| Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 02:36 pm |
so, while calling most of my message silly, you do agree that with the game as it is now it will be, for those with a country of 5M or even less:
*Very difficult to moderate a workforce in order to minimize unemployment -> (with this silly arrow i mean: this leads to fyi) high social spending, lower corporation utilisation ->more debts
*impossible to have an effective army, or to reach a def index of 20% or higher -> No way to defend properly, no way to get free gold coins by reward.
You say ppl (the small country president) will be forced to work together in large groups, possibly to take out a group of bigger countries.
I just don't think i'll ever see that happen. Or it might happen but i don't see the alliances last longer than a month. I for one don't think it could be satisfying. There are just enough capable/motivated ppl in the game to hold such federations together for a longer period. (imho)
The only one i've ever seen that leads a monster fed like that is you, in FB. And since i'm not in that, i can't judge if it would be pleasure to be in it or not.
My worries on the market are not only based on what i think will follow in the following months. Most markets have been fairly unstable the last (real) half year if i recall correctly.
Ive seen fully upgraded corps bellyflop all the time. And so have many of the presidents that left their countries to look for a new game.
I just want more stability and less inequality in the game. Making these drastic changes in population all the time without altering the mechanisms of the markets and armies doesn't do us good.
Maybe a better way to control pop growth would
be a more realistic growth model based on pop. wealth?
Or just birth control and safe sex education in high schools?
You might call that silly too but in my (real) country it happens to work.