12/28/2013 - Economy Update

[Mikey]

Well lots of discussion going on here If nothing else, I think we can all appreciate Sheepy's dedication to trying new things.

I think the income and city changes are ultimately for the better. Certainly many people, myself included, were not happy to login and see the new changes. Who enjoys seeing their income go down? But it really is better for the game - it will take me about a month to get another city. Thats good. I can only afford about 100infra per day, and ultimately, thats good too.


Now this whole mess with econ types is a different story, mostly imo because it messes with RP - people with good commerce can't play communist or socialist nations without making their nations objectively worse.

 

What it might add to game play is relatively minor - its a linear progression system where you start w/communism and end with capitalism as you manage to increase your commerce. That doesn't make it bad, but imo doesn't make it great either. Its an interesting feature that is neither here nor there.

The problem is it penalizes people for RPing the way they want. Once you get commerce up, which is not hard to do, communism and socialism are objectively worse gov types. I get that different econ systems do different things IRL, but this isn't 100% realism simulater - we don't need games for that. Any mechanics should exist for game play or balance reasons. So if you want to make econ types do different things, the least we can do is have them be equally balanced, so that those who want to play a different type of nation are not penalized.

Maybe we can have each type give tradeoffs for income, happiness, resource productivity or growth? Whatever we do though, it should mean real balanced tradeoffs based on how you want to run your nations, not "set X econ type at X% commerce," because that neither adds any real depth to the game (as a balanced system would) and detracts from peoples RP capabilities.

 

 

EDIT: Can't type for !@#$ on my phone apparently

[ataraxis]

You seem to enjoy copy-pasting.

 

I don't particularly find the current econ system very interesting, as you just change it according to your current commerce. It's just like the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) tax rate: Ok, my citizen gross income is greater than so and so value, so I guess for 95% of my nation's existence I might as well maximize my taxes despite the unhappiness this causes. There is only one way to play the game.

 

Something interesting (once again, I'll take this from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)) is the resource system. It allows for a fairly wide range of combinations and the resources interact to form bonus resources. The bonuses are mostly orthogonal to each other and it is harder (not impossible, of course) to compare +15% military effectiveness with -2 pollution.

[Mikey]

You seem to enjoy copy-pasting.

 

I don't particularly find the current econ system very interesting, as you just change it according to your current commerce. It's just like the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) tax rate: Ok, my citizen gross income is greater than so and so value, so I guess for 95% of my nation's existence I might as well maximize my taxes despite the unhappiness this causes. There is only one way to play the game.

 

Something interesting (once again, I'll take this from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)) is the resource system. It allows for a fairly wide range of combinations and the resources interact to form bonus resources. The bonuses are mostly orthogonal to each other and it is harder (not impossible, of course) to compare +15% military effectiveness with -2 pollution.

 

Yeah....I tried posting it on my phone, but it didn't go through, or didn't seem to, so I clicked it again a few times (cause sometimes my shitty 2G internet just cuts out), and I guess that happened

[Jerry LeRow]

Back to my suggestion: What if you let each player decide his own tax rate? This tax rate then should affect the output of produced goods (mines, refineries,...).

 

Now, in the revenue, you must have a formula like [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] = Revenue

 

This tax factor should simply be included in here: [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] x [Tax Factor] = Revenue

 

The factor could look like this:

This way it wouldn't affect the commerce rate and thereby the average income, so the sense of high taxes, a high monetary output, will be fulfilled. But if would "punish" high taxes in that way that the output of non-monetary goods is lowered (There again you have the economic systems, communism is least productive, so high taxes (communism) reduce output).

[Reagan]

Any feature that has options should therefore have an effect for the choice made.  Otherwise, it's pointless to include it in the game.  This applies to tax rates, government style, color, you name it. 

 

Now. the trick is to make it so that among the options, there is not "one" option that ends up being the "only" option that benefits the nation and makes sense.  Again, that would lead to it being pointless to have such options in the first place.

[Grillick]

Until we figure out what needs to be done I've simply allowed anyone to change their economy type at any time.

