wonder help

[Tankshock]

i have Great Monument, Interstate System, Social Security System, Stock Market,

what should i get next?

[naamah]

If it were me, Id get the DRA. That was the very first wonder I bought, I love having 6 aid slots. I don't know how I ever got by with less. Plus it give you a population (income and maybe improvement) bonus.

[enderland]

Great Temple probably, without looking at your nation.

[Sanru]

I'd agree with ender land. but it depends on how you operate. if you are consistently filling up 5 aid slots and can keep the 6th full, then DRA might prove better.

[Viluin]

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=122778

You may want to consider some military wonders. You're a pretty easy target for a nation with over 8k infra. An SDI, Manhattan Project and CIA would be a good start. I know it slows down your growth, but if you got into a war in your current state I assure you you'd regret it. You should've started purchasing wonders sooner, unfortunately you're now at a pretty big disadvantage compared to other nations at your level.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Viluin

[Tankshock]

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=122778

You may want to consider some military wonders. You're a pretty easy target for a nation with over 8k infra. An SDI, Manhattan Project and CIA would be a good start. I know it slows down your growth, but if you got into a war in your current state I assure you you'd regret it. You should've started purchasing wonders sooner, unfortunately you're now at a pretty big disadvantage compared to other nations at your level.

well, i do not plan on getting in any wars. i am in a small cartel led by a top 30 nation who will take care of any military problems.

i am gonna go with the great temple

[Choader]

well, i do not plan on getting in any wars. i am in a small cartel led by a top 30 nation who will take care of any military problems.

i am gonna go with the great temple

Ask California about the security of being in a small alliance minding your own business. At the very least you should get a MP and SDI.

[enderland]

If you do not have an SDI and are over 8000 infra, that should be your next wonder, end of story.

edit: don't bother with the CIA at all as it is a very minor military wonder at best and you seem to not have any interest in your nation's security.

Edited June 5, 2009 by ender land

[Emperor Badger]

well, i do not plan on getting in any wars. i am in a small cartel led by a top 30 nation who will take care of any military problems.

i am gonna go with the great temple

That attitude won't help you too much. You may not want to go to war, but I am sure that there could be a lot of nations that may war you in the future. An 8k infra nation without an MP / SDI / acceptable tech levels is somewhat of a target for any would be nuke rogue.

As for the wonder, SDI for sure. And get more tech as well. If you have a look at my nation as an example (see here), I am 3k infra less than you (however 5k NS more), but would absolutely decimate you in a nuclear exchange, because of my tech levels / SDI / MP. Also I am assuming you have 0 spies since I get 90% odds on you.

So, In summary, SDI now, get some more spies fairly soon, build some more military wonders over the next 6 months (MP / SDI / Pentagon at least, also look at getting the WRC as well, which means you need a NRL too) and also build up your tech level.

[Viluin]

If you do not have an SDI and are over 8000 infra, that should be your next wonder, end of story.

edit: don't bother with the CIA at all as it is a very minor military wonder at best and you seem to not have any interest in your nation's security.

Someone with a CIA and max spies will get ~70% spy odds on someone without a CIA a max spies, if I am not mistaken. That means you'll generally be spied on successfully once or twice a day, destroying your nukes, changing your DFCON levels etc. Spy attacks are very effective on defenseless nations. I've met several enemies in this war with no spies at all and I was able to play with them every day, messing them up in all sorts of ways. Changing their DEFCON level from 1 to 4 can easily improve your odds from, say, 60% to 67%.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Viluin

[enderland]

Having a CIA adds roughly 2 more successful (or lost while defending) spy operations per week as compared to not having one.

[jer]

Manhattan Project.

[Viluin]

Having a CIA adds roughly 2 more successful (or lost while defending) spy operations per week as compared to not having one.

