Jump to content

New environment effect


Recommended Posts

You know I haven't seen any GATO etc members complaining, considering if it's crippling the winning side :rolleyes:

Yes those big highs of 1.3 GRL :v:

Well if you put any thought into building your nation, then you should have made it through these changes well or only have to make minimal changes. For myself I bought 1 border wall and I now make more than I did prior to losing 5K~ citizens.

Now it does make the game.

Yes please. The point is people have gotten by with horrible nations previously and will continue to do so.

Brilliant you quoted me from when the change was initially made and admin accidentally made it x10 too strong. I said that in the short term i.e. whilst admin was still tinkering with it. Which only lasted an hour or so anyway.

Brilliant, moan about me "trolling" people ( :rolleyes: ) and then suggest I'm a sociopath. If you have any skill in this game, or have built your nation in a level fashion, then you'll get through these changes untouched or having to rethink your strategy and make the odd change e.g. trade swapping + LC swapping + borderwalls whilst sledding. I'm sure any decent alliance has already got to work on this and will either now or soon have guides in place to redevelop how one grows your nation now.

The bottom line LJ, is that growth and rebuilding for nations has slowed which negatively impacts nations that still need to purchase infra and doesn't happen to impact nations that are at an infra level that is no longer profitable. That makes this update unbalanced. On top of that people who had a strategy that they enjoyed and have put a lot of time (CN) money and effort into now have to completely rework the goals for their nations and sit and watch as the millions they invested in certain things are now wasted.

You say things like "Just because they can but nukes doesn't mean they can maintain them". Well let me tell you LJ that that is utter BS. I, for example, made damn sure that I was in a position to be able to buy and maintain 20 nukes before I spent that $120 million it cost me to get them but now, that perfectly fine and perfectly viable strategy is hurting me immensely.

As far as having to make slight adjustments, I a glad for you that you just needed to buy 1 border wall and now you are fine but I assure you that you are the exception to the rule. I lost 5 improvement slots and I need to maintain 5 border walls to achieve max environment which in turn costs me another improvement slot so that puts me down 11 improvements from where I was causing me to have to destroy a number of military improvements that I kept during peacetime for readiness purposes (again hampering the way I enjoy playing the game) and I now also need to swap 5 factories out in order to maximize my economy (Hasn't admin said hat he wants to eliminate improvement swapping? Now its even more emphasized that before.) this adds another $750k in expenses every time I collect, and after I have done all of this figuring and swapping I am rewarded with a loss of $600k net per day to my income.

It took me all of five minutes to figure out what my "optimum" set up was under this new formula so talks of adding depth to the game are really laughable all it has done is limited different ways to play and added more monotonous steps to the collection process.

Edited by KingSrqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

change some trades

Great idea! Why don't you just ruin most of the already relatively few good trade sets? Oh wait, you already did! In case you haven't noticed, the number of people playing this game hasn't really grown much past 30k, and they're split between 12 different teams. With 210 possible resource combinations, and with all of the extremely few in number halfway decent resource sets requiring multiple trade partners with perfect pairs for the set, most nations already start out at a huge disadvantage in trading, and with the limited number of traders, it's no wonder most nations just linger in the bottom ranks forever. It's extremely difficult to form a decent trade set, especially if you don't have a high-quality resource pair to start out with. The situation before this change was that most people with good trades spent weeks, even months, working on their trades to get them that way, and most of the people playing this game simply end up with poor resource sets because quite frankly there aren't enough good resource sets to go around. You've made that problem worse. Some of us have settled for less than optimal though still decent sets, like the one I have (Affluent Population+Fine Jewelry+Fast Food), because of this, and some people (e.g. me) have formed trade circles for these sub-optimal though still good resource sets with other members of their alliance to ensure that everyone involved at least has something semi-decent. The only "bad" resource I import is coal, and like just about every other top 5% nation I have nukes (25 of them, to protect you, my supposed ally, who's done more damage to my nation than any enemy of mine ever has); for this, a quarter of my income has been obliterated. You've ruined the AP+FJ+FF resource set and probably several others. You claim this was to reduce the amount of "cookie cutter" nation building, though it has actually greatly reduced the ability of nations to specialize and differentiate from one another without massive penalties for doing so. Congratulations. You've ruined my trade circle, you've trashed my economy, you've ruined my plans for an infra jump, you'll probably end up costing me several weeks of my time trying to fix my trades and those of everyone else in my circle, and you've inflicted the same or similar hardship on thousands of other people who play this game. Thanks.

