NEW NATION strength calculations

[Syzygy]

really, learn the ingame mechanics before coming up with totally horrible examples.

Lets compare 2 nations of a size usually around the 5% barrier:

5,999infra+1,500tech+3,000land+50CMs+60lvl9airforce. Tanks and soldiers amounts are equal with 20k/2k.

that is

17997+7500+4500+500+2700+400+400 = 33997 NS.

the nuclear armed nation, lets say it has 20nukes, will get +4k NS = 37997.

Current nuke barrier is: 36,200 NS.

Now a nation of that size usually makes 4.7 Million clear profit per day when armed with 20nukes (5BG trade setup) and would need to maintain 4 borderwalls for maximum profit (-8% pop!)

The SAME nation with 0 nukes already makes 700k more clear profit per day AND can raze 3 borderwalls for additional 6%pop = higher ground battle strength.

And the larger the nation gets, the larger are its losses. A 9k infra nation already loses 1.1M from maintaining 20nukes, a 12k infra nation even 1.4M and so on.

The nuclear nation could buy 38.3infra per day from the clear profit, while the non-nuclear can buy 43.8infra per day from the clear profit. And thats with the 5BG setup, the best for purchasing infra at all. Its even more clear for less good infrasetups.

The nuclear nation has de facto ~30M cash less to spend per month, which is a *free* wonder or a *free* donation+500tech for the non-nuclear nation in comparison + it has invested ~30million to even buy these nukes which the other nation could have invested into tech-imports, land, infra whatever.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the fact is that the non-nuclear nation can just grow faster than a nuclear-armed nation. Thats simply a fact. The income-increase is more then +10% clear profit in all cases, even +15% for larger nations.

On the other hand, a nation with 20nukes has just a DAMN LOT higher destruction potential, and the new NS shows that.

In addition to that, you draw totally unrealistic scenarios of no one being able to reach 5% any more. There are ALWAYS conflicts, always wars and the upper ranks are constantly changed, nations will fire nukes and go down in NS, others will take hits and lose strength. What you claim to be "horrible" was ALWAYS the case since this game exists: assumed that EVERYONE grows as perfect as possible, no one could ever catch up someone who is in front of him. But thats not the case. If you are good in growing, you now have it a lot easier to get to the 5%.

Besides this, the unfair advantage of pop-boosting tradesetups has been reduced, why should someone with 3BG have THAT more NS (because he can buy 150k soldiers and someone with 8BG can only build 100,000, but they have the same fighting efficiency as the other guys 150k)?

Stop complaining, this update was long overdue and NS reflects destructive potential and battle endurance a LOT better then before.

[Starcraftmazter]

Stop complaining, this update was long overdue and NS reflects destructive potential and battle endurance a LOT better then before.

Reflects? This is a game. It should not be real, it should only be fun.

[Steelrat]

snip

^^ Everybody complaining should read this very accurate.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Steelrat

[Viluin]

1. The NS requirement for becoming nuclear has barely dropped.

2. It now takes much longer to reach that requirement, and the NS requirement will only become higher.

No matter how you look at it, it is certainly much harder to get nuclear weapons now than it was before the update. It takes longer.

At my size, I was able to get up to 4.4% before this update. Now I cap out at 5.1%. I need to grow more before I am back in the top 5% and the same goes for all nations below me.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Viluin

[Dagrr]

Can't say I like this change. Manhatten Project is going to be one of my next two or three wonders now.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Henry

[ArgonV]

Reflects? This is a game. It should not be real, it should only be fun.

This does make it more fun. As Syzygy points out, NS is a much better indication of battle strength. Since NS is used to determine who you can or can't attack, it would seem fighting is more fair now.

[Blacky]

really, learn the ingame mechanics before coming up with totally horrible examples.

Lets compare 2 nations of a size usually around the 5% barrier:

5,999infra+1,500tech+3,000land+50CMs+60lvl9airforce. Tanks and soldiers amounts are equal with 20k/2k.

that is

17997+7500+4500+500+2700+400+400 = 33997 NS.

the nuclear armed nation, lets say it has 20nukes, will get +4k NS = 37997.

