NEW NATION strength calculations

[enderland]

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.

Then buy a Manhattan Project.

Problem solved?

[Viluin]

Then buy a Manhattan Project.

Problem solved?

So new nations should be forced to buy a Manhattan Project if they want to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time, when you get free nuclear capability just because you're older and bigger?

The NS requirement for nukes is only going up. Soon, it will be 40k.. 45k.. 50k.. Any new nation joining at that time has no choice but to buy a Manhattan project, or they might get caught up in a nuclear war with no nukes of their own. You, on the other hand, still get free nuclear capability.

Think about it. One infra level will allow you to buy ~10 extra soldiers and ~1 extra tank. Before this update, 1 infra effectively increased your NS by 3 plus an average of 2 potential NS. That's 5 NS per infra level. Now this has been reduced to a tiny bit over 3 NS per infra level. It's going to take significantly longer to get into the top 5%, and eventually it will take too long before you can buy nukes this way.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[Starcraftmazter]

Exactly - very unfair.

This keeps the top players at the top, and the bottom players on the bottom - elitism.

Instead, the game should be dynamic, with players moving around in ranks all the time, with wars and growth. Otherwise it becomes a boring grind to the top, which is becoming more and more unachievable for newer nations.

[enderland]

So new nations should be forced to buy a Manhattan Project if they want to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time, when you get free nuclear capability just because you're older and bigger?

The NS requirement for nukes is only going up. Soon, it will be 40k.. 45k.. 50k.. Any new nation joining at that time has no choice but to buy a Manhattan project, or they might get caught up in a nuclear war with no nukes of their own. You, on the other hand, still get free nuclear capability.

Think about it. One infra level will allow you to buy ~10 extra soldiers and ~1 extra tank. Before this update, 1 infra effectively increased your NS by 3 plus an average of 2 potential NS. That's 5 NS per infra level. Now this has been reduced to a tiny bit over 3 NS per infra level. It's going to take significantly longer to get into the top 5%, and eventually it will take too long before you can buy nukes this way.

Why don't you read this post, which everyone opposed to this change have been conveniently ignoring, before making responses like this.

The only thing I'm going to say is that I do NOT get free nuclear capability. That has come at a great cost to my nation for the past 9 months or however long I've had nukes.

Important parts bolded.

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.

[Viluin]

Why don't you read this post, which everyone opposed to this change have been conveniently ignoring, before making responses like this.

Important parts bolded.

Those nations have to invest $100 million, enough to buy well over 1k infra at that level, to become nuclear capable. You became nuclear capable by buying infra/tech, which give you other benefits as well. In that sense, you got free nuclear capability.

The only thing I'm going to say is that I do NOT get free nuclear capability. That has come at a great cost to my nation for the past 9 months or however long I've had nukes.

The nukes were not free, no one gets free nukes. However, you did get the capability to buy nukes for free. You did not have to buy a MP for $100 million, you just kept advancing your nation and becoming economically and militarily stronger and stronger until you were strong enough for nukes. The difference is that an MP by itself does not make your nation stronger and it does not increase your daily income. It costs $100m with no economical benefits.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[enderland]

The nukes were not free, no one gets free nukes. However, you did get the capability to buy nukes for free. You did not have to buy a MP for $100 million, you just kept advancing your nation and becoming economically and militarily stronger and stronger until you were strong enough for nukes. The difference is that an MP by itself does not make your nation stronger and it does not increase your daily income. It costs $100m with no economical benefits.

And me having had 20 nukes for almost 9 months now has helped me economically?

No.

I have "paid" a large amount of money for nukes since having them. There is a large opportunity cost involved here. I "pay" around 700k a day for my nukes- 284k for upkeep and about 400k a day in lost income. That means that in 142 days the upkeep cost payments alone will cost me enough to have purchased the MP. Not to mention that as I grow that number of days decreases (more citizens means a higher amount of income lost), and has also been reduced by my payments that I have already made.

