New Wonders

[Guido]

I think you're oversimplifying it, and your argument can go for both sides of the war - why can't each alliance just press buttons? They'd be equally dis/advantaged.

Strategy comes in to nuking the most enemy nations, and getting the least of your nations nuked.

The point I am making is that there is no micromanaging involved whatsoever in nuking a nation, i should know, i've taken like 15 nukes. I signed on, nuked him, payed bills...done for the day. Thats a bad thing, even if it is on both sides of the war. There was no worrying if I could stay out of anarchy against an enemy blitz attack at update. Or coordinating attacks with different squads. I think nukes just become way overpowered once you get into the higher infra levels for how much they cost and what you have to do to keep them. Thats all.

[Saborn]

As someone who's at 8.7% but earns about 4 million a day after taxes, the prospect of being able to purchase a Manhattan Project and be able to get nukes within 25 days is rather appealing.

[Sequoia Throne]

Foreign aid commission really needs to drop the mutual improvement requirement and then it would be worth it. Also, please please please make the Manhatten project requirements more tough. To be honest, the less nukes in this game the better: it should be restricted to the oldest and most powerful of the game, and even then it still makes war less enjoyable.

I would also suggest lowering the hidden nuke silo to 3. 5 nukes is a lot of extra nukes to take when fighting rogues.

[agafaba]

but if you have the defencive improvement then you really only take 1.25 more nukes. Also although I can see why it is better to just get in the top 5% then to buy the improvement there are 2 points.

1. being able to buy nukes a lot sooner after you get ZIed

2. as more and more people join Cyber nations it gets harder to reach 5%, give it some time and this wonder will be worth more and more.

[der_ko]

I'm not sure you understand just how devastating nukes are to larger nations. At your size..who cares, 150 infra can be replaced quite easily with an aid package. But for a nation of even my moderate size at 8k infra, 150 infra is worth 27 million dollars, not easily replaceable. I think the cost and effects are perfect. Not many people will be able ot afford it except for the biggest nations, which IMO is a good thing. And trust me, it will be worth it to those big nations to spend the huge amount of money to get it.

150 infra is nothing for a nation with 8k infra. How the hell is losing 1.9 % (give or take a bit) of your infra devastating? It's a scratch, nothing more.

Do you want it to be virtually impossible to destroy larger nations?

[der_ko]

Also, the SDI is way overpowered. 20-30 % effectiveness would be much more balanced.

[gamer42_au]

Interesting new ideas.

I think the Foreign Aid Commission would make more sense if it were structured something like:

1) Only require sender to have, so put cost back up to $50M

2) But only increases aid amount for large recipient nations (eg +$1000 in aid can be sent per level of recipient's infra over 3000, = $1M/1000 infra, so can send $10M to someone with 10,000 infra, which is about 2 days bills at that level, ie can give them meaningful cash)

What about a spy mission = disrupt Wonder X for N days. Awesome combo effect when someone was relying on a Wonder. Needs to have low base chance of success.

[Wurzak]

Here is an alternative suggestion to fix FAC: keep it at the current price and aid bonus, but only require the reciever to have it and make it an improvement or just keep it as a wonder and let us purchase 5 of them. Yet another option is to make it affect the maximum amount of soldiers that can be sent. If I was in anarchy and bill locked and didn't have enough soldier, I'd rather recieve 2-3k per aid slots rather than have people make fun of my by offering aid packets of 4.5M that do nothing. 2k soldiers > 4.5M cash.

der_ko: nukes cost nothing, but cause really expensive damage. For just 1M you can easily destroy 30-40M worth of infra. Wars should primarily be fought with armies, not big red buttons. The SDI is just fine. Like admin said, you can launch one succesful nuke per day. If you want to get through the SDI, launch multiple nukes. Nukes shouldn't be an automatic "I win" button that destroy all defenses. Paying 75M for a chance to stop your 1M weapon is in no way unbalanced.

