Finite quantities of raw resources.

[Princess Bubblegum]

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.

 

 

You have some good points there. I think your suggestion that costs increase automatically is a good one. You could simply have a formula like:

 

 (base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) .  

 

... so for every 500 NS, the cost doubles.

 

If we wanted time to be a factor, we could have a formula like: 

 

(base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) * ( 1 + days old / 300 )    

 

 ... so at 300 days the cost doubles, 600 days it is triple the original, etc

 

We could even factor land into it to discount resources when more land is purchased:

 

(base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 )  * ( 25000 / (25000 + (total land) ) )    

 

... so the more land one has, the more the price is reduced. The first 25000 land would drop the price by 50%. The next 25000 land would drop the price another 16%, for a total of 66%... etc.

 

I think that could work very well and is probably far superior to my suggestion in the OP.

 

Another suggestion that I think might help keep a relatively small number of top-tier, cash-exporting, resource-importing nations, is to do away with the 100% econ as a hard cap. Instead I think perhaps it should be replaced with a point system, where supermarkets contribute 4 points, banks 7, shopping malls 12, and stadiums 18. The nation with the most points would get 100% econ and would set that as the benchmark. All other nations would get a econ % based on their econ points relative to that top nation. There would need to be a lower limit for nations with no econ improvements at all, though. Improvement limits for econ improvements would be removed and replaced with a requirement system, where 1 bank requires 3 supermarkets, 1 shopping mall requires 2 banks, and 1 stadium requires 1 or 2 shopping malls. The international trade center project could multiply whatever econ points one has by 115%. With such a point system, the lower tier would no longer be effectively those below 1000-1100 infra per city. Currently, most nations are at 100% econ at 1100 infra/city, but with this suggestion, that level is changing, presumably usually rising as the top nation rises. The top nation would have to allocate most, if not all, of their slots to econ improvements to maintain 100% econ, effectively rendering them limited in what resources they can produce domestically, and making them a cash exporter and resource importer.

 

Again though, this isn't about raiding. I even said in a post above that I wouldn't care if my suggestion on stealing prospect limits was not implemented. It was a side thought, and not a key or core element to my proposal. In fact the suggestion made here in this post is superior and would not have an effect on raiding as far as I can see (unless land was made to be raidable at some point).

Edited April 17, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Princess Bubblegum]

I'm re-writing this proposal to highlight it at the top of the first page.

 

I would suggest the following in an effort to introduce resource limits, increase interdependence of nations, and retain the envisioned economic model of lower-tier nations as resource exporters and high-tier nations as resource importers/cash exporters:

 

Each resource can currently be found on three continents and each continent has three resources. 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. Resources that are abundant receive +33% production rates. Common receive normal production rates, and scarce receive -33% production rates.

 

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

 

 

As nation size increases, so does the costs of resources. The more land a nation has, the cheaper the resources become.

 

(base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) * ( 20000 / (20000 + (total land) ) )   

 

Finally, replace the current national econ level model with a point-based system. It should be replaced with a point system, where supermarkets contribute 4 points, banks 7, shopping malls 12, and stadiums 18. The nation with the most points would get 100% econ and would set that as the benchmark. All other nations would get a econ % based on their econ points relative to that top nation. There would need to be a lower limit for nations with no econ improvements at all, though. Improvement limits for econ improvements would be removed and replaced with a requirement system, where 1 bank requires 3 supermarkets, 1 shopping mall requires 2 banks, and 1 stadium requires 1 or 2 shopping malls. The international trade center project could multiply whatever econ points one has by 115%. With such a point system, the lower tier would no longer be effectively those below 1000-1100 infra per city. Currently, most nations are at 100% econ at 1100 infra/city, but with this suggestion, that level is changing, presumably usually rising as the top nation rises. The top nation would have to allocate most, if not all, of their slots to econ improvements to maintain 100% econ, effectively rendering them limited in what resources they can produce domestically, and making them a cash exporter and resource importer. This will help keep a relatively small number of top-tier, cash-exporting, resource-importing nations relative to lower-tier resource exporting nations.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum