Jump to content

An Incentive For Action


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Well that is why the cost of war is reduced in the third part of the proposal. You don't need to stockpile for as long or as high if implemented. AAs that require larger minimum amounts of resources also have larger incomes as well. As for your claim that most alliances don't stockpile resources unless they have high tax, this isn't really true, plenty of top AAs have significant stockpiles, and warchests are a factor as well. There is no really difference between high tax and low/no warchest, vs low tax and high warchest setups or anything inbetween.

"A rational actor would not look to spend resources just because, but hoard more to offset those costs and that leads to longer waiting times. "

I'd argue an irrational or just lazy actor would do that. It will be easier to stockpile the minimum needed to get into a conflict now, and its more efficient to trade or use those resources then see them disappear into the ether.

You're premise that the moment people have resources will mean, they would choose to go into war automatically. Moreover, alliances already use their resources to trade and to me that seems a weaker line of argumentation for this proposal. The fact is, degradation of resources will not see individuals magically deciding to war the moment they hit their warchest requirements, the opposite would more likely happen, where they start pushing the requirements higher and take longer times to achieve that to take into account this added complication of "resource degradation". Making wars cheaper is a good idea, but doing so by trying to make it more expensive to store resources seems to be flawed. What you are in turn doing is forcing alliances to hoard more or storing it in raws and then frantically changing it to refines, further pushing dates back. 

 

Few folks have the time to trade, and forcing players to trade everyday or lose resources, seems to me a bit weird, because that could have a lot of weird effects economically to the game. Alliance trades already happen and like you say the economy has reached some sort of stability at this moment. Yanking that out by once again going after resources through degradation to me seems counterproductive to the main theme of this, which is to reduce the cost of war. 

 

EDIT: Forgot to add. I believe the problem with larger stockpiles is due to the city range that this game has increased to. A couple of years ago, TEst had a 15 city minimum requirement? Most alliances struggled to reach 1 member to 15, let alone have a 100 at it. This was in response to the political climate of the game and our player led decisions that allowed upper tiers to exist untouched and continuously grow, requiring greater resources, and more investment to compete. Those costs, compounded with the resource deflation of sorts and other economic/military changes required calibration of growth strategies to compete with what was essentially a political problem. I feel resource degradation is an attempt to correct what in essence was a player/community made issue, rather than a mechanical one. To go after this now, when there already exists such wide gaps, looks like further solidifying those gaps with a mechanical change, rather than trying to achieve that with community choices tbh. This proposal to me would only continue building longer wait times, because I'd be trying to play catch up in resource numbers to compete with those at higher city levels, and therefore requiring me to stay out of wars etc. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a broader issue in gaming in general: Players love to optimize the fun out of a game. I do however think that punishing players for their favourite play style is the wrong thing to do. Rather you should encourage active nations/alliance. Like I dunno... victories gives you prestige and if you are in a certain prestige range, you get certain perks. Prestige would then degrade over time.

 

totally did not take a page out of EU4

  • Like 2

Opinions are my own.

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Akuryo said:

No thanks, don't want or need an incentive to sell my excess manufactureds every single damn day while at peace just to avoid the extra overhead that this would cause my personal 10-day economic cycles i use. Your chart does start at 100k, though it's not specifically stated - is degradation only supposed to start at that number? If yes, disregard this first part. :P

Especially given just how rich these bigger alliances are, your suggestion sounds more like an incredibly minor annoyance. I've never seen 1 million plus of any resource stockpiled in any alliance or nation, but anybody who can afford to do that is merely going to roll their eyes at you. The wealth gap between the larger alliances and the smaller ones is absolutely insane, and i don't think it would do anything to incentivize them to do more than sigh in annoyance. 

And that's pretty much all i expect this to do, be mildly annoying. People who don't want to take risks and start wars, Sketchy, are going to need a much sounder kicking in the hindquarters to change their mind than this fruit fly you've unleashed in their home. 