You may want to remember to update the servers, then, because I (and another poster who posted previously) cannot change my economy type because I've done so in the last 6 days.

[Jerry LeRow]

Now. the trick is to make it so that among the options, there is not "one" option that ends up being the "only" option that benefits the nation and makes sense.  Again, that would lead to it being pointless to have such options in the first place.

True story.

As you can see in my graph, productivity falls at higher tax rates (but money revenue rises). So what will happen?

• people get less resources
• BUT people need resources, for power plants, military,...
• so those people will 
• 1) either accept a lower money revenue in order to produce the resources they need
• 2) or buy those resources on the market place

If they buy them at the market place:

• they have a higher money revenue, and people will notice that
• so the average prices for resources will go up (because everyone thinks 'oh, the communists have enough money, let'em pay more')
• nations who have lower tax rates, but are more productive, will then sell their resources and get more money from trading
• trading to the current prices will not exist that longer, it may still exist in alliances (with private offers, so either direct exchanges, eg 1 oil for 1 uran, or at far lower prices)
• through the trade channel, parts of the additional money that high.tax nations get will be transferred to those with a lower income

This reminds me of REGANomics, trickle down

[Just Monika]

Any feature that has options should therefore have an effect for the choice made.  Otherwise, it's pointless to include it in the game.  This applies to tax rates, government style, color, you name it. 

I chose my name to be Akiyama Mio. Will I get a bonus based on that?

 

Anyway, as far as I see it, I'll stay with my socialist economy not only because I can keep a good conscience to not sell my values out for money, but also because I need to waste slots on stuff like markets, banks and whatever to get a high commerce rating. I bought one market a few days afo, my income changed by about $1000 a day. If I buy one oil well instead, I can sell 10 more oil, which translates into $2000 a day, minus $600 for upkeep. Still better off with using those slots for ressources. Later, when maybe oil alone won't cut the profits from a mall, maybe gasoline will.

 

As far as I see it, socialism encourages to put less into commerce and more into production, as I don't need a great commerce rating to get decent tax revenue.

 

Now, I would not argue for a complete overhaul of the system. I'd just think it needs some fine tuning, so that people can

1. have visibly different effects between economic types.
2. Have overall around the same profits if they use their economic qualities correctly.

The current approach means that economies with communism cannot profit as much from commerce, but won't suffer as much from a lack thereof, capitalism can achieve much by getting high commerce ratings, but will suffer enormously if there's no commerce and socialism is sort of a middle ground solution. As stated above, I'd think a communist country would fare better to just use its slots in cities to build production plants and to become an industrial power, instead of building upon the secondary sector. Or it could be used to improve the military, without suffering horrid income... this could be explored further and maybe with more wares, including maybe some consumer goods, not just military supplies.

 

Also, I'd advocate name changes.

 

Capitalism -> Market Economy

Socialism -> Mixed Economy

Communism -> Planned Economy

 

Has a bit less ideological tone and describes more precise economic systems.

[Jerry LeRow]

 

Any feature that has options should therefore have an effect for the choice made.  Otherwise, it's pointless to include it in the game.  This applies to tax rates, government style, color, you name it. 

I chose my name to be Akiyama Mio. Will I get a bonus based on that?

 

Anyway, as far as I see it, I'll stay with my socialist economy not only because I can keep a good conscience to not sell my values out for money, but also because I need to waste slots on stuff like markets, banks and whatever to get a high commerce rating. I bought one market a few days afo, my income changed by about $1000 a day. If I buy one oil well instead, I can sell 10 more oil, which translates into $2000 a day, minus $600 for upkeep. Still better off with using those slots for ressources. Later, when maybe oil alone won't cut the profits from a mall, maybe gasoline will.

BUT: supermarkets increase your commerce rate, and now you may get 1,000$ more in revenue because of that. But 1% of 1$ is less than 1% of 10$. Meaning that if the commerce rate remains constant, you'll constantly get a higher revenue (as long as your population expands). So one day you may get and additional revenue of 10,000$ only because of this one supermarket.

