Elsuper

Members
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elsuper

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location California
  • Nation Republic of Antarctia
  1. I'm not sure if Chris is the one to maintain the server, but someone is, and they're not doing it for no reason at all.
  2. Number of cities

    I don't remember. I guess I should correct my previous post; 6 metros, 1 city, one town at the time, because I counted my capital, which I suppose I shouldn't. My 8th metro is: $6,075,000,000.00 Amounts required of Concrete, Lumber & Brick: 325,000 So many warehouses.
  3. Number of cities

    7 Metros, 1 City, 1 Town (Because no one is biting on my brick buy offers, and I refuse to pay an extra ~300mil to buy from the sell offers, so I skipped my 8th metro til I can get the brick cheap)
  4. What if cities had resource upkeep, partially or completely replacing the resource component of the initial upgrade cost?
  5. The Wiki article you linked didn't mention Hitler; what is the connection supposed to be between the Balfour Declaration and Hitler's motivations?
  6. Here are some formulas for estimating how many days it will take to pay off a few items you can purchase. You will make the most profit overall by purchasing whatever will pay for itself the fastest. I chose these items because the math for them is the simplest and their effects the most transparent. If, for any of these, you would be required to purchase a power plant, add the price of the plant to the numerator of the fraction, and the value of the additional energy resources required per day for that new plant to the denominator: Extractor: (ignoring labor costs, which are negligible): Purchase price of extractor (Units of output per day*Expected near-term market value per unit) Refinery: Purchase price of refinery [(Units of output per day*Expected near-term market value per unit of output)- (Units of input per day*Expected near-term market value per unit of input)] City upgrade (ignoring boost to population growth, because that is hard to estimate and may require calculus): (Price of upgrade+Total cost of required resources+ Price of additional warehouses+ Price of resources to build additional warehouses) (Avg. Income*Population Gained) If anyone better at higher-level math and with more insight into game mechanics wants to give a crack at formulas for land and infrastructure items, I'd love that.
  7. Resources definitely provide the best rate of return for anything you can buy, even infrastructure, land, or city upgrades. The only danger, as I've noted, is that this fact will cause game-wide supply to gradually outstrip demand, and prices (and therefore profits) should thus be expected to drop over the long run until some sort of update occurs.
  8. Price stability in the resource markets is currently predicated upon game-wide demand growing as fast as supply. It is to be assumed that supply can only grow at this point, because once extractors and refineries are built there is no reason to ever dismantle them. While there is some growth in demand as nations become larger, if the growth in demand is less than the growth in supply, prices will plummet, as we have seen in concrete and lumber in the past couple of weeks, where many probably stocked up on extractors and refineries when prices were high, overproduced, and now are stuck with output that has ever-diminishing value. The only way this can be reversed is if demand suddenly spikes for some reason, but why would it, with the current mechanics? I expect the long-term trend for prices to be downward, as it stands. In real economies, this trend is cyclical and not linear, because when faced with low demand, producers have more-efficient options to scale back production besides scrapping entire production facilities. I propose a few changes that would allow and encourage this dynamic to exist in the game: - Allow nations to control what capacity level their extractors and refineries operate at for different resources (i.e. if a wheat farm extracts 467 Tons per day and employs 303 workers, then scaling it down to 50% cuts output by half, cuts power consumption by half, and returns half of the workers to the private sector). -(Less important) Significantly increase the number of workers required for extractors and refineries, to increase the opportunity cost of operating at full capacity, and to provide a greater incentive to return those workers to the private sector if deemed feasible. On the other side of the coin, one realistic idea for increasing demand, and ensuring that demand will grow at a pace closer with supply, would be to introduce logistics costs for infrastructure and power tied directly to population and companies (people do live and work in buildings, after all). This would be in addition to the logistics requirement already in place. I also suggest, when military is implemented, that there be military resource logistics upkeep, and possibly food and energy upkeep for military as well, for similar reasons.
  9. Rant:

    I guess I'm still confused, then, by the assertion that cost wouldn't be an issue.
  10. The only reason Israel has killed more civilians is because Hamas has such weak technology. One difference between the two sides is that Hamas tries its best to kill as many civilians as it can with unguided, interceptable missiles, hiding amongst its own civilians as it does so, and Israel does its best with advanced technology to kill militants while killing as few civilians as it can, a handful of trigger-happy ground forces notwithstanding. If Israel were, as a matter of policy, trying to kill civilians, you would see casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands instead of the low thousands. The other difference is that Israeli troops who kill civilians are punished, while Hamas forces who kill civilians are applauded.
  11. Rant:

    You can hardly get a couple hundred people in a legislature to agree on that. I find this statement interesting, and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting, but I presume that you mean there would be no currency, and therefore no expenditure. The broader point, though, is that resources must be expended, particularly man-hours. Though I wouldn't expect the manpower cost of holding an election to be prohibitive, I feel like "cost would not be an issue in a socialist state" raises more questions than it answers, because money per se is merely a representation of resource-value. Wouldn't some things remain more valuable than others under socialism, even if that value weren't measured in terms of money?
  12. It seems like such a Pyrrhic strategy, but I see no other explanation for why Hamas provokes Israel the way it does. People love to talk about the "cycle of violence" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Hamas has zero chance of defeating Israel on the battlefield or of inflicting serious damage, yet they persist, constantly, in attacking Israel, even unable to hold to a 12-hour ceasefire. What do they gain by breaking their own proposed ceasefires? More piled up civilian bodies for CNN to show however many people still watch CNN the world. Hamas has the option to not fire rockets at Israel; they gain nothing, at least according to sane traditional strategic thinking, from doing so, but they keep doing it! That should bother all the people who lament the plight of the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank. You'd think, after half a century of this, they might try nonviolent resistance.
  13. World War III.

    That depends how you define "hurt"; the US would miss out on cheap goods, driving up prices, but the demand for said goods would still exist, and domestic production would grow to fill some of that demand. The trade deficit lets you buy cheap stuff at WalMart, but there is a reason why people in the US have been complaining about it for years, because it undercuts domestic labor. Edit: Not to mention that foreign demand is more important for China's foreign-oriented economy than for most countries; gross exports accounted for 25% of their economy last year, net exports and foreign investment combined accounted for 13%, and another 36~% was domestic investment spending. If trade breaks down, that export GDP collapses, as does investment because returns thereon will fall. That's more than half their economy at risk right there. Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print/country/countrypdf_ch.pdf
  14. How do you envision your nation

    Isolationist (except on immigration), Mixed (although mechanics seem to prefer choosing one end of the spectrum), Libertarian