The problems with strength ratings.

[Ole]

I still think you're missig the point with the numbers you throw out, yes its posible to beat Arrgh, that was never the point, the point is that the tactic itself is unbalanced, not that Arrgh is invincible, all 15-16 city nations could drop down and use the same strategi that Arrgh uses. so comming up with more numbers proving this is kinda futile, isnt it?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Ole

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Nation 1:

12250 infra (875/city)

14 cities

183750 soldiers

17500 tanks

1260 aircraft

2 projects

1651.37 score

 

Nation 2:

12000 infra (1500/city)

8 cities

120000 soldiers

10000 tanks

720 aircraft

10 ships

5 missiles

2 projects

1239.00 score

 

Although for the most part, Arrgh seems to be raiding nations ranging from maybe 2-4 cities smaller to 1-2 cities bigger.

 

Thank you very much for the concrete example. This will help me elucidate both of my points:

 

I simulated the economic situation of both nations you described. Here are the links:

 

Nation 1 - 14 cities, 875 infra

Nation 2 - 8 cities, 1500 infra

 

The first nation has 17 building slots per city. So the building plan per city is chosen as 1 nuclear power plant, 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 AFBs, and 1 munitions factory which looks like the most profitable building given today's prices (munitions are more expensive than usual today).

 

The second nation has 30 building slots per city. Hence, I chose the building plan per city as follows: 1 nuclear power plant, 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 AFBs, 2 stadiums, 3 shopping malls, 3 banks, 1 subway, 1 police station, 1 recycling center and 3 munitions factories.

 

Let's look at the numbers:

 

During peace time Nation 1 makes a net loss of 1.25 million per day. With war time military upkeep, the loss goes up to 2.13 million per day.

 

In comparison, Nation 2 makes a net profit of 1.15 million per day. With war time military upkeep, the net profit goes down to 0.63 million per day.

 

The net worth of Nation 1 (stuff spent to built the infra, cities, buildings and military) is 432.2 millions. Compare this to Nation 2's net worth of just 158.9 millions.

 

What do these data tell us?

 

1) The economic cost to Nation 1 during peace time for using such a military oriented build is 1.25 + 1.15 = 2.4 million per day. Every day Nation 1 must make raids that result in a net wealth gain that exceeds 2.4 millions if it is to surpass Nation 2 economically. And Nation 1 is making this loss despite having spent nearly THREE TIMES what Nation 2 has spent to build its nation (432/158 = 2.73).

 

2) The economic cost to Nation 2 during war time (after all you need to be at war to raid) for using such a military oriented build is 2.13 + 0.63 = 2.76 million per day. You know the rest of the story.

 

3) Taking points 1 and 2 together, it is obvious that this hypothetical Nation 1 is economically untenable. It has to make around 17.5m as net income from raids every week just to make as much money as Nation 2 does with one third of the money spent on their nation. Notice that this is net raid income, not gross. You have to subtract the losses you incur to your military and so on.

 

4) Coming back to my earlier suggestion of using NET WORTH AS SCORE, you can obviously see that these nations would never have to fight against each other with my proposed score metric.

 

Interpret the results as you will. To me, the numbers tell that I am right.

[Magnanimus]

 

 

Thank you very much for the concrete example. This will help me elucidate both of my points:

 

I simulated the economic situation of both nations you described. Here are the links:

 

Nation 1 - 14 cities, 875 infra

Nation 2 - 8 cities, 1500 infra

 

The first nation has 17 building slots per city. So the building plan per city is chosen as 1 nuclear power plant, 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 AFBs, and 1 munitions factory which looks like the most profitable building given today's prices (munitions are more expensive than usual today).

 

The second nation has 30 building slots per city. Hence, I chose the building plan per city as follows: 1 nuclear power plant, 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 AFBs, 2 stadiums, 3 shopping malls, 3 banks, 1 subway, 1 police station, 1 recycling center and 3 munitions factories.

 

Let's look at the numbers:

 

During peace time Nation 1 makes a net loss of 1.25 million per day. With war time military upkeep, the loss goes up to 2.13 million per day.

 

In comparison, Nation 2 makes a net profit of 1.15 million per day. With war time military upkeep, the net profit goes down to 0.63 million per day.

 

The net worth of Nation 1 (stuff spent to built the infra, cities, buildings and military) is 432.2 millions. Compare this to Nation 2's net worth of just 158.9 millions.

 

What do these data tell us?

 

1) The economic cost to Nation 1 during peace time for using such a military oriented build is 1.25 + 1.15 = 2.4 million per day. Every day Nation 1 must make raids that result in a net wealth gain that exceeds 2.4 millions if it is to surpass Nation 2 economically. And Nation 1 is making this loss despite having spent nearly THREE TIMES what Nation 2 has spent to build its nation (432/158 = 2.73).