It's not that simple.. If you have 30% spy odds, you will also lose 20 spies far more often than if you had 50% odds. Losing 20-40 spies a day for 1 successful spy-op if you're lucky can be quite the warchest killer. Likewise, people spying on you with 70% odds won't lose spies very often even if they fail. Without a CIA you're not gonna be spying on anyone that does have one, it won't be worth it.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Viluin

[enderland]

It's not that simple.. If you have 30% spy odds, you will also lose 20 spies far more often than if you had 50% odds. Losing 20-40 spies a day for 1 successful spy-op if you're lucky can be quite the warchest killer. Likewise, people spying on you with 70% odds won't lose spies very often even if they fail. Without a CIA you're not gonna be spying on anyone that does have one, it won't be worth it.

I'm really not going to bother going into the statistical analysis but trust me, the CIA is probably one of the most highly overrated wonders there is.

[Viluin]

I'm really not going to bother going into the statistical analysis but trust me, the CIA is probably one of the most highly overrated wonders there is.

It boosts both your offensive and defensive spy odds by quite a bit. Basically, without a CIA that's an average of 6-8 extra spy-ops a week you will lose against an enemy with a CIA (offensive and defensive combined), and you'll probably lose 60-80 more spies and your opponent will lose 60-80 less spies over the week. Spying can be a powerful tool.. if you spy someone to DEFCON 4 at the start of the day you will have a significant advantage in all ground, air and navy battles for the rest of the day. Try doing that consistently with only 30% spy odds.

The same goes for nukes.. your enemy will spy away 6-8 more nukes from you than you will be able to spy away from him. That's like he has a second SDI (albeit a less effective one). On average, you'll spy away 4-5 nukes over the week, your enemy will spy away 11-12 (there are 16 spy-ops in every war, not 14). That means you would probably lose all 20 of your nukes before the first round of war is even over if you don't have a CIA.. assuming it's a 1v1, which it probably isn't. I'd say that's quite significant. The #1 priority in nuclear wars is to protect your nuclear weapons, buy&shoot mode is horrible, especially without a WRC. I've never met a nuclear opponent that didn't have a CIA, and for good reason.

The SDI is extremely important because it drains your enemy of nukes. The CIA is important for the same reason, it drains your enemy of nukes and it even protects your own nukes. It also has more benefits. I certainly wouldn't call it one of the most overrated wonders, far from it.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Viluin

[enderland]

Do the math Viliun, it's not 6-8.

[Viluin]

Do the math Viliun, it's not 6-8.

No CIA vs. CIA from the perspective of the nation that is lacking a CIA:

Offensive spy odds: 30%

Defensive spy odds: 70%

Spy ops: 16 offensive and 16 defensive.

Successful offensive spy ops: 4.8

Unthwarted spy ops against your nation: 11.2

That's a difference of 6.4. But, since you can't have 0.4 spy-ops, it's a difference of either 6 or 7. Not 8, but close enough. On average, you would lose 6-7 more nukes to spy-ops throughout the war than your opponent. If both players have a CIA the odds are generally ~50/50.

The only problem is that the spy odds screen doesn't give exact odds. Hmm.

EDIT: Lol.. okay, some quick math tells me the odds at low-medium tech levels (which is when most people buy the CIA) are closer to 40 (no CIA) vs 60 (CIA). This would result in a difference of 3.2 spy-ops rather than 6.4. Buying a CIA would save 1.6 of your nukes. Personally I still think it's worth it, every nuke counts in prolonged wars, but I can see how some would disagree.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Viluin

[Count Rupert]

No CIA vs. CIA from the perspective of the nation that is lacking a CIA:

Offensive spy odds: 30%

Defensive spy odds: 70%

Spy ops: 16 offensive and 16 defensive.

Successful offensive spy ops: 4.8

Unthwarted spy ops against your nation: 11.2

That's a difference of 6.4. But, since you can't have 0.4 spy-ops, it's a difference of either 6 or 7. Not 8, but close enough. On average, you would lose 6-7 more nukes to spy-ops throughout the war than your opponent. If both players have a CIA the odds are generally ~50/50.

The only problem is that the spy odds screen doesn't give exact odds. Hmm.

