Lilac Veritas

The ability to backstab always makes things interesting, but I'm down for making it display and have the treaty web update, like sketchy says. Like frankly, someone violating a NAP always provides some good drama for the peanut gallery

Nice

o/ For steve

>People saying that they want to keep (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) & PnW seperate >Don't >Blame literally everyone else and form a crappy CB Look I lost interest in this drama a long time ago, but frankly if you want to keep the worlds separate then starting topics about it seems to have had the opposite effect. From what I've seen, no one really wants an OOC (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-PnW crossover war, so how about you all just chill. Just walk away, step outside, take a breath, and ask what the heck you're all still doing here, at page 7 of this thread.

By building more infrastructure. 1 Infra is 100 people, 100 infra is 10,000 people (base population). This is then reduced by things like disease and crime, and increased by city age. Also you're currently ghosting the Rose AA, please either apply on our forums or move off it

Communist Fakemocracy

Social Democratic/Left-Wing Radical, like 8 left and 5-6 democratic? Middle for Open/Closed, closer to central planning than free, standing army, closer to dove lobby, leaning towards interventionism

It's a bit like that.. But perhaps an example is better Lets say we want to go from 2000 infra to 2150. (Malone tool auto buys to 100 first, which is annoying so I had to use a spreadsheet) 50/50/50 $ 4,311,101.24 100/50 $ 4,243,952.89 50/100 $ 4,242,370.96 So it seems it is better to buy to a round 100 first, and my previous comment was wrong. This is due to the cheaper infra being lower, so we want the steps that are closest to the quadratic curve to be lower down. THEN we want the big steps to diverge away from the curve. To put it a different way, its not about how much infra costs to buy now, its how much it will cost to buy next time. Say we go off the y=0.01x^2 +10 curve, which is pretty similar. At 0 infra, it costs 10, so buying 50 is $500 and 100 is $1000. However at 50 it costs 35 or $3500 for 100, and at 100 it costs 110 or $5500 for 50. In this case 0-50-150 costs $4000 while 0-100-150 costs $6500.

So to clarify, if I buy 378 infra, then its as if I bought 3 lots of 100 and then 78?

Integer division of cash, compare to the amount being sold so it doesn't go over the max there. Amount = MAX(Cash/PPU, Total) edit, would require a calculation for every box of course, could increase load times. Would need to be redone every time you bought anything or at a turn. Could maybe be better done as a tampermonkey extension maybe

Wow this needs a bump Today is a good day to know where your towel is

Refined resources are worth considerably more than raw resources. Military also requires power, as does commerce which triples your income at 100%. Also if you don't have military you will die very, very quickly

I totally already established in the other thread that with 5 hospitals you can go post 5k with no problems... Like the land costs in comparison to the city costs for that level and the infra costs are like, peanuts. Pollution maxes out cause you run out of improvements. City age does not affect base population density (which adds disease). 5 Hospitals allows you have a pop density of 180ish with max pollution. Increasing the limits of pollution reduction is pointless without increasing the limits of things that produce it. Do you want calculations for this?

o/ New friends

No. And because you can get location changes with credits, even more no.

Hey there A few tips for you: -Don't build supermarkets, they aren't worth it (except when you've been playing for like 8 months and have the ITC project) -Crime is ten times worse than disease Good luck!

Sounds interesting but it might give the upper teir quite a large advantage. I like the idea but we need to be award of unintended consequences and compare the increase to the increased costs of the upper tier.

To reply to various people. 1. Having zero pollution is pointless if you already have 0 disease. Pollution IS just added to disease at a rate of 0.05% per 1 unit of pollution. 70 pollution (recycling centre) = 3.5% disease, 45 pollution (subway) = 2.25%, hopsital is 2.5% (or 50 pollution). 2. The premise that land becomes too expensive and 5 hospitals isn't enough is absolutely insane. ITS -12.5 DISEASE REDUCTION. As I established in my previous response, you can remove all disease from pollution that basically any nation will produce per city with max pollution reduction (255 or 12.75%) + 2 hospital (another 100 or 25%). This leaves us with 3 hopsitals, taking up just 3 more slots or 150 infra, or 15000 before city age (however city age is not used in base pop. density). This is -7.5% disease reduction. Taking the part of the formula that relates gets us.. ((( 0.01 * Base Population Density^2 ) -25 ) / 100 ) + (Base Population / 100000) = Disease from population density Now all my calculators weren't being consistent with this (Wolfram Alpha gave me 278.338 for some reason) so I determined it experimentally using a simulator. Full details of the simulation: North America, 4850 infra, 2500 land Max resources, manufacturing, 2 police stations, 5 hospitals, 3 recycling centres, 1 subway, max commerce with ITC, max military, wind power x 20 (You've got nothing else to put the slots to), 6 free slots (useless) Pop Density = 194.01, Disease = 0%, Population = 485,025 people Pollution = 81, Disease from pollution = 4.05% Revenue = 1.016 million per city (before military upkeep) So the hospitals have 8.7% to use on reducing pop. density disease. At 4900 infra, you have 0.04% disease. It is essentially pointless to build past 4450 as you run out of improvements. The Infra costs are sky high at this point (4500 to 4600 is 13,269,767.69). You need a lot of cities to build anywhere near this high. Population density is not a problem until around 5k infra, where it costs 15.6 million (with no reductions) to buy a mere 100 infra. Then you can buy 500 land for a small ~6.2 million and have no worries until 5.4k infra. 500 more land costs 8.9 million, which is no small amount but small compared to infra costs and the fact you are now making 1.145 million per city before resource sales and military upkeep. 3.5k land and you are safe until 5850 infra. You are in the extreme upper teir. Everyone has long since stopped playing politics and war. The seas have risen and humanity has all but fallen. Your cities cost over half a billion in total infrastructure and land costs. You have 6200 infra and 4000 land. As you see that the next 500 land costs $15,865,400.00 you cry out, why oh why didn't they introduce landfills and more disease reducing improvements. After all, you are running on wind power and still have 26 free slots. Q.E.D.

I believe we should adopt a pluralist view of economics, as obviously every theory has flaws. I'm a fan of Keynesian mainly due to the success of the Hawke-Keating governments. We've had 23 years without a recession, the last one being 1992 or to paraphrase Keating 'the recession we had to have'.

Someone already beat me to the first one: KEYNES & HAYEK: ROUND TWO

This is a very weird method of adjusting for inflation. Don't most economists use M3? Like I agree on your inequality point in the USA, the minimum wage has been eroded by inflation, but your stuff about GDP seems weird to my brother who studies economics.

Seems a bit pointless to me, as pollution translates directly into disease and we already have hospitals. For example, my nation is on South Africa (Bauxite/Oil/Uranium). With max pollution reduction, but completely maxed resources there's only 49 excess pollution. This is 2.45% disease, or just enough to be eliminated by 1 hospital. All my nation will ever need is 3 recycling centres, 1 subway, and 2 hospitals.

o/

You should get the kerbal engineer mod to calculate the delta v for you