after it has done the changes in nation setup which are now benefitial

While you claim this was to eliminate "cookie cutter" nation building, you've made it so that only one way, your way, is the "right" way.

You are simply forced to THINK more when planning

Yes, of course, because people who already had things set up well should have to spend days, weeks, even months reworking everything to do things your way, or fail and linger in the bottom ranks. Somehow, having to rework everything that was working just fine the other day, is called "planning"; how convenient that your setup, complete with a NEO, requires no such major changes.

(chosing your trades, improvements, govsettings, wonders) than before. Correct decisions are rewarded, wrong decisions are penalized.

They weren't wrong two days ago, and the word "decisions" implies some free choice. In improvements, government settings, and wonders, this may be the true to some extent, though of course with these changes it's now much more difficult to actually change improvements or get new Wonders. But in trades, it is absolutely false. There is no free choice in trades, you start out with a probably bad pair, which you're stuck with permanently, and making good use of that pair is often impossible, or at the very least highly improbable. You've made an already bad situation even worse, by further limiting the already extremely limited good options available to those who didn't start out with an already impossibly bad pair of resources. "Change your resources" is a hell of a lot easier said than done.

Edited by Rich333
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syzygy, Diskord, and a few others have been major forces in the more mathematically cerebral aspects of this game.

So have I. I was the one who first suggested bonus resources back in the summer of '06, and the one who suggested that the pigs population bonus be upgraded from 3% to 3.5%, along with dozens of other suggestions that never got implemented. I used to practically live in the suggestions forum, with almost my entire focus on the economic aspects of the game, and was constantly helping people, both in my alliance and on the CN forums, with nation building, long before anyone posted public nation building guides. I independently invented (as in, others came up with it too, but I came up with it on my own, before people starting publicly sharing their nation building secrets) the aid+back collection strategy and LC cycling. I also wrote the nation building guide for my alliance. I've been as involved in "the more mathematically cerebral aspects of this game" as anyone, and I hate this change.

The argument that this update makes the game less enjoyable because it makes optimization more challenging is hypocritical and thus falls on its face.

It makes the game less enjoyable because it's a negative change. Rather than making bad things better, good things have been made bad to make already bad things less unappealing. This change doesn't add rewards for better optimization, it penalizes existing optimizations that don't fit into a now more narrow range of "good". This is a completely backwards way of changing a game, and every time a negative change has been made to CN the reaction has been predictably quite negative. If you want to make things more challenging and enjoyable, you don't trash what's already good, you make things which aren't good better in some way, adding new positive incentives for different ways of doing things. That was the whole original purpose behind the suggestion of bonus resources, though unfortunately the implementation was never quite what I had intended when I suggested them, as we're still dealing with some resources being impossibly bad. If you want to make things more interesting, you add new good ways to specialize and differentiate. You add several different good resource sets so there's more than one optimal set. You add new improvements that depend on each other but are mutually exclusive with other improvements, and do the same with wonders. You expand the uses of tech, not just the automatic effects, but the options that it opens up, providing new different and mutually exclusive paths of development. That's how you improve the game and make it more interesting, without pissing off half or more of the existing player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument goes both ways. There is a huge difference some receiving no benefits while others do and crippling effects. I can't see where that enhances anyone's game. Unless you are a sociopath.

plain wrong, and proven 100times. the update is *by far* not strong enough to cripple anyone long term. the only thing that might happen is that someone is currently trapped in war will have some problems to switch his improvements because he also lost improvement slots from the war.

