| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 06:44 pm |
At the moment financial index limits how much you can spend on maintaining social security, education, health etc.
Shouldnt this be applied to the army as well?. After all if the country is suffering in an economic depression the populace would probably not support a giant army.
We Could keep it simple, perhaps an index over 100 allows a 1 million army. A financial index of 150 a 2.5 million army. A financial index over 200 a 4 million army and so on.
a) solve issues with limits.
b) Mean that players need to be able to make a good profit if they want to keep building military
c) Stop the potential problem where players happily ruin a new country which has 1 purpose only, to kill another.
d) Require players to be a mix of pure war, and economic
e) help to limit the advantage gained by plyer CEOS.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 07:33 pm |
I think there should be no financial index reuqirements for anything , as long as a country is not in a huge debt and losing tons of money!
Countries Are NOT SUPPOSED TO RUN A PROFIT.
If the danred game would let me, I woudl spend all the money I made on my popoulatio -scoail security, salaries, and infrastructure. This is how real goverenments work.
A country with such huge surpluses would rebel irl, and running countries as effectively corporations ahs always been one of the thigns that has bugged me most about the 'simulation.'
I think countries whos primary puyrpose is war are just fine.
Coumntries are already required to have a decent ecnonomy to suport a large army. They are not allowed to buy military equipment if their finance index is low, and the simple fact of the matter is that armies are expensive.
makine even $1 profit angers me immensely. If it were not for the education requirements, i woudl find a way to spend all the money on what it should be spent on - the people in the country.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 09:21 pm |
Well it would make sense. And require people to keep an eye on economical matters
look at russia, because the economy is so poor. Only 20% of its equipment is operational, its soldiers are poorly trained etc. n contrast rich countries with good economies have top quality militaries
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:59 pm |
..and the same is true in the game.
Scountries like russia in SC dont really exist. They woul have to be losing money and in massive debt. In the game, they wuldnt even be allowed to buy weapons, and their MLM shortage would make the stuff disintegrate anyway
Just look at the buying/trasnfer budgets. A contry with 200% FI can buy at twice the rate of one with a 100 FI. the netresutl is that the richs country willl (well, can) have a vastly larger and better prepared army.
A better way to work on 'economic' prepration would be weapon quality imho. Multiply the damage done by the quaity of the weapon. It would reuire keeping traack of the wuality of the goods....but its doable, and running countries to make money is already annoying enough as it is.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:07 am |
I would like to see research centres personally, develping higher "tech" weapons. In the curent gam all interceptors are the same for instance..
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:08 am |
oh and matt, imho contacts throw a spanner in the works when it comes to FI limiting weapons procurement.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:51 am |
agreed...but it does work both ways, and countries with more money can afford to buy a lot more. Get below a 60 FI and you cant sign contracts. Im still not decided about what I think about those. Im more fully developing my opinion in the course of our discussions.
maybe they could remove contracts from your monthy budget , preventing only those you can afford to arrive. On the other hand, I somewhat like the unbalacning effect. It makes things a bit less predicatble, and there are ways to fight it.
Im a bit conflicted there, and im just not sure what I think yet. keep talking
BTW I am very glad to be debating with you.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 02:18 am |
Well i do think financial strength sould be a factor. Yes there is a limit on purchasing..and i will take your word for it on the 60 FI thing. But as mentioned above that can be circumvented, and undeveloped countries can, through simple trades (workers and military) become quickly powerful. Thats not a bad thing exactly. But as we know countries with strong economies have large Research and development budgets and get a "technical edge" which can alleviate disparaging numbers (iraq being a simple example, or the falklands an example of superior training being the key).
Research levels, and country "tech levels" would be an interesting feature in my pov. It could be influenced by education, strength of economy etc. And be factored in to the quality of the weapons made WITHIN the country (those purchased on the open market would be of a std quality i guess). This would still leave people able to build quickly. But it would also give players other questions to ask themselves
For instance "should i build my army now, or should i start researching to improve the weaponry i produce".
I dont think it would limit warfare in any way, and i feel it would add to realism where financial muscle does equal the ability to build better weapons.
It would also be a way of truly moulding the economic and warfare sides of he game beyond purely how much can be nominally bought each month.
Of course this is probably impossible to implement ;p. Just throwing ideas around to give jozi a headache ;p
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 02:20 am |
damn need an edit function so i dont double post
i appreciate that w3 have factored into War index, FI and Business index.