IrishX Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 The soldier things still applies. This morning, my soldiers efficiency was 75% my population. My environment was 5.97. I reduced soldiers efficiency to 59% population, and my environment was 4.97. I forgot to document the changes a point in environment brings about though. Efficiency, or actual soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgonV Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) Efficiency Edited May 21, 2008 by ArgonV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Does the NEO take the environement to 0 or is it just a replacement of border walls? The Radiation cleanup bonus resource looks a lot better all of a sudden it only removes the import penalties of coal/oil/uran and give an additional env-bonus of 1. So, for users who import coal/oil/uran it can bring up to 4 envbonus, which is quite a lot. For users with the 3BG combo, which is already best, it "only" brings 2 env bonus, since they have no more penalties anyway. So, it is more lucrative for users importing these resources, than it is for others which might prefer an HealthCare System or a NuclearPowerPlant instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 The soldier things still applies. This morning, my soldiers efficiency was 75% my population. My environment was 5.97. I reduced soldiers efficiency to 59% population, and my environment was 4.97. I forgot to document the changes a point in environment brings about though. I'll test this again next time I collect (May 28). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigNastyPSU Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) I tested this as well (in fact I am the one who notified ArgonV about it). I put my nation at 60% + 1 soldier last night and my environment went up a point. I dismissed a couple of soldiers and it went back down. No other changes. And the number it does use is efficiency not actual. Edited May 21, 2008 by BigNastyPSU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishX Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Efficiency Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 And the number it does use is efficiency not actual. Well, it looks like I'm about to make another suggestion then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigNastyPSU Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Well, it looks like I'm about to make another suggestion then. Yeah it would make more sense to be actual. Efficiency is basically just like the difference in soldier performance like the boys who were drafted in Vietnam and those who went willingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgonV Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 On the other hand, that would mean that people who have good resources and lots of military improvements can have much stronger armies for either less cost or less bad effects... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigNastyPSU Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 On the other hand, that would mean that people who have good resources and lots of military improvements can have much stronger armies for either less cost or less bad effects... Isn't that a good thing though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgonV Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 I dunno how that'd play out balance-wise. It's probably efficiency for a good reason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich333 Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) n/m Edited May 21, 2008 by Rich333 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganon5 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 On the other hand, that would mean that people who have good resources and lots of military improvements can have much stronger armies for either less cost or less bad effects... Why should having better-trained soldiers reduce environment? Efficiency implies that it takes less soldiers to do the same work of inefficient soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 I've heard so much about #2 and #6, is it confirmed yet? People say you get an environment bonus at 2 Land : 1 Infra, which roughly approximates 20 population per square mile? How does Water factor in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 I've heard so much about #2 and #6, is it confirmed yet? People say you get an environment bonus at 2 Land : 1 Infra, which roughly approximates 20 population per square mile? How does Water factor in? I haven't noticed anything with population density (haven't been looking though), but I think my environment improved with a 2:1 infra to land ratio, but that was a while ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsylentStorm Posted May 27, 2008 Report Share Posted May 27, 2008 Why should having better-trained soldiers reduce environment? Efficiency implies that it takes less soldiers to do the same work of inefficient soldiers. I've heard so much about #2 and #6, is it confirmed yet? People say you get an environment bonus at 2 Land : 1 Infra, which roughly approximates 20 population per square mile? How does Water factor in? You guys have conflicting ratios. Can anyone confirm which 2:1 ration is better, land:infra or infra:land (although the latter makes more sense), if this is even true at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 27, 2008 Report Share Posted May 27, 2008 You guys have conflicting ratios.Can anyone confirm which 2:1 ration is better, land:infra or infra:land (although the latter makes more sense), if this is even true at all? 1 land:2 infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsylentStorm Posted May 27, 2008 Report Share Posted May 27, 2008 What's the environment bonus for maintaining that ratio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 What's the environment bonus for maintaining that ratio? +1. New rule for everyone, +1 environment means it improves environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 +1.New rule for everyone, +1 environment means it improves environment. +1 star = -1 invisible number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Rupert Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 It improves the score (the invisible number) which is half a star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 It improves the score (the invisible number) which is half a star. Ah. So is it the 2:1 Infra:Land ratio that improves the environment, or is it the 20 population density? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 Ah.So is it the 2:1 Infra:Land ratio that improves the environment, or is it the 20 population density? The 2:1 infra:land does, and I'm not sure about the population density. I haven't gotten it that low for a while. I'll need more wars for that to happen. I'm at 34 right now (with 200 land coming from a donation soon), but that won't be enough to test it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 The 2:1 infra:land does, and I'm not sure about the population density. I haven't gotten it that low for a while. I'll need more wars for that to happen. I'm at 34 right now (with 200 land coming from a donation soon), but that won't be enough to test it out. Land is getting very expensive for me right now... and I'm not big enough to have a very developed military. I'm thinking of slowly increasing land and infra together soon. =( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 Land is getting very expensive for me right now... and I'm not big enough to have a very developed military. I'm thinking of slowly increasing land and infra together soon. =( Buying land still isn't worth it (unless you lose nearly all of it in war). I only receive it through war spoils and donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.