| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 04:59 pm |
I just noticed that everyone with a similar ranking than me, has 3 times as big a population, and not a good managed country.
If I had 30 mio. citizens it be easy to rise to higher ranks, but immigration is still slow...
So how about introducing a GNP/per capita rating, instead of all the cash/assets in the country? That'd be fair, cause only because a country is small, doesn't mean it hasn't a good leadership.
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 06:37 pm |
Well, one of the reasons your country has similar ranking to others with higher pops, is that they have more than one country. Having more countries affects your rankings.
Besides, I'de say its easier to run a smaller country. If you want more population I suggest taking a few countries to feed your main.
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 07:04 pm |
Nice country, all great stats as you said. So therefore I agree with you that just because you are a small nation it shouldnt hamper your ability to improve your rating above a large country with poor stats ... Good luck and keep up the good work
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 07:39 pm |
Gumbria it is a nice country. However you've moved into a world where many countries are bringing in enough cash to flood the market.
Consequently things like your over-all asset ranking will be effected.
The country which is the baseline for Missouri is currently #1 in WG. Since coming here I've taken my cash assets from 70T to 298T and still I'm a long way from the top 10 in that aspect.
Maybe that will give you some idea of what you are dealing with.
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 09:39 pm |
guess I should really say "liquid" assets, most are in cash value of stocks in the country portfolio which like loans takes some time to actually get the cash back on. It does however pay a better return but unlike loaning money if the corp goes you loose it.
The country or world bank doesn't make "good" on it.
| Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 03:37 am |
Gumbria has a valid point. Using assets as an indicator of country rank rather than GDP does nothing except reward people for having older countries. Even while having the top GDP on Kebir for several months (I had only started playing simcountry 5 months ago) my asset rank was dismal compared to certain countries who had been there all three years and were accumulating trillions in loan payments despite badly managing their country's economy.
And don't get me started on how they punish you for building a decent military...
| Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 04:59 am |
"And don't get me started on how they punish you for building a decent military"
Actually I wish you'd expand on that, it could be since I buy small quantities all the time I don't see it but could be I'm not looking in the right direction.
I do know my economy is slowed for awhile if I loose equipment in a war. Finance index, mainly due to unemployment in one country (80% SS rate there).
| Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:24 am |
In response to Gumbria and others that agree with him;
two reasons for assets being so influencial in score are,
1. Asset levels in countries are so high that even if the score given to each trillion was low, assets would still be the main factor in a countries score.
2. The amount of cash in the game is continually rising and the only way atm for W3 to withdraw money is in the form of award penalties. So if score wasn't based largely on assets then those that didn't want to win could easily sit back building up assets making it worse for everyone else.
| Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:37 pm |
well, if the game-designers have basic game-concept errors like cash-flood, it's not my fault, right? Maybe the game is simply too easy, if every country is rich after a few month of good gaming.
The Assets would still be important for the score, but only indirect, with regard to the population.