EDIT: Lol.. okay, some quick math tells me the odds at low-medium tech levels (which is when most people buy the CIA) are closer to 40 (no CIA) vs 60 (CIA). This would result in a difference of 3.2 spy-ops rather than 6.4. Buying a CIA would save 1.6 of your nukes. Personally I still think it's worth it, every nuke counts in prolonged wars, but I can see how some would disagree.

You're looking at from a narrow perspective though. All those nations you say you encounter with the CIA probably bought them to protect their nukes back before there all the new military wonders. There are other alterative routes than the CIA to maintaining your nuclear stockpile. A non-CIA nation with the WRC verses a CIA no WRC nation is going to have based on your numbers a slight edge in the total nukes available. On one hand you have someone with greater ability to spy away nukes and on the other you have someone who has greater buying power to replace lost nukes. The CIA is only useful for spying/being spied on and at that you only get two attempts regardless of the opponents you face; while the WRC affects damage from all combats regardless of the number of opponents you face. There's no getting around the limited utility of the CIA is a major factor in many seeing it as overrated (at least in terms of it being an early military wonder). Some see the usefulness of the WRC worth more than the CIA and hence have pushed the CIA down their list of military wonders. The problem isn't that the CIA isn't useful when facing another nation without one, but it uses a wonder slot you have to wait 30 days to get. A slot some see being much more useful buying other wonders particularly those leading to the WRC.

[JoshuaR]

SDI, it's the most economically-minded military wonder in the game, so it's right up your alley. Then you can go back to the econ stuff until you want to go back to mil.

[Viluin]

You're looking at from a narrow perspective though. All those nations you say you encounter with the CIA probably bought them to protect their nukes back before there all the new military wonders. There are other alterative routes than the CIA to maintaining your nuclear stockpile. A non-CIA nation with the WRC verses a CIA no WRC nation is going to have based on your numbers a slight edge in the total nukes available. On one hand you have someone with greater ability to spy away nukes and on the other you have someone who has greater buying power to replace lost nukes. The CIA is only useful for spying/being spied on and at that you only get two attempts regardless of the opponents you face; while the WRC affects damage from all combats regardless of the number of opponents you face. There's no getting around the limited utility of the CIA is a major factor in many seeing it as overrated (at least in terms of it being an early military wonder). Some see the usefulness of the WRC worth more than the CIA and hence have pushed the CIA down their list of military wonders. The problem isn't that the CIA isn't useful when facing another nation without one, but it uses a wonder slot you have to wait 30 days to get. A slot some see being much more useful buying other wonders particularly those leading to the WRC.

I bought my CIA a couple of months before I was able to buy a WRC. I was still able to buy a Pentagon, FAB and a Manhattan Project before I got my WRC. I already had a NRL, it was the very first wonder I bought (Don't ask >_>).

Edited June 7, 2009 by Viluin

[enderland]

No CIA vs. CIA from the perspective of the nation that is lacking a CIA:

Offensive spy odds: 30%

Defensive spy odds: 70%

Spy ops: 16 offensive and 16 defensive.

Successful offensive spy ops: 4.8

Unthwarted spy ops against your nation: 11.2

That's a difference of 6.4. But, since you can't have 0.4 spy-ops, it's a difference of either 6 or 7. Not 8, but close enough. On average, you would lose 6-7 more nukes to spy-ops throughout the war than your opponent. If both players have a CIA the odds are generally ~50/50.

The only problem is that the spy odds screen doesn't give exact odds. Hmm.

EDIT: Lol.. okay, some quick math tells me the odds at low-medium tech levels (which is when most people buy the CIA) are closer to 40 (no CIA) vs 60 (CIA). This would result in a difference of 3.2 spy-ops rather than 6.4. Buying a CIA would save 1.6 of your nukes. Personally I still think it's worth it, every nuke counts in prolonged wars, but I can see how some would disagree.

Using a nation that has 3000 tech and 3000 purhased land as the sample nations.

