TOP Warchests of the war

[Saber]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 February 2010 - 02:50 AM' timestamp='1265334601' post='2159994']
That's a pretty ridiculous accusation to level at an alliance which just went to war in an aggressive manner.

In truth, there's nothing to spend money on beyond 14,000 infra that's really worth it. Some of these large nations have been buying infra or land in order to keep pushing their NS and ranking up, but it's uneconomic to buy infra after a certain point (it depends on your wonders and resources, but somewhere between 13 and 17 thousand), and land has a very long return on investment. Large nations accumulate warchest because we spend $18m every third aid cycle to import tech, and collect $20m net a day.

The aftermath of several post-MP wars is that the lower ranks are now swarming with nuclear nations. Soon, every war will be nuclear right down to 10k, and all the strategy of conventional warfare will be lost. I'm not really keen on the MP either.
[/quote]
I must say I agree. In the past there was much more need for proper coordination and fighting. Nowadays anyone can nuke you and keep you in anarchy for days.

Situations like Legion surprise attack on TOP where they anarchied 45% of TOP only for us to turn the tables on them during next 7 days (at the end we had like 5% anarchies and they had 70-80%) are no longer possible.

I must say I am sad that the game lost that aspect of fighting. Nuclear war while "fun" is extremely simplistic and takes away from the coordination aspect.

PS: For those who will respond "BUT YOU NEED TO COORDINATE IF YOU NUKE" please don't, yes, I know you can reduce damage to yourself/increase damage to your enemy if you coordinate, but it is no longer critical to defeat the enemy. Now you can nuke him and stagger him and he is dead in the water. Effectively unable to deploy offensively.

[thaone]

[quote name='Saber' date='05 February 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1265373931' post='2161371']
I must say I agree. In the past there was much more need for proper coordination and fighting. Nowadays anyone can nuke you and keep you in anarchy for days.

Situations like Legion surprise attack on TOP where they anarchied 45% of TOP only for us to turn the tables on them during next 7 days (at the end we had like 5% anarchies and they had 70-80%) are no longer possible.

I must say I am sad that the game lost that aspect of fighting. Nuclear war while "fun" is extremely simplistic and takes away from the coordination aspect.

PS: For those who will respond "BUT YOU NEED TO COORDINATE IF YOU NUKE" please don't, yes, I know you can reduce damage to yourself/increase damage to your enemy if you coordinate, but it is no longer critical to defeat the enemy. Now you can nuke him and stagger him and he is dead in the water. Effectively unable to deploy offensively.
[/quote]

Although nuking someone is an instant anarchy, I disagree with your conclusion that thus all strategy has left the game. As one of the military planners of FOK, I do think strategy has become maybe even more important. You continuously have to make the trade-off Peacemode nations- Attacking nations. Especially during the first part of the conflict when fighting against NpO and getting declared on by a multitude of alliances this was quite interesting.

From an individual rulers perspective the game might be boring. This however, although I love CN, has always been the case. Watching Bob's Norad is almost more interesting. (After a day of hard work planning a blitz, seeing all that yellowish orange and light blue turn red is )

[Saber]

[quote name='thaone' date='05 February 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1265404784' post='2162076']
Although nuking someone is an instant anarchy, I disagree with your conclusion that thus all strategy has left the game. As one of the military planners of FOK, I do think strategy has become maybe even more important. You continuously have to make the trade-off Peacemode nations- Attacking nations. Especially during the first part of the conflict when fighting against NpO and getting declared on by a multitude of alliances this was quite interesting.

From an individual rulers perspective the game might be boring. This however, although I love CN, has always been the case. Watching Bob's Norad is almost more interesting. (After a day of hard work planning a blitz, seeing all that yellowish orange and light blue turn red is )
[/quote]
I'm aware of need to cycle nations from PM mode/front but at a tactical level each nation has a great leveler. Even worse guy out there has 5 seconds needed to nuke someone. In the past you could be essentially shut down completely if you did not coordinate with you alliance mates. Now you can keep 6 people in anarchy with a minute of your time.

