Jump to content

Lilac Veritas

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Lilac Veritas

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Leader Name
    Lilac Veritas
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    The Golden Horde

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: lilac0#1205

Recent Profile Visitors

1714 profile views

Lilac Veritas's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (5/8)




Community Answers

  1. I literally already disproved this in a previous example. x amount of resources degrades at the same rate whether split over 200 nations or stored in a bank. The only possible difference I could see would be if you stored it so dispersed that the degradation amount got lessened by rounding, or by having the project. As I've also previously addressed, the mere existence of the project is also not a nerf to command economies due to the opportunity cost of getting it in a dispersed model, and the fact that command economies could just store some of their stockpile in fully mill'd nations with the project. I'm fine with actual criticism on certain points, you can argue with me but you can't argue with the numbers.
  2. Finally someone is setting the record straight! This TAC revisionist history will not stand! Empire of Spades forever! Rose, as your only former Empress, I'm a little disappointed...
  3. If you're unhappy with my example, I can give another one to your specifications. I did 20 cause it was the first number that jumped into my head, it was arbitrary. I can consider income and more nations and people with the project, just it gets a bit harder to calculate and harder to communicate. I wanted a clear example showing that the effect on command v dispersed economies was the same for equal nations and warchest goals. There was a valid point about bank raiding but hey that gives a pretty clear CB. Blockades would be an issue yes, but you could spread the bank over say.. 10 gov members, and have them maintain a higher mil standard during peace. During wartime you could put stuff in the bank anyway, cause you'd be using it. It's only for long-term (months or more scale) that you'd really get a benefit from the project. However the project offers an opportunity cost: You can have it regardless of command or dispersed economy status, but this blocks a slot from taking something else that might benefit you, eg an economic or a war project. If a dispersed economy had all the individuals have the project, then thats x nations that aren't getting some other benefit versus a much smaller y nations for a command economy. There was some other points made but I feel like to address them is to just repeat myself or sketchy. This change is a nudge, a small change in mindset which can have a decent effect.
  4. One reduces the cost of war, the other makes a cost for not warring now. It makes it so you could have a low stockpile, and then buy a bunch as a prelude to war. It adds a penalty to waiting 6 months with a stockpile, or planning 7 wars in advance etc
  5. I fail to see how this will change your ability to buy cities. This proposal does not affect cash
  6. Re: Command Economies Many people seem to be under the misconception that this hurts command economies more than it hurts a dispersed economy. This is blatantly false. So say we have an alliance of 20 nations and we want 50k resources of all 4 types for all of em, 200k total. I'm going to run a few sims, over 10 days, with zero production, of a few models. 1: 20 Nations hold their own stockpile (full dispersed) 2: Command economy bank holds stockpile for 20 nations (full command) Amazing! It's the same number! And consider the project that reducing things. Either you have 20 nations waste a project slot so they can individually plan 7 wars in advance, or you have 1-2 gov members waste a project slot and have higher mil and have them hold the majority of the bank and then just put stuff in as need be. I get it, NPO etc likes to stockpile to hell, and you can still do that. Hell I'd say this change benefits command economies more as they minimise the amount of people who need this anti-degrade project to allow for easier long term stockpiling. If people still aren't convinced by my numbers, I could do some sims of a mixed economy and then also consider the project Did you miss Sketchy's history lesson on what happens when people cherry pick parts of an econ proposal that's meant to go all together? The suggestions here are meant to complement each other as part of a larger system.
  7. 0.03% is really tiny you know. It meant to discourage long-term hoarding, not short term. I don't know your production numbers so lets say you produce 1500 aluminium every day. You run a 10 day economic cycle. Let assume a warchest of 30k aluminium. How tragic! You'll make 0.7% less profit! My heart weeps for you To compare if you maintained no warchest you'd lose 0.135% or 20.23 and if you had a warchest of 15k you'd lose 0.434% or 65.17
  8. I think both suggestions work well with each other. Both aim to encourage war now or in the short term, rather than always saving for some future extreme great war. Might also promote smaller engagements if it becomes harder for total war not to drive the market insane (as it should!). Also the point about warchests can be seen with old alliances v new, or those who have recently been fighting vs those who sat out. It lessens the gap, either war because you'll lose some stockpile regardless, or at the end of the war any threats also have less of a stockpile or have had to purchase more, promoting growth elsewhere Edit: Ninja'd by Sketchy...
