Leaderboard

I don't know about that, I know plenty of younger and smaller nations that have no issues waging war, almost continuously. Stunting the growth of your nation has always been an inherent risk associated with warfare in this game, this isn't something new. It's something almost all of us took into consideration in almost every war we've been involved in. Being unwilling to wage war because you don't want to sacrifice the growth and size of your nation or because you're worried about whether or not you'll be able to "catch up" after the war, are hallmark traits of pixel huggers, whales and wannabe-whales. The people who are willing to burn their own nations to the ground, who are willing to sacrifice every pixel and abandon any hope of keeping up with the rest, those are the people who have the most fun in this game. If your leaders really wanted to fight, you'd be fighting. Where there's a will, there's a way. Plenty of other people have waged and continue to wage war, despite any changes to the game mechanics. If you're incapable of doing the same then you are.. incapable.

8 months are not enough to get the resources for a war?

The choke-hold certain parties have over the happenings in this game is astonishing. You can only go so long with *nothing* happening before we begin to leave and never return. I hope you people realize that there's a tipping point where, even when you still have X amount of nations in the game, the game itself will be dead. Take examples from history and cast off the leadership that constantly tells you to sit and wait month after month. If you're confused as to who I'm referring: Anyone who presents "strategically waiting to be the defender to trigger treaties the right way" or "we need to build up more/we're outpacing their growth" as the grand strategy with which they are guiding your alliance.

1. Private banks simply collect and redistribute money already in the game. What your suggesting is adding a new source of cash into the game without a matching drain. See inflation. 2. Because we are trying to play politics and war which is a game, not play watch numbers grow bigger on a spreadsheet. 3. The point is you need to specify how blockade mechanics will effect this. This is needed both to address exploits, and also a chance to add interesting features to your module. 4. The withdraw time isn't really meaningful to the issue, which is money being spirited away from looting into an untouchable bank. 5. A. You have now said something completely different from your op so which is it. In any case you haven't actually addressed any of the issues with newbie growth rates being tinkered with. We already have a hang up after the end of objectives and a lot nations quit at that point. Your suggestion creates a worse hang up in that improperly used this can leave a new nation with basically no income. 6. & 7. Pwseet already addressed the other playstyles thing but missed a rather glaring exploit here. Okay, so assuming you implement this in the logical manner which is that loan payments are added as per turn expenses like every other expense. And right here we run into a bit of an issue, the game if your in negative income and out of cash simply forgives the extra debt. This is problem because certain whales are already at the point where it takes more then a month to save enough cash for a city. So with this module they could take out a 30 day loan that has payments that are higher then their income, and have the excess debt just disappear at the end of the 30 days. This essentially caps the price of a city to 30 days of your income. 8. New point, you have stated that you feel instant cash for rebuilds is a good thing. I would counter that it rather defeats the purpose of going to war as a rather large portion of the damage you do to an enemy is in the lost income during rebuilding. 9. New point, I have never heard a good argument for removing meta gameplay in favor of a hardcoded mechanic.