But that is a problem with the implementation, not the update itself, and as 100times said now: nobody except the admin knew the moment and the time of the implementation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you put any thought into building your nation, then you should have made it through these changes well or only have to make minimal changes. For myself I bought 1 border wall and I now make more than I did prior to losing 5K~ citizens.

I'm fairly certain I've put orders of magnitude more thought into building my nation than you have into yours, and if YOU had put any significant thought into building your nation prior to this change, you would not be making more now than you were before it. If you're making more now with a Border Wall than you were before the change without a BW, clearly you would've made even more still WITH a BW prior to the change, and had you put as much thought into your nation as you now assume others have not, you would've calculated those benefits and had the BW prior to the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not against changes such as this. My only complaint is that this makes it nigh impossible for anyone to catch up to higher ranked nations, and by changing the "Right" order of improvements it cripples people like me who are in ZI recovery and would have to destroy (in my case) 19 improvements in order to get my 5 border walls.

My main complaint though, is that this makes it impossible to catch up to higher nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply not convinced that dumping improvements and throwing up Border Walls is the miracle solution to people's income issues in a vast majority of situations. Patience, and some investment in infrastructure to replace lost population, should solve whatever income shortfalls most people are having. I am in this category.

Does it mean you might have to forego getting some Wonder/improvement or other a week or so? or cancel a tech deal or two? Perhaps...but some of you honestly are acting like this is the end of the world and it isn't. I would submit that if you were thrown off to the point that you are now near bill lock, you probably had your nation too optimized to take advantage of game mechanics and the danger of doing so is that the game mechanics might change (as in this case) significantly and you're screwed--remember people this is a piece of beta software. Granted a pretty long term one and therefore stable and pretty bug free, but a beta none the less. If you gambled and lost...I'm sorry, but that's how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, you are my favorit!

Maybe it's just April Fool's Day...again...a bit late...by a long way.

"Hahahaaa, very funny admin, that was a good one, you really had us worried for a moment there...you can change it back now, we all had a great laugh"

But in all seriousness, is it just me or does everyone else observe how the change does not in any way, shape, or form, actually work towards its own proposed objective?

Where is the opportunity for anyone to be more intelligent and better manage and develop their nation?

And how influential does a feature need to be? I mean, sure it could have had some more attention in the game, but this change makes the game all about environment...or did I miss something, is that what the game is all about now? Sorry, I was confused for a moment there, the name of the game is Cyber Nations, I just assumed we were managing nations, but hey, it's an easy mistake isn't it, once again, I should have just magically known, it's all about Cyber Environments!

Also, who here lives in a country where 'environment' affects their economy to such an epic scale? -Some mighty fine realism in this update, so yeah, I guess that's a well thought argument by its advocates.

I'm still going over it, but if after having checked this half a dozen times I am right, then I believe my nation now earns (after collecting taxes and paying bills) 18% of that which it did before the change, though I guess the select few here who advocate the change and coincidently and conveniently came out on top are right, I should have been more intelligent and managed my nation better. I mean I should have known not to initially manage my nation as best I could, but instead procrastinate in knowing that great change would come, I should have been prepared to suddenly find a thousand citizens spontaneously disappeared or ran away and that the ones that remained would become suddenly overwhelmed with grief and overtly concerned about the environment and in turn create an epic failure to my economy. I mean you're right, that is quite obviously a much better management scheme -It's so predictable, I should have known, how did I miss that? And how could I have missed the warning that such adverse changes were coming? Silly me, but hey, a select few have somehow managed to come out on top, so that's all that really matters isn't it, that the ones who were sitting by jealously watching them big bloated nations with endearing glares finally get an unfair advantage, finally a system that just picks them up and carries them to the finish line. you're right guys, it's well earned!

