Nation Score

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I think a city adds too much to nation score.  It is not cities which generate power projection but infrastructure.  More cities just makes it easier cheaper to get infra.

 

I propose that the city NS factor be reduced.  I'd propose going from 25 to 10.

 

This has the benefit of having NS more accurately reflect the actual power of nations.

[Phiney]

The reverse was done as a change, doubt sheepy is going to go back on that change without a lot of people agreeing with you. For the record, I don't.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

No a city costs too much money to only provide 10 score.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Money spent is not an indicator of relative power.  Score needs to reflect relative power to allow for proper war matchmaking.

[Phiney]

from 2 months ago. "The Score formula has been updated! Cities are now worth 25 score points instead of 10, and national projects are worth 10 points now. If you're wondering what's whacky and why your score increased, that's why. This is simply to keep players with lots of cities more out of the range of players with no so many cities."

[Alex]

Money spent is not an indicator of relative power.  Score needs to reflect relative power to allow for proper war matchmaking.

 

Well, let's compare two nations.

 

Nation A has 1 city with 10,000 infrastructure (that's a lot!). His one city can still only have 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 air force bases, and 3 drydocks.

 

Nation B has 2 cities with 1,000 infrastructure each (overall that's 5x less infrastructure). Both his cities can have 5 barracks, 5 factories, 5 air force bases, and 3 drydocks.

 

Nation B, even with 5x less infrastructure, can field twice the military that Nation A can. And that's why cities contribute so much to score, so that nations in lower tiers with maybe 500 infra in one city don't get crushed by a nation with 2 cities but only 250 infra each.

[Grillick]

Would soldiers be capped by Nation B's population, though?

 

I agree with your conclusion, but you might have gone too far in exaggerating the differences.

[Alex]

Would soldiers be capped by Nation B's population, though?

 

I agree with your conclusion, but you might have gone too far in exaggerating the differences.

 

Nation A would have a maximum population of 1,000,000, while Nation B would have a maximum population of 200,000. Soldier count can't exceed 20% of the population, or 200,000/40,000 respectively.

 

With the barracks cap of 3,000/barracks, Nation A could only have 15,000 troops while Nation B could have 30,000. Neither would be affected by the population cap (at that much infrastructure).

[Prefontaine]

I think a lot of the problem stems from the gap caused by the 1 to 2 city difference. Later on a city doesn't add enough to remove 4 city nations from attacking 3 city nations, but a player with 2 cities can virtually never declare on someone with 1, but the 1 can declare on them. 

 

Perhaps making 1 city perma-beige is a solution? Because the 1 to 2 city military difference in capability is a large gap.

[Alex]

I think a lot of the problem stems from the gap caused by the 1 to 2 city difference. Later on a city doesn't add enough to remove 4 city nations from attacking 3 city nations, but a player with 2 cities can virtually never declare on someone with 1, but the 1 can declare on them. 

 

Perhaps making 1 city perma-beige is a solution? Because the 1 to 2 city military difference in capability is a large gap.

 

At 1 or 2 cities, 25 score is a big score gap. At 3-4 cities, nation scores are considerably higher, and the hard 25 score difference is a lot less consequential.