This is incorrect. There are at least nine players before this post who have expressed varying degrees of skepticism or opposition to the idea. Several of them have quite a few more than six or seven cities, and several of them are older players. I've quoted them below for reference. Rather than making ad hominem attacks on @Psweet, I'd suggest you address the substance of his posts. None of his arguments have been framed as a defense of his legacy or material interest in private banking; rather, they've been constructive critiques of a proposal that is explicitly based on reducing risk and inter-player interaction. If you don't want to take it from @Psweet, take it from @Sketchy or @Dr Rush or any of the other players posting critiques based on the balance effects of this proposal. Your responses have still largely failed to explain how this would positively affect the game balance: Why is reducing inter-player interaction a good thing? What, exactly, is wrong with incentivizing players to rely on alliances, banks, or one another for liquid cash? Inflation is a persistent and growing problem in the game. The whole point of the resource update was partially counteract the effects of inflation. Telling us that the extra cash created will total only tens of millions of dollars a day doesn't address the facts that: 1) Inflation is a compounding, long-term problem (tens of millions of dollars today that are reinvested become even more cash tomorrow). 2) Creating a world bank would induce a greater supply of lendable money and thus of interest payments to players and alliances (therefore, ceteris parabus, increasing inflation). 3) Income that is totally divorced from material production in-game (e.g. buying infrastructure or producing resources) is an inherently troublesome proposition both in the sense that makes the game less immersive (the reason lending or borrowing money is lucrative in real life is the capacity to invest it in productive activity) and in the sense that it risks inflation. (If investing, directly or indirectly, in infrastructure or resources is more lucrative than investing in the world bank it will be preferable; if not, then you've created an asset with artificially high returns, which in turn drives inflation even higher than it already is.) In short, this is a deeply flawed proposal that should not be implemented.

I understand that game mechanics have a huge impact on how politics play out... The thing is though, even if you get outpaced in growth by losing a war, this game was specifically designed to limit that impact. In past worlds we saw people repeatedly winning wars for years that caused skewed growth and it was finally exploited to the point of unplayability because of certain mechanics. In this world, if you grow too high you're actually at a disadvantage when it comes to war. It's why so many people are scared of NPO right now. Coordinated up-declares can overcome a larger nation. Those same larger nations can only sit and wait to be hit because of war range restrictions. In short, no. You won't be "so far behind". It's a myth perpetuated by leadership scared to take the pride-hit of potentially losing a war.

dude, you are taking things way to personal here, go keep your private bank and make your profits, I only see 2 people arguing against this. this two people have 6 and 7 cities and are new to the game. I also see 1 private bank owner trying to discredit the proposal, you made your point, as weak as it sounds, tis time to let others comment it. thats a fun concept, it would add more dynamic to the game you are not making sense, this bank would just be part of the game code, not a private bank and not controlled by any player. no player would profit from anything except those investing. you are again repeating something that doesn't make sense, I wouldn't control anything in the bank, it would be part of the game itself. I get the feeling you are just trolling this post with nonesense

honey dont complain about how the update negatively affects you when you have 20 cities and 2.5k infra per city

Some alliances need to be patched

There is no guarantee, correct. This is a very realistic thing that I think is GOOD for Orbis's finances, because uncertainty creates opportunity. If there were no risk, there'd be no reason for us to charge decent interest. If there were no risk, banking would be a lot more BORING. That said, let's not overplay the risks here. To the best of my knowledge, NONE of the big banks have EVER defaulted on a liability (possibly excluding the Gringotts/Greene thing which I'm not super clear on the details and won't comment on). While that doesn't mean that there is NO risk, it does mean that if you're scared of investing in any of us, you need to get your head checked because I think you've got some serious trust problems. Peace of mind is not something we WANT everyone to have for no downsides, with great ease. That's just boring. The game NEEDS to have problems to solve and risks to take or there's no point doing anything. As I pointed out somewhere in my wall of text above, risk is an inextricable part of economics. I don't think the game would be made better AT ALL by removing that wrinkle. Why would rendering shell alliances moot be a good thing? Why is that even an argument? I don't understand. I mean, I understand thinking the concept is stupid (and I agree with you there, even!). But I don't see how removing them is an argument unto itself. It's not like they harm the game. I'd seriously like the ability to set up non-alliance entities though. That'd be rad.

While I like the idea in theory... I don't like the idea of taking away the agency of players and turning it into an inflexible/infallible game mechanic. (bugs/imbalances aside...) We don't need this precisely because we DO have player-run banks. Hiding your cash is trivial these days. People who "aren't comfortable" investing in private banks need to get over themselves. By this point private banking has been around for at least two and a half years, possibly even longer.