The oil price, on the other hand, is something that's unpredictable. Let's assume it remains constant, then it's not as good as an increased commerce rate. Maybe the oil price falls, then you get an even lower income. Or it rises, then you get more. But commerce rate isn't influenced by outer factors, so I'd go for it.

[Just Monika]

As said, to me, the concept is in its infancy still. A toddlar that cannot yet walk is also given time to learn it, normal parents don't just cut off the legs and wonder whether wheels might have been a better solution. Only over time, maybe we see that there is an inherent fault that prevents it from walking, so we provide a wheelchair.

 

I don't say the concept as of now is perfect, or that it is even great. Heck, there should be more to tax income than building a supermarket or a stadium (like consumer goods, productivity, social programs, etc.), which could shift that overall balance some. I merely think, it has merit, and that to me socialism holds still value, given I'm a nation with one city of a bit over 30,000 citizens that lives off exporting oil.

[Jerry LeRow]

I don't say the concept as of now is perfect, or that it is even great. Heck, there should be more to tax income than building a supermarket or a stadium (like consumer goods, productivity, social programs, etc.), which could shift that overall balance some. I merely think, it has merit, and that to me socialism holds still value, given I'm a nation with one city of a bit over 30,000 citizens that lives off exporting oil.

The problem is that we're the gov of our nations. In the real world, GDP=Governmental Consum+Private Consum+Business Consum+(Export-Import), therefore the only thing we should be able to influence is Governmental consum. Examples would be railways, harbours, airports, community centers, weapons,..; but as you said, also immaterial things, like social programs, financial aid,...

[Hereno]

Any feature that has options should therefore have an effect for the choice made.  Otherwise, it's pointless to include it in the game.  This applies to tax rates, government style, color, you name it. 

 

Now. the trick is to make it so that among the options, there is not "one" option that ends up being the "only" option that benefits the nation and makes sense.  Again, that would lead to it being pointless to have such options in the first place.

 

If you think adding flavor to our nations is pointless, I'm just glad you're not the admin of this game.

[ataraxis]

Back to my suggestion: What if you let each player decide his own tax rate? This tax rate then should affect the output of produced goods (mines, refineries,...).

 

Now, in the revenue, you must have a formula like [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] = Revenue

 

This tax factor should simply be included in here: [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] x [Tax Factor] = Revenue

 

The factor could look like this:

This way it wouldn't affect the commerce rate and thereby the average income, so the sense of high taxes, a high monetary output, will be fulfilled. But if would "punish" high taxes in that way that the output of non-monetary goods is lowered (There again you have the economic systems, communism is least productive, so high taxes (communism) reduce output).

 

Yes I would like to quadruple my revenue in exchange for having to import food

[Mikey]

If everybody does that it will make for a few very lucrative food exporters

[von Koenige]

 

Any feature that has options should therefore have an effect for the choice made.  Otherwise, it's pointless to include it in the game.  This applies to tax rates, government style, color, you name it.

I chose my name to be Akiyama Mio. Will I get a bonus based on that?

 

Anyway, as far as I see it, I'll stay with my socialist economy not only because I can keep a good conscience to not sell my values out for money, but also because I need to waste slots on stuff like markets, banks and whatever to get a high commerce rating. I bought one market a few days afo, my income changed by about $1000 a day. If I buy one oil well instead, I can sell 10 more oil, which translates into $2000 a day, minus $600 for upkeep. Still better off with using those slots for ressources. Later, when maybe oil alone won't cut the profits from a mall, maybe gasoline will.

 

As far as I see it, socialism encourages to put less into commerce and more into production, as I don't need a great commerce rating to get decent tax revenue.

 

Now, I would not argue for a complete overhaul of the system. I'd just think it needs some fine tuning, so that people can

• have visibly different effects between economic types.
• Have overall around the same profits if they use their economic qualities correctly.

