Finite quantities of raw resources.

[Princess Bubblegum]

Currently raw resources are virtually infinite. My proposal is to introduce some limits to the amount of raw resources that can be mined, introducing resource scarcity. 

 

Those limits can be extended by prospecting for a resources. Prospecting costs increase the proven reserves of the resource, but each prospecting expedition should either cost exponentially more with each use, or the expeditions discover declining amounts of new resources each time.

 

Each resource can currently be found on three continents and each continent has three resources. In my proposal, each resource would have different finite quantities that can be produced. Each resource is either abundant, common, or scarce on each of the three continents that it can be found, and each continent has 1 resource that it has in abundance, 1 that is common, and 1 that is scarce.

 

By continent:

 

North America: Coal (abundant)

                         Iron (common)

                         Uranium (scarce)

 

South America: Oil (scarce)

                         Bauxite (common)

                         Lead (abundant)

 

Asia:            Oil (abundant)

                    Iron (scarce)

                    Uranium (common)

 

Africa:          Oil (common)

                    Bauxite (scarce)

                    Uranium (abundant)

 

Europe:      Coal (common)

                    Iron (abundant)

                    Lead (scarce)

 

Australia:    Coal (scarce)

                    Bauxite (abundant)

                    Lead (common)

============================

 

By resource:

 

Coal:           Abundant on North America

                    Common on Europe

                    Scarce on Australia

 

Oil:             Abundant on Asia

                    Common on Africa

                    Scarce on South America

 

Iron:             Abundant on Europe

                    Common on North America

                    Scarce on Asia

 

Lead:          Abundant on South America

                    Common on Australia

                    Scarce on Europe

 

Bauxite:        Abundant on Australia

                    Common on South America

                    Scarce on Africa

 

Uranium:      Abundant on Africa

                    Common on Asia

                    Scarce on North America

 

 

Abundant distributions are roughly 90 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 5400 coal)

Common distributions are roughly 60 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 3600 coal)

Scarce distributions are roughly 30 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 1800 coal)

 

If prospecting missions are increasing exponentially in cost, then prospecting missions will increase the limits of proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity.

 

   Prospecting for an abundant resources returns another 90 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 5400 coal).

   Prospecting for an common resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal).

   Prospecting for an scarce resources returns another 30 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1800 coal).

 

Prospecting can have varying degrees of success as well. The range can be perhaps randomized to within 75-125% of what's expected to return.

 

If prospecting missions cost the same, then prospecting missions return lower proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity.

 

   Prospecting one time for an abundant resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal).

   Prospecting one time for an common resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal).

   Prospecting one time for an scarce resources returns another 20 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1200 coal).

 

   Prospecting a second time for an abundant resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal).

   Prospecting a second time for an common resources returns another 27 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1620 coal).

   Prospecting a second time for an scarce resources returns another 13 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 780 coal).

 

What's expected to come of this:

 

Lower level nations can choose to sell resources to larger nations that have depleted their reserves, creating an inherent demand for lower level nations, and decreasing atomism among nations that just continue to grow indefinitely and produce their own resources, and who never really require much from outside trades.

 

Since raw resources can be stolen, I expect that maybe this might incentivize wars. 

 

Winning wars could also transfer a portion of proven reserves of resources to the victor nations. For example, if both nations have coal as an available resource, then the defeated nation's proven coal reserves could be cut by 2/3 and the remaining 1/3 is transferred to the victor nation. obviously this would only work where resources are shared. This might also encourage more strategic war declarations where nations want to fight other nations of the same continent.

 

Numbers in this proposal can be tweaked to suit what is thought to be appropriate.

 

Edit: Additionally, perhaps moving one's nation by use of credits can reset resource reserves.

 

 

Well another thought that occurred to me was make production rates vary per continent for each resource. For example, contents that are abundant with a resource get +25% production of that resource; continents that are scarce with a resource get -25% production.

 

It doesn't make resources finite though, but it might be something that could be added.

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Bilal the Great]

This is an interesting idea, reminded me how resource works in Worlds at War. Although I want to hear what other, more experienced members go to say.

[Arthur James]

interesting, I would like to watch it depleted and people would recycle the trash for resource.

which would drives me to build solar plant, wind plant or any recyclable energies

Edited April 11, 2015 by Arthur James

[Bored now Leafing]

This idea would have some really nasty side effects yes you would get more war but mostly from the already militarized sectors of the community there would be a rush to claim as many resources as they could and that would result in a join or die attitude from most alliances once a nation has had it's resources ripped from it a few times it would be all but worthless as the price of all resources would shoot through the roof leaving these nations with little or nothing as far as recourse, an important factor in engaging competitively in war is being able to make or buy bullets/gas/steel/any military resource.