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.

image.png.e1512cfc251f192dffa62c660e1ff115.png

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

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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.

image.png.e1512cfc251f192dffa62c660e1ff115.png

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

Meanwhile ignoring that the suggestion still does not show or even suggest a net gain or positive effect for the game anywhere. A negative is still a negative even if its small, and the game doesn't need more negatives.

But please, continue with your blind idiocy and arrogant tone, i'm sure it will convince many people.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
32 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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.

image.png.e1512cfc251f192dffa62c660e1ff115.png

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

Yeah but the critique isn't so much about smaller, individual warchests, but rather larger scale AA ones.  Scaling resource degradation effectively penalizes AAs that centrally manage member resource requirements (for example, by storing them in the AA bank) and will make it harder to save up the resources those AAs need to wage war.  If the idea is to incentivize war this is the wrong way to go about it, since these AAs will have to save longer to accumulate the same amounts.  If we want more frequent war, the most effective method would be to lesson the consumption of resources (as Sketchy suggested as the second part of his proposal), since that will reduce the amount of time it takes to accumulate what you need to fight.  Making resources disappear over time (especially when stored in large amounts) will just make wars harder to sustain, which means they'll be less frequent, not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Yeah but the critique isn't so much about smaller, individual warchests, but rather larger scale AA ones.  Scaling resource degradation effectively penalizes AAs that centrally manage member resource requirements (for example, by storing them in the AA bank) and will make it harder to save up the resources those AAs need to wage war.  If the idea is to incentivize war this is the wrong way to go about it, since these AAs will have to save longer to accumulate the same amounts.  If we want more frequent war, the most effective method would be to lesson the consumption of resources (as Sketchy suggested as the second part of his proposal), since that will reduce the amount of time it takes to accumulate what you need to fight.  Making resources disappear over time (especially when stored in large amounts) will just make wars harder to sustain, which means they'll be less frequent, not more.

Um no it doesn't. The degradation applies to resources both in banks and on nations.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

Meanwhile ignoring that the suggestion still does not show or even suggest a net gain or positive effect for the game anywhere. A negative is still a negative even if its small, and the game doesn't need more negatives.

But please, continue with your blind idiocy and arrogant tone, i'm sure it will convince many people.

I already pointed out the positive reasons for implementing such a change. People who are speaking from the perspective of an individual nation rather than from a macro alliance view should keep in mind that as lilac already pointed out, 0.03% degradation per day is incredibly negligible. So far most of the counterarguments seem to be addressing strawman perceptions of the proposal.

This is a consistent issue when it comes to suggestions in general, people seem to forger the primary drivers of the game are alliances and mechanics that seek to make larger changes to the game need to focus on that area. People blow the individual perspective way out of proportion in order to make a case. Could you implement a minimum cap? Sure, but then you'd create a loophole that allows people to evenly spread X amount of resources to all of their members (aka a base warchest) in order to bypass degradation. That is a suggestion that actually WOULD disproportionately hurt central command economies vs decentralized command economies.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
13 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Um no it doesn't. The degradation applies to resources both in banks and on nations.

Yeah but assuming the second part of your proposal was adopted (the national project) in tandem with the first (resource degradation), the resource penalty would be 50 percent larger for centralized AAs, as compared to AAs that require their membership to maintain individual warchests, since there's no mechanic that allows, say, Space Rome to build a project to slow resource decay.  This not only privileges one style of gameplay over another (which is problematic in itself), but it doesn't actually tackle the core issue, which is that it takes a prolonged period to save up resources to fight a large scale war.  You're effectively proposing a mechanic that makes it harder, rather than easier, to stockpile the resources needed to fight, which won't do much to encourage more frequent conflicts.

I do like the bit about reducing resource costs though, since that would actually remove a barrier to fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Curufinwe said:

Yeah but assuming the second part of your proposal was adopted (the national project) in tandem with the first (resource degradation), the resource penalty would be 50 percent larger for centralized AAs, as compared to AAs that require their membership to maintain individual warchests, since there's no mechanic that allows, say, Space Rome to build a project to slow resource decay.  This not only privileges one style of gameplay over another (which is problematic in itself), but it doesn't actually tackle the core issue, which is that it takes a prolonged period to save up resources to fight a large scale war.  You're effectively proposing a mechanic that makes it harder, rather than easier, to stockpile the resources needed to fight, which won't do much to encourage more frequent conflicts.