The current approach means that economies with communism cannot profit as much from commerce, but won't suffer as much from a lack thereof, capitalism can achieve much by getting high commerce ratings, but will suffer enormously if there's no commerce and socialism is sort of a middle ground solution. As stated above, I'd think a communist country would fare better to just use its slots in cities to build production plants and to become an industrial power, instead of building upon the secondary sector. Or it could be used to improve the military, without suffering horrid income... this could be explored further and maybe with more wares, including maybe some consumer goods, not just military supplies.

 

Also, I'd advocate name changes.

 

Capitalism -> Market Economy

Socialism -> Mixed Economy

Communism -> Planned Economy

 

Has a bit less ideological tone and describes more precise economic systems.

 

I like the idea of the name changes. I'm absolutely one hundred percent in support of such a change. More accurate and less ideological is always good in games like this.

 

That said, as mentioned earlier, I totally sold out my values for money.

 

At the current size of your nation, yes, it's highly possible to make your nation profitable with a Socialist economy; however, you have only 1 city and 7 improvement slots. One can only build a certain amount of Resources and Manufacturing improvements per city. Assuming each resource remains static in price (although this assumption stands on shaky ground; and, theoretically, if most nations with Socialist/Communist economies pursued your economic strategy, the market would be flooded with resources and the price would actually decrease), you will increase your income by a static amount per improvement (and actually potentially slightly less, because some of your resources or income will have to be used to power your city before you can operate your Manufacturing improvements, and you will have to either import or grow more Food as your population grows) while your population growth will steadily increase the effectiveness of Commerce improvements, which you could better exploit with a Capitalist economy. Eventually, the increased income from building Commerce improvements will be much more effective at providing you with income than your resource sales, and you won't be able to increase resource production per city, but you will be able to increase commerce; thus you will be forced to concede to the commerce-based economy, and Capitalism will once again be your best economic option.

 

Which brings us back to, "This is bullshit; why can't I be a Socialist?"

 

But it is also important to note that this is exactly what Sheepy has said that he wants; small nations can make more money by producing and exporting large amounts of resources, while larger nations can make more money by increasing commerce and taxing their people while importing resources that they are simply incapable of producing.

 

The problem is that we reach this economic shift after a couple of weeks of gameplay, so without a consistently tremendous rate of new nations coming into existence, we will quickly reach the point where the vast majority of nations have very large, commerce-based economies.

 

Your proposal - more resources, especially consumer goods and the like - might be a good solution to that problem. But all resources have to have a real use. Perhaps we could introduce a series of consumer goods necessary to operate Commerce improvements; this would not only provide more resources for export, but it would make it more difficult for small nations to build commerce-based economies in a manner that would be more profitable than building resource-based economies, while also making larger nations more reliant upon smaller nations for those resources which would sustain their commerce-based economies.

 

And the resource requirements of Commerce improvements could increase as population increases, too, which is both realistic and could help to force large and small nations to specialize, respectively, into commerce-based and resource-based economies.

 

 

I don't say the concept as of now is perfect, or that it is even great. Heck, there should be more to tax income than building a supermarket or a stadium (like consumer goods, productivity, social programs, etc.), which could shift that overall balance some. I merely think, it has merit, and that to me socialism holds still value, given I'm a nation with one city of a bit over 30,000 citizens that lives off exporting oil.

The problem is that we're the gov of our nations. In the real world, GDP=Governmental Consum+Private Consum+Business Consum+(Export-Import), therefore the only thing we should be able to influence is Governmental consum. Examples would be railways, harbours, airports, community centers, weapons,..; but as you said, also immaterial things, like social programs, financial aid,...

 

Unfortunately, as we don't have the advanced AI to make little consumers and business owners and whatnot, we cannot accurately simulate the workings of the entire economy at a national level. I, controlling Germany, control not only consumption by the German government, but also all imports to and exports from Germany, as well as all commerce which would in a normal market economy be the responsibility of consumers and private businesses (i.e., I build the Supermarkets, the Banks, and the Shopping Malls; I own the power plants, the mines, and the farms; and I build the houses wherever I please). You do the same within your nation.

