Dear Woolly Overlord: Fix the Economy

[Jessica Rabbit]

The new war mechanics are making everyone burn through money faster than resources.

 

Roll back the 10% infra losses

Reduce military upkeep

 

Give us a commerce option that let's us maintain a positive income through a war, like Supermarkets generating a flat $1000 per turn instead of a % bonus. It would make them perfect for new nations trying to get going.

 

You could also add commerce options that do more than one thing and aren't useless during war, things like military upkeep reduction or loot protection. And merge the redundant ones...

 

Supermarkets: -2% commerce, +$1000 per turn, cap=5

Banks: +12% commerce, +5% loot protection, cap=8

Universities: +4% commerce, -10% improvement upkeep in host city, cap=3

Industrial Complex: -1% commerce, -20% military upkeep, cap=2

 

It's like a financial analyst gauntlet. xD

[Guest Karl VII]

Yeah let`s give the nations who are already super strong military projects with which they get even stronger! What a great idea!!!! Let`s give alliances with a big high tier and huge amounts of cash an even bigger advantage in wars than they already have, wohoo!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should really do that, it`s not like that would kill the game and stuff....

Edited June 13, 2017 by Karl VII

[Qassem]

A simple way to increase demand in resources is to make sure building new cities also cost resources. So besides only money, you will need resources as well. It's a small and easy change but would increase demand by a bit.

[Mark76]

The real answer is more realistic resource usage when building weapons.  You can't build a tank with only one ton of steel.  That's practically a car with some dude shooting a bazooka out of the sun roof.  Real tanks use at least ten times, and more, that much steel.  Ditto for planes (aluminium) and ships (steel).

 

Different classes of armoured vehicles, planes and ships with different demands for aluminium and steel might also help.

[PackAnimal]

Make cities cost resources too, scaled similarly to costs. City 2 could be (whatever cash it is), 60 steel, 50 alum and 20 gas. City 20 could be 15k steel, 10k alum and 5k gas ect. Places a harder soft cap on cities, and means people will be using a significant amount of resources when at a higher level, whereas top and super tier nations as present have a massive + net production; as more nations are reaching the upper tiers, the more abundant resources are getting. Answer: make upper tier use more

[Ishmael]

Or we could just leave things as is. Declining resource values might have interesting effects on the frequency of wars as alliances accumulate warchests faster.

[ComradeMilton]

Or we could just leave things as is. Declining resource values might have interesting effects on the frequency of wars as alliances accumulate warchests faster.

Excellent idea, though leaving it as is seems fine to me as well.

[Dr Rush]

Make cities cost resources too, scaled similarly to costs. City 2 could be (whatever cash it is), 60 steel, 50 alum and 20 gas. City 20 could be 15k steel, 10k alum and 5k gas ect. Places a harder soft cap on cities, and means people will be using a significant amount of resources when at a higher level, whereas top and super tier nations as present have a massive + net production; as more nations are reaching the upper tiers, the more abundant resources are getting. Answer: make upper tier use more

The issue here is that any level of cost that is meaningful this gives a massive boost to nations already in the upper tiers and massively hampers the ability of people to catch up.

[Vladamir Putin]

Could add a 40/50-city AI (That can declare down by 60%, with some special kind of function for its defensive wars) that smacks people randomly. Would finally give the chance for whales to up-declare.

 

[Mark76]

Up-declare on who exactly?  The Super-Whales?

[8mrgrim8]

I wonder if Sheepy even looks at this

[Dubayoo]

Honestly, I think this is it.  I remember when I first joined, world wars were every two or three months, and the prices were going UP, not down, because they were expensive in terms of the militaries as much as they were in rebuilding infra.

 

Now?  We just finished our first world war since *the end of last summer*.  It's June now.  We went three seasons with only one war to speak of.  Nations are getting so fat that the cash cost of rebuliding are beggaring the resource costs of actually fighting, and there's so much of a glut of resources from the 7-odd months that there was peace that when everyone tried to offload them during the recent war, prices imploded.  

 

We need more war.  It seems plain to me that this is really the only solution.  It makes for fewer whales, and it makes for more consumption.  It attacks, in other words, both heads of the problem, supply and demand.  

 

The question of how to stimulate war in a game that traditionally tends to consolidate power and shun aggression in favor of massive dogpiles every year or so, I leave to the rest of you.  I got nothing there.

 

+1

 

That's what makes Arrgh! so awesome - we declare war all the time.  :-P

 

Maybe the world needs some rival pirate alliances so there's more raiders.

[Felkey]

+1

 

That's what makes Arrgh! so awesome - we declare war all the time.  :-P

 

Maybe the world needs some rival pirate alliances so there's more raiders.

yeah but you mostly hit inactives and cause minimal amounts of meaningful destruction. global wars where the upper tier actually has to blow their massive warchests, not one ship raids against dead targets

[Psweet]

Or we could just leave things as is. Declining resource values might have interesting effects on the frequency of wars as alliances accumulate warchests faster.

 

It will do nothing of the sort.  Alliances don't avoid war because of the cost of depleting resources, they avoid war because of the monetary cost of rebuilding infra.  

[Frank Todd]

Lol Asking Alex to fix something in his game.

*Us*

Hey this part of the game is a broken system, would you mind fixing it?

*Alex*