From observation; I reckon in the time it takes for a 100 rated team hosting to gain 10mil, a 100 rated away team will generally make 1mil. To address this disparity I suggest simply scaling winnings according to team rating; with 100 rated teams getting x10 more than they currently do now.

Not really; what you're doing here is planning for a theoretical worst case scenario and being paralyzed at its potential. You can't win a theoretical conflict, I've said that already. More importantly the whales are whales entirely because they have a bunch of infrastructure and cities and resources. That's the definition of a whale, after all. That said, a spiteful, destructive, deliberate war of attrition can and will bring them down. Just go into it with the intent to kill whale, not to become whale. If you hate them so much, then keep them down after your attrition war. It's not sheepy that's screwing everyone but the whales, it's the lack of wars and attrition that's screwing everyone but the whales.

The reason no one else is commenting is that Psweet (and others) have already made perfectly good points explaining why this is a terrible idea and you haven't even attempted to address them, but have instead just cried bias.

Greetings, Alexius, and welcome to the forums! I advise adding your alliance to your forum profile. On that note, I wish you luck in The Knights Templar! Feel welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help. P.S. You're going to want to change your forum display name to match your in-game ruler name before you get a warn.

.:Broadcast:. The High Priest ascends to the podium, straightening his posture; a grave expression being given. "I come before you to speak of a plague. This plague is commonly called witchcraft. It infects the minds of its hosts into believing that it is the transcendence that we strive for. They are mistaken. The true transcendence is one that ascends you from the flesh. One that allows your mind to explore beyond the confines of its own body. It is not the augmentation of your own physical avatar intended to enhance your power. It is not the act of elevating your status; physically or socially. It is elevating your psyche into the realm of the cyberverse. It is connecting your mind with that of others who have, likewise, ascended. Thus, the faith must label these heretics as enemies of the faith. We implore the Imperium to act against these enemies with extreme prejudice. Those who practice heathen faiths will only undermine the glorious Imperium" In a statement today, the Imperator remained firm on his initial policy: "I am a faithful man, and I don't think any would question the integrity of my faith. So when I say this, I say this as a devout follower; unless the religion harms individuals or advocates hate speech, then it is an acceptable practice. We are not the monarchy of old, and I will not return us to those archaic ways. People of all faiths are permitted in the Imperium, as long as it abides by the Peaceful Faiths Act, Bill 13."

Then invest in any of the reputable private commercial banks that are already in Orbis. This in my opinion is a terrible idea, players have worked hard to build up the banks they run and player run banks are an interesting aspect of this game, why try to destroy that aspect? People value the security of their investments, and for some that is the most important aspect, if this update goes through you'll be seeing an exodus of funds from private banks to this cheap coded alternative. This proposed change will ruin something that gives P&W a unique angle.

I think you're really missing the point. As far as I'm aware there is nobody controlling the bank, it's all automated by code. So no, it wouldn't be a private bank.

It's more the stupid shit sheepy does to the game that causes people to lose interest and leave. If he hadn't !@#$ed up the resource aspect of the game there probably would have been a war by now.

Greetings, Shlappa, and welcome to Orbis! I wish you luck in The Knights Radiant! Feel welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help.

I get your point about risk regarding banks, but why on earth would someone want to risk their money they want to save for a set date with a player-owned bank rather than this proposed bank? I'm thinking from a point of view of me putting my life savings into this bank to save for when I'm ready to bulk purchase cities, I could just go away from the game and not worry about anything until the set date I chose to withdraw the money at. With player-run banks I'd be constantly worried about a global war breaking out and your bank's money being taken. It's a pessimistic point of view I know, but a valid one for a vast amount of players. Also this could set about more regular global wars, with the peace of mind that you have enough cash/resources stashed away in the proposed bank, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from making this game interesting again. With player run banks, the owners are rarely in favour of war because of their mindset towards the game which is in itself a problem that needs to be ironed out. Entities within alliances would be a great addition and one which I hope holds some weight with Alex when he reads through