Sooooo, anyone else here having fun with the new CN? Perhaps there's some generous souls out there to donate some cash to me. I was right in the middle of tech deals, except usually my nation earns enough that I can buy the tech before having to send it, quite easily, however due to some recent very predictable events which I was not expecting, I no longer earn enough to complete tech deals....anywhere in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about an area we can put money into too counteract pollution. The cost could be based on tech, land, and population. Give nations, mainly the small low income ones the ability to counteract the damage being done.

How about the ability to sell our polution and trash off to smaller more desperate nations who nned the cash! Liek they do in the real world.

Better yet, have the option to drop it in the in the ocean. We could have a world polution index along with the rad index.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had bothered reading the thread, you would note it is not even close to that simple as this damages population, which means for a lot of nations to buy border walls, they will need to sacrifice upwards of a half dozen economic improvements to buy it. It is NOT a matter of just swapping them out and everyone is fine again no matter how many times you would like to assert it is.

I lost 6 improvement slots so I've kissed my 4 churches goodbye and, when I come to collect taxes, I will have to delete 2 of my barracks and all 5 of my labour camps before buying boarder walls (which may reduce my population to such a degree that I will have to drop further improvements to get all 5). Luckily (no skill, preparation or planning was involved) I had some surplus cash on hand to be able to make these changes. I expect others were not so lucky.

Did any of the top 5% nations have a similar problem? Didn't think so.

Well if you put any thought into building your nation, then you should have made it through these changes well or only have to make minimal changes. For myself I bought 1 border wall and I now make more than I did prior to losing 5K~ citizens.

If you have any skill in this game, or have built your nation in a level fashion, then you'll get through these changes untouched or having to rethink your strategy and make the odd change e.g. trade swapping + LC swapping + borderwalls whilst sledding. I'm sure any decent alliance has already got to work on this and will either now or soon have guides in place to redevelop how one grows your nation now.

This is just BS. People were putting in a great deal of thought into thier nations. And in fact according to the previous mechanics, you were playing inefficiently by hoarding land and tech which was doing next to nothing for your nation (economically speaking). No one saw this change coming as suddenly as it did so preparation was impossible. And then once the update comes into effect, you (having been playing relatively poorly economically speaking) make a slight ajustment and then benefit from it while those who were out-growing and out-performing you (whilest having a bad environment) are now forced to make significant changes. And it isn't as simple as just switching a trade or improvement. If you go back a years time and do this update (or inform them it was comming), many of those nations might have decided to spend a portion of thier income on land or gone on tech raids (like you did) in order to build up a sizable chunk of land over time.

Despite predictions, this update hasn't effected everyone equally and indeed, those negatively effected (relatively) are not the sloth, in-efficient "cookie cutter" scum but are in fact those mid-level nations who were playing with the most efficient method at the time.

Regarding whether it is now possible for a new nation to break the top 5%. It has become harder. While the future growth is slowed down for everyone (relatively: see above) equally, everyone's current strength was achieved using the previous game mechanics (which allowed faster growth). So a perfectly managed top 5% nation who has grown say, 50k NS in the last year will now be at a huge advantage over a nation created tomorrow, because that new nation, even if it's perfectly managed will take considerably longer to grow to the same 50k NS due to the new mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that this change has not helped equalize things for newer players. Assuming no wars, it does get harder to rise in the rankings. I'm not really sure what can be done about that, though. I think it is more important to make all the aspects of this game have some kind of importance. Environment meant nothing before, now it means something (perhaps too much?).

As I've said already, I do agree with Bob Janova in that the penalties from the "bad" resources should be reduced, OR as Rich has said, we need to update the resources and bonus resources to make tempting alternatives. This game is already getting slightly ridiculous in that people reroll until they have a perfect 3BR set. This update hurts some far more than others, and it's just the luck of the draw.

I've had nations coming to me with -12 improvements who are well above 5k infra. I can see that this has indeed had a large effect on the up and comers which will slow their growth. It does seem like slightly too much.

