Do Asia and Australia suck?

[Defender]

Just looking through the list of continental resources in relation to what end products you could produce entirely within your nation.

Europe:  Steel and Munitions
North America:  Steel and Uranium
South America:  Gasoline, Aluminum and Munitions
Africa:  Gasoline, Aluminum and Uranium
Asia:  Gasoline and Uranium
Australia:  Aluminum and Munitions

It feels like South America and Africa are objectively better than Australia and Asia, respectively.
Am I wrong?

[Alex]

You're welcome to believe that SA and Africa are better than Australia and Asia, but just remember that you can't produce everything you need from just one continent, trading is necessary.

[Kerbollo]

Ships needs steel to build and munitions and fuel to run, so Europe and South America are 3/5 and 4/5 way here, respectively (Europe: can produce steel and make sure the tanks can be powered with gasoline, but South America only needs to buy steel, as it can produce resources used to run on its own). Africa, Asia, and Australia are 2/5 way each, and North America is 1/5. (coal and steel can't be turn into oil, right?)
 
Nuke missiles, on the other hand, needs a lot of resources, and Africa looks like it is better (3/3 for Africa, 2/3 for South America, 1/3 for everywhere else, with the exception being Europe, having a score of 0/3 - sorry Europe, nuke missiles need uranium, not munitions).
 
Aircrafts need aluminum to build and munitions and fuel to run, so South America looks better (5/5 for South America, 3/5 for Australia, 2/5 for Europe, Africa and Asia, and 0/5 for North America).
 
Tanks need steel to build and munitions and fuel to run, so look at the verdict I made for ships.
 
North America, on the other hand, works better with nuclear power plant as it has the necessary resource to build and run it (steel to build and uranium to run and ability to make sure the input resource can be obtained without importing). Europe, Africa, and Asia come agonizingly close (1/3), and South America and Australia don't have them.
 
Everyone can get soldiers, so 1/1 for every continent.
 
For commerce buildings (this, however does not apply to supermarkets which is an automatic 1/1) North America, Europe, South America, Africa, and Australia can get 1/2. Asia received 0 on this.
 
For civil buildings, look above (this does not apply to recycling centers which is an automatic 1/1). Europe and North America gets 0 on hospitals, 1/1 on police stations and 1/2 on subways; Asia is not on board; South America, Africa, and Australia gets 0 on police stations, 1/1 on hospitals and 1/2 on subways. Recycling centers are an automatic 1/1.
 
Wind power plants need aluminum so South America, Africa, and Australia gets 1/1, and other continents gets 0.
 
So yeah, that's how it breaks down. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Note: Each continent that can produce required building resource on its own receives 1 point, and each continent that can produce each resource needed to be run on its own receives 2 points.
 
EDIT: Forgot the missiles. For missiles: North America receives a 0, South America receives a 3/3, Australia and Africa receives a 2/3, and Asia and Europe receives a 1/3.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Kerbollo

[Atzuya]

South America is da best

 

Tbh, which continents are the best depends heavily on your play style and which manufactured resources you like to always have a surplus. Only if you like to stack only commerce that it doesn't matter.

[Defender]

You're welcome to believe that SA and Africa are better than Australia and Asia, but just remember that you can't produce everything you need from just one continent, trading is necessary.

 

Yeah, that's kind of exactly my point.  Basically I'm wondering when having Iron (but no coal [Asia]) would be better than having Bauxite (Africa) which also gives you domestic access to Aluminum.  Or when having Coal (but no Iron [Australia]) would be better than having Oil (South America) which also gives you domestic access to Gasoline.

 

snip

 

You went through a lot of work for not adding them up at the end.   Here's the totals:

 

Europe:  15

North America:  11

South America:  24

Africa:  18

Asia:  12

Australia:  14

 

I think your methodology might be overweighing military matters, though.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Defender

[SoS]

SA and AF could be best. They were best in Alpha, cuz everyone was in E, AS, an NA. I was wiping my ass with big aluminum money. Now, SA and AF are much more common. But, don't move to AF so fast because just maybe everyone else will flee shrinking profits later.

[Alex]

SoS has a good point - the value of resources is all supply and demand based. If you have all nations on Africa and South America, the resources produced there will be very cheap and the resources produced on the other 4 continents will have a lot more value due to less production.

