Alliance Wide Projects

[Zaxon]

Alliance Projects - I had the idea for Alliance based projects that can be purchased by any member with management rights and affect all accepted members within the alliance that purchases one.  These are made to be purchased for alliances hence why they have hefty prices and I tried to balance the effects with either slight drawbacks or prerequisites.

 

Basic Req: 500,000 alliance infrastructure per slot for an Alliance Project hence if you got 1,000,000 alliance Infrastructure you got 2 slots open. Also can only be deleted/purchased after 90 days.

**Alternative idea:  All project would be temporary limited to 180days and have a reset timer for every 50 days for purchase/deletion. In this version there is no infra prerequisite. (prices below have been adjusted to reflect this alternative)

International Monetary Fund - $550,000,000 [ 70,000 Lead / 80,000 Iron / 30,000 Steel / 20,000 Aluminum ]
 Boost all nations commerce cap up to 127% but requires an International Trade Center to take advantage.

Global Reserve Bank - $300,000,000 [ 90,000 Lead / 100,000 Iron / 30,000 Steel ]
Allows you to store 15% of the current alliance bank in a reserve fund which can NOT be looted. However funds can only be deposited/withdrawn once every 7 days.

World Health Organization - $225,000,000 [ 60,000 Iron / 50,000 Bauxite / 15,000 Steel / 700,000 Food ]
Reduce disease -3%, pollution -50 points and boost population by 2% in all nations.  However reduces gross income by -1%.

Social Security -$400,000,000  [ 65,000 Iron / 65,000 Gasoline / 35,000 Aluminum / 500,000 Food]
Boost population in all nations by 6% but Increases Food Consumption to
(Peace) = (Population / 700) + (Soldiers / 750)
 (War) = (Population / 700) + (Soldiers / 500)

International Mining Consortium - $250,000,000 [ 60,000 Lead / 75,000 Iron / 25,000 Gasoline / 30,000 Aluminum  ]
25% Boost to all mining Coal/Oil/Iron/Bauxite/Lead/Uranium but adds 16 points of pollution in each city of every nation.

International Trade Centre/International Trade Organization - $450,000,000 [ 75,000 Coal / Oil 90,000 / Iron 75,000 / 30,000 Gasoline / 20,000 Steel   ]
 Boost gross income +3% for all nations in the alliance but adds 20 points of pollution in each city of every nation.

Strategic Air Command Center - $700,000,000 [ 150,000 Lead / 120,000 Iron / 100,000 Gasoline / 80,000 Munitions / 95,000 Aluminum  ]
Increases Hangars production to allow you to manufacture up to 4 new Aircraft a day per hanger and increases the production of missiles & nukes to 2 per day.   (FYI aircraft can stack with Propaganda Bureau) However It increases upkeep of air units as follows:
[ Increases Aircraft upkeep (Peace/War) to 650/975 ]
[ Increases Missiles upkeep to $27,300 per day in peacetime and $40,950 per day in wartime ]
[ Increases Nuclear Weapons upkeep to $45,500 per day in peacetime and $68,250 per day in wartime ]

Orbis Stock Exchange - $150,000,000 [ 40,000 Coal / 40,000 Oil / 40,000 Lead / Bauxite 40,000  / 25,000 Steel / 500,000 Food ]
Adds +0.2 per alliance to the Cumulative Bonus to all nations in an alliance involved in active market sharing that owns this project.  It caps at 2%

 

**New Update 7/4**
Military Industrial Complex - $600,000,000 [ 175,000 Oil / 20,000 Uranium / 140,000 Lead / 150,000 Bauxite / 60,000 Steel / 20,000 Aluminum / 300,000 Food ]
Soldiers increase their efficiency by 80% when supplied with munitions. It also reduces Steel Requirements for tanks to 0.75 per tank and for naval vessels to 17.5 per ship. However munitions requirements increase to the following:

[Soldiers now require 1 munitions per 2,000 soldiers.]
[Tanks now require 1 munitions per 50 tanks in battles to operate.]
[Naval vessels now require 4 munitions each in battles to operate.]
 
