reason no one wars

[SoS]

No one has any money on hand because there's little reason to save it.

 

If our cash on hand gained 3% interest people would save money and others would be tempted to steel it.

[Ashland]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cgbZqR2AGI

[Grillick]

No one has any money on hand because there's little reason to save it.

 

If our cash on hand gained 3% interest people would save money and others would be tempted to steel it.

This isn't a bad idea.

[Guest]

This isn't a bad idea.

 

I'm going to agree with Grillick here (*shudders*). I don't think this is a terrible idea at all. 

[SoS]

This isn't a bad idea.

Grillick likes it...must be turrible

[SoS]

Grillick likes it...must be turrible

Ashland hates it, so it must be good.

[fistofdoom]

“The most powerful force in the universe is compound interestâ€

[Darknight]

I've got to agree with this as well. So far the main fuel for raids and war is money. But this is always mostly against inactive players since they don't spend money. Sure some alliances will fight but this is Politics and War, not Politics and a war every 2 game years. (An exaggeration but who cares?)

[Erin]

I've got to agree with this as well. So far the main fuel for raids and war is money. But this is always mostly against inactive players since they don't spend money. Sure some alliances will fight but this is Politics and War, not Politics and a war every 2 game years. (An exaggeration but who cares?)

To build on this and the OP somewhat, it would definitely be interesting if the situation were reversed for money accumulation between active vs. inactive nations - that is, if inactive nations offered less war profits, or significantly closer to equal ones, than active ones on average.

 

Also, I wholeheartedly support OP's suggestion.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Erin

[thePVT]

Just remember some wars are a direct result of people being annoying or just general disagreements, But yea I like that Idea 

[ELPINCHAZO]

maybe the alliance BANKS could do that instead of nations....

[Apeman]

maybe the alliance BANKS could do that instead of nations....

They are called "banks" for a reason.

 

O/interest

[SoS]

To build on this and the OP somewhat, it would definitely be interesting if the situation were reversed for money accumulation between active vs. inactive nations - that is, if inactive nations offered less war profits, or significantly closer to equal ones, than active ones on average.

 

Also, I wholeheartedly support OP's suggestion.

I can't think of a good way to sort this by activity. But, a small inactive will have less money to be affected by this. The effect will be greatest where incentives are most needed.

[Guest]

I can't think of a good way to sort this by activity. But, a small inactive will have less money to be affected by this. The effect will be greatest where incentives are most needed.

 

If it is nation based, just have the on hand cash interest collected daily whenever a nation logs in instead of receiving the $10,000 bonus.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Psycho

[SoS]

If it is nation based, just have the on hand cash interest collected daily whenever a nation logs in instead of receiving the $10,000 bonus.

I know that Sheepy is satisfied with the login bonus.

[Alex]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I think it needs to be expanded on a little bit more. What if instead of color stock bonus giving you a bonus to gross income, that amount was given to you as interest on the funds you have on hand?

 

(Just spit balling ideas here, don't crucify me)

[Guest]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I think it needs to be expanded on a little bit more. What if instead of color stock bonus giving you a bonus to gross income, that amount was given to you as interest on the funds you have on hand?

 

(Just spit balling ideas here, don't crucify me)

 

 

Not a terrible idea, especially since the color stock bonus is becoming more and more pointless. The only thing I dislike about this is the interest being another gap between the higher and lower tiers.

[SoS]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I think it needs to be expanded on a little bit more. What if instead of color stock bonus giving you a bonus to gross income, that amount was given to you as interest on the funds you have on hand?

 

(Just spit balling ideas here, don't crucify me)

Interest should be at least 6% if you do away with color stock.

 

It would be nice if the interest could adjust to national condition. Too few/too many troops. Population density. Pollution. Etc. Have the base 6% that increases/decreases by "economic conditions".

 

On second thought, the incentive to save should be only a bonus for saving. We can either have color bonus or not, but the idea here is to encourage saving. We should keep all other considerations separate.

 

Edit: put a little more reading comprehension into what you said there I agree with Psycho. Yeah, I think that is a disadvantage to lower score nations. They get more return from spending.