Current nuke barrier is: 36,200 NS.

Now a nation of that size usually makes 4.7 Million clear profit per day when armed with 20nukes (5BG trade setup) and would need to maintain 4 borderwalls for maximum profit (-8% pop!)

The SAME nation with 0 nukes already makes 700k more clear profit per day AND can raze 3 borderwalls for additional 6%pop = higher ground battle strength.

And the larger the nation gets, the larger are its losses. A 9k infra nation already loses 1.1M from maintaining 20nukes, a 12k infra nation even 1.4M and so on.

The nuclear nation could buy 38.3infra per day from the clear profit, while the non-nuclear can buy 43.8infra per day from the clear profit. And thats with the 5BG setup, the best for purchasing infra at all. Its even more clear for less good infrasetups.

The nuclear nation has de facto ~30M cash less to spend per month, which is a *free* wonder or a *free* donation+500tech for the non-nuclear nation in comparison + it has invested ~30million to even buy these nukes which the other nation could have invested into tech-imports, land, infra whatever.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the fact is that the non-nuclear nation can just grow faster than a nuclear-armed nation. Thats simply a fact. The income-increase is more then +10% clear profit in all cases, even +15% for larger nations.

On the other hand, a nation with 20nukes has just a DAMN LOT higher destruction potential, and the new NS shows that.

In addition to that, you draw totally unrealistic scenarios of no one being able to reach 5% any more. There are ALWAYS conflicts, always wars and the upper ranks are constantly changed, nations will fire nukes and go down in NS, others will take hits and lose strength. What you claim to be "horrible" was ALWAYS the case since this game exists: assumed that EVERYONE grows as perfect as possible, no one could ever catch up someone who is in front of him. But thats not the case. If you are good in growing, you now have it a lot easier to get to the 5%.

Besides this, the unfair advantage of pop-boosting tradesetups has been reduced, why should someone with 3BG have THAT more NS (because he can buy 150k soldiers and someone with 8BG can only build 100,000, but they have the same fighting efficiency as the other guys 150k)?

Stop complaining, this update was long overdue and NS reflects destructive potential and battle endurance a LOT better then before.

You speak alot of words but make very little sense. And also you're wrong in what you've said. We've already established that highest cost for nuclear maintenance is about $600,000 how're you constantly pulling larger numbers out of thin air?

Taking into consideration the likely costs, the nuclear nation will be paying $6,000,000 in maintenance ever 10 day cycle. Still before being able to catch up to a nation with a 4,000 NS advantage they would have to buy around 1,200 infrastructure. At that size as I said even with the advantage would take around 300 days.

So I don't know whether you're pretending not to see this or you're really daft enough not to. This is unfair to nations who don't already have nuclear weapons. And by the time they can catch up (after hundreds of days), just because the other nation decided to buy their nukes a few days earlier, and hopefully if they aren't a target of a nuclear war, then they'll get nukes too. In which case they'll be subject to the same negative economic effects, and always be in a downwards spiral in which they can not overcome.

[Blacky]

^^ Everybody complaining should read this very accurate.

Utter nonsense. Even if we want to take the approach of realist. Everything about the calculation sytem is wrong.

10 nukes = 1,000 Nation Strength.

20 nukes= 4,000 Nation Strength.

Not only does this fail in every other way, it also fails mathematically. Isn't the reason this was put in place to be more realistic? How is 20 nukes 4 times stronger than 10 nukes? That's just retarded, and again enforces the idea that this was poorly thought out. Anyone supporting this really needs to pull their heads out of their backsides. In a few months you'll be hearing "I told you so" if you don't realise how silly this is.

[Starcraftmazter]

This does make it more fun. As Syzygy points out, NS is a much better indication of battle strength. Since NS is used to determine who you can or can't attack, it would seem fighting is more fair now.

Makes the game more fun for older players, by giving them an advantage over newer players. Generally not something you'd want to do to get more people playing the game...