 

Summery

Perma death for nations would be more humane.

 

And that is only one factor, it does not comment on how much it would slow the game down in general terms.

 

Scarcity is not a good idea unless you also want regular game resets.

[Atzuya]

I'm digging this idea, but exponentially increasing prospecting costs would seriously hurt a lot of people eventually, especially those nations with 10+ cities :?

 

People would just shift around the globe with credits every few weeks or so

[Fox Fire]

And prices on everything would skyrocket like crazy. No.

[Princess Bubblegum]

Well another thought that occurred to me was make production rates vary per continent for each resource. For example, contents that are abundant with a resource get +25% production of that resource; continents that are scarce with a resource get -25% production.

 

It doesn't make resources finite though, but it might be something that could be added.

[Bilal the Great]

I think the more simpler way is that each raw resource extracting improvement have a set days of "supplies", after the days have passed they ran out of supply, no longer producing resource, and you must build a new resource extractor.

 

For example you have a Letter X mine, the mine have a supply of 7 days, after 7 days the mine would stop working and you have to build a new one.

 

This feels kinda redundant though.

[Princess Bubblegum]

And why the hell do you care anyways? You don't even use any form of freaking resource collecting improvements.

 

Please stop spamming this section of the forum with your personal attacks against me. This is the third time you've done it that I'm aware of, and as such I have reported you to moderation. Please refrain from doing so in the future. thank you.

[Atzuya]

Eh, just because someone doesn't actively participate in duck hunting doesn't mean they can't recognize that using big honking anti-tank rifle to do so is a terrible idea.

 

But still, any limitations whatsoever would just drive people to get creative and attempt to cheat their way around. This system might even generate and exploit or two if implemented. That said, the production limit should also consider the number of cities a nation have, and prospecting costs shouldn't exponentially increase. A flat increase would do just fine, I think.

[George W. Bush]

Well another thought that occurred to me was make production rates vary per continent for each resource. For example, contents that are abundant with a resource get +25% production of that resource; continents that are scarce with a resource get -25% production.

 

It doesn't make resources finite though, but it might be something that could be added.

This idea is interesting, but the OP idea is a bit stupid IMO.

[SoS]

Interesting, but isn't this game complicated enough?

[elsuper]

I think (very) gradual depletion would be good for the game, overall, because it stimulates market demand from the wealthier nations over time, ultimately redistributing extra money to new players and even incentivizing recruitment to the game (get new players to provide resources for your established alliance).

 

I'd want to see the depletion timeline stretched waaay longer, though, either by extending the lifespan of deposits beyond what OP suggested or making prospect cost increases/diminishing returns linear rather than exponential. This would help avoid a raid-rush to steal and hoard resources, and reduce inflationary shock.

 

I think relative abundance of resources by continent would also be a neat addition to further increase interdependence.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

How about we fix some of the bugs we currently have, then we do your little idea ? You can't add things, when you have broken things, else we be unorganized. *Cough Bank Bug Cough*

[Aisha Greyjoy]

But there are infinite nations and infinite land.  That demands infinite resources, doesn't it?  

[Shakyr]

But there are infinite nations and infinite land.  That demands infinite resources, doesn't it?  

True, but it only demands infinite resources, if you have infinite land.

 

Therefore, why not tie the resources to the amount of land you have. If you have to buy up more land, in order to increase production (as production depletes over time), that would work better in my opinion (as opposed to adding a new mechanic "prospecting").

 

Australia:    Coal (scarce)

                    Bauxite (abundant)

                    Lead (common)

If you're after realism, Coal would be abundant, Bauxite common and Lead scarce. Coal is actually pretty big in Australia, along with Sugar.

[SoS]

Mmm sugar

[Erin]

I think this could be interesting and could form part of a cool "endgame" or future-game for P&W. This isn't at all thought-out, just throwing some ideas out:

 

If we do introduce limited resources, and add recycling, as Arthur mentioned, then the recycling process could potentially make power a more valuable "thing" as the game goes on since you generally need lots of power to really recycle many things into usable form. And as the quantity of mineable deposits declines/becomes harder to reach (due to land becoming costlier to buy) it would put emphasis on refuse piles as sources of metal and so on, while perhaps "power-hungry" (in some sense) recycling facilities would be needed to re-smelt and refine resources. Could tie in with the idea of power as a resource of sorts that can be traded around but doesn't accumulate.