Edited January 26, 2015 by SoS

[Arthur James]

I never see the colour bonus reach 10% but usually no more than 6%

now I want to ask for 10% colour bonus for the alliance, if either one of the member own a treasure bcos the colour bonus indeed become less effective thus becoming meaningless for war if one wanna bring down the colour bonus.

[Kurdanak]

I never see the colour bonus reach 10% but usually no more than 6%

now I want to ask for 10% colour bonus for the alliance, if either one of the member own a treasure bcos the colour bonus indeed become less effective thus becoming meaningless for war if one wanna bring down the colour bonus.

 

Not a bad idea, SoS.

 

o/ taking business away from Ashland

[Jon Snow]

please no...this has (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) curse written all over it...

 

now banks having say a 1% interest may not be to bad but nothing gamebreaking

[Pax]

I think we're overlooking the possibility of this cutting the late-game shorter (at the very least, nobody is mentioning it)

 

Past a certain point, not even that far of one, it's going to be more income-productive to simply hold onto your money rather than actually build your nation up. Costs for your nation increase exponentially, while the income provided for this increases linearly (but compounds to lead to massive income boosts). By the time you hit a certain point in your nation (some nations might even already be there), you're not going to make 3% return on your money spent the next day - let alone the fact that the next day you'll make even more than 3% thanks to compounding interest, etc.

 

Let me give an example. My nation is very early game - I'm not even two months old. My revenue is sitting at around 500k/day, though it would normally be around 700k but I was just in a war (for the sake of the scenario, let's pretend I have 700k/day).

 

If I wanted to buy another city and put it to 1k infra (where I have my others), it would cost me roughly $4 million. Assuming it follows the same pattern as my other cities, it will add roughly $175k/day income (700k/4 cities). That means that it would make me about a 4.3% income boost off of my 4mil the next day, but without the compounding interest of just holding the money. Now, let's compare the numbers of how that would add up over time (assuming the compounding interest is 3%/day as suggested):

 

________________________________

 

 

1 week:
Compounding interest: $.919m income ($4.919m total)

Buying Infra: $1.225m income ($1.225m total)

 

2 weeks: 

Compounding interest: $2.05m income ($6.05m total)

Buying Infra: $2.45m income ($2.45m total)

 

1 month:

Compounding interest: $6m income ($10m total)

Buying Infra: $5.425m income ($5.425m total)

 

3 months:

Compounding interest: $56m income ($60mm total)

Buying Infra: $10.85m income ($10.85m total)

 

6 months:

Compounding interest: $889.86m income ($893.86m total)

Buying Infra: $32.03m income ($32.03m total)

 

________________________________

 

 

And this is for a small nation who would be benefited much less by compound interest than a large one. Let's look at what would happen for the largest nation. It would cost them $34.48m to buy their next city (#10) and get it to the infra of the others (1500). I don't know the exact income of one of those cities, but another player at 1400 infra makes about $200k/day in cash per city of his, so I'll be generous and assume that one more city for the biggest guy adds about $300k between income and resources. Let's go:

 

________________________________

 

1 week:

Compound interest: $7.92m income ($42.41m total)

Buying infra: $2.1m income ($2.1m total)

I'd just like to take a break in this action to say that it took less than a week for the interest to completely trump buying any infra, at the size that some nations have already hit in game. There is no way that growth beyond this point that's already been reached would be worthwhile for any nations, unless they just wanted moar improvement slots.

 

2 weeks:

Compound interest: $17.67m income ($52.15m total)

Buying infra: $4.2m income ($4.2m total)

 

1 month:

Compound interest: $51.72m income ($86.2m total)

Buying infra: $9.3m income ($9.3m total)

 

3 months:

Compound interest: $488.62m income ($523.1m total)

Buying infra: $27.6m income ($27.6m total)

 

6 months:

Compound interest: $7867.31m income ($7901.79m total)

Buying infra: $55.2m income ($55.2m total)

 

________________________________

 

 

TL;DR: Compound interest OP

Edited January 27, 2015 by Pax

[SoS]

 

Not a bad idea, SoS.

