|Previous Thread:||W3C - "Peace only" - Countries suggested|
|Next Thread:||Cant reply to messages on the bulletin board|
| Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:37 pm |
Uh, that was suggestion #10.
Jozi, I would really like to ask you to look into the possibility of having military units use commodities.
In peace and war, military units in the real world use gasoline, rubber, food, computers, etc. They don't stop using them the moment they are built! It adds an element of realism to the game, gives stronger impetus to the economic side and requires more complicated planning for military campaigns.
I can envision two ways to do this, and I'm sure that other players will come up with better ideas:
1. Add military consumption, purchasing and stockpiles to the country commodity page. Use a limited number of essential commodities and require that military units use a certain amount of each type every month. That amount might be increased (doubled) in time of war in general, and would be added as a unit increment each time the unit is actually used on attack or defense. Shortages could cause a reduction in unit effectiveness. For example, if gasoline is 30% of the across the board country military commodity requirement, then a shortfall in gasoline of half of the gasoline requirement would cause a 15% reduction in unit effectiveness. That way, any reductions would be limited (so that a shortfall in eggs for soldier's omelets would not make all of a players anti-missile batteries completely ineffective). I'm sure someone can come up with a simpler way to model this.
2. As an alternative, create a new type of corporation, Military Supply corps. These corps would produce units of military supply. The factors of production for this could include a broad menu of obvious choices, weighted for the obvious major ones (fuel is an obvious one). Countries would buy the Supply Units and might stockpile large numbers of them. Military units would use them in accordance to a fixed schedule. Perhaps the basic amount of Supply Units used could be set at the number of men required to man the unit, so defensive batteries use little supply but aircraft carriers use alot. That basic amount of Supply would be deducted monthly but usage would increase in wartime (doubling?) and Supply units would be used every time a weapon is fired in attack or defense. If a country runs short of military supply units, then unit effectiveness would be cut (say by 30% on attack, and by 20% on defense?).
| Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:57 pm |
And that brings me to suggestion #12...
I think it is time for the game to allow some variation in military unit strength. Players yearn for some way to model technology in war, as well as supply (above), morale, etc. I think that weapons effectiveness is a way to do this.
Weapons quality has thus far made NO difference. This is unfortunate for many reasons: both for lack of realism and lack of means to play with it. If a player buys a weapon that is produced at 150 quality, the player should expect a more effective weapon than one purchased from a corporation producing at 75 quality. The difference need not be linear but could be geometric. For any given weapon that a player owns, the average quality would be taken as the value for all weapons of that type. When more weapons are purchased, the average quality of that weapon in that player's hands changes too. An average quality of 150, that is 50 points above "normal" might give a resulting weapons effectiveness of 107.1 from (square root of 50)+100. A average weapon quality of 91 would result in weapon effectiveness for that weapon of 97.
If military supply is used, that might also have an effect, though usually only at par or negative in case of short supply. Morale could be factored in by using some function of country welfare index or another benchmark, again on a less-than-linear basis.
What would weapons effectiveness do? Well, you have already given weapons a percentage chance to hit targets, an amount of damage done, etc. The weapons effectiveness would be applied to those numbers for each weapon type used in a combat.
Also, and other players will be shocked to hear me say it, it can influence range: If a weapon has a "normal" range of 1000 km, then a total weapons effectiveness of 110 would give that weapon a range of 1100 km for that player. This would add much tactical depth to the game. Or, reduce weapon effectiveness at ranges exceeding some percentage of any weapon's maximum range, say by cutting effectiveness for that battle by 25% if the unit is being used at over 75% of maximum range.
Weapons and ammo effectiveness could be cumulative, either by addition or multiplication, so a weapon with 110 effectiveness firing ammo with 110 effectiveness would result in either 120 or 121 total effectiveness. (Range might only be effected by the weapon, and not the ammo. Also, range should not be effected by morale...)
Using weapons effectiveness is as much an economic suggestion as military. It will require players to consider the source of their weapons. If players want to buy large amounts of generic military goods on the open market then they take some chance of buying crap, especially if they offer crappy buying prices. If they produce their own, or buy from known sources, then they will be able to monitor quality -.
This is realistic and will provide a needed element to the economic game. I know it looks complicated to code at first, but I don't think it is as bad as it looks... I hope!
| Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:57 pm |
| Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 09:55 am |
I have the same problem as jackle, i cant build corps, my air transport company has been building for about 10 game years now, if not more.
| Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:36 am |
First, I have to say that I'm impressed by Erehwon post. I had the same feeling about weapon quality for a long time but I could never have explained so well.
Second, I think that it would be a great thing if the quality had an effect on consumers goods too : the higher quality products a country would buy, the better the welfare index would be. Countries would set a minimum (and/or maximum ?) quality for the goods they would buy.
At the moment, upgrading quality is pretty much a no brainer. There, you would have a choice to make between producing cheap goods or better ones. And you could at least build true socialists economies with Trabant and the like!
Also, quality has always stricken me as illogical in the game. Why consumers would pay more for a product that has no difference with the cheaper ones ? There it would make sense.
| Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:47 am |
"Why consumers would pay more for a product that has no difference with the cheaper ones ? There it would make sense"
It makes a difference for corps, if your supplies are higher quality, you get a higher quality product..but buying above quality 130 is pointless, and i get your point.
| Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 05:50 pm |
People buy BMW's all the time instead of KIA's. They're both cars why aren't people just saving the money and buying kia's.
| Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 05:26 pm |
This from another thread, in response to a reasonable idea about making country strategic reserves more useful to corporations, my Economic Idea #13 (based on the ideas of those writing in the other thread) at the bottom, is to create a Common Market Commodities Reserve to serve corporations in countries or CEOs that are members of that common market:
Strategic reserves are just that: Strategic, having a military or national security reason. They aren't for making sure that Adelanto Fruit Juice Corp gets it's monthly quota of oranges.
I don't even like the present ability of the country to sell stock to corps. It's uneven, as pointed out above, because it generally only encompasses the goods used by the country. It doesn't really cover the goods used by weapons corps, for which one could make at least a weak case that there should be a strategic reserve.
By allowing country purchases of goods on the market for the use in reserve by country corporations, the impact of the market will be reduced in an unrealistic manner.
Yes, I do see that players might hit the market with manual orders when prices are low and that will tend to help the market out in a good way. And yes, I see that this concept will enhance the value of contracts over bloc purchasing.
What I don't like is the use of countries to perform this function - it never did work in the real world and it will thwart the market in this one. If it has to be done, and I am not wholly against it, then it should be a Common Market function.
Come to think of it, that's not such a bad idea. Common Market reserves of commodities is not completely unrealistic and if the goods in the reserve would have to come from the common market CEO and country corporations and could only be used by them, then it's not bad at all.
Jozi! With compliments to the contributors to this thread, I'd like to call this Economic Idea #13. Common Market commodities reserves. The Common Market chairman would have to accept the contracts to establish the reserve, and each Common Market reserve would have to be able to take loans and have a credit limit. The mechanism for sales to corps in shortage by the Common Market reserve would have to be worked out - not sure if it would require alot of coding...
| Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 12:44 am |
Thanks for "spreading the word"
Been communicating with the game gods via e-mail about it