 

Perhaps over time this would facilitate a shift over to nuclear and renewables as power sources for cities, at all tiers/across all nations. Gasoline and fuel oil for military purposes in general could be made from food waste

Edited April 15, 2015 by Erin

[Dwemyrn]

 

Currently raw resources are virtually infinite. My proposal is to introduce some limits to the amount of raw resources that can be mined, introducing resource scarcity. 

 

Those limits can be extended by prospecting for a resources. Prospecting costs increase the proven reserves of the resource, but each prospecting expedition should either cost exponentially more with each use, or the expeditions discover declining amounts of new resources each time.

 

Each resource can currently be found on three continents and each continent has three resources. In my proposal, each resource would have different finite quantities that can be produced. Each resource is either abundant, common, or scarce on each of the three continents that it can be found, and each continent has 1 resource that it has in abundance, 1 that is common, and 1 that is scarce.

 

By continent:

 

North America: Coal (abundant)

                         Iron (common)

                         Uranium (scarce)

 

South America: Oil (scarce)

                         Bauxite (common)

                         Lead (abundant)

 

Asia:            Oil (abundant)

                    Iron (scarce)

                    Uranium (common)

 

Africa:          Oil (common)

                    Bauxite (scarce)

                    Uranium (abundant)

 

Europe:      Coal (common)

                    Iron (abundant)

                    Lead (scarce)

 

Australia:    Coal (scarce)

                    Bauxite (abundant)

                    Lead (common)

============================

 

By resource:

 

Coal:           Abundant on North America

                    Common on Europe

                    Scarce on Australia

 

Oil:             Abundant on Asia

                    Common on Africa

                    Scarce on South America

 

Iron:             Abundant on Europe

                    Common on North America

                    Scarce on Asia

 

Lead:          Abundant on South America

                    Common on Australia

                    Scarce on Europe

 

Bauxite:        Abundant on Australia

                    Common on South America

                    Scarce on Africa

 

Uranium:      Abundant on Africa

                    Common on Asia

                    Scarce on North America

 

 

Abundant distributions are roughly 90 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 5400 coal)

Common distributions are roughly 60 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 3600 coal)

Scarce distributions are roughly 30 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 1800 coal)

 

If prospecting missions are increasing exponentially in cost, then prospecting missions will increase the limits of proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity.

 

   Prospecting for an abundant resources returns another 90 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 5400 coal).

   Prospecting for an common resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal).

   Prospecting for an scarce resources returns another 30 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1800 coal).

 

Prospecting can have varying degrees of success as well. The range can be perhaps randomized to within 75-125% of what's expected to return.

 

If prospecting missions cost the same, then prospecting missions return lower proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity.

 

   Prospecting one time for an abundant resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal).

   Prospecting one time for an common resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal).

   Prospecting one time for an scarce resources returns another 20 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1200 coal).

 

   Prospecting a second time for an abundant resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal).

   Prospecting a second time for an common resources returns another 27 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1620 coal).

   Prospecting a second time for an scarce resources returns another 13 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 780 coal).

 

What's expected to come of this:

 

Lower level nations can choose to sell resources to larger nations that have depleted their reserves, creating an inherent demand for lower level nations, and decreasing atomism among nations that just continue to grow indefinitely and produce their own resources, and who never really require much from outside trades.

 

Since raw resources can be stolen, I expect that maybe this might incentivize wars. 

 

Winning wars could also transfer a portion of proven reserves of resources to the victor nations. For example, if both nations have coal as an available resource, then the defeated nation's proven coal reserves could be cut by 2/3 and the remaining 1/3 is transferred to the victor nation. obviously this would only work where resources are shared. This might also encourage more strategic war declarations where nations want to fight other nations of the same continent.

 

Numbers in this proposal can be tweaked to suit what is thought to be appropriate.

 

Edit: Additionally, perhaps moving one's nation by use of credits can reset resource reserves.

 

 

 

 

I find your idea contradictory to your nation because you are very clearly at no issue with any resources and this suggestion seems like you're trying to use this for an upper hand.

[SoS]

I find your idea contradictory to your nation because you are very clearly at no issue with any resources and this suggestion seems like you're trying to use this for an upper hand.

That's a given with most suggestions.

[Princess Bubblegum]

I find your idea contradictory to your nation because you are very clearly at no issue with any resources and this suggestion seems like you're trying to use this for an upper hand.

 

The part I'd benefit from is the transferring of proven reserves, and that wasn't the core part of my proposal. Sheepy can take that out or reduce it if me benefiting from a game suggestion is the major concern. 

 

 

I think (very) gradual depletion would be good for the game, overall, because it stimulates market demand from the wealthier nations over time, ultimately redistributing extra money to new players and even incentivizing recruitment to the game (get new players to provide resources for your established alliance).