So have I. I was the one who first suggested bonus resources back in the summer of '06, and the one who suggested that the pigs population bonus be upgraded from 3% to 3.5%, along with dozens of other suggestions that never got implemented. I used to practically live in the suggestions forum, with almost my entire focus on the economic aspects of the game, and was constantly helping people, both in my alliance and on the CN forums, with nation building, long before anyone posted public nation building guides. I independently invented (as in, others came up with it too, but I came up with it on my own, before people starting publicly sharing their nation building secrets) the aid+back collection strategy and LC cycling. I also wrote the nation building guide for my alliance. I've been as involved in "the more mathematically cerebral aspects of this game" as anyone, and I hate this change.

I would be interested in you working again on resources so that we can equalize these suckers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently we don't need to worry, because Syzygy has already planned the next several "enhancements" to the game which are sure to equalize the global negative effects of this "upgrade" and make the game mechanics more fun. At least, that's what I gather from his hint-dropping in this thread.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I haven't seen any GATO etc members complaining, considering if it's crippling the winning side :rolleyes:

Yes those big highs of 1.3 GRL :v:

Well if you put any thought into building your nation, then you should have made it through these changes well or only have to make minimal changes. For myself I bought 1 border wall and I now make more than I did prior to losing 5K~ citizens.

Now it does make the game.

Yes please. The point is people have gotten by with horrible nations previously and will continue to do so.

Brilliant you quoted me from when the change was initially made and admin accidentally made it x10 too strong. I said that in the short term i.e. whilst admin was still tinkering with it. Which only lasted an hour or so anyway.

Brilliant, moan about me "trolling" people ( :rolleyes: ) and then suggest I'm a sociopath. If you have any skill in this game, or have built your nation in a level fashion, then you'll get through these changes untouched or having to rethink your strategy and make the odd change e.g. trade swapping + LC swapping + borderwalls whilst sledding. I'm sure any decent alliance has already got to work on this and will either now or soon have guides in place to redevelop how one grows your nation now.

As I said, I'm not worried about myself. I've always maintained all facets of growth. I have land, I have all the improvements, I have tech, I have infra. I'm worried about nations that don't have a lot of time to figure out what should be a simple sim game, or those who lost enough that growth will be difficult - the lower levels and those who actually enjoy a war now and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't worked out why I lost several thousand citizens, and why I can't build any improvements.

Now I have, and each day my count is going down. I just got back over the 25,000 mark AGAIN yesterday, and now I'm back under it.

Border Walls won't help you at all, it reduces your population count by 2%, so when you buy them, you're back where you started, and I can't buy any bloody improvements anyway because my population count keeps decreasing.

What's the big idea? I've been spamming infra's like nobodies business recently, and I hoped to start saving up some money for stuff, however, looks like I'm going to have to keep spamming it against the permanent tide of environmental penalties.

Edited by Johnny Apocalypse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't worked out why I lost several thousand citizens, and why I can't build any improvements.

Now I have, and each day my count is going down. I just got back over the 25,000 mark AGAIN yesterday, and now I'm back under it.

Border Walls won't help you at all, it reduces your population count by 2%, so when you buy them, you're back where you started, and I can't buy any bloody improvements anyway because my population count keeps decreasing.

What's the big idea? I've been spamming infra's like nobodies business recently, and I hoped to start saving up some money for stuff, however, looks like I'm going to have to keep spamming it against the permanent tide of environmental penalties.

Ok this will be an answer directly to his nation, and what I would do, if it would be mine.

This look is flawed, as i don´t know his exact numbers and cash on hand, so it can just be a general idea.

1. You choose communism, change that to Democracy, even when comu is your desired gov., the +1 happy bonus from demo eaquals the malus of not choosing the right gov., and you get an additional envi bonus.