Sure, you'd lose your infra and tech fast but it still hamstrings 6 nations fighting him. In GW3 tactical fighting on a nation level could do much more than you can do today.

[Bob Janova]

There are certainly higher level strategies relating to full nuclear war – though as we saw in the New Year shens, those can result in a war completely failing to actually go hot, as tactical PM is used across the board. The problem is that the larger side should pin down every nation in the smaller side that comes out, and since they're in anarchy the whole time, the smaller side can't use clever war declaration tactics or teamwork to turn the tables. Essentially, every nation at war takes a nuke every day (and is in anarchy) until the nukes and warchests of the smaller side begin to run out. Teamwork and coordination increase the damage done, but in an extended engagement both sides are close to ZI (and probably ZL too) by the end anyway, so that extra damage doesn't really mean much.

I think there's perhaps a decent argument to be made for removing the anarchy provided by nukes, so at least you have to nuke and then GA to score the anarchy (preventing turtling from crippling the opponents' ability to redeploy nations).

[Saber]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1265416298' post='2162380']
There are certainly higher level strategies relating to full nuclear war – though as we saw in the New Year shens, those can result in a war completely failing to actually go hot, as tactical PM is used across the board. The problem is that the larger side should pin down every nation in the smaller side that comes out, and since they're in anarchy the whole time, the smaller side can't use clever war declaration tactics or teamwork to turn the tables. Essentially, every nation at war takes a nuke every day (and is in anarchy) until the nukes and warchests of the smaller side begin to run out. Teamwork and coordination increase the damage done, but in an extended engagement both sides are close to ZI (and probably ZL too) by the end anyway, so that extra damage doesn't really mean much.

I think there's perhaps a decent argument to be made for removing the anarchy provided by nukes, so at least you have to nuke and then GA to score the anarchy (preventing turtling from crippling the opponents' ability to redeploy nations).
[/quote]
Agreed. I'd support that actually.

[Rafael Nadal]

I'd rather just get rid of the manhattan project.

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='890765' date='04 February 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1265343445' post='2160225']
This picture is shopped, I can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shoops in my life.
[/quote]

Why yes, yes it is. I'd be interested to hear exactly what stood out.

Though anyone should have been able to figure that out from the fact that no one in their right mind keeps a $0 warchest. Maybe everyone just thinks I'm insane.

[thaone]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='06 February 2010 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1265423790' post='2162625']
I'd rather just get rid of the manhattan project.
[/quote]

I don't think this is a great idea, I'm playing this game actively for more then then 2 years. I never was the best nationbuilder, but I did care about it. This all taken into account I NEVER reached the top 5%. Even with perfect nation building the highest 5% aren't reachable within a year.

I must be honest as the removal of instant anarchy could be interesting.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='06 February 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1265423790' post='2162625']
I'd rather just get rid of the manhattan project.
[/quote]
I'd like to go back to 2007 and not introduce it, because then Citadel would be your evil overlords

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Saber' date='05 February 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1265414763' post='2162334']
I'm aware of need to cycle nations from PM mode/front but at a tactical level each nation has a great leveler. Even worse guy out there has 5 seconds needed to nuke someone. In the past you could be essentially shut down completely if you did not coordinate with you alliance mates. Now you can keep 6 people in anarchy with a minute of your time.

Sure, you'd lose your infra and tech fast but it still hamstrings 6 nations fighting him. In GW3 tactical fighting on a nation level could do much more than you can do today.
[/quote]
How many nukes does it take to keep 6 nations in anarchy? Limited rebuy, SDI, spies...