Advanced Defense Research Agency - $275,000,0000 [ 135,000 Lead / 100,000 Iron / 85,000 Bauxite / 35,000 Steel ]
Fortify now causes your opponent to take 20% more casualties if they attack you while you're fortified. Decreases infrastructure damage taken from Ground Battles, Airstrikes,and Naval Battles by 5% to all nations. However Fortify only adds +8 Resistance. Also Gasoline requirements increase for all Land/Sea/Air vehicles to the following.  

[Tanks now require 1 gasoline per 50 tanks in battles to operate.]
[Aircraft now require 1 gasoline per 2 aircraft in battles to operate.]
[Naval vessels now require 3 gasoline each in battles to operate.]

 

*New 7/8

Drone Defense System - $600,000,000  [ 100,000 Oil /  Bauxite 120,000  / 25,000 Uranium / 135,000 Iron /  175,000 Munitions  ]
When an opponent attacks with Aircraft a drone is launched to preempt engage the enemy air craft and may shoot down 0%-2% of the attacking planes before ones aircraft engage. However this also increases the Aluminum necessary to manufacture Aircraft to 4 Aluminum per aircraft.

Drones are military sub units that must be purchased and are limited to 1 per day with a cap of 15.
Drones Cost: $100,000 , 50 Aluminum, 50 Gasoline, 50 Munitions each

For clarity when attacked 1 drone launches per attacks so even if you have 15 and get attacked by 4 opponents in single air raids 4 drones will be used i per opponent . Afterwards then your regular airplanes would engage. Also clearly this only works as a defensive countermeasure not on offensive attacks. Also Drones are susceptible to spy attacks which can destroy 1 each.

.

Notes:

- The IMF finally lets you use all those Markets :

- The GBR feature is linked directly to current bank total to avoid people being able to throw money in once their funds start to diminish. It also limits both withdrawals and deposits to once a week all these to avoid abuse.

To further clarify "The Global Reserve Bank only lets you put 15% of your current Alliance bank total" so...
Example: 

If your Alliance Bank = $500,000  you can place $75,000 max into reserve.

If your AA bank gets drained down to $200,000 you can NOT put any more money in cause your already past your cap unless you take money out below your new cap.

Any money you withdraw automatically goes into the AA Bank. Therefore you can not send money from the reserve to a specific person you must use the bank. Also blockade rules apply to the Reserve and you wont be able to access until blockade has ended.

 

- Strategic Air Command originally had a different purpose to reduce AP of air/missile/nukes by -1 but that might break the balance. It was when I was considering making AA projects temporary.

 

- **The Orbis Stock Exchange is unique in that it requires inter-alliance activity via Market sharing trades with various alliances to gain the bonus. Global trades do NOT count and it must be done via the Market "Alliance Trade offer" with  a member belonging to your market sharing grouping to be considered valid. An active trade can be considered any trade made and completed within 72hrs. The bonus only applies to the alliance who has the Orbis exchange project.

Example:

So if you have a Market sharing with 5 AA and they are all active you would get a 1% boost to your bonus. However if only 1 were "active" you only get 0.2
The idea is to encourage alliance Market sharing via a bonus.

 

- In general I'm still adjusting the purchase cost slightly and i had some other ideas for alliance projects but didn't want to clutter too many ideas just yet until I get some feedback..

 

Update notes:  I added 2 new military Alliance projects and boosted the cost of SACC.  The new projects follow the same principle of having slight drawbacks to offset the advantages.

- The Advanced Defense Research Agency 5% def bonus can be added to war policy bonuses to boost, reduce or neutralize effects.

 

Update note: I added the last project the DDS and updated the cost mechanics with resources which I still may tweak.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Zaxon

[Ryleh]

This is long, but I like it.