 

All-in-all I don't think there's a "best" continent, only different continents.

[SoS]

Especially considering no one will (any time soon) have thousands of aircraft. Although, I do love my aircraft.

 

Please, keep in mind most people have a free move and the market will usually overreact.

 

You're probably just fine wherever you are. Buy whatever you don't produce.

[Defender]

I don't feel you guys are really getting my point, but I'm not too sure how to explain it any better.

 

Look, I'm on Asia right now.  I could move to Africa and trade Iron (which does nothing on its own) for Bauxite (which could be made into Aluminum).  Even if Iron is destined to be valuable later on doesn't it make more sense to be somewhere where you get both Iron and Coal so that you can at least produce Steel on your own?  Heck, even Australia's coal can be turned into electricity.

 

But really, we get one free move, so if the continents aren't going to be rebalanced I would like to ask this:

 

Sheepy:  Can we get a guarantee that if you do rebalance the continents later, we'll get another free move?

[Kerbollo]

Yeah, that's kind of exactly my point.  Basically I'm wondering when having Iron (but no coal [Asia]) would be better than having Bauxite (Africa) which also gives you domestic access to Aluminum.  Or when having Coal (but no Iron [Australia]) would be better than having Oil (South America) which also gives you domestic access to Gasoline.

 

 

You went through a lot of work for not adding them up at the end.   Here's the totals:

 

Europe:  15

North America:  11

South America:  24

Africa:  18

Asia:  12

Australia:  14

 

I think your methodology might be overweighing military matters, though.

Actual verdict:

 

Europe: 26 --- 3rd highest

North America: 21 --- 2nd lowest (Sorry 'Murica)

South America: 36 --- highest

Africa: 27 --- 2nd highest by only 1 point (If only Africa is stable enough... )

Asia: 16 --- lowest (Wait... doesn't Asia contain a supply of coal?)

Australia: 24 --- 3rd lowest

 

Actually, NA and Asia are the worst continents in P&W. Quite surprisingly as both continents on Earth have world (would-be) superpowers.

 

Also, some things may be overly scaled. I'll probably redo the scale when I have time.

[SoS]

It's really not about what you can produce independently, because no continent can build advanced improvements without importing resources. The game was specifically designed to force us to depend on trade.

 

Every continent does have coal or oil for power.

 

If your primary goal is to refine the most finished products from your own native resources, then you'd do well to choose south America - gas, alum, munitions. But, that seems an arbitrary goal since in north America I can import oil cheaper than you can import coal and lead cheaper than you can import uranium. That may not always be the case, but it has always been that way so far. Also, consider how many slots you would need to fully utilize all the opportunities you think S America has...3 for gas, 3 for alum, 3 for munitions, 6 oil, 3 bauxite, 3 lead. Obviously, we have to make economic choices. We can't utilize everything we have available, anyways. So, it is asinine to want everything.

 

Most of the time you'd be better off producing fewer goods and importing whatever you need. Most goods, most of the time, can be bought at near production cost. If you factor in the cost of pollution and pollution counter measures, then it's usually cheaper to import.

 

All together, I believe all continents are made equal. The distribution of nations may eventually render some better than others, but that's a flaw in the players' preference not game design.

[Taureg]

All together, I believe all continents are made equal. The distribution of nations may eventually render some better than others, but that's a flaw in the players' preference not game design.

 

Yes!

[Alex]

It's really not about what you can produce independently, because no continent can build advanced improvements without importing resources. The game was specifically designed to force us to depend on trade.

 

Every continent does have coal or oil for power.

 

If your primary goal is to refine the most finished products from your own native resources, then you'd do well to choose south America - gas, alum, munitions. But, that seems an arbitrary goal since in north America I can import oil cheaper than you can import coal and lead cheaper than you can import uranium. That may not always be the case, but it has always been that way so far. Also, consider how many slots you would need to fully utilize all the opportunities you think S America has...3 for gas, 3 for alum, 3 for munitions, 6 oil, 3 bauxite, 3 lead. Obviously, we have to make economic choices. We can't utilize everything we have available, anyways. So, it is asinine to want everything.