 

I'd want to see the depletion timeline stretched waaay longer, though, either by extending the lifespan of deposits beyond what OP suggested or making prospect cost increases/diminishing returns linear rather than exponential. This would help avoid a raid-rush to steal and hoard resources, and reduce inflationary shock.

 

I think relative abundance of resources by continent would also be a neat addition to further increase interdependence.

 

 

Yeah, the thing about exponential rates is they can still be stretched out. The cost can increase by 10% each time (1.1^X where X == the number of prospect missions or whatever). It would take 7.27 missions to double the cost relative to the first prospecting mission cost and 24 missions until the cost is 10 times the first mission. But the rates don't have to be exponential. Flat rate would probably work as well.

 

Sheepy is trying to come up with resource sinks because the obvious result of the current system are nations having 99,999 of every resource. A few nations are already starting to approach that with some resources. In a year, it's a near certainty that it will be the case that some will have reached that point. So either resources need to be used faster or become more limited in some way. Another thing I've been seeing are larger nations self-producing resources and selling large quantities of these resources on the market. Sheepy's original vision was large nations being economically sufficient, but needing to purchase resources, and particularly raw resources, from lower-tier nations. I think there is a bit too much atomism or economic isolation among nations in that respect. There is no significant interdependence between tiers at the present that I see. 

 

If nothing else, the relative abundance of resources fits in quite well with already established mechanics and I think would make things a little more interesting and reduce economic isolation among nations a bit.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Bored now Leafing]

Any kind of continuous increase in production cost would be a little like having the cost of infrastructure never go down when it is sold or destroyed.

Personally i want my nation to keep growing not have it stagnate because a few low score raiders want a method of cornering the market.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

No i dont like this. This game is supposed to be simple

[Princess Bubblegum]

Any kind of continuous increase in production cost would be a little like having the cost of infrastructure never go down when it is sold or destroyed.

Personally i want my nation to keep growing not have it stagnate because a few low score raiders want a method of cornering the market.

The first sentence is a good point. The suggestion of increasing costs was based off other games I've played (hyperiums, bloc, Worlds at war) which all have some form of limited, non-renewable resources. I take issue though with you thinking this is all about the profit of raiders. This kind of thing has been proposed before by non-low-tier raiders (http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5233-economic-overhaul/page-2?hl=%2Bpollution+%2Bresources#entry80120). I believe there are clear problems with the current system compared to how the game designer envisioned the economic model of the game. 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1830-more-advanced-economies/#entry21045

 

The above link is Sheepy's explanation of how he wanted the game to work. If you don't think that's a good model, that's fine, but I'm arguing on how to fix the game to conform to the envisioned model. The original idea was not that nations grow indefinitely. You may want that, but that's not how it was supposed to work. It is meant to be a king-of-the-hill type game, where there's a soft cap on nation strength at some point due to the ever increasing time and resources required to grow. Those at the top are expected to be knocked down at some point, presumably through war, and replaced by up and coming nations.

 

So we ask: If we want to keep to the envisioned economic model of the game...

 

1) Is that is what is happening currently?

2) Are there low-tier nations dedicated to exporting raw resources?

3) Are there high-tier nations dedicated to importing raw resources and exporting cash?

4) If not, can it be addressed by only doing things that increase resource prices and not restricting the supply of resources in some manner? For instance, pollution effects could be increased or more resource sinks can be implemented, and that might raise the cost of producing resources, but that does not limit the supply.

5) If resource prices are only increased, will there be a point where it is once again profitable for high-tier nations to produce resources domestically? Will doing something like increasing the pollution effects only be countered by the increasing costs of resources such that just constructing another recycling center or two still make domestic production rather than importing economically viable?

6) As the game gets older, will it be more likely or less likely that nations will quickly grow out of the lower tier (the tier where resource production is supposed to be preferable to econ improvements)? Will that mean that the pyramid economic structure will remain an upright pyramid, or will there be ever increasing amounts of 100% econ nations who produce resources domestically rather than import them from lower tiers?

7) Will it be a problem when high-tier nations approach 99,999 of each resource? Is that going to make high-tier nations more or less likely to import from low-tier nations?