 

2) The economic cost to Nation 2 during war time (after all you need to be at war to raid) for using such a military oriented build is 2.13 + 0.63 = 2.76 million per day. You know the rest of the story.

 

3) Taking points 1 and 2 together, it is obvious that this hypothetical Nation 1 is economically untenable. It has to make around 17.5m as net income from raids every week just to make as much money as Nation 2 does with one third of the money spent on their nation. Notice that this is net raid income, not gross. You have to subtract the losses you incur to your military and so on.

 

4) Coming back to my earlier suggestion of using NET WORTH AS SCORE, you can obviously see that these nations would never have to fight against each other with my proposed score metric.

 

Interpret the results as you will. To me, the numbers tell that I am right.

 

 

The problem is that you are going the wrong lane of discussion here. It is not the economic viability of the nation building that we are discussing here.

 

The point is that a nation with full military buildup is still only half build to a raider's military. The Raider should not be able to go to war with such a nation. There is no way this nation can defend itself even with full military build. 

 

All the arguments that pointed to "NATIONS WITH NO DEFENDING MILITARY DESERVED TO BE RAIDED" does not stand a point here.

 

Now the counter will be that the nation build more infra then it should have to protect itself from getting raided.

To this, I would like to say not everyone can live life at less than 1000 infra in each city. That is like every nation has to build in the same way as Raiders build so that they can protect themselves from being raided. This makes infra totally unwanted in the game and it has all the more reason to be removed from Nation score calculation. Why do you want something which is irrelevant in the game to be included in score calculation ?

 

To this reasoning there will be a counter from pro-raiders that this is the penalty each nation has to pay as raiders have been dealing with -ve income on their nations while other nations were minting money.

 

I would like to point to the Raiders here, that if you do not make money you can not grow and growing is a necessary thing involved in all games. If you are not able to grow in any game, what is the point of playing it.

[Fox Fire]

I still think you're missig the point with the numbers you throw out, yes its posible to beat Arrgh, that was never the point, the point is that the tactic itself is unbalanced, not that Arrgh is invincible, all 15-16 city nations could drop down and use the same strategi that Arrgh uses. so comming up with more numbers proving this is kinda futile, isnt it?

So basically what you're saying is that we've found the most effective strategy, others haven't caught on, so Arrgh should be punished for playing better than everyone?

This sounds reasonable....

[Beatrix]

The problem is that you are going the wrong lane of discussion here. It is not the economic viability of the nation building that we are discussing here.

 

The point is that a nation with full military buildup is still only half build to a raider's military. The Raider should not be able to go to war with such a nation. There is no way this nation can defend itself even with full military build. 

 

All the arguments that pointed to "NATIONS WITH NO DEFENDING MILITARY DESERVED TO BE RAIDED" does not stand a point here.

 

Now the counter will be that the nation build more infra then it should have to protect itself from getting raided.

To this, I would like to say not everyone can live life at less than 1000 infra in each city. That is like every nation has to build in the same way as Raiders build so that they can protect themselves from being raided. This makes infra totally unwanted in the game and it has all the more reason to be removed from Nation score calculation. Why do you want something which is irrelevant in the game to be included in score calculation ?

 

To this reasoning there will be a counter from pro-raiders that this is the penalty each nation has to pay as raiders have been dealing with -ve income on their nations while other nations were minting money.

 

I would like to point to the Raiders here, that if you do not make money you can not grow and growing is a necessary thing involved in all games. If you are not able to grow in any game, what is the point of playing it.

 

 

Well, why shouldn't it go to war? It greatly dangers itself & exposes itself to huge economic damage by doing so.

[Stormrideron]

The problem is that you are going the wrong lane of discussion here. It is not the economic viability of the nation building that we are discussing here.

Actually Kernel is right. Have you ever heard of the word "trade-off"? Yes that's right, we go full military build and the trade-off is negative income. We have to keep on feeding our money by plucking off targets to make profit so our nations can continue to run and grow. If you decide to go full economic build but no military, the trade off is that you make huge income but unprotected and an easy target. You seem to be missing the point, thank you for confirming it.

 

The point is that a nation with full military buildup is still only half build to a raider's military. The Raider should not be able to go to war with such a nation. There is no way this nation can defend itself even with full military build.

Here, here, a baby sucker for you, let me plop it in your mouth so you can stop whining. The raiders should have opportunity to collaborate teamworking to take down certain nations just like in alliance wars. It is not our fault that you and your alliance are incapable of coordinate effectively or that strong enough to deter us.