Smaller nations can actually BETTER afford higher rates than larger ones because they get a much larger return on investment. Buying a new city for $5m can increase their income by 20% or 15% or similar - for a whale, buying a new city for hundreds of millions of dollars is a measly 4% increase or thereabouts. It is disreputable for you to cast aspersions like this, and unworthy of this discussion for you to bring that kind of mudslinging into game suggestions. A lot of people are pointing out that this WOULD NOT make the community a better place. For my part, I think it would hamper involvement by players by taking functions that they can and do fulfill and making it something that the game can and will fulfill instead. Players cannot compete with a risk-free source of funding. If you only give decent loans to people who are friends with you, that's your problem. I can personally attest to the fact (as can many of our customers) that Stratton Oakmont loans to anyone we deem as credit worthy - whether or not we know them personally, or like them. Sounds like your policies might be the ones that need changing And if you think 4% weekly is insane interest (and that is the most common rate our customers get, I'm aware several banks are lower still), you're delusional. Much lower than that and the income derived is not worth the effort it takes to keep records and raise cash, not to mention the risk of default that always attends to the business. Speaking for SO (and I'm 95% sure we're the ones you're talking about here), the rates have not been that high in almost two years, and only ever got that high for very risky loans. Please don't comment on situations you aren't very familiar with. So "I think this will discourage players from doing neat things on their own" is biased and not valid? Get off your high horse, Seb. Just because some of us own banks doesn't mean our opinions are worthless when we disagree with you. Private banks will have no reason to exist if people can get better terms from the game itself. Small nations haven't had funding problems for their cities in a VERY long time. There are many banks willing to lend to them. Just because you don't think they're worth it doesn't mean that all bank owners don't think they're worth it. And this isn't even touching alliances, who pay for the vast vast majority of lowbie cities in the game. No, private banks have funding that was TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME in other places, either by players investing it directly, or paying interest on loans to it. The bank you're talking about would just flat out create money out of thin air without creating a significant sink for it. If someone invests in a bank, the dividends or interest they earn on it COMES OUT OF THE MONEY MADE BY THE BANK. It's zero-sum, in that respect. The bank you want to create doesn't MAKE any money, as such. It's an infinite well of cash and the interest people make on the investments with it are coming out of nothing. Consider for a moment - what if everyone in the game took out CDs with this game-bank, and no one took out any loans? What would happen? Everyone would be making interest income, but the game-bank wouldn't be pulling in any interest from the game. The game now has a ton more money in it, because there is no cash sink to counterbalance it. If this were a private for-profit bank, we'd stop selling CDs both because if no one's taking loans then we don't need the cash, and also because we'd have no income to pay the interest on them with! But that wouldn't be the case with the game-bank as you've outlined it. That's a SERIOUS PROBLEM. This tells me you have no understanding of economics. Risk is WHY the majority of interest exists in the first place. If everyone was certain they'd get their money back, they'd be happy accepting minimal returns, because those returns are sure things. This is why people irl invest in things like bonds and CDs when the stock market pays multiple times the returns on investment on average, and even within the stock market people invest in blue chips even though midcaps and smallcaps have higher returns. Risk is THE primary force behind interest rates. This is just you thinking like a whale and not understanding what other people can think up. I bet a decent chunk of Arrgh is at negative income at any given point, for example. Should this bank only exist for the benefit of people who are already established and are going the conventional route to nation building? If blockades don't affect it, it'd make blockades a fair bit less useful, wouldn't it? So what you're saying is that money scarcity should never be a thing, ever? Again, you're showing that you don't understand economics. Having money scarcity is a GOOD thing. It adds depth to the game and its economy. It's also very easy to circumvent if you're intelligent about it. Also, I can't speak for other banks, but SO is not generally in the habit of dramatically increasing rates after a war... Either you're speaking ill of your own bank, or you're pulling that out of your ass. Again, not all banks are political. Don't assume everyone is so filthy. You are free to change your own practices if you want to see this change.