 

 

To address your first point: what would you think about tying resource prospecting/renewal to nation strength rather than the number of times it is done? That would make prospecting for resources prohibitive at some higher level, but not adversely affect a nation that gets knocked down to a lower tier.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Bored now Leafing]

 

The first sentence is a good point. The suggestion of increasing costs was based off other games I've played (hyperiums, bloc, Worlds at war) which all have some form of limited, non-renewable resources. I take issue though with you thinking this is all about the profit of raiders. This kind of thing has been proposed before by non-low-tier raiders (http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5233-economic-overhaul/page-2?hl=%2Bpollution+%2Bresources#entry80120). I believe there are clear problems with the current system compared to how the game designer envisioned the economic model of the game. 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1830-more-advanced-economies/#entry21045

 

The above link is Sheepy's explanation of how he wanted the game to work. If you don't think that's a good model, that's fine, but I'm arguing on how to fix the game to conform to the envisioned model. The original idea was not that nations grow indefinitely. You may want that, but that's not how it was supposed to work. It is meant to be a king-of-the-hill type game, where there's a soft cap on nation strength at some point due to the ever increasing time and resources required to grow. Those at the top are expected to be knocked down at some point, presumably through war, and replaced by up and coming nations.

 

So we ask: If we want to keep to the envisioned economic model of the game...

 

1) Is that is what is happening currently?

2) Are there low-tier nations dedicated to exporting raw resources?

3) Are there high-tier nations dedicated to importing raw resources and exporting cash?

4) If not, can it be addressed by only doing things that increase resource prices and not restricting the supply of resources in some manner? For instance, pollution effects could be increased or more resource sinks can be implemented, and that might raise the cost of producing resources, but that does not limit the supply.

5) If resource prices are only increased, will there be a point where it is once again profitable for high-tier nations to produce resources domestically? Will doing something like increasing the pollution effects only be countered by the increasing costs of resources such that just constructing another recycling center or two still make domestic production rather than importing economically viable?

6) As the game gets older, will it be more likely or less likely that nations will quickly grow out of the lower tier (the tier where resource production is supposed to be preferable to econ improvements)? Will that mean that the pyramid economic structure will remain an upright pyramid, or will there be ever increasing amounts of 100% econ nations who produce resources domestically rather than import them from lower tiers?

7) Will it be a problem when high-tier nations approach 99,999 of each resource? Is that going to make high-tier nations more or less likely to import from low-tier nations?

 

 

To address your first point: what would you think about tying resource prospecting/renewal to nation strength rather than the number of times it is done? That would make prospecting for resources prohibitive at some higher level, but not adversely affect a nation that gets knocked down to a lower tier.

 

 

 

You don't need to add an extra function just have the cost to maintain mines have a slow increase over time/power that would represent the increasing cost of reaching deeper and deeper veins as the low hanging fruit is collected first.

 

Something that needs to be understood is you can't get that pyramid effect in free-market conditions so the fact that there is a bulge in the middle aka a growing middle class slowly turning wealthy the current system is having the effect it should be having, now maybe it is not the model Sheep had intended to simulate given all the political hubbub about free-market failures creating super wealthy super minorities but free-market or near free-market conditions are in fact rare.

 

It must be asked what is the most important factor in that equation the pyramid type formation to the stats of nations or that new/small nations focus on raw exports, mid focus on manufactured, and old/large on money creation?

 

Your idea to be able to steal the deposits of a limited resource does in fact favor raider rushing new players something you would be able to do quite effectively given your low score and military strength and saying higher tier raiders also might want the ability to deplete there foes is not an argument in it's favor.

 

 

 

The most important aspect you have to think about is what happens to the players that for this or that reason end up getting stuck on the bottom no one wants to be the third world nation and the pyramid model has to be forced on the player base causing most players to be on the bottom where if they can't grow large enough to be able to engage in the more interesting elements of the game other then being shark bait they will not stay, i honestly have to wonder how many people this game ends up turning away because they got in they did a few things got real excited about being able to try that next new thing and then BAM they get mobbed by raiders setback and just said to hell with it, at this point you could say well they should join an alliance well the massive failure in that logic is that.

1) you are effectively condoning these events by saying that yes as much as you might refute this when you say just join an alliance it's like saying well if you didn't want to get raped ya shouldn't have worn that slutty outfit, pardon the crude reference.

2) the number of alliances that are willing and able to protect the lower members is far and few between just look how often an alliances start out sucking in new members by the barrel full only to end up seeing all the Parana feed on the lower ranks and resulting in the end of the alliance or a very limited recruiting policy just after a significant slim down in membership numbers.

3) you can not solve the problems of individuals based on collective logic as individuals are not all equal and do not all act the same one size fits all this is not.

 

This is not a king of the hill style game in that we get cities that hold a score all there own thus raising the base nation score for the lifetime of the nation if it was KotH style of play thous cities would not have a score/would be destroyable and there would be no war score regulation this game functions on a rising floor/inflation model so continues growth is expected and required.