What's the difference, paying 100 million already (which I might add, is much "more" than 100 million is to a nation of 5k infra, because I have had to pay that when my nation WASN'T this large, and when the money could buy more infra, etc) or simply manning up and buying the Manhattan Project?

If I could, I would gladly trade my current 20 nukes for the 100 million needed to buy the MP. No problem, instant agreement from me, and I will turn that 100 million into a permanent nuke supply.

It is ironic that after doing these calculations I am seriously considering decommissioning my nukes and netting that extra 700k a day and simply buying the MP later on to ensure permanent nuclear capabilities.

Edit: If you are doing tech deals correctly you should be gaining a minimum of 1000 NS every 10 days from them as well. That adds up quickly because most people aren't. How do you think I got to where I am in rank? By doing massive amounts of tech deals.

Edited April 19, 2008 by alden peterson

[Viluin]

And me having had 20 nukes for almost 9 months now has helped me economically?

No.

I have "paid" a large amount of money for nukes since having them. There is a large opportunity cost involved here. I "pay" around 700k a day for my nukes- 284k for upkeep and about 400k a day in lost income. That means that in 142 days the upkeep cost payments alone will cost me enough to have purchased the MP. Not to mention that as I grow that number of days decreases (more citizens means a higher amount of income lost), and has also been reduced by my payments that I have already made.

What's the difference, paying 100 million already (which I might add, is much "more" than 100 million is to a nation of 5k infra, because I have had to pay that when my nation WASN'T this large, and when the money could buy more infra, etc) or simply manning up and buying the Manhattan Project?

If I could, I would gladly trade my current 20 nukes for the 100 million needed to buy the MP. No problem, instant agreement from me, and I will turn that 100 million into a permanent nuke supply.

It is ironic that after doing these calculations I am seriously considering decommissioning my nukes and netting that extra 700k a day and simply buying the MP later on to ensure permanent nuclear capabilities.

Edit: If you are doing tech deals correctly you should be gaining a minimum of 1000 NS every 10 days from them as well. That adds up quickly because most people aren't. How do you think I got to where I am in rank? By doing massive amounts of tech deals.

You seem to be assuming that nations with a Manhattan Project do not have to carry 20 nukes at all times. This is incorrect. You can only purchase 1 nuke per day.. What if that nuke is blocked by an SDI? Ouch, there goes your opportunity. And what if you lose your uranium trade in the middle of a war? Ups.

Nations who choose to (And will soon be forced to) take the MP route have to endure the income loss of carryign nuclear weapons AND the $100 million purchase cost of an MP with no economical benefits.

[SlayerX46]

So new nations should be forced to buy a Manhattan Project if they want to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time, when you get free nuclear capability just because you're older and bigger?

First of all, YES. OLDER AND BIGGER NATIONS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE! Who'da thunk it?

Second of all, no one got "free nuclear capability." All these older and bigger nations had to become older and bigger first. If there's anyone who got it free, it's the people who used a massive military to jump to the top 5%. That took maybe $1M? So now nations have a choice. Either 1) Improve their nation enough to get into the top 5%, or 2) Buy a MP.

Another point: You seem to act as if nations are forced to go nuclear. They simply are not. Nukes are becoming less and less used as time goes on.

Edited April 19, 2008 by SlayerX46

[Viluin]

First of all, YES. OLDER AND BIGGER NATIONS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE! Who'da thunk it?

Second of all, no one got "free nuclear capability." All these older and bigger nations had to become older and bigger first. If there's anyone who got it free, it's the people who used a massive military to jump to the top 5%. That took maybe $1M? So now nations have a choice. Either 1) Improve their nation enough to get into the top 5%, or 2) Buy a MP.

Another point: You seem to act as if nations are forced to go nuclear. They simply are not. Nukes are becoming less and less used as time goes on.

Being older (and bigger) is, by itself, an advantage. Why should you get free nuclear capability too?