I do like the bit about reducing resource costs though, since that would actually remove a barrier to fighting.

I mean, thats a fair argument I already addressed with Edward earlier. I still don't think its a compelling enough reason not to implement it, as projects are by definition longer term investment advantages for larger nations, so that argument applies to all projects. But assuming the project was not implemented, which frankly I'm not as concerned about as the first and 3rd portions of the suggestion, then what is the overall gripe with the remainder of the proposal? People seem to be arguing the proposal itself disadvantages centralized bank systems, which is categorically untrue otherwise.

And it doesn't take a prolonged period to save up resources, because the costs are offset. That is why the costs are offset. People keep ignoring the 3rd part of the proposal. It isn't harder to stockpile resources, because you need less resources in order to perform war under the change. I've already addressed this a few times now.\, and you seem to have read that part, so idk where the confusion is.

Also, just to math check you, it would be 33% not 50%.

So, lets say the project isn't implemented, whats your argument then?

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may respond with a counter-proposal...

Rather than having a bluntly implemented "PENALTY" to existing stockpiles based on simply having stockpiles, instead we could implement something with a similar effect but without all of the "YOU LOSE STUFF COS BALANCE" knee-jerking.

Instead of a direct penalty to stockpiles, my suggestion is that nations must pay upkeep on improvements and infrastructure in the form of refined materials.

I mean, think about it. Our population has malls, why don't they have cars? Why do they eat food but don't use gasoline? How is it that we've got airforces but no civilian airlines? How do our police function without using any bullets? Refined materials are necessary for a modern lifestyle, so we can call the refined resources degradation "civilian use" or "upkeep", and balance it to cost more for larger nations and/or nations in larger alliances.

Now, unfortunately repackaging the mechanic doesn't change it for anyone that sees and understands my proposal, but for the players that don't check the forums regularly and will never see this it should help the medicine go down. WoW had a similar problem, where in order to fix the problem of people grinding literally 24/7, they implemented a penalty for anyone playing too long at once. Nobody liked it, so they changed it to where after a period of inactivity, people would instead come back to a "bonus"... which was exactly the same numbers, just said in a different manner.

Alternatively, we could set up costs for bank transfers. 1% fee for everything moved to a bank, or from one bank to another bank. Boom, degradation. Boom, war incentive. Boom, cost to hiding bank. Fixes so much.

Edit: And, NPO, I'm not suggesting that taxes nor withdrawals to nations be penalized. It's your offshore bank that'd get the nail, just like literally everyone else's, so don't even start on your "but that'll cost our communist model more" nonsense.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
ree
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

I mean, thats a fair argument I already addressed with Edward earlier. I still don't think its a compelling enough reason not to implement it, as projects are by definition longer term investment advantages for larger nations, so that argument applies to all projects. But assuming the project was not implemented, which frankly I'm not as concerned about as the first and 3rd portions of the suggestion, then what is the overall gripe with the remainder of the proposal? People seem to be arguing the proposal itself disadvantages centralized bank systems, which is categorically untrue otherwise.

And it doesn't take a prolonged period to save up resources, because the costs are offset. That is why the costs are offset. People keep ignoring the 3rd part of the proposal. It isn't harder to stockpile resources, because you need less resources in order to perform war under the change. I've already addressed this a few times now.\, and you seem to have read that part, so idk where the confusion is.

Also, just to math check you, it would be 33% not 50%.

So, lets say the project isn't implemented, whats your argument then?