[sayton]

I know that i take about a 17.5 million loss with my nuke upkeeps and BARELY get any strength.. but they are just for show.. and i think its worth it.. I dont know.. Im happy..

[Syzygy]

lol really.

please get into your head that owning nukes costs you a LOT more then the upkeep.

you lose:

- 290k nuke upkeep

- $7.5 gross income from the Uranium

- 1 happiness

- 3 environement (additional 1.2happiness), which you either accept or have to counter with borderwalls (-2% pop penalty each)

if you switch out uranium you lose:

- 3% infra upkeep

- 580k nuke upkeep

- 1 hapiness

- 2 environment (additional 0.8hapiness), which you either accept or have to counter with borderwalls (-2 pop penalty each)

But gain another resource you currently not have (for example gems or sugar), but usually Uranium is the better choice.

So: the larger your nation is, the MORE you pay for being nuclear armed. The happiness and income loss DIRECTLY affects the citizen gross income and the more citizens you have, the more you lose. Its just logical.

At this point I simply stop arguing with you, because the problem you describe does simply not exist. The values for tech, land, infra all have NOT changed. So its *by definition* right now easier to reach 36k with own growth, then it was to reach 39.5k with own growth before.

In addition:

20 nukes brought 1,000 NS before the update. Right now you need 10 nukes for that.

There are currently:

1552 spots in the top5%

146 non-nuclear nations within the top5%.

160 top5% nations have 10nukes or less, so they have no "boost" compared to before the update at all.

Together that alone are 300 nations you can "overcome" exactly as fast as before the update. Thats around 20% of the whole nuclear range.

Only 79 of 1552 top5% nations have 25nukes to receive the full "boost".

Sorry but your claims are *totally* wrong.

[TheDave]

Anyone want to be a hero and check what my NS is? I'm at work so don't want to log into the game.

I was 47,100 yesterday... Don't think I will change much tbh.

[Dagrr]

Anyone want to be a hero and check what my NS is? I'm at work so don't want to log into the game.

I was 47,100 yesterday... Don't think I will change much tbh.

45,100.189

[TheDave]

45,100.189

Thanks. Not much change then. I suppose thats because I had about 25% soldiers and no tanks/cm's

[Blacky]

lol really.

please get into your head that owning nukes costs you a LOT more then the upkeep.

you lose:

- 290k nuke upkeep

- $7.5 gross income from the Uranium

- 1 happiness

- 3 environement (additional 1.2happiness), which you either accept or have to counter with borderwalls (-2% pop penalty each)

if you switch out uranium you lose:

- 3% infra upkeep

- 580k nuke upkeep

- 1 hapiness

- 2 environment (additional 0.8hapiness), which you either accept or have to counter with borderwalls (-2 pop penalty each)

But gain another resource you currently not have (for example gems or sugar), but usually Uranium is the better choice.

Well we can agree it might fluctuate a little, but it wouldn't exceed by far considering we accept uranium as the best trade.

Even if the daily upkeep cost rose a few hundred thousand the principle remains. The time it would take to overtake them, or worse still to buy a Manhattan Project will be at the very least a hundred days or so. Even then, I don't need to tell you the negative economic effects of switching out a regular National Wonder for a Manhattan Project (one which is quite permanent).

So even if we take your approach that's 100 days (and x-amount of lost income to having a manhattan project) or 200 days to be in a worse off position (the same nuclear effects) if regular growth is maintained.

If you recall we're talking about two identical nations whose only difference is one purchased nuclear weapons under an older system. And yet they would still have to suffer a 200-day set back to becoming nuclear, or losses equivalent. How can you justify that?

At this point I simply stop arguing with you, because the problem you describe does simply not exist. The values for tech, land, infra all have NOT changed. So its *by definition* right now easier to reach 36k with own growth, then it was to reach 39.5k with own growth before.

