| Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 08:13 pm |
13m pop countries work fine if everyone had that small of a country. I say 13m because 5m pops are very low and should be avoided. many c3s have 13m and some are alittle higher than that.
population growth is something that you can influence by taking many slaves and transfering population into it. this is only possible if you pay to play. w3c has mentioned increasing the transfer limit which would make this even faster.
would you be suprised to know that peacetime concubine started out as a 13m pop country? admittedly it was about 6 months ago, but I very rarely transfer population between countries. it's now at about 40m.
I understand your concerns very much, I'll respond to each point:
*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
this would be a resounding no. smaller pops are easier to manage and make money tons faster than large pop countries. you just have to select the right corps. oil, services, air transport are enemies to small countries due to thier extreme worker needs. meat products, road maint, and many smaller corps produce lots of money and require only a fraction of the workforce the larger corps need. these small corps are often needed by the country so CM exploitation is very possible and will produce a shit load of money. trust me.
*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.
I very much agree with you on the army part. however, if you take slaves and build defence with them the defence is extremly easy to build and maintain due to the fed sharing of air force. offencive ranged weapons should not even be attempted until you have a 30m pop country. player to player wars will be impossible if they have feds or many slaves.
I don't know about the awards part of your post. so many factors are involved with that to say that one change will greatly effect the possibility of gaining an award. most of the ranking problems come from having reseting players and P2P types in the same world. reseters will never reach an award spot if enough ppl are p2p.
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.
small players working together to take down larger players will only happen if offencive sharing was possible. thier only possibility right now is ammo depletion as a means to victory in war.
the alliance will last as long as the war does, or until they realize that victory is a pipe dream. but really, I think you've had bad luck with feds.
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.
markets have been very stable over the last 6 months. stable if you consider green markets for 4 out of 6 months stable. that sure as hell isn't profitable though. markets are only profitable if they are in the red, and frankly that doesn't happen enough. this current red market was due mostly to a few players buying all the supply out of the air transport, oil, and gasoline markets. services and HTS took a drastic change do to resets, but are recovering quickly. the services shortage lead to c3 production drops. c3s account for a large portion of the markets supply. food and vegetable markets are held mainly by c3s.
no, the market is pretty damn stable. too stable if you ask me.
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?
I want instability and more equality. population changes are not occuring every day, it happend twice and will not happen again for a long time I think. they went up to 30m per c3, then dropped down to 8-13m per (thier original level). I can't explain the need for the change to the pop levels.
that's about all I have to say for now.