If the degradation rate is 30 per 100k without the project and 20 per 100k with the project, the degradation rate is 50 percent higher for those without the project (20 vs 30). You can also say it's 33 percent lower for those with the project (30 vs 20), but that's really a question of what angle you're coming at it from :P

As for the rest of the proposal, I have absolutely no issue with 3); I think it would go a long way to reducing the costs associated with war, particularly considering how easily tanks and ships die when pitted against the planes based strategies many AAs currently use.  So reducing the steel input for units definitely makes a lot of sense and reducing gas and muni consumption more broadly would likely help as well.  However, I don't really see how 1) would contribute to the goal of more frequent wars/less risk averse behaviour, since it's predicated on the assumption that AAs would fight more frequently to offset resource degradation, when the more likely outcome is they'd just take longer to achieve the same benchmarks that they feel enable them to fight.  If the aim is simply to reduce the cooldown period between wars, reducing resource costs (and infra reconstruction costs if we wanted to take the concept to its logical conclusion) would achieve that goal on its own - attempting to 'penalize' AAs by continuously reducing their stockpiles is counterproductive, since it just means you have to take more time to get the resources you need to fight, regardless of whether overall consumption is reduced using 3) or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only part of that suggestion I can back is the lowering the cost of war.

 

Whether you lower cost of tanks, muni and gas useage by a percentage or increase amount of gas/muni produced. It's no big difference to me. First two parts of the suggestion are doing the exact opposite and is utter bs. No matter how you twist and turn it, it's up to the people to (find or have reasons to) declare wars. Having enough resources accelerates that, not the threat of a small portion of it disappearing magically.

 

Please, for the love of God, don't do multiple suggestions in one post. Make an overview and individual posts for each suggestion, so it's easier to see which suggestion has support and which don't. I had to downvote, as 2 of 3 suggestions were the worst bs I've seen on these forums for a long time, which is no small feat, while the third is the exact opposite. But it's a downvote, so if I hadn't written anything, nobody would know that I supported the 3rd part.

 

I would like more action, but none of this will ultimately lead to more (high end) action. It'll just mean it takes longer or shorter for people to get ready for potential action.

  • Upvote 1

"Don't argue with members of The Golden Horde. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Probably someone on OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In current situation it is hard to build a city and grow faster for people like me who are in 20+ city and playing the game since 2015. Many major changes crippled my economy like refined resources reduction etc. Now if this purposed action got implemented then i hv to wait for a year to buy a city. So...yeah i love challenges but hate to get bored 

Manas....

 

BLACK KNIGHTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)
image.png.ffc27bc2295aa51c1f325f3e8b79efd4.png

2: Command economy bank holds stockpile for 20 nations (full command)
image.png.8ef44f9b1b684718ed87d26369c4c391.png

 

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

6 minutes ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

Please, for the love of God, don't do multiple suggestions in one post. Make an overview and individual posts for each suggestion, so it's easier to see which suggestion has support and which don't. I had to downvote, as 2 of 3 suggestions were the worst bs I've seen on these forums for a long time, which is no small feat, while the third is the exact opposite. But it's a downvote, so if I hadn't written anything, nobody would know that I supported the 3rd part.

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.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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.

They don't complement each other though. One accelerates war chest building by allowing you to meet goals faster, the other hampers it.

"Don't argue with members of The Golden Horde. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Probably someone on OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, manas said:

In current situation it is hard to build a city and grow faster for people like me who are in 20+ city and playing the game since 2015. Many major changes crippled my economy like refined resources reduction etc. Now if this purposed action got implemented then i hv to wait for a year to buy a city. So...yeah i love challenges but hate to get bored 

I fail to see how this will change your ability to buy cities. This proposal does not affect cash

  • Downvote 1

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than respond individually i'll just make a general response, since people keep making me repeat the same responses over and over and over.

People will have no reason to "just stockpile more", because as I have said about 10x now the cost of war is reduced to offset it. People will be less likely to stockpile 3+ wars in advance, but some still will, at a cost. The rational actor would NOT do so, despite what some have said, but naturally everyone has different priorities in terms of what they will or won't do, how compelling a motivator it is will be dependent on the people. What does happen though is that newer alliances can still enter the arena in a competitive fashion, and not have to go up against larger aas who have stockpiled enough resources to war for multiple times over, creating a dynamic that rewards those who are proactive rather than stagnant.