 

Like it or not, every nation on P&W has a planned economy when you get right down to the heart of things.

[Jaki Stirner]

 

Communism is underpowered, please buff.

Why do you think it's underpowered?

 

I'd like to hear your arguments behind your line; in my eyes communism means extremely high taxes, low income range, low possibilities to earn more money and the gov redistributes the tax money and you have lots of social services (sort of indirect income).

 

 

Taxes require a government that threatens a populace with violence if they don't pay up to a central authority - something that is obviously absent in a full communist society. But unless Sheepy is willing to actually put a lot of effort into making gameplay reflect the huge real-world impacts of different economic systems, I think we should revert all recent economic changes and just make the "title" of your economy type purely symbolic. 

[Jerry LeRow]

 

Back to my suggestion: What if you let each player decide his own tax rate? This tax rate then should affect the output of produced goods (mines, refineries,...).

 

Now, in the revenue, you must have a formula like [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] = Revenue

 

This tax factor should simply be included in here: [Number of Mines] x [Output per Day] x [Tax Factor] = Revenue

 

The factor could look like this:

This way it wouldn't affect the commerce rate and thereby the average income, so the sense of high taxes, a high monetary output, will be fulfilled. But if would "punish" high taxes in that way that the output of non-monetary goods is lowered (There again you have the economic systems, communism is least productive, so high taxes (communism) reduce output).

 

Yes I would like to quadruple my revenue in exchange for having to import food

 

You have to  include the fact that prices will rise

[Alex]

Everything has been reverted back to before the change with the exception of the tax rate. The new static tax rate for all is 29%.

[Karel V]

Everything has been reverted back to before the change with the exception of the tax rate. The new static tax rate for all is 29%.

Sadness... I was having fun figuring it out. I hope something like this is added back in the future.

 

But hey, you can't please everyone.

[Grillick]

No change to my infrastructure or commerce improvements, but my commerce rate suddenly dropped from 100% to 29%. Any ideas?  (I removed two Barracks and replaced them with Steel Mills, though).

[Alex]

No change to my infrastructure or commerce improvements, but my commerce rate suddenly dropped from 100% to 29%. Any ideas?  (I removed two Barracks and replaced them with Steel Mills, though).

 

Just another update. http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/354-12312013-commerce-nerfed/

[Alex]

With that new update, it might be worth bringing back this economic system. With everyone not at 100% all the time it becomes more usable and stuff. I probably shouldn't have been so hasty. Oh well.

[SoS]

The effects are limited to; revenues (who cares if it's tax rate or commerce rate), resource production rate (doesn't mean much, as no one's buying resources), infra/pop/land, improvement slots, trade slots, military, etc.

 

Each must be superior in a different way.

 

Capitalism=max revenue, max crime, max disease, min military

Communism=min revenue, min crime, average disease, max production, max military

Socialism=mid revenue, min crime, min disease, min crime, mid production, mid military

 

Although, under current circstaces, I think everyone will choose max revenues. Thinking of the future, tho.

 

Communism=

[ataraxis]

What is the use of a resource? Currently, other than power (which can be liberated from resources as well), the only thing that requires resources is higher military. For everything else there's money. Hence everyone is going to go for the econ route, since money is king.

 

One way to prevent this is to make resources mean more. Wonders that require resources. Buildings that require resources. Infrastructure that requires resources?

 

Also, nerfing everything to the ground may not be the best course of action. Perhaps, for example, instead of buildings that *require* resources, they can be supplemented by resources. If you feed the building resources (which is optional) it will function better. That is all.

[Ark]

if resources become more important in gameplay then people will follow your productive system and produce the things they and the thing their alliance members need as well. Thus, taking everyone off the pure econ/city/commerce route. I would not invest 50k of income to the production of resources if no one will buy them or if I can use them to increase productivity or financial ranking. So if my investment of resource production lead to some benefit then I would, but as the market begins to pick I may invest to earn a small amount of cash. 

 

Primarily, I want there to be a realistic/productive usage for the resources.