the NS calculation, effects nuclear weapons. In this case, it does so in a way quite different to any other change to NS. As in this case nuclear weapons are effecting which nations can pass the nuclear threshold. An undesirable system, as only nations with nukes, can thus effect their NS in such a way.

It's a complete system design error. If nukes are going to effect NS, then NS can not effect nukes. It's really common sense. It's like changing the sanction formula to make is as though all existing sanctioned alliances gain +10 score.