[Saber]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='06 February 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1265479291' post='2164780']
How many nukes does it take to keep 6 nations in anarchy? Limited rebuy, SDI, spies...
[/quote]
It lasts for 5 days. And usually you are not one nation fighting 6 but have some level of support. As it is not getting nuked once in 5 days is extremely rare.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='06 February 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1265479291' post='2164780']
How many nukes does it take to keep 6 nations in anarchy? Limited rebuy, SDI, spies...
[/quote]
One nuke every 5 days (unless they have FSS), that's 1.2 nukes/day, divide by 40% for SDI and you need 3 nukes per day if all your targets have SDI. Spies are irrelevant once you hit 0, as you can buy and launch.

Obviously 3 a day isn't possible but you wouldn't tend to stay in 6 wars after the first wave anyway (apart from anything else, [i]you'll[/i] be in anarchy too). In 3 wars you need only 1.5 a day even if all three targets have SDI so you can keep that up forever.

[Steelrat]

@Saber, read my stuff about tactics in a nuclear war. There should be several topics/replies on TOP´s forum i explained in detail how to, from how important coordination is, timed attacks after a nuke to get through someones defence, to the difference between a shotgun and a sniper tactic in a nuclear war with pros and cons. IRON knows (Karma war) how it hurts if a shotgun tactic is countered by a sniper one.
All i can say, tactics and timing in a full blown nuclear war are very important. Roughly you can say the damage one nuke does is the same all conventional attacks does combined. There is much more than just hit the nuke button, on a tactical and strategical level.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1265416298' post='2162380']
There are certainly higher level strategies relating to full nuclear war – though as we saw in the New Year shens, those can result in a war completely failing to actually go hot, as tactical PM is used across the board. The problem is that the larger side should pin down every nation in the smaller side that comes out, and since they're in anarchy the whole time, the smaller side can't use clever war declaration tactics or teamwork to turn the tables. Essentially, every nation at war takes a nuke every day (and is in anarchy) until the nukes and warchests of the smaller side begin to run out. Teamwork and coordination increase the damage done, but in an extended engagement both sides are close to ZI (and probably ZL too) by the end anyway, so that extra damage doesn't really mean much.

I think there's perhaps a decent argument to be made for removing the anarchy provided by nukes, so at least you have to nuke and then GA to score the anarchy (preventing turtling from crippling the opponents' ability to redeploy nations).
[/quote]
That's not actually a bad idea

[Saber]

[quote name='Steelrat' date='07 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1265549350' post='2166747']
@Saber, read my stuff about tactics in a nuclear war. There should be several topics/replies on TOP´s forum i explained in detail how to, from how important coordination is, timed attacks after a nuke to get through someones defence, to the difference between a shotgun and a sniper tactic in a nuclear war with pros and cons. IRON knows (Karma war) how it hurts if a shotgun tactic is countered by a sniper one.
All i can say, tactics and timing in a full blown nuclear war are very important. Roughly you can say the damage one nuke does is the same all conventional attacks does combined. There is much more than just hit the nuke button, on a tactical and strategical level.
[/quote]
I'm well aware of that. Military command may have some challenges on their hands, but on a member level the tactics used have seriously been reduced. I also think that instant nuclear anarchy takes away from the ability to win a war through coordination and better waging of war.

Nukes for me are the great equalizer.

[thaone]

[quote name='Saber' date='07 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1265554195' post='2166802']
I'm well aware of that. Military command may have some challenges on their hands, but on a member level the tactics used have seriously been reduced. I also think that instant nuclear anarchy takes away from the ability to win a war through coordination and better waging of war.