 

Most of the time you'd be better off producing fewer goods and importing whatever you need. Most goods, most of the time, can be bought at near production cost. If you factor in the cost of pollution and pollution counter measures, then it's usually cheaper to import.

 

All together, I believe all continents are made equal. The distribution of nations may eventually render some better than others, but that's a flaw in the players' preference not game design.

 

This is a fair assessment.

[AhmetHan]

Should have read the forums prior to joining the game to make a better choice. Why didn't I do that? Well since Europe is not bad I think I am good?????

Also can someone tell me what the nation color do?

[SoS]

If/when you join an alliance you will receive an income bonus if your nation color is the same as your alliance color. You get a larger bonus the more nations and fewer alliances are on your color. Yellow has a nice bonus Good luck.

[Ayayay]

If/when you join an alliance you will receive an income bonus if your nation color is the same as your alliance color. You get a larger bonus the more nations and fewer alliances are on your color. Yellow has a nice bonus Good luck.

Not entirely accurate. Your color gets you the bonus that appears in Leaderboards>Color unless you are part of an alliance, at which point you will only get the bonus if your alliance color is the same as your color.

[Defender]

First of all, a tl;dr just for Sheepy:  Could I get an answer to my previous question about continent moves, Sheepy?

 

 

All together, I believe all continents are made equal. The distribution of nations may eventually render some better than others, but that's a flaw in the players' preference not game design.

 

This is a fair assessment.

 

I'm sorry to say that I'm starting to suspect you two of being disingenuous.  I'm really trying my hardest to make myself understood here, but you seem to continually ignore my points and just insist that since every continent has three resources they must all be equal.  Why do you refuse to even address my very simple question about Asia and Africa?

 

 

It's really not about what you can produce independently, because no continent can build advanced improvements without importing resources. The game was specifically designed to force us to depend on trade.

 

Most of the time you'd be better off producing fewer goods and importing whatever you need. Most goods, most of the time, can be bought at near production cost. If you factor in the cost of pollution and pollution counter measures, then it's usually cheaper to import.

 

 

I will certainly grant you this.  Right now producing your own money is clearly the most efficient economy, so for the moment this discussion is mainly theoretical.  Nonetheless, I would ask that you stick to the topic at hand; it is possible that people will stop selling resources for less than they cost to produce in the future.  Arguing that continents don't matter is skirting the issue of inequality.

 

 

But, that seems an arbitrary goal since in north America I can import oil cheaper than you can import coal and lead cheaper than you can import uranium.

 

 

Uranium can be had on the market right now for less than it costs to produce.  If you are thinking about buying a mine you may want to reconsider.  This isn't relevant to our discussion I just wanted to give you a tip.

 

 

Also, consider how many slots you would need to fully utilize all the opportunities you think S America has...3 for gas, 3 for alum, 3 for munitions, 6 oil, 3 bauxite, 3 lead.

 

 

I don't quite understand how you came up with these numbers.  If you were on South America you could produce everything with seven improvement slots (oil well, power plant, and refinery; bauxite mine and aluminum refinery; lead mine and munitions factory).  I don't know why you would need to have twenty-one slots.

 

 

We can't utilize everything we have available, anyways. So, it is asinine to want everything.

 

 

You really think so?  If there was a seventh continent that had all the resources on it you would still pick North America?  I don't see anything stupid about wanting as many useful resources as possible.  Even if you are not using them right now they would be around for you to retool your country in the future if you needed to (e.g. due to market changes or a blockade).  It seems far more foolish to just assume that everything will even out in the end.

[SoS]

Too-Shay. Yeah, you make a good point. If a nation were completely isolated, which continent would suck? Naw, I still don't get your point. Because, you can't compare continents any other way but how they compare in interaction with others.

 

Suppose you had only two opposing nations in the game. They are enemies and they refuse to trade. They would be equal in every regard with these few exceptions; Munitions, pollution free power, missile and nuke projects. That's it. Everything else is relative to the value of exports/imports. Steel and aluminum are mostly useless without each other.

[Alex]

First of all, a tl;dr just for Sheepy:  Could I get an answer to my previous question about continent moves, Sheepy?