  9. I really like the main suggestion and the fixes that go with it. A good point is made about extreme stockpiling, and tank cost. People like to have a big stockpile so they can survive a war and not use the market in war when prices are inflated. But it is during this exact time that we should see smaller alliances catch up! I really like the implication of not just more wars and less stagnation, but also this economic aspect of making the short-term and medium-term market a lot more important. It gives some nice implications for politics, small alliance growth, but also this dynamic that if you see an alliance begin to stockpile resources and prices rise, then it should be a signal to people to both increase production if they think they're safe, or to also stockpile and militarise if they believe an alliance is stockpiling as a prelude to war. I don't really have many criticism at this point, you've addressed basically everything off the top of my head. I like the point about raws and cash. Sure you can have all the bauxite in the world and it won't make a single plane or win a war if you can't convert it at a decent rate.
  10. oooo tricky choice I feel like the complaints are slightly valid, I went for option 3, especially if further beiges reduce MAP gain further, cause then they can still fight back but it slows em down Option 1 further disincentives beiging so I don't like it, it would take us too much back to an old system where people avoid winning wars Option 2 is also good but could damage a raiding style too much, its a counter raider's dream. But option 3 still allows for a counter raid to be effective as long as the people in the other wars are active. Frankly if you're inactive and at war you should be punished for that
  11. My good friends, a Mongolian Khan has returned from TKR bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
  12. The Field of Real Numbers We will now look at some axioms regarding the set of real numbers R. We will note that an "axiom" is a statement that isn't meant to necessarily be proven and instead, they're statements that are given. These axioms are rather straightforward and may seem trivial, however, we will subsequently use them in order to prove many simple theorems and build a foundation for the set of real numbers. The Axioms of the Field of Real Numbers Let R denote the set of real numbers and let +:R×R→R denote the binary operation of addition and let ⋅:R×R→R denote the binary operation of multiplication. Then for all a,b,c∈R, the following axioms hold: Axiom A1: a+b=b+a (Commutativity of Addition). Axiom A2: a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c (Associativity of Addition). Axiom A3: There exists an element 0∈R such that a+0=0+a=a (Existence of an Additive Identity). Axiom A4: There exists an element −a∈R such that a+(−a)=(−a)+a=0 (Existence of Additive Inverses). Axiom M1: a⋅b=b⋅a (Commutativity of Multiplication). Axiom M2: a⋅(b⋅c)=(a⋅b)⋅c (Associativity of Multiplication). Axiom M3: There exists an element 1∈R such that a⋅1=1⋅a=a (Existence of a Multiplicative Identity). Axiom M4: There exists an element a−1∈R such that a⋅a−1=a−1⋅a=1 (Existence of Multiplicative Inverses). Axiom D: a⋅(b+c)=a⋅b+a⋅c (Distributivity of Multiplication over Addition). We note that these axioms define a special algebraic structure known as a field, so we say that R is a field under the operations of + addition and ⋅multiplication.
  13. Whoops seems I've made a duplicate thread:
  14. As the title suggests, the in game calculations of resource value in the Revenue tab, and the Profit per Slot calculations on the Resources tab are very much incorrect. First consider the raw resources. It gives the following for oil: Expected Daily Profit per improvement at a market value of $4,765 PPU: (3 Oil/day * 50% Bonus * 3784 PPU) - $600 Operating Cost = $22,104.00 I have 12 oil wells, so 4.5 per well. Firstly it gives 2 market prices, secondly the estimate is too high. Using the given prices we get 20842.5 for 4765, 16428 for 3784, and in my own person numbers where I use the lowest selling price (4220) I got $18,390.00. Note that ALL of these numbers are below 22k and that the actual profit is below 19,950. If it was 22k it would be profitable to cut Shopping Malls and Subways for Oil, at 18.4k it is not. Now consider the revenue tab. I have 19 cities following the same build of 72% commerce, maxed oil, gas and uranium production, and the projects for gas and uranium. I make no food and face 20/1 taxes. I make $1,700,429.78 in cash and the game says the total revenue with resources I make is worth $2,926,205.99. I wont break dowm the math here too much but with 1692 tons of gas per day thats 6.4 million alone, and whilst I lose 400k to food, by my math I make just over 10 million, with the market prices of the lowest selling offer. The given numbers spit in the face of mathematics at best, and at worst force nations into poor builds. I know you want nations to produce resources but lying about the profit isn't great, especially when the given equation doesn't even match the answer.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.