 

o/ taking business away from Ashland

Notabot is AJ.

 

This would actually be really good for Ashland's biz.

[SoS]

I think we're overlooking the possibility of this cutting the late-game shorter (at the very least, nobody is mentioning it)

 

Past a certain point, not even that far of one, it's going to be more income-productive to simply hold onto your money rather than actually build your nation up. Costs for your nation increase exponentially, while the income provided for this increases linearly (but compounds to lead to massive income boosts). By the time you hit a certain point in your nation (some nations might even already be there), you're not going to make 3% return on your money spent the next day - let alone the fact that the next day you'll make even more than 3% thanks to compounding interest, etc.

 

Let me give an example. My nation is very early game - I'm not even two months old. My revenue is sitting at around 500k/day, though it would normally be around 700k but I was just in a war (for the sake of the scenario, let's pretend I have 700k/day).

 

If I wanted to buy another city and put it to 1k infra (where I have my others), it would cost me roughly $4 million. Assuming it follows the same pattern as my other cities, it will add roughly $175k/day income (700k/4 cities). That means that it would make me about a 4.3% income boost off of my 4mil the next day, but without the compounding interest of just holding the money. Now, let's compare the numbers of how that would add up over time (assuming the compounding interest is 3%/day as suggested):

 

________________________________

 

 

1 week:

Compounding interest: $.919m income ($4.919m total)

Buying Infra: $1.225m income ($1.225m total)

 

2 weeks:

Compounding interest: $2.05m income ($6.05m total)

Buying Infra: $2.45m income ($2.45m total)

 

1 month:

Compounding interest: $6m income ($10m total)

Buying Infra: $5.425m income ($5.425m total)

 

3 months:

Compounding interest: $56m income ($60mm total)

Buying Infra: $10.85m income ($10.85m total)

 

6 months:

Compounding interest: $889.86m income ($893.86m total)

Buying Infra: $32.03m income ($32.03m total)

 

________________________________

 

 

And this is for a small nation who would be benefited much less by compound interest than a large one. Let's look at what would happen for the largest nation. It would cost them $34.48m to buy their next city (#10) and get it to the infra of the others (1500). I don't know the exact income of one of those cities, but another player at 1400 infra makes about $200k/day in cash per city of his, so I'll be generous and assume that one more city for the biggest guy adds about $300k between income and resources. Let's go:

 

________________________________

 

1 week:

Compound interest: $7.92m income ($42.41m total)

Buying infra: $2.1m income ($2.1m total)

 

I'd just like to take a break in this action to say that it took less than a week for the interest to completely trump buying any infra, at the size that some nations have already hit in game. There is no way that growth beyond this point that's already been reached would be worthwhile for any nations, unless they just wanted moar improvement slots.

 

2 weeks:

Compound interest: $17.67m income ($52.15m total)

Buying infra: $4.2m income ($4.2m total)

 

1 month:

Compound interest: $51.72m income ($86.2m total)

Buying infra: $9.3m income ($9.3m total)

 

3 months:

Compound interest: $488.62m income ($523.1m total)

Buying infra: $27.6m income ($27.6m total)

 

6 months:

Compound interest: $7867.31m income ($7901.79m total)

Buying infra: $55.2m income ($55.2m total)

 

________________________________

 

 

TL;DR: Compound interest OP

You're forgetting the other side of that...where the dude that buys cities comes and takes your money.

 

It would offer more tough decisions.

[Pax]

The purpose of this post was that people who have more money are better prepared for war.

 

Considering that compound interest offers not only higher income, but higher income without spending any of your current money (therefore making your warchest insanely high), you would curb stomp someone who was in your range and used their income on infra instead.

 

If strength ranges weren't a thing then yes, the guys who bought more infra would be able to beat the guys who just held massive piles o' cash. They are, though, and that means the guys who just hold the cash would be better off just not buying infra (and then when someone declared on them, buying up more infra than the other person since they have more money anyways)

Edited January 27, 2015 by Pax