I disagree with this statement completely. A nation prior to the changes could have inflated nation strength, but using an own growth method, one must take a long arduous path of economic superiority for hundreds of days, and even then we must accept that as our own nations grow, so do to the other nations with the negative economic effects, and then ours do again when we purchase nuclear weapons.

It becomes an unwinnable race at this point.

In addition:

20 nukes brought 1,000 NS before the update. Right now you need 10 nukes for that.

That doesn't explain how 20 nukes are worth four times the nations strength as 10. That's a problem in itself.

There are currently:

1552 spots in the top5%

146 non-nuclear nations within the top5%.

160 top5% nations have 10nukes or less, so they have no "boost" compared to before the update at all.

The top 5% isn't in itself a problem. An example of a few nations who have boosted the nuclear threshold under the old system, and thus make it harder for other nations to become nuclear:

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=130166

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...?Nation_ID=9493

Together that alone are 300 nations you can "overcome" exactly as fast as before the update. Thats around 20% of the whole nuclear range.

How long till they purchase nukes? 300 nations out of thousands is not a solution to this problem.

As it is now, you can not deny (and infact you've conceded) that it is now harder for a nation to reach nuclear stage. And worse still, nations who are already nuclear have an unfair advantage on others.

You most likely wont see the problem in this until you're in that position. Basically we've creating a system where we have reinforced nations who purchased nukes using the old method, and made it ever more difficult for newer nations or nations who haven't purchased nukes. I bought my nukes at 6000 infrastructure a few weeks ago. (and many others did the same) we all have an advantage on all other nations who didn't. Infact ot get in the nuclear range you need a much higher relative NS (infra and tech) than before.

Again, I probably wont be able to convince you, but unless the nations who gained nukes using the old system are brought back down to level of what nations not yet nuclear will have to face, there will be an unfair system in place.

However on its very own merit. If nukes require NS, they shouldn't increase NS. It really is simple logic.

[TheDave]

Basically we've creating a system where we have reinforced nations who purchased nukes using the old method, and made it ever more difficult for newer nations or nations who haven't purchased nukes. .

Did you complain this much when the price of factories went up?

What about when the aircraft requirements changed?

Edited April 16, 2008 by TheDave

[Blacky]

Did you complain this much when the price of factories went up?

What about when the aircraft requirements changed?

If pointing out serious flaws is considered complaining then no. I did not complain when the aircraft requirement changed. Because it's not impossible to attain 500 tech, infact it's quite easy. It's still not exclusive, it's a solid number.

Edit: This is the worst update in modern history of CN. Infact, you might as well close off registrations or create a nation age requirement before going nuclear.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Blacky

[uaciaut]

snip

I love it how you people are argumenting on this.

First off: The "i lost x k ns i am not happy " type of posts. Most hilarious actually, because people are reacting on the first thing they see and not filtering the consequences of the change at all. Any nation with plenty of military lost NS, deal with it. You're sad because you lost a number for your screen? So what you want admin to increase all the values of this game by a factor of 10 or something so when you log in you see gigantic figures that make you hard about your nation? That's taking all the beauty of the game away, it's like playing solitare for score.

Secondly: People saying that it's harder to get into nuke range. No it isn't really. The range was going up at an alarmant rate because more people were trying to militarize into the first 5%, it was bad for everyone because the range itself was too flexible.

As for saying that it will be harder for nations to get into nuke range. Guess what? Yes it will be. Because this time around you can't press 2 buttons to get max soldiers and tanks and :poof: you're in nuke range. You have to grow your nation economically and intelligently to achieve that, so again sorry to the people that wanted a free pass to the green zone.

Thirdly: Look ad Syzy's math and understand it, because it ain't wrong. Keeping nukes holds back a nation a lot by adding another set of bills (quite big with 20-25 nukes, especially if you won't keep a perma uranium) and you lose the economical bonuses of uranium, which again, means a lot, and that's why you still see many big nations to this day that have loads of infra and are trading for uranium yet don't posess nukes.

As for nukes being worth too much NS, well something that can put someone in insta anarchy and have a destructive effect of multiple GA's damn better have more influence on my nation than a few soldiers.