Bring back IC/OOC separation

This was tried in another game and it was constantly out of money. It only takes a few whales wanting cities to tie-up everyone else's money. Plus I like that we have a bunch of player-run banks. A world bank would probably negate or lessen their impact and that's not fun. A neat idea, but in this genre of game we need to remember that a lot of things like this have to be handled through role-play and player-made things or we're just an iOS app game.

alliances can still give grants, why would they stop that? as a private bank owner tho, I have received numerous requests for loans to small nations wanting to grow 1 more city, and everytime I have denied them the opportunity for fear of a default, many of this guys are in micro alliances with no money at all and have a hard time getting this grants you speak of.

the funds would be coded back in if you are in a war at the same time the CD expires and you happen to forget to renew it. it would be a negligence of the player. and this CDs can be bought in a set day of the month, lets say 1st of every month, or the first 2 days of every month. If you don't invest it then, you miss your chance and gotta wait another month. That way you reduce the chances of it being an exploited system. but if you are so worried about exploits, tell me what exactly are you afraid of and how would you fix it, this thread is to find out opinions and all this failsafe mechs that could be implemented to make it good. 1. private banks already have that source of extra money, so this would be an alternative to this private banks. 2. why does all money have to have a risk? I don't see why it can't be risk free with a very low income source. 3. how would blockades affect it? 4. I guess you could hide that money but it would only be available for withdrawal once a month 5. the code would prevent such a thing because the loan would only get them 1 more city and would have a payback automated system for 30, 60 or 90 days. 6.to have negative income you would need to be at war and your infraestructure destroyed, I think that in the case of the nation being at war, a pause on paying the loan could be coded in, private banks have this rule too, where nations don't have to pay their loans while they are at war. 7. that just doesn't make sense unless you have absolutely no infraestructure, but I guess that if you can't pay the loan, you will never be out of debt and 1 city is all you will ever get out of the bank. in the excel sheet I sent I made an example of a 100m loan (for a nation buying its 14th city) in which the nation would have to pay 2m a day of the loan (if the interests were 0.5% daily or 3.5% weekly) a nation with 14 cities can easily make twice that much money. lets say you want to buy your 10th city, that loan would then be 40m at most, so your payment would be less than 1m a day for a 60 day period. a nation that doesn't make 1m a day at 10 cities is doing something incredibly wrong.

There isn't really any way to address the problem I brought up re: player agency and replacing it with a hard-coded system. If you do it, you will be increasing competition for the player-founded banks, because a hard coded system is much less risky than a player-run system. I founded a bank has completely open books to avoid accusations of fraud and to make it clear how the numbers work, and even that bank would lose business, because a bank that just *probably* won't !@#$ up is still more risky than a bank that *can't* !@#$ up. Why do this when there are already banks? Why penalize the players, like Seb, Paul Warburg, and myself, who took it upon ourselves to create a solution to financing problems? Just.. why? I don't see the need that this would fill that isn't already being addressed. If any of you have finance concerns of ANY sort, I encourage you to seek out your friendly neighborhood banker. I can assure you we can figure out a way to do almost anything... for a price, of course. We're not charities. If you don't trust private banks, then... well...

I need a bank. This is good

This is a good idea! I like it.

O god they're multiplying!!! Soon there will be more banks than micros!!!

Yawn. This is probably the closest thing we will get to a war in 2018. Don't get too use to this. Now.... back to sleeping and collecting pixels!

Oh, well aye aye it's Escobar here.

Not sure what to think of any of the alliances involved. The Perfect time for IQ to roll Rose and see if EMC helps, if not, then they get a win and can splinter. If not, 1 month war and they win. BK redeems themselves, and no one messes with IQ protectorates again. Hate Machine, being a war alliance, doesn’t want MORE war? Meh. All you guys need to figure out what you want.