Without CIA, attacker has:

550 + (3000 / 20) = 700 strength

Defender has (in severe):

(550 + (3000 / 20) + (3000 / 70)) * 1.25 = 930 strength

Odds are 700 / (700 + 930) = 43%

With CIA attacker has:

(800 + (3000 / 20)) * 1.1 = 1045 strength

Odds are 1045 / (1045 + 930) = 53%

In a seven day war, someone without a CIA can expect to win (.43 * 14) = 6.02 spy operations

With a CIA (.53 * 14) = 7.42

Against someone with a CIA the difference is even less.

All the above calculations lead up to a difference of 1.4 spy ops per war, assuming that you have them done against you daily (which is incredibly unlikely to happen for the majority of involved wars as while in anarchy it costs between 3-5M to launch one of these operations (2/3M for base price and about 1M in spies each op)) will destroy at most 1.4 more nukes.

Just get the HNMS. It's almost always better.

[Viluin]

Using a nation that has 3000 tech and 3000 purhased land as the sample nations.

Without CIA, attacker has:

550 + (3000 / 20) = 700 strength

Defender has (in severe):

(550 + (3000 / 20) + (3000 / 70)) * 1.25 = 930 strength

Odds are 700 / (700 + 930) = 43%

With CIA attacker has:

(800 + (3000 / 20)) * 1.1 = 1045 strength

Odds are 1045 / (1045 + 930) = 53%

In a seven day war, someone without a CIA can expect to win (.43 * 14) = 6.02 spy operations

With a CIA (.53 * 14) = 7.42

Against someone with a CIA the difference is even less.

All the above calculations lead up to a difference of 1.4 spy ops per war, assuming that you have them done against you daily (which is incredibly unlikely to happen for the majority of involved wars as while in anarchy it costs between 3-5M to launch one of these operations (2/3M for base price and about 1M in spies each op)) will destroy at most 1.4 more nukes.

Just get the HNMS. It's almost always better.

One correction.. there are 8 rounds of attacks in every "7-day" war (confusing, I know), which means there are 16 spy-ops. It's really not that unlikely to be spied on twice a day if you have nukes, especially if you're outnumbered. That means the difference is 1.6 for those tech/land levels. I estimated lower tech and especially land levels resulting in more favorable percentages for the CIA nation because I bought my CIA at under 2000 tech, but maybe that's just me.

When you're down to 0 nukes, you will curse yourself for not having that one extra nuke that might've hit your opponent. If you can't nuke, chances are your other attacks will fail as well unless your nation is much more powerful than the other guy's. Likewise, watching your enemy's last nuke slip through your SDI isn't fun either.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Viluin

[enderland]

If I curse myself because I didn't spend about 80M to defend one and a half nukes in a week war (not to mention not getting the HNMS or other more valuable wonders in the event that I was missing the FAB/AADN/HNMS/WRC and instead had the CIA) then so be it.

It's only about a 50% chance to nuke an opponent once more in a war if they have an SDI. Hardly that great in the grand scheme of things.

[King Irwin]

If I curse myself because I didn't spend about 80M to defend one and a half nukes in a week war (not to mention not getting the HNMS or other more valuable wonders in the event that I was missing the FAB/AADN/HNMS/WRC and instead had the CIA) then so be it.

It's only about a 50% chance to nuke an opponent once more in a war if they have an SDI. Hardly that great in the grand scheme of things.

No one has mentioned another aspect of the CIA either - the fact that wars are typically not fought one on one. The offensive capabilities of a CIA are very limited in usefulness if some of your allies also have it. If 3 of you are fighting the same opponent, for example, all of you having a CIA is overkill since you won't all be able to launch spy attacks anyway. Defensively, if you have your enemy outnumbered, it is just more likely that he won't actually launch that many spy attacks against you. On the other hand, if you are outnumbered, the benefits of a CIA are not greater than if you were only fighting one enemy. Many of the other wonders scale appropriately as they defend against each attacker.

For a ruler like the OP here who is counting on his alliance backing him, a CIA is pretty low priority, IMO.

By the way, I'm glad you updated your sig, ender land. It had taken me a while to figure out you and alden were one and the same.

Edited June 8, 2009 by King Irwin