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry to say that I'm starting to suspect you two of being disingenuous.  I'm really trying my hardest to make myself understood here, but you seem to continually ignore my points and just insist that since every continent has three resources they must all be equal.  Why do you refuse to even address my very simple question about Asia and Africa?

 

 

 

 

I will certainly grant you this.  Right now producing your own money is clearly the most efficient economy, so for the moment this discussion is mainly theoretical.  Nonetheless, I would ask that you stick to the topic at hand; it is possible that people will stop selling resources for less than they cost to produce in the future.  Arguing that continents don't matter is skirting the issue of inequality.

 

 

 

 

Uranium can be had on the market right now for less than it costs to produce.  If you are thinking about buying a mine you may want to reconsider.  This isn't relevant to our discussion I just wanted to give you a tip.

 

 

 

 

I don't quite understand how you came up with these numbers.  If you were on South America you could produce everything with seven improvement slots (oil well, power plant, and refinery; bauxite mine and aluminum refinery; lead mine and munitions factory).  I don't know why you would need to have twenty-one slots.

 

 

 

 

You really think so?  If there was a seventh continent that had all the resources on it you would still pick North America?  I don't see anything stupid about wanting as many useful resources as possible.  Even if you are not using them right now they would be around for you to retool your country in the future if you needed to (e.g. due to market changes or a blockade).  It seems far more foolish to just assume that everything will even out in the end.

 

I missed your question about the continents. 1) The continents aren't getting "re-balanced", they've been tested as is for quite some time and we haven't had an issue. Trading is a must, and you're entitled to think that Africa and Asia suck, but in my opinion any continent is fair game, what one is optimal is all dependent on market conditions. 2) Hypothetically if something were to change like this, yes I would give everyone a free nation location change.

[Hereno]

They won't listen to you, Defender. I brought this up during the Beta and was told that continent switching would have the market "fix itself" and balance everything out. My response was to reroll into South America. They also said we wouldn't figure out the best nation builds, the best government types, or the best of everything else that we've already figured out. And I'm more or less content to let them keep thinking that there are actually choices for them to make in this game.

 

My advice to you is to stop trying to get blood from the stone, and instead take advantage of the situation. Information is precious, and what seems obvious to those of us who can do math is not at all obvious to the rest of the players. Plato once said that the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself. You, like me, are superior, and should be ruling these morons who insisted on breaking the game in our favor. So don't waste your words: we will demonstrate to them, through the success of our nations and the accomplishment of our goals, that we are correct.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Hereno

[Alex]

They won't listen to you, Defender. I brought this up during the Beta and was told that continent switching would have the market "fix itself" and balance everything out. My response was to reroll into South America. They also said we wouldn't figure out the best nation builds, the best government types, or the best of everything else that we've already figured out. And I'm more or less content to let them keep thinking that there are actually choices for them to make in this game.

 

My advice to you is to stop trying to get blood from the stone, and instead take advantage of the situation. Information is precious, and what seems obvious to those of us who can do math is not at all obvious to the rest of the players. Plato once said that the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself. You, like me, are superior, and should be ruling these morons who insisted on breaking the game in our favor. So don't waste your words: we will demonstrate to them, through the success of our nations and the accomplishment of our goals, that we are correct.

 

You're free to have that mindset, but remember even if everyone in the game was on South America because it's "the best", the resources you produce there would be worthless, and you wouldn't be able to get steel or uranium, which are vital to gameplay. The free market will fix itself, because if everyone is on South America, then it's not the "best" anymore.

[Demon]

Stop playing stock exchange simulator, it wasn't that kind of game.

[Ayayay]

You, like me, are superior, and should be ruling these morons who insisted on breaking the game in our favor. 

Heh, maybe you should wait until you're in the top 10 before making comments like that.

Edited August 26, 2014 by underlordgc

[SoS]

It's just a matter of time...being surrounded by morons. Meanwhile...

[Hereno]

Heh, maybe you should wait until you're in the top 10 before making comments like that.

If my nation was the 21st, you'd have said to wait until I was in the top 20. And, in fact, that's where I was before I jumped 10 places earlier. Unless you're talking about SI, in which case we were in 10th place last time I checked yesterday, and we *better* be back at least there tomorrow, lest someone is getting fired and blamed for this.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Hereno