>shitpost "Lololo evry1 mad!"

Okay normally we treat this as privileged information, however since Roz wants to go around twisting what was actually said, I'm posting it here for all to see. I've bolded the important parts. The staff team all reviewed this topic and agreed it was a transparent jab at the staff team in reference to prior threads. And we are naturally going to do something about that. As for his staff persecution narrative. If we actually wanted to ban him for whatever the reason of the hour is, it would already have been done. We honestly have ignored a couple of other warn worthy actions just in the last couple of days because we don't want to ban him. As evidence to this I'm going to point out that we could easily have classified this as 'disrespect of moderation staff' and per the forum rules issued not one but two warn points for this very thread. He's an active member of the community and we recognize that. That being said we can't ignore it when hes literally spitting in our face and daring us to do something about it.

There is only one Wei here. Roz Wei.

Maybe if he had a real farewell other than trying to get the last laugh at telling people he is better than them it would be a more cordial farewell. Did you actually read his post?

Instead of attempting to white knight here, you may want to read who was slinging shit around first.

Welcome to Politics & War! I hope you enjoy your time here

Never thought I'd see the day I had to post a recap, but here we are. So, as many have noticed we had a bit of a scuffle with some folks. Some spy issues had occurred, we threw a brick through the culprits window, the cops showed up, Insert climbed a clocktower with a rifle, Queen M and Cynic/Masterb8r got married in our discord... It got pretty rowdy. I know a lot of people wanted this all to blow up into something cool. To be honest, so did I but I have plans for heavy drinking and a bar crawl and I'm not going to let the lot of you !@#$ it up by setting everything on fire. Anyways, Rose and Hate Machine got together to sort out the dumpster fire that is ongoing and decided to just let it play out. We're going to let the wars expire, refrain from opening new ones in the mean time, and we'll walk away when its over.

Sounds Cool! I'd support

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Thorin. Thorin's humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Thorin’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into Thorin's characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they’re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Thorin truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Thorin’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Thorin’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. ?And yes, by the way, i DO have a Thorin tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid ?

I've read one of your posts now, and it seems like you would be the type of person who has his head so far up his ass that you !@#$ up basic English grammar through constantly sucking the anal secretions through your ears and shamelessly regurgitating your bullshit out one of your filthy orifices for the public to see. I'm not surprised that you think I'm the one who is delusional: after all, if I spent my entire life believing the walls of my anal cavity were reality, I would be just as ignorant and !@#$ed up as you.

Ur literally too small for me to give a shit. That's a surprise, I never thought the day would come where I would have to tell a Trump supporter that the word "reality" is not "real." You dirty Mexican rapist, you can't fool me with your second-rate English. Trump's going to send you to a "holding facility" for an indefinite period of time slaving away at some menial labor task while you wait for deportation, and then presumably after the Senate building catches fire and martial law is declared, he'll start literally adding you to the American melting pot.

They don't. It's a risk they'll have to take. People need to be forced to take risks, or the game will quickly become even more boring than it is. Just like how I wish SO didn't have to take a risk when lending to people, but if we want to make money then that's a risk we have to take. Risk vs reward needs to be kept in balance. If you want to minimize risk, split it up and put it in many different banks. If any one bank goes under, even if it takes your funds with it, the rest of your funds will survive and you'll only be out that one investment. Diversification is a real-life tool to manage risk as well. Again, it's never happened yet, and SO has been around for... hmm. *Counts* Ah, quite a few wars. I don't trust my memory to count accurately. Every war that's happened since before Oktoberfest. Again, if you don't trust the major banks at this point, you have trust problems. It's POSSIBLE that they'll get screwed over, but removing ALL risk from the game is not the way to go about "fixing" this very real and complex issue. I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could you elaborate? I don't see what the connection is to people storing money safely and having more wars. People don't eschew wars because they're scared of their savings being stolen, they eschew wars because they don't want to *spend* those savings, and/or don't want to lose the war to begin with. Do you think whales got to be whales by throwing themselves into battle with abandon whenever they got the chance? How would letting them store away money risk free at a profit encourage them to have to spend that money instead of using it to grow larger still? Bank owners actually love war. You know when we do our best business? Yeah, it's right after a war. We actually have wait lists, there's so many people wanting loans. It's great! Not to mention those of us who do brokering often manage to make out fairly well during/before the war as well.