 

All the arguments that pointed to "NATIONS WITH NO DEFENDING MILITARY DESERVED TO BE RAIDED" does not stand a point here.

 

Actually it does have a point here. You are playing this game, it is your task to watch after your nation. All I am seeing you whining on this forums. Why are you not taking action to prevent us from attacking your nations? Let me reiterate, why are you not taking action? You decided to play victim card so the changes can cater to your needs. I would suggest you to man up because the game mechanics is fine, thanks to SoS for confirming it.

 

I would like to point to the Raiders here, that if you do not make money you can not grow and growing is a necessary thing involved in all games. If you are not able to grow in any game, what is the point of playing it.

Oh we do grow by hoarding money and spending it. Working as intended. Don't like it? Tough luck.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The problem is that you are going the wrong lane of discussion here. It is not the economic viability of the nation building that we are discussing here.

 

The point is that a nation with full military buildup is still only half build to a raider's military. The Raider should not be able to go to war with such a nation. There is no way this nation can defend itself even with full military build. 

 

All the arguments that pointed to "NATIONS WITH NO DEFENDING MILITARY DESERVED TO BE RAIDED" does not stand a point here.

 

Now the counter will be that the nation build more infra then it should have to protect itself from getting raided.

To this, I would like to say not everyone can live life at less than 1000 infra in each city. That is like every nation has to build in the same way as Raiders build so that they can protect themselves from being raided. This makes infra totally unwanted in the game and it has all the more reason to be removed from Nation score calculation. Why do you want something which is irrelevant in the game to be included in score calculation ?

 

To this reasoning there will be a counter from pro-raiders that this is the penalty each nation has to pay as raiders have been dealing with -ve income on their nations while other nations were minting money.

 

I would like to point to the Raiders here, that if you do not make money you can not grow and growing is a necessary thing involved in all games. If you are not able to grow in any game, what is the point of playing it.

 

No, you are missing the whole point. Nation 1 has much much less economic resources than Nation 2. In fact, if Nation 1 did not raid, it would go bankrupt extremely fast. So the proposed Nation 1 is not economically viable without crazy amount of raiding or relying on previous savings from another nation build. This makes it a bad counterexample.

 

I claim that such a start counterexample cannot be posed by a 1300 infra build raider. Why 1300? Because 1300 allows full commerce + full military -- one of the most effective low score builds that actually doesn't go bankrupt without raiding.

[Phiney]

No, you are missing the whole point. Nation 1 has much much less economic resources than Nation 2. In fact, if Nation 1 did not raid, it would go bankrupt extremely fast. So the proposed Nation 1 is not economically viable without crazy amount of raiding or relying on previous savings from another nation build. This makes it a bad counterexample.

 

I claim that such a start counterexample cannot be posed by a 1300 infra build raider. Why 1300? Because 1300 allows full commerce + full military -- one of the most effective low score builds that actually doesn't go bankrupt without raiding.

How does it make it a bad example when very similar builds are being regularly used?

[Kemal Ergenekon]

How does it make it a bad example when very similar builds are being regularly used?

 

Because those builds have to be financed with money earned earlier. Those nations are basically taking an economic hit in order to improve their military capabilities.

[Magnanimus]

Actually Kernel is right. Have you ever heard of the word "trade-off"? Yes that's right, we go full military build and the trade-off is negative income. We have to keep on feeding our money by plucking off targets to make profit so our nations can continue to run and grow. If you decide to go full economic build but no military, the trade off is that you make huge income but unprotected and an easy target. You seem to be missing the point, thank you for confirming it.

 

 

Here, here, a baby sucker for you, let me plop it in your mouth so you can stop whining. The raiders should have opportunity to collaborate teamworking to take down certain nations just like in alliance wars. It is not our fault that you and your alliance are incapable of coordinate effectively or that strong enough to deter us.

 

 

Actually it does have a point here. You are playing this game, it is your task to watch after your nation. All I am seeing you whining on this forums. Why are you not taking action to prevent us from attacking your nations? Let me reiterate, why are you not taking action? You decided to play victim card so the changes can cater to your needs. I would suggest you to man up because the game mechanics is fine, thanks to SoS for confirming it.

 

 

Oh we do grow by hoarding money and spending it. Working as intended. Don't like it? Tough luck.

 

Just by abusing someone does not make you correct.

 

The point is that a nation with high military can go to war with a nation with half of with military even at max military build is way out of sorts. Add to it the first strike advantage and the case that you made is that raiders often target in groups. So that is a 3 fold advantage on the tactics that you abuse at present.

 

Abuse me the hell you want. Send me all kind of craps that you learnt from your school or from whoever taught you that. But that will not make you correct.