EDIT:

You did get it for free. You got it by becoming bigger. Don't pretend that nukes are the only reason why you kept growing, you did it for the extra strength and money. Nuclear capability was just a gift you received after passing the 5% mark.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[enderland]

You did get it for free. You got it by becoming bigger. Don't pretend that nukes are the only reason why you kept growing, you did it for the extra strength and money. Nuclear capability was just a gift you received after passing the 5% mark.

The reason I have as much tech as I do is that tech is the easiest way to become nuclear capable.

In fact, even without the nukes I currently have I would be able to purchase them (at 4999 infra even!) when many "more economical" nations cannot. Those nations who focused on economic growth cannot buy nukes as easily as me, who has focused on military growth. You can't have your cake and eat it too..

You seem to be assuming that nations with a Manhattan Project do not have to carry 20 nukes at all times. This is incorrect. You can only purchase 1 nuke per day.. What if that nuke is blocked by an SDI? Ouch, there goes your opportunity. And what if you lose your uranium trade in the middle of a war? Ups.

Nations who choose to (And will soon be forced to) take the MP route have to endure the income loss of carryign nuclear weapons AND the $100 million purchase cost of an MP with no economical benefits.

My assumption is that I already have been holding nukes for a long time and ALREADY have paid the 100 million cost for nukes.

[nish81]

That is true, but this shouldn't be the case. Countries spend years upgrading their military and amaments, its pointless that a nation can build up their military overnight. This needs to be rectified also

I agree with the improvement suggested here

[Viluin]

The reason I have as much tech as I do is that tech is the easiest way to become nuclear capable.

In fact, even without the nukes I currently have I would be able to purchase them (at 4999 infra even!) when many "more economical" nations cannot. Those nations who focused on economic growth cannot buy nukes as easily as me, who has focused on military growth. You can't have your cake and eat it too..

And yet your tech significantly strengthens your ground forces and lowers your infra bill. I don't think the MP does that. The funny thing is that a Manhattan Project is much more expensive than the tech you have bought too!

My assumption is that I already have been holding nukes for a long time and ALREADY have paid the 100 million cost for nukes.

Everyone pays that cost, not just you. People who buy a Manhattan Project have to pay for nuclear weapons upkeep as well. You did not pay the 100 million cost for nuclear capability, something others will have to do.

The cost of holding nuclear weapons and the cost of becoming nuclear capable are two completely different things.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[SlayerX46]

There's a very simple solution to your problem: If you don't want to spend 100M in a non-economic wonder, then don't. Buy more infra/tech and get into the top 5% that way. One way or the other you have to spend a significant amount of cash to get anywhere.

You did get it for free. You got it by becoming bigger. Don't pretend that nukes are the only reason why you kept growing, you did it for the extra strength and money. Nuclear capability was just a gift you received after passing the 5% mark.

Becoming bigger is in no way, shape or form "free." Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by big nations to get where they are now. That is not very free. And yes, I kept growing for other strength and money. What's your point? Anytime you purchase something that's not military you grow in strength and generally income too.

[Viluin]

There's a very simple solution to your problem: If you don't want to spend 100M in a non-economic wonder, then don't. Buy more infra/tech and get into the top 5% that way.

Tell that to a new registrant one year from now, when he'll have to work his way up to 50K Nation Strength if not more.

Becoming bigger is in no way, shape or form "free." Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by big nations to get where they are now. That is not very free. And yes, I kept growing for other strength and money. What's your point? Anytime you purchase something that's not military you grow in strength and generally income too.

Becoming bigger is not free. The nuclear capability you get when you're big enough is free. You do not pay for it, it just comes naturally after a while.

The point is that you get free nuclear capability for growing, while others must stop growing for a while and pay $100M to become nuclear capable. Growing into the top 5% can take months or even over a year and it will only become harder over time. Eventually, the MP will be your only viable option if you want nukes.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[SlayerX46]

Tell that to a new registrant one year from now, when he'll have to work his way up to 50K Nation Strength if not more.

Becoming bigger is not free. The nuclear capability you get when you're big enough is free. You do not pay for it, it just comes naturally after a while.

