[potential idea] charge upkeep on resource storage

[rapmanej]

One of the major things I like about this game is the amount of realism offered,  the major example is the need to militarize over a period of days.

 

I wonder if by storing tons of materials it would not be an additional aspect of realism to have to pay for the storage.  

Obviously, just slapping on an extra upkeep cost would be unnecessary and burdensome, so a potential solution could involve a sliding scale with an optimal storage amount

 

For example:  lets say that due to fancy formula and calculations a nation can optimally store 5000 steel

 

If that nation stores below 5000 steel, they would gain money, if they store more, they would incur a cost.  

 

One potential showstopper I foresee is that nations would only keep resources in the alliance bank, however, that would be a major risk as a surprise attack with naval blockades would be devastating.  

 

What are your initial thoughts?  

 

If you disagree, what are your main concerns?

If you agree, what measure would you use to come up with the optimal amounts?

 

For Sheepy, would this require an undue burden to code, or on the server itself?

 

 

[Moridin]

The idea that ships are useless has little to do with the utility of blockades and much more to do with the ease of breaking them. This proposal does little to alter that dynamic, so as you said most people would split between storing most resources in the alliance bank and paying the extra to be able to militarize without waiting for bank dispensation. Ultimately, this will either add a tedious micromanagement aspect or an additional cost to be paid, without significantly altering the way warfare or resource management works outside of making extra work for bank handlers in times of war.

[A-Dean-G]

My initial thoughts are that this isn't as realistic as first impressed. Firstly, a nation covers its own expenses through taxation and distribution through a variety of different manners (welfare, silos, corporate farms, etc.) so this storage mechanic would only bring convolution to the internal mechanics of the nation itself. Also, I don't exactly know what I'm talking about and this seemed to gain a mite of popularity already. It could be an interesting and challenging addition.

 

 

That being said, I disagree, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also because I seriously have enough bills. Having to focus on commerce, growth, maxxing my militaristic expansion, and incurring the "penalties" for being perpetually at war have given me plenty to take in neverminding the expansion attempt I'm currently making. Just as well, I'd like to say that the idea of me having to pay someone else for my things that I have in my own possession is kind of a bummer.

[rapmanej]

My initial thoughts are that this isn't as realistic as first impressed. Firstly, a nation covers its own expenses through taxation and distribution through a variety of different manners (welfare, silos, corporate farms, etc.) so this storage mechanic would only bring convolution to the internal mechanics of the nation itself. Also, I don't exactly know what I'm talking about and this seemed to gain a mite of popularity already. It could be an interesting and challenging addition.

 

 

That being said, I disagree, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also because I seriously have enough bills. Having to focus on commerce, growth, maxxing my militaristic expansion, and incurring the "penalties" for being perpetually at war have given me plenty to take in neverminding the expansion attempt I'm currently making. Just as well, I'd like to say that the idea of me having to pay someone else for my things that I have in my own possession is kind of a bummer.

 

I would want it to be tested for at least a month on the test server to see how it functions and what behaviors it produces/ doesn't produce.  It may end up being interesting, but it also could end up as boring and uneventful (no need to waste time implementing things that don't have an effect)

Edited January 29, 2016 by rapmanej

[Callisto]

This could also limit the size of market sales, as you'd have to pay to keep that 10000 steel on you before it actually got sold.

 

 

Not a fan of this tbh, it only takes money out of the game and constricts nation growth and security.

 

However, an alternative might be to have a movable cap depending on nation size, let's say nations with 13 cities can only store 25000 Steel without penalty while nations with 3 cities can only store 2000 without penalty. (Random numbers, no corallation, obviously a formula would be needed)

 

If you wanted to implement this, a movable cap would be ideal, as a nation with 25 cities can't really do much with a mere 5000 steel, and having to message your alliance government for another 5k steel every day isn't really too appealing.

[A-Dean-G]

 

I would want it to be tested for at least a month on the test server to see how it functions and what behaviors it produces/ doesn't produce.  It may end up being interesting, but it also could end up as boring and uneventful (no need to waste time implementing things that don't have an effect)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I felt the same way about an idea I previously had that gained no support or attention.

Edited January 29, 2016 by A-Dean-G

[rapmanej]

 

If you wanted to implement this, a movable cap would be ideal, as a nation with 25 cities can't really do much with a mere 5000 steel, and having to message your alliance government for another 5k steel every day isn't really too appealing.

 

I just used the 5000 number as an example for how a potential system would work.  

 

Of course, 5000 steel would be a ludicrous cap for upper tier nations.  

 

Interesting comment about the markets, that would be another wrench to take into account.   

[Callisto]

I will say this however, you already run the risk of losing your huge warchest in a war from someone beating it out of you, why should we penalize having a large warchest even more.

 

That's another thing, this could make raiding for resources almost useless, as no one would want to keep large amounts of resources on them.

[A-Dean-G]

I will say this however, you already run the risk of losing your huge warchest in a war from someone beating it out of you, why should we penalize having a large warchest even more.

 

That's another thing, this could make raiding for resources almost useless, as no one would want to keep large amounts of resources on them.

This. So much this. This and nothing but this. Yaaaaaaaaaaasssss

[Mohammad]

should eb based on your score, so 100 score and only store x resource but 10,000 score can store 100x reosurce

[Mandystalin]

If you want it realistic, you wouldn't charge by how much is stored, but by how much storage space you had. An empty silo/warehouse/whatever still needs to be maintained. If you go over you storage limit, storage costs should increase steeply.

 

That being said, I'm not really in favour of this idea - it just seems like a way to lose money for no real purpose

[Mohammad]

i thnk thier should be a cp but a large celling that depends on score, a 100 scroe antions should not have 30k stell on them, it prevents "safe" antions from workoing, one antion would eb beidged and then immedatly recive the whole of his AA's bank, then go to VC mode and wait out the war