Also i don't understand the "soldiers are worth more NS" argument. I mean to me it's quite simple: i have 6k infra meaning i CAN sustain a big number of soldiers. The size of my infra DOES show my military power in reality as well because the amount of troops i buy is directly dependend on how big i am.

Edit: to add for people who are complaining about losing NS, notice that the nuker border has dropped by a lot too

Edited April 16, 2008 by uaciaut

[Syzygy]

sorry but you cant just restart the whole game every time just because some nations face a worse situation then before and some face a benefit.

Some players still have totally legal multi nations because they bought them before the change of the rules. How can you justify that?

Some players with low infra-high-tech nations lost their Top5% position when tech was reduced from 20 to 5 NS some months ago and dropped a LOT down in the ranks while relying on their ability to reload nukes daily before - how can you justify that?

Some players faced gameplay changes in the midst of wars, how can you justify that?

sorry but its *not possible* to make a system with wich everyone is happy.

Right now we have a NS equation that expresses battle impact a lot better than before. Nations who didnt inflate their NS with military gone up in the ranks, those who did gone down. If you are a non-nuclear nation and want to become a nuclear nation, you have the option to outgrow nuclear armed nations with the more-cash you make per day or you just outgrow some of the more then 300 non-nuclear nations within the top5% - or buy a manhattan project if you want it without a race.

What you claim is that "it is impossible to catch up" - what is simply UNTRUE. Its hard to get into the top5%, true. Its harder than before? Not significantly.

As simple example: Take the top10 of the game. People *constantly* claim for a year or more that new players are totally unable to reach high ranks because the older players are soooo far away its impossible to catch them ever.

8 of them are 700-750days old

1 of them is only 550 days old - so it had a ~200days disadvantage and STILL made it into the top10.

1 of them is only 450 days old - so it had almost a YEAR disadvantage and STILL made it into the top10.

What you claim is that its all "unfair" and there is "no way to get there" and more stuff which is simply not true. But people prove every day that its possible. Getting nukes SHOULD be hard, and that some could purchase the nukes under the "old system", well thats their luck. As it is some peoples luck to have a second nation because they made it under an "old" system.

So, stop complaining. You have ways to get your nukes if you think you really need them, either use them, or not.

[Blacky]

I love it how you people are argumenting on this.

First off: The "i lost x k ns i am not happy " type of posts. Most hilarious actually, because people are reacting on the first thing they see and not filtering the consequences of the change at all. Any nation with plenty of military lost NS, deal with it. You're sad because you lost a number for your screen? So what you want admin to increase all the values of this game by a factor of 10 or something so when you log in you see gigantic figures that make you hard about your nation? That's taking all the beauty of the game away, it's like playing solitare for score.

Argumenting? That's a new word to me.

Regardless, my NS losses are irrelevant. The problem is not the loss of NS, but rather the disproportionate gain of nuclear capable nations NS. However, if the militarisation option on its own was removed, I would be discontent, but not to this point. What has in effect happened is a permanent inequality. A line was drawn that says "anyone that became nuclear before this point will have a major lead", and that's what has happened. The increase in NS of nukes (1,400 or so nations increased 3,000 NS, and another 5,000 or so increased by around 2,000 NS.)

That coupled with the reduced military inflation of nation strength, makes it impossible without arduously and slowly growing with a slight economic advantage to the point which one may eventually reach after a hundred or so days, the nation aheads shadow. The whole while being completely vulnerable to nuclear war.

This is a terrible change!

Secondly: People saying that it's harder to get into nuke range.

You need 1,200 infrastructure to catch up to nations equal to you in every way except having nukes. And then even by the time you've reached that 1,200 infrastructure you have to reach again. This time maybe 800 infrastructure. And so, on and so forth. This situation is unacceptable, nay untenable for newer nations or non-nuclear nations. It's basically solidifying a system of inequality.

Also i don't understand the "soldiers are worth more NS" argument.

