| Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:24 am |
>You know David, I've pondered why you'd want to >build anywhere there wasn't enough people.
Actually, I found out today I can do this as a president. Sadly, not as a CEO.
Why do it?
As a president, I want to replace low-profit corporations with high-profit ones over time. Yes?
But, I would find it ludicrous to have to close an existing corporation so that I could place an order for a new one. "You've all been laid off - enjoy your unemployment - but one day you'll get a new job with a new company - just as soon as that back-ordered production plant comes in."
Secondly, it is possible to operate a company at less than 100% staffing profitably. But in order to place one as a CEO, I have to have the ability to go to full production before I build -- even though there is nothing I can do to protect that capability afterwards (other than adjust wages).
Let's say I want to open up a company in a low-tax country, but no free labor is available. I *could* buy a corporation there, shut it down, and then wait until the computer recalculates available workers, then *hope* that I get the slot. Not a great way to introduce yourself to a President! My alternative would let me open the company and raise wages to take away those from another company.
It's a great way to support your countries, too, if you are a CEO. Particularly if you know that your country is about to embark upon massive population transfers from conquests - the people will show up and the company can be getting upgraded while we wait for them to show up. Or I could just buy a great corporation and relocate it to my country, then adjust salaries to get it going.
Then again, this game has always had too much "You can't do that because the rules designer says so." If it's stupid, I'll do poorly. It it's not, I'll get an advantage.
The rules should restrict us from breaking the laws of physics, the laws of economics, and little else that is not required for game balance.