2. Your alliance looks like an peacefull bunch, so why do you need tanks?

Scrap them, they just cost bills, as long as you have no intention to fight. The second point is, some ppl mentioned it, but i don´t know if it is correct, that you get an additional bonus if your soldiers are under 29%, so try it out, go down to around 8.5k to 9k soldiers. If you get no add envi bonus, as least you save bills, and have an better soldier/workers ratio.

3. I personaly like your trades, so hold them as they are.

4. This now largely depends on how much money you have at hand.

a)

If you have something like 10 mio, try to do a slide/collection cycle. Just pay bills as long as you can, but hold back enough money, to buy 5 bw´s. (remember you can build stuff, even with 1 days bills not payed)

The day you want to collect, sell 1 factory, buy 1 bw, check you evi, repeat that progress till you reach the optimum.

Collect.

b )

If you have more money, you may even calc it out, if laborcamps work for you. In this case, scrap the facs now, buy lc´s, and on the day you collect, scrap all lc´s and buy the optimal number of bw´s.

5. From here on you have 3 or 4 additional options

5.1 check out if you can get moneytary aid from your alliance.

5.2 If you can afford it, you may think about selling a donation to an larger player (around 15 to 18 mio CU)

5.3 you can think about selling your tech, yes this sounds hard, and it would be my personal last option , but in case you decide to do it, 500 tech are 15 mio CU)

5.4 do none of the points above, grow slower

6. in case you decide to for point 1 to 3, you can organice your incoming aid, the way, that you got it the day you cycle hits day 18 or 19.

So on day 16 you change your gov to capitalism.

On day 17/18 you stop paying bills, you you are one day of bills, the day you collect.

On the day you collect, scrap your bw, buy facs, than buy infra, till you only have enough money left for your bw´s, scrap the facs, buy bw´s, change your gov to demo.

check if you can buy an add improvement, from the infra you just bought.

collect.

7. Repeat as long as you like.

8. I know it´s hard to sell your tech, but this would give you an financial boost, and you should do it only if you think you have no other option, like inter alliance aid or selling an donation.

I´m not sure if this will help you, but as i said, i don´t have your exact numbers here, and i haven´t done any bigger math, so i may be off a bit, but as i said, thats what I would do, if i had your nation at this moment and in this situation.

good luck

necAnt

ps: i would buy an donation if you are intrested to sell one :D

Edited by necAnt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain I've put orders of magnitude more thought into building my nation than you have into yours, and if YOU had put any significant thought into building your nation prior to this change, you would not be making more now than you were before it. If you're making more now with a Border Wall than you were before the change without a BW, clearly you would've made even more still WITH a BW prior to the change, and had you put as much thought into your nation as you now assume others have not, you would've calculated those benefits and had the BW prior to the change.

I didn't have the BW prior to the change. In order to get it I bought the 400~ infra I needed to re-coup my improvement slots and then bought it. Switched my government, and orginsed some trade swaping for when I collect on sleds. That was me. Prior to the change the border wall was not as profitable as keeping the extra few slots for military improvements in my eyes tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit that if you were thrown off to the point that you are now near bill lock, you probably had your nation too optimized to take advantage of game mechanics

In other words, if you actually knew what you were doing, you got completely screwed by this change, but if you were just stumbling around in the dark not knowing what was what, you might've done okay, or even come out better than before, thanks to this change. Yet this change is supposed to promote putting more thought into nation building. I hope I'm not alone in recognizing just how asinine that is. Punishing people for playing the game well while rewarding people for not knowing what they're doing is not good game design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've seen from this update, and the adjusting the Admin has done to it is that it is livable, and does take some of the money/inflation out of the game. There are a couple of issues still, like why would a person buy a Manhatten now, and did this unbalance the various trade sets, or make the dirty resources even more undesireable, but the changes should not bankrupt any nation. Granted, people got caught in the middle of their plans which probably hurt many. If this update had happened 4 days earlier on the last day of my LC cycle I might have been boned, but that is more of a short term issue.