Nobody is arguing that. Look at the two examples I provided. A smaller nation who took advantage of the old system is making it harder for larger nations to get into nuclear range by having their NS boost created by nuclear weapons. That is unacceptable.

Worst update ever.

[Blacky]

sorry but you cant just restart the whole game every time just because some nations face a worse situation then before and some face a benefit.

Nobody is arguing for that. Also, didn't you say you were going to stop arguing?

Some players still have totally legal multi nations because they bought them before the change of the rules. How can you justify that?

You can't. And I never have. And if I were there then, I would have said what I'm saying now. However this isn't a slight advantage or a minor hindrance. This is a complete punch in the testicles for all nations at around the top 15% range of Nation Strength who have yet to purchase nukes.

sorry but its *not possible* to make a system with wich everyone is happy.

That's why you create a balanced system. NS requirement for nukes should always have been a solid number rather than a percentage. Or better still an infrastructure requirement. The current system with the current changes is completely flawed.

Right now we have a NS equation that expresses battle impact a lot better than before.

20 nukes is four times powerful than 10 eh?

2 + 2 = 5?

What you claim is that "it is impossible to catch up" - what is simply UNTRUE. Its hard to get into the top5%, true. Its harder than before? Not significantly.

Actually YES. YES it is. By giving nations already with nukes an advantage as wide as this we have created, it has become more than significantly harder to reach the top 5%. What are the infrastructure requirements from now and prior to the update? A whole lot different, I can assure you of that.

8 of them are 700-750days old

1 of them is only 550 days old - so it had a ~200days disadvantage and STILL made it into the top10.

1 of them is only 450 days old - so it had almost a YEAR disadvantage and STILL made it into the top10.

Right you go on that tangent buddy. You're completely missing the point I was making.

What you claim is that its all "unfair" and there is "no way to get there" and more stuff which is simply not true.

I never said there was no way to get there. It's possible, after a hundred or so days, to chase the shadow of the person infront of you for long enough to buy a few nukes. If you survive that time. If you're not killed off before it, ofcourse.

*snip*

1,400 nations gained a 3,000 NS boost.

Another 5,000 or so gained a 2,000 NS boost.

If you don't see how that makes it way more difficult for nations who did not become nuclear prior to this point to become nuclear now. Then you're in serious denial.

Edit: Worst update ever.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Blacky

[enderland]

There is, like, a wonder that like, lets you get nukes or something.

I forget what game that was in...

[Blacky]

There is, like, a wonder that like, lets you get nukes or something.

I forget what game that was in...

Manhattan Project's cost is money your nation will never see in infrastructure (something all past nation who became nuclear even within the last fortnight, did not have to lose).

It's also a wasted slot for a National Wonder.

[Syzygy]

ever heard of SDIs? if you attack another nation and then get countered by 3 others you have 4 opponents on your back. Against SDIs you need on average 3nukes to make 1 hit, which means you cannot even ensure to anarchy all 4 of them on the first day of war to stop them from collecting tax. With 20 you can, AND you can make sure to anarchy all of them on the last day AGAIN to keep them out of declaring new wars or collecting for another week.

With spy attacks counted in, YES: 20 or even 25 nukes are a LOT better deterrent and source of impact then 10 nukes. more than twice as useful for sure.

Nations with 10nukes will most probably not able to fight nuclear in the second waves of attacks any more, even with reloading. Nations with 20 or even 25 nukes can.

Just let two equal nations, one with 10nukes from the start, one with 20or25nukes from the start beat out a 1on1, the one with the 20/25nukes will win totally and without question. Is that worth +3k NS? Yes. Imho it is.

[Blacky]

Just let two equal nations, one with 10nukes from the start, one with 20or25nukes from the start beat out a 1on1, the one with the 20/25nukes will win totally and without question. Is that worth +3k NS? Yes. Imho it is.

Can't you say the same for infrastructure and technology as well? Infact you can make the same argument for anything. But you can not make an argument that 2 + 2 = 5. And thus you must concede that this a design flaw.