[Deputy Dangle]

Purchasing nukes still works as it always has, the only difference is that nations with the Manhattan Project can develop nuclear weapons even if they are below the 5% threshold. Those above 5% do not need the wonder. All other existing requirements for nukes will remain in effect.

How many people below the 5% actually have 100,000,000$? o.O

[evilgm]

I recommend that the Manhattan project allows you to buy one nuke per day and that being in the top 5% allows you to buy one nuke per day. That way it becomes useful to those on the cusp and immensely useful to someone who is in the top 5%. Especially considering the effectiveness of the SDI. So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Compstomper]

One nuke by it self is not bad. It is when you started taking 2, 5, 10, and more nukes that you can trash a large nation. We should not be destroyed as fast as a 3k nation in a war.

As somebody stated above that we are paying 75mill to have a 60% chance to stop a 1mill weapon.

[evilgm]

One nuke by it self is not bad. It is when you started taking 2, 5, 10, and more nukes that you can trash a large nation. We should not be destroyed as fast as a 3k nation in a war.

As somebody stated above that we are paying 75mill to have a 60% chance to stop a 1mill weapon.

And you won't be. In a war against someone with an SDI you do ok. In a war against someone without an SDI, you are a GOD OF DEATH. Just thinking out loud.

[Compstomper]

That is very true but in a war you will still be hit by a nuke a day. It's just that they will run out of nukes faster than you will but they will EASILY outlast the war.

In the end the SDI is best for rogue protection and the occasional guy who wants to take you down with him. It will help keep nuclear wars toned down a bit which is good as it bring convential warfare back into the picture.

In my opinion just pressing the easy button once a day is not very fun. When I go into a war I like haveing to manage all my attacks and everything.

[Joga Bonito]

How many people below the 5% actually have 100,000,000$? o.O

U can say that again...it's harder and harder on this game....

[Compstomper]

The use of that wonder is very obvious to me, as it can be very easy to fall below the 5% mark. Most of the time 100mill is not enough to get you into the top 5% for 20 days to buy all of your nukes.

[Jwetzel]

Are these the same?

At any rate, drop the requirement for the recipient to have one, or make an improvement to work with it. Most nations, once they get to the size to buy a $50mill wonder don't need to worry about getting an extra $9 million every ten days.

Federal Aid Commission - $25,000,000 - Raises the cap on foreign money aid +50% provided that the foreign aid recipient also has a Foreign Aid Commission wonder.

Federal or Foreign? I'd assume they are the same, but to nitpick no one can get a Foreign Aid Commission Wonder because they don't exist...

Edited November 20, 2007 by Jwetzel

[Guido]

150 infra is nothing for a nation with 8k infra. How the hell is losing 1.9 % (give or take a bit) of your infra devastating? It's a scratch, nothing more.

Do you want it to be virtually impossible to destroy larger nations?

hmm, ever been at 8k infra? Even though our infra costs keep rising at the same rate as your, our profits after taxes do not...I think at about 11k infra you break even and eventually start making less money as you buy more infra. And you aren't considering the fact that a 4k infra nation can be aided back to that level after a nuclear war...a 8k nation can not.

And yes, why wouldn't it be hard to destroy a nation that has been playing for 400+ days? That only seems to make logical sense. Especially since I can be completely destroyed by a nation with a 3rd of the infra as me, unable to defend themselves in normal war, but since they happen to have nukes, they can wreck my nation.

The number of rogues in this game alone should be enough to not allow this to happen.

[GondorKnightofNarnia]

I think the cost of the Manhattan project ought to be reduced to about 25 mil or less, otherwise it'll just be easier to get into the top 5% rather than buy the wonder. Yes it'd make it easier for nuclear rogues to get it but it also makes the game more fun

Edited November 20, 2007 by GondorKnightofNarnia

[der_ko]

hmm, ever been at 8k infra? Even though our infra costs keep rising at the same rate as your, our profits after taxes do not...I think at about 11k infra you break even and eventually start making less money as you buy more infra. And you aren't considering the fact that a 4k infra nation can be aided back to that level after a nuclear war...a 8k nation can not.