Nukes for me are the great equalizer.
[/quote]

When do you win a war in contemporary CN?
Once upon a time putting your opponent in anarchy was what mattered, after the UJW putting a nation at as few infra as possible mattered. With the advancement of warchests, even ZI doesn't matter at all.
It isn't possible to kill the money reserves of a prepared nation in 8 days, so on an individual level you can never win of your opponent in a way that will harm their ability to wage war.
Nukes don't matter at all except the feeling of accomplishment you may get from anarchying an opponent in a conventional way.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='thaone' date='07 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1265555694' post='2166824']
It isn't possible to kill the money reserves of a prepared nation in 8 days, so on an individual level you can never win of your opponent in a way that will harm their ability to wage war.
Nukes don't matter at all except the feeling of accomplishment you may get from anarchying an opponent in a conventional way.
[/quote]
I view nukes as encouraging two trends this game needed and may have just hit a steady state on. They allow enough people to do enough damage as to halt/slow the inflation problem we've had, where people were hitting the point they no longer benefited from buying infra. And secondly they've introduce the need for a warchest at all levels of the NS range, rather than just the top, which once again slows down growth but more importantly either 1) Makes wars last much longer, or 2) Allows people to rapidly rebuild after short wars which shortens the interval between major conflicts.

I might have done it differently (notably since I was in the top 5% when they were introduced) but once people had time to buy up MPs and establish the necessary war chests for that sort of battle I feel the days of war per capita on Bob rose.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='07 February 2010 - 07:05 AM' timestamp='1265547950' post='2166736']
One nuke every 5 days (unless they have FSS), that's 1.2 nukes/day, divide by 40% for SDI and you need 3 nukes per day if all your targets have SDI. Spies are irrelevant once you hit 0, as you can buy and launch.

Obviously 3 a day isn't possible but you wouldn't tend to stay in 6 wars after the first wave anyway (apart from anything else, [i]you'll[/i] be in anarchy too). In 3 wars you need only 1.5 a day even if all three targets have SDI so you can keep that up forever.
[/quote]
I understand, but Saber was giving the impression that one nation could easily make it a fair fight against 6 other nations, and that just ain't the case. A big blob of ill-prepared nations will be able to keep you in anarchy for a while when your counter-attacks shave off 1k infra a day.

Coordination still seems pretty key to me, even if isn't key to anarchy-ing nations anymore.

[Saber]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='07 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1265568381' post='2167077']
I understand, but Saber was giving the impression that one nation could easily make it a fair fight against 6 other nations, and that just ain't the case. A big blob of ill-prepared nations will be able to keep you in anarchy for a while when your counter-attacks shave off 1k infra a day.

Coordination still seems pretty key to me, even if isn't key to anarchy-ing nations anymore.
[/quote]
No, I was saying 1 nation can incapacitate 6 nations (take away their ability to declare wars) and knock them out of fighting for 5 days following last day of war WITH absolutely no need for skill or coordination. Yes, that nation would suffer a lot of damage, but it's targets would be essentially locked out of the conflict for 12 days (7 days of war plus 5 days of recovering).

This along with huge warchest make wars today really boring affairs. Yes I coordinate with my mates and yes we kick @#$% of our enemies but we are still in anarchy and can't redeploy. No matter how much better we are than sorry Spartan and Athenian attacking us.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Saber' date='07 February 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1265597417' post='2167883']
No, I was saying 1 nation can incapacitate 6 nations (take away their ability to declare wars) and knock them out of fighting for 5 days following last day of war WITH absolutely no need for skill or coordination. Yes, that nation would suffer a lot of damage, but it's targets would be essentially locked out of the conflict for 12 days (7 days of war plus 5 days of recovering).

This along with huge warchest make wars today really boring affairs. Yes I coordinate with my mates and yes we kick @#$% of our enemies but we are still in anarchy and can't redeploy. No matter how much better we are than sorry Spartan and Athenian attacking us.
[/quote]
How do you think all those nations you rolled because they can't be on at update because they have to be at work the next day feel? You already have a HUGE advantage in being able to do massive amounts of damage, now you want exclusive rights to make and choose engagements, too?


Personally I think anarchy should not have any ability on a nation's ability to launch new wars.

[JCFalkenberg]

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=115721"]Cloakatopia[/url]
Total Money: $3,481,607,510

fortunately for me/unfortunately for him, he hasn't logged in for like 4 days.

[Instr]

I had some TOP opponents who had a measly warchest and basically idled out after 3 days.