This seems like an interesting idea that could work. I'd personally like to see a low-risk, low-return investment mechanism so I can invest

World Bank The PNW bank would work as a saving account for the nations of PNW. This would allow for nations that are not comfortable investing in private banks to be able to put money away and earn something for money not currently being used toward cities, resources, and infrastructure. Two ways this could be implemented. 1. With CD (certificate of deposit). These CDs would have a 1 month long contract, meaning the owner of this certificate can choose to withdraw or renew the contract every month. Each CD can cost from 10m, 50m, or 100m and earn the nation buying it 0.2% daily interest, that means that every 100m deposited, the nation will earn an extra 200k income per day. 2. Once you put money in the investment bank you will not be able to touch it until the time is over. You will not be able to start a new investment account until the first one has finished. A cap of 1 billion would be the max to invest every week or month. The interest rate would change and be determined by how much money was being invested in PNW and length of investment. These certificates and investments would be guaranteed by Alex. The PNW Bank should also allow for people to take out loans as well. Nations that will most likely use this will be smaller nations that find it difficult to grow on their own. How would the nation pay this loan? A set percentage would be discounted from the nations income in a daily basis similar to an alliance tax. Interests would be 0.5% of the loan per day. The French loan system can be used to calculate how much interest to take and also figure out a payback method for 30, 60 or 90 days. Money will not be given as this could easily be exploited. Instead the bank would buy their next city. This purchase would then become the outstanding debt the nation has with the World Bank. Those not wanting to take out a loan for the full cost of a new city can put a down payment down. Nations should be able to make a direct deposit themselves to pay the loan back faster and would not be able to build another city or project until the loan in paid. In case of small nations below 10 cities, the option to buy 2 or 3 cities without having finished paying their original loan could be implemented, then they would be able to grow to a good size while they figure out if they like the game or not. National Project: World Bank Cost: 100m/150m Increases investment cap to 5 billion Leave out Some may wonder what would happen to private banks, they would still exist, this type of banking offers very reduced interest rates to investors, 1.4% weekly, way lower to anything any bank currently gives with the only upside to it that their investments are 100% guaranteed. It also only offers services for smaller nations seeking help to grow faster, and it would be only available for 1 city at the time, the nation would not be able to take multiple loans to grow exponentially. Private banks would also be able to give loans to nations in need of resources to war, or to alliances trying to start an aggressive expansion in their ranks. Possible questions: -Why only 0.2% per day which sums up to 1.4% weekly while you can get anywhere from 2% to 3.5% in private banks? Because this is just an option to large economies that don’t want to deal with the hassle of having their money administered by third parties, their payback would be less, but also will their hassle. -Why the interests are so high for nations taking loans, there is a big gap between 0.2% and 0.5%? Because 0.5% interests match the 3.5% interests private banks give to investors looking to deposit money. This way we prevent any loophole in the system where nations would be tempted to take a loan at a lower cost for their next city while investing their actual cash in the private bank system. -why not just give money? This would tempt nations to take money out and attempt to exploit it. Why limit the loans to the value of their next city and buying the actual city automatically? This is to prevent a nation from taking out a large loan, sending away the money and deleting only to start again. Why not loan to alliances? Because alliances would need to take out liquid money and it would be open to be exploited. if you are interested to know how the french system works, I attached an excel sheet the example shows 100m to be paid in 60 days taking almost 2m a day as payment. french system.xls thanks to endiness for helping me polish the details