As for the "We should just reduce costs of everything and ignore the rest", sure if you want to break the economy again. A reduction in demand without a reduction in supply will put us path on the path of inflation we were on prior to sheepy breaking the economy. This then has the opposite effect, stifling overall growth of the game by reducing the value of all goods over time, disproportionately benefiting older players. Sure, you could argue that inflation would actually result in more wars too, which is true, but considering all the  same people are arguing against giving upper tier people a significant advantage, I would think they'd be against that. A balanced economy fairly balances both play styles without benefiting either one.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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)
image.png.ffc27bc2295aa51c1f325f3e8b79efd4.png

2: Command economy bank holds stockpile for 20 nations (full command)
image.png.8ef44f9b1b684718ed87d26369c4c391.png

 

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

I think they're not being convinced by a factor of you being just an awful person to deal with, just from the condescension, mixed with the fact that @King Olafr of the Faroeshit the nail on the head in that this provides no tangible benefit for anything or anyone and will have at best a neutral effect on the problem it seeks to cure or possibly even a negative effect.


Because again, as i already, this minor nuisance isn't going to turn TCW from Pantheon 2.0 into TEst 2.0, or anything even incrementally better than what it is. How you can spit out so much blind condescension without coming to the simple realization that your numbers mean to people is "Pointless annoyance" is beyond my ability to comprehend. So i'll add a lack of self awareness on your end to why nobody is being convinced. 

Especially given your hilarious inability to remember in my own original post calling it a minor nuisance with no point, and still proceeding to be a condescending fool.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

They don't complement each other though. One accelerates war chest building by allowing you to meet goals faster, the other hampers it.

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

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanks need more of a rework than just a cost decrease, having ground control should cut your air power more significantly than it currently does.

It makes no sense to me why arguably the most OP unit is extremely hard to counter and is one of the cheapest to maintain. People literally look at wars now and determine who is winning by who has the best plane %.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

They don't complement each other though. One accelerates war chest building by allowing you to meet goals faster, the other hampers it.

Yes.... creating a balance so as not to mess with the economy. That is literally the point.

If you drastically increase supply and don't touch demand, or drastically decrease demand and don't touch supply, the economy inflates, and new players suffer because they can't get the same prices for goods older nations did when they were growing.

If you drastically increase the demand and don't touch supply, or you drastically decrease the supply and don't touch demand, the economy deflates, and new players suffer because the minimum investment for profitability and the cost of war becomes unsustainable and newer players are effectively dependent on larger nations investing large sums of money into them, and larger nations get little benefit from doing so.

A balanced economy is best for new players. Older nations get advantages via city age and projects, so as not to invalidate the purpose of progress, without ruining the game for noobs.

Anyone who is advocating for reducing the demand of refined resources, without also reducing the supply, has not considered the side effects.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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)
image.png.ffc27bc2295aa51c1f325f3e8b79efd4.png

2: Command economy bank holds stockpile for 20 nations (full command)
image.png.8ef44f9b1b684718ed87d26369c4c391.png

 

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

Which command alliance has 20 members? You might as well use NPO and they have more than a hundred, IIRC.  They also don't have a cap where they stop taxing and revenues are just absurdly greater than your examples.

4 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

I fail to see how this will change your ability to buy cities. This proposal does not affect cash

Many of us trade resources for cash (you really can't trade for anything but cash) which is required, for example, in order to buy a city. I think the last city I bought the cash fee was like $158m. Plus all the infra, land, improvements. How is making the above slower useful?  None of that is warchest material, that's city funds, then there are warchest funds, then lots and lots of trading.  All being penalized.

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Rather than respond individually i'll just make a general response, since people keep making me repeat the same responses over and over and over.

People will have no reason to "just stockpile more", because as I have said about 10x now the cost of war is reduced to offset it. People will be less likely to stockpile 3+ wars in advance, but some still will, at a cost. The rational actor would NOT do so, despite what some have said, but naturally everyone has different priorities in terms of what they will or won't do, how compelling a motivator it is will be dependent on the people. What does happen though is that newer alliances can still enter the arena in a competitive fashion, and not have to go up against larger aas who have stockpiled enough resources to war for multiple times over, creating a dynamic that rewards those who are proactive rather than stagnant.