And yes, why wouldn't it be hard to destroy a nation that has been playing for 400+ days? That only seems to make logical sense. Especially since I can be completely destroyed by a nation with a 3rd of the infra as me, unable to defend themselves in normal war, but since they happen to have nukes, they can wreck my nation.

The number of rogues in this game alone should be enough to not allow this to happen.

No, I have not been at 8k infra. I have not passed the 5k infra yet because of the reasons you mentioned. There simple is not smart to spend your money on very expensive infra which won't even increase your income very much, but it will increase your bills a lot making you more vulnerable in war (easier to bill lock).

It is already very hard to destroy a very large nations, why make it even harder?

[Wurzak]

So large nations are easy to bill lock, but very hard to destroy. That makes sense when you think about it.

[Big Z]

In my opinion just pressing the easy button once a day is not very fun. When I go into a war I like haveing to manage all my attacks and everything.

You know there's an entire strategy to nuclear warfare? And nukes aren't an easy button at all, not with those with war chests. More than likely, in an alliance nuclear war, you'll still be doing conventional attacks, just money management becomes 10 times more important.

Regarding the wonders, the SDI is overpowered. It should either decrease the damage of the nukes or be only effective in stopping around 20-30 percent of the nukes, not 60 percent.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Big Z

[der_ko]

So large nations are easy to bill lock, but very hard to destroy. That makes sense when you think about it.

That's not what I said. It's hard to destroy a large nation because they have a huge amount of infra and they are not usually easy to bill lock unless you are dealing with someone stupid. Large nations are likely to have a huge war chest allowing them to survive 10+ days of nuclear anarchy without being bill locked. 5k+ infra nations, however, are easier (bolded just for you) to bill lock then 4999.99 infra nations because they have much higher bills.

You know there's an entire strategy to nuclear warfare? And nukes aren't an easy button at all, not with those with war chests. More than likely, in an alliance nuclear war, you'll still be doing conventional attacks, just money management becomes 10 times more important.

Regarding the wonders, the SDI is overpowered. It should either decrease the damage of the nukes or be only effective in stopping around 20-30 percent of the nukes, not 60 percent.

^^ This guy is smart, listen to him.

Edited November 20, 2007 by der_ko

[Crohl]

If you're going to reduce the effectiveness of the SDI then lower the price please. Since it was 75% costing 75 million, maybe make it 60 million now.

[JoshuaR]

Foreign Aid Commission: Should work only if receiver has it. Thus makes it useful.

SDI: Dropping a nuke should not destroy a nation, just a city. A city is one small part of a nation. It disrupts economy (happiness, anarchy), but doesn't destroy all the infrastructure in the other cities. I think nukes are very powerful. Just twenty is more than 3000 infra. This Star Wars defensive shield now catches most of them, and thus takes that excess damage down a bit. Even 75% is a good number, though now we're down to sixty... And it's not like everyone's going to get this wonder. Only a select few will. Economic wonders are still more useful if you don't think you'll be a target. And it takes thirty days from the last wonder...

[Iron Will]

In the initial new wonder topic I saw several people ask, "Will both nations have to have the federal aid comission" and others responded "it would only make sense."

Ack - I missed that conversation. That really makes no sense. Two banks would not aid each other except to help one buy more wonders. It's practical use is the ability to send small nations more money. The reciprocal wonder requirement really needs to be dropped.

EDIT:

this was implemented to make aid more useful for high level nations when assisting each other in battle (because their daily bills are mostly above 3M per day). it was NOT intended to give out even MORE cash from high level nations to low level nations to boost their growth even more. Both having the Wonder is a good concept, but 50M is almost not worth it, if you save up an own warchest of 50M you might be better off then increasing your aid capacity by 50%. I think 25M would be more then enough (thats 50M total cost after BOTH nations have purchased it).

Ok, just saw this. This makes sense.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Iron Will