I do have a question though, regarding the smaller nations. I was talking with a trade partner about these changes, and this nation, with the same resource set as me, but less tech and with uranium not native, has an enviroment of over 6. With a little over 400 infra, there is no way she can use Border Walls when she doesn't even have 5 improvements yet. How the heck are little countries supposed to 'fix' their environment? Is their only real option to stop trading with a nation like mine that has a single dirty resource? Do you realize how many nations that would discourage from trading with me, or others like me? I have nearly the same environmental factors except I have much more tech, and my environment is like 3; I can't believe one dirty resource is worth +3 environment score. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok this will be an answer directly to his nation, and what I would do, if it would be mine.

This look is flawed, as i don´t know his exact numbers and cash on hand, so it can just be a general idea.

1. You choose communism, change that to Democracy, even when comu is your desired gov., the +1 happy bonus from demo eaquals the malus of not choosing the right gov., and you get an additional envi bonus.

2. Your alliance looks like an peacefull bunch, so why do you need tanks?

Scrap them, they just cost bills, as long as you have no intention to fight. The second point is, some ppl mentioned it, but i don´t know if it is correct, that you get an additional bonus if your soldiers are under 29%, so try it out, go down to around 8.5k to 9k soldiers. If you get no add envi bonus, as least you save bills, and have an better soldier/workers ratio.

3. I personaly like your trades, so hold them as they are.

4. This now largely depends on how much money you have at hand.

a)

If you have something like 10 mio, try to do a slide/collection cycle. Just pay bills as long as you can, but hold back enough money, to buy 5 bw´s. (remember you can build stuff, even with 1 days bills not payed)The day you want to collect, sell 1 factory, buy 1 bw, check you evi, repeat that progress till you reach the optimum.

Collect.

b )

If you have more money, you may even calc it out, if laborcamps work for you. In this case, scrap the facs now, buy lc´s, and on the day you collect, scrap all lc´s and buy the optimal number of bw´s.

5. From here on you have 3 or 4 additional options

5.1 check out if you can get moneytary aid from your alliance.

5.2 If you can afford it, you may think about selling a donation to an larger player (around 15 to 18 mio CU)

5.3 you can think about selling your tech, yes this sounds hard, and it would be my personal last option , but in case you decide to do it, 500 tech are 15 mio CU)

5.4 do none of the points above, grow slower

6. in case you decide to for point 1 to 3, you can organice your incoming aid, the way, that you got it the day you cycle hits day 18 or 19.

So on day 16 you change your gov to capitalism.

On day 17/18 you stop paying bills, you you are one day of bills, the day you collect.

On the day you collect, scrap your bw, buy facs, than buy infra, till you only have enough money left for your bw´s, scrap the facs, buy bw´s, change your gov to demo.

check if you can buy an add improvement, from the infra you just bought.

collect.

7. Repeat as long as you like.

8. I know it´s hard to sell your tech, but this would give you an financial boost, and you should do it only if you think you have no other option, like inter alliance aid or selling an donation.

I´m not sure if this will help you, but as i said, i don´t have your exact numbers here, and i haven´t done any bigger math, so i may be off a bit, but as i said, thats what I would do, if i had your nation at this moment and in this situation.

good luck

necAnt

ps: i would buy an donation if you are intrested to sell one :D

Why thank you for the advice, as for the trades. They were nice, then the guy who was trading me fish and wine cancelled today so I lost a further 4000 citizens because I no longer have affluence, so that's $%&@ed me up royally, now I'm on minus 4 improvements.

Did the soldiers and tanks, got back up to -3 improvements instead of -4

My environment is 5 stars as of now and I've gained 1,000 citizens, it'll take a while but I'll get back up the food chain.

Thank you very much for this, it has been of great help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Now after almost a month introducing the envoriment update i can say that i like it and have no problem with it. Anyway if you havent nukes and not more than 1 resouce what gives a penalty, you must can on 1 env (excluding the radiation effect) if there is no war. So for me its no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...