Your own stockpile targets will likely differ from others, making that example irrelevant.  Large alliances stockpile stuff for when wars happen. That's not going to change with this,it's just going to slow the time between major conflicts.  Also lower AAs can't war larger AAs due to war ranging, so that's already taken care of.

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

As for the "We should just reduce costs of everything and ignore the rest", sure if you want to break the economy again. A reduction in demand without a reduction in supply will put us path on the path of inflation we were on prior to sheepy breaking the economy. This then has the opposite effect, stifling overall growth of the game by reducing the value of all goods over time, disproportionately benefiting older players. Sure, you could argue that inflation would actually result in more wars too, which is true, but considering all the  same people are arguing against giving upper tier people a significant advantage, I would think they'd be against that. A balanced economy fairly balances both play styles without benefiting either one.

How about instead of trying to increase wars when there's really no need, we try to get the economy rolling again?

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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

You change the logistics all damn day and night. You can't change the politics and reasoning with this.

Tell me, and every other detractor, how these changes will make more pacifist alliances act more aggressively. How would this change make TCW grow a pair and lash out. How will it make TFP drop the Pacifists part of it's name for a viking war cry. 

How will this change make TEst and CoS just start capping people left and right.

Are these exaggerations? Sure, but that's the point. Because it won't change the behavior of any of these alliances. It won't stop TKR's dogpiles, Grumpy's drifting from the rest of the game, TCW's pixel huggery, or TEst/CoS paperless quest to wreck fools. TCW won't do anything because they hug pixels, this won't stop them. TKR won't plan more dogpiles on even non dog piles because of these changes. Grumpy won't stop building cities and start throwing their revenue at historical enemies so they can have people to fight. TEst/CoS will not go on a mad rampage cutting people down anymore than they already try to.

These changes, will not change how these, or any alliances really, behave within regards to war. TKR plans dogpiles because there's so much goddamn paper around that if they don't, they'll get whats happening right now. Same reason TCW hugs their pixels, or part of it. Same reason Prefontaine doesn't declare all alliances heresy and launch a glorious crusade to annihilate them.

 

So unless you can provide a way in which these changes would change the behaviors of any alliances to go to war, then these changes are pointless. The third suggestion is the only one which would have any affect on the behavior of these alliances, and even then it would be a rather small one. Logistics is the beating of any modern military, but first you need politicians to start the war, and as has been the case since time immemorial, its the latter we're having issues with moreso than the former. Can't make people start fights they don't want to start by making their crap degrade, especially that slowly, and you'll slightly increase frequency by making it cheaper to attack.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ComradeMilton said:

How about instead of trying to increase wars when there's really no need, we try to get the economy rolling again?

The economy is rolling again. The last few updates have essentially fixed the key issues that sheepy created when he implemented the the great deflation.

The economy is balanced atm. We aren't trending towards inflation or deflation, because after sheepy gutted the supply he slightly walked it back by increasing the supply again, and then he increased the purchasing power by fixing some of the issues he made by ruining the commerce.

I posted a timeline of the economy in one of my earlier posts.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
15 minutes ago, Lilac Veritas said:

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)
image.png.ffc27bc2295aa51c1f325f3e8b79efd4.png

2: Command economy bank holds stockpile for 20 nations (full command)
image.png.8ef44f9b1b684718ed87d26369c4c391.png

 

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.

I mean that's based on the assumption that it's a good idea to store the majority of your bank in one or two nations, when recent history suggests it really isn't (see: the raid on tS's bank).  If you have a large stockpile, it makes far more sense to store it in an AA, since that way you're not vulnerable to blockades and looting if your bank holder happens to get beiged.  And, if Sketchy's proposal was accepted in its entirety as you seem to advocate, there would be a disparity between the penalties leveled on centralized AAs versus more decentralized ones, since AAs can't build the national projects to offset resource losses that nations can, making it the worst of both worlds for AAs that haven't traditionally kept the majority of their stockpiles in individual nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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