If becoming bigger is the requirement for nuclear capability, and growing is costly, then nuclear capability is NOT free. One way or another you have to pay to become nuclear capable. Nukes are not supposed to be a gimme. They take time and money to acquire, no matter how you go about acquiring them.

The point is that you get free nuclear capability for growing, while others must stop growing for a while and pay $100M to become nuclear capable. Growing into the top 5% can take months or even over a year and it will only become harder over time. Eventually, the MP will be your only viable option if you want nukes.

These bigger nations you have been talking about have mostly been growing for "months or even over a year." Everyone has to put in their time. Just because the bigger nations already have done so doesn't mean the new nations should get a short cut.

[Meer Republic]

Exactly - very unfair.

This keeps the top players at the top, and the bottom players on the bottom - elitism.

Instead, the game should be dynamic, with players moving around in ranks all the time, with wars and growth. Otherwise it becomes a boring grind to the top, which is becoming more and more unachievable for newer nations.

It is dynamic, when I joined there were more than 35000 people playing this game, now I'm in the top 500. That's not by magic that's because all manner of circumstances can make people drop down the ranks, it's always been that way it always will be that way. Anyone who thinks it's impossible to move up the ranks is frankly an idiot.

[Syzygy]

hmm. I don't know, how it is about you, but when I entered the game I was ranked #35,000 of 35,000 nations with 0 strength. The top ranked nations in this game were ~40,000 NS stronger than me.

Magically, I got all the stuff I have now "for free" over the last year, with the result that I am now in the top10 with 100,000 NS nation. Suuuure.

Sorry, but if your nation is as old as mine and you are not nuclear capable, you have done a job more than 3times worse than the one I did (you need only around 1/3rd of my NS to get nukes).

[Viluin]

hmm. I don't know, how it is about you, but when I entered the game I was ranked #35,000 of 35,000 nations with 0 strength. The top ranked nations in this game were ~40,000 NS stronger than me.

Magically, I got all the stuff I have now "for free" over the last year, with the result that I am now in the top10 with 100,000 NS nation. Suuuure.

Sorry, but if your nation is as old as mine and you are not nuclear capable, you have done a job more than 3times worse than the one I did (you need only around 1/3rd of my NS to get nukes).

Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 34,853 Attacking + 189 Defending = 35,042 Casualties

That's probably why. I don't know about you, but I've lost ~5000 infra in wars during my time here and I'm pretty sure that's nothing special compared to other nations.

If becoming bigger is the requirement for nuclear capability, and growing is costly, then nuclear capability is NOT free. One way or another you have to pay to become nuclear capable. Nukes are not supposed to be a gimme. They take time and money to acquire, no matter how you go about acquiring them.

So if there were no nukes in this game you would've stopped growing a long time ago?

I think not.

These bigger nations you have been talking about have mostly been growing for "months or even over a year." Everyone has to put in their time. Just because the bigger nations already have done so doesn't mean the new nations should get a short cut.

Older nations have the same "short cut", namely a Manhattan project.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[Syzygy]

Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 34,853 Attacking + 189 Defending = 35,042 Casualties

That's probably why. I don't know about you, but I've lost ~5000 infra in wars during my time here and I'm pretty sure that's nothing special compared to other nations.

so then you have basically proven that I have done a better job as leader of my nation than you have done. I have managed to stay out of all unnessessary wars by good politics and the few conflicts I was part of I have dominiated entirely. Don't cry that "the game" must have mechanisms to equal out your 5000 lost infra, or others 5000 lost infra. That you lost them is your own fault, as many nations prove, there are ways to play without losing them.

[Viluin]

so then you have basically proven that I have done a better job as leader of my nation than you have done. I have managed to stay out of all unnessessary wars by good politics and the few conflicts I was part of I have dominiated entirely. Don't cry that "the game" must have mechanisms to equal out your 5000 lost infra, or others 5000 lost infra. That you lost them is your own fault, as many nations prove, there are ways to play without losing them.

Sometimes it is impossible to stay out of a war when others are out to get you and your alliance for no reason. And you're lucky enough not to get hit by rogues, which can put a large dent into your nation.

[enderland]

That's probably why. I don't know about you, but I've lost ~5000 infra in wars during my time here and I'm pretty sure that's nothing special compared to other nations.

So have I. I have taken somewhere around 8 nukes since they destroyed tech as well, so not only am I down the huge amount of infra but I'm also down almost 500 tech from nuke damage (not to mention all the CM tech damage).

What's your point? He played the game better than you? He played a different game than you? Tough luck. Just because you have chosen to become involved in wars does not mean that you are more deserving of higher rank than him.

Don't like it? Find a way to get Citadel into a nuclear civil war. That will lower the Top 5% significantly

If you are now complaining that older nations have an advantage, well, that argument is so flawed it's not even worth responding to..

[Viluin]

So have I. I have taken somewhere around 8 nukes since they destroyed tech as well, so not only am I down the huge amount of infra but I'm also down almost 500 tech from nuke damage (not to mention all the CM tech damage).

What's your point? He played the game better than you? He played a different game than you? Tough luck. Just because you have chosen to become involved in wars does not mean that you are more deserving of higher rank than him.

Don't like it? Find a way to get Citadel into a nuclear civil war. That will lower the Top 5% significantly

If you are now complaining that older nations have an advantage, well, that argument is so flawed it's not even worth responding to..

Older nations already have an advantage due to the fact that they have had more time to grow. Please give me one good reason why they should be nuclear capable without having to purchase a MP as well.

[Syzygy]

Sometimes it is impossible to stay out of a war when others are out to get you and your alliance for no reason. And you're lucky enough not to get hit by rogues, which can put a large dent into your nation.

you know what? if there are "others out to get you and your alliance" then usually they HAVE a reason. Not always a good one, but obviously you have failed to keep a low profile and stay under the radar. I have seen alliances which grew to a million NS silently and made the right agreements and pacts prior to begin their acting on the diplomatic carpet. you and your alliance have obviously chosen to do it another way, and got beaten for it. thats life.

And even rogues have often a reason to pick you as target. At some point the "victim" has in most cases done something to make this rogue think it would be a good idea to sacrifice his nation to drop some nuke on him. There are only VERY few cases where people have just been hit "for the lulz" [busty for example, just because 'he had the highest infra count'].

Don't make the game responsible for your struggles. Nobody forced you to join the alliance you have joined, nobody forced you to make the decisions you made.

[Viluin]

you know what? if there are "others out to get you and your alliance" then usually they HAVE a reason. Not always a good one, but obviously you have failed to keep a low profile and stay under the radar. I have seen alliances which grew to a million NS silently and made the right agreements and pacts prior to begin their acting on the diplomatic carpet. you and your alliance have obviously chosen to do it another way, and got beaten for it. thats life.

And even rogues have often a reason to pick you as target. At some point the "victim" has in most cases done something to make this rogue think it would be a good idea to sacrifice his nation to drop some nuke on him. There are only VERY few cases where people have just been hit "for the lulz" [busty for example, just because 'he had the highest infra count'].

Don't make the game responsible for your struggles. Nobody forced you to join the alliance you have joined, nobody forced you to make the decisions you made.

So basically, joining a strong and peaceful alliance will soon be the only way to get free nuclear capability via ranks within a reasonable amount of time for new nations? Everyone else - the majority of the people in this game - has to purchase a Manhattan Project for $100 million?

And again, how does it make sense for everyone in the top 5% to be nuclear capable just because of their rank? Why should they not be forced to buy a MP like everyone else will be soon?

Edited April 19, 2008 by Viluin

[Syzygy]

i personally would not have any problem with that, I will buy one too, just not yet because right now the 5% are enough for me to reload nukes and it would take longer to beat me down below that mark than it would need me to purchase an MP ^^