[Sketchy]

I like the idea, would allow alliances to focus and specialize a bit.

Prices should have resource costs, especially considering the current market state.

 

[James XVI]

It's a nice idea, but won't this just mainly be beneficial to large, and already well established alliances? As far as I could tell, half of all the available slots in the top 30 alliances would be found in the top 9, with TKR and Pantheon having 5 and 4 respectively. Obviously there's a high cost involved too (and definitely what Sketchy said RE:resources would be a good idea), but again the larger and well established alliances would more likely to be able to pay for them anyway. Would having the first slot available at 500 000 infrastructure, then gaining an extra one at every million infra work better in terms of fairness/balance?

[Vladamir Putin]

I could totally see two big alliances temporary shifting members around from one side to another to inflate their infra so they can purchase another project.
 

[Sketchy]

There should be no limitations to slots. Any alliance should be allowed to purchase whatever projects they can afford.

If anything, all alliance projects should cost a flat price which increases for each alliance project you get so it forces alliances to pick/choose and specialize.

[Zaxon]

19 hours ago, James XVI said:

It's a nice idea, but won't this just mainly be beneficial to large, and already well established alliances? As far as I could tell, half of all the available slots in the top 30 alliances would be found in the top 9, with TKR and Pantheon having 5 and 4 respectively. Obviously there's a high cost involved too (and definitely what Sketchy said RE:resources would be a good idea), but again the larger and well established alliances would more likely to be able to pay for them anyway. Would having the first slot available at 500 000 infrastructure, then gaining an extra one at every million infra work better in terms of fairness/balance?

I can address this as I foresaw this coming up before I even put pen to paper so I was careful to try and balance things out. Firstly these projects can only be purchased/deleted once every 90 days (3 months) so at best there is a limit of 4 per year. Secondly the high cost + resources is meant to add another countermeasure as each alliance has to balance the purchase cost vs their WC requirements. Third each project has either a prerequisite or some kind of resource sink built in to try and offset the advantage.

The 500k marker is meant to keep it in reach of most medium sized AA if it starts jumping up to 1 million it will put a more unfair advantage to largest AA's.

 

7 hours ago, Sketchy said:

There should be no limitations to slots. Any alliance should be allowed to purchase whatever projects they can afford.

If anything, all alliance projects should cost a flat price which increases for each alliance project you get so it forces alliances to pick/choose and specialize.

 

Agreed on your first comment as it was intended to give alliances something to do with their excess money and resources aside from just stacking/hoarding for war time or pointless expansive growth.

As for "making a flat price that increases" it's an interesting idea but I would probably lean toward no as the prices are meant as a type of countermeasure for people just grabbing the hottest projects and packing them in with no consequence.

BTW I added another project & upgraded the prices with resources now which is something I was debating doing but I'll probably tweak it again.

[Buck Turgidson]

I proposed this more than a year ago, so yeah, I agree. Cost should be scaled to alliance size.

[Ripper]

3 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Cost should be scaled to alliance size.

Nope.

Alliances would just change their memberships at will to bypass such requirements. An alliance could just make most of its members applicants, build the project and then get the members back on board.

The inverse would be done for infra requirements. Alliances would just borrow members from other alliances.

[Spaceman Thrax]

I can tell you put a lot of work into this, which makes me feel bad, because I dislike the philosophy it's built on. As written, it rewards larger alliances and incentivizes giant blobs, kinda like Treasure Island ended up being, and I think that's a bad thing.

What if, instead, the projects were relatively cheap, but there was a hard cap on the number an alliance could have that was far lower than the available number of projects? Say, there's 10 available, and you can only have 3, no matter your size. Forced specialization.

Edit: They could have low costs to buy, but higher upkeeps based on number of people in the AA (actually probably better: overall population in citizens across the AA?), that require resources? Resource sink. Two birds one stone.

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax

[WISD0MTREE]

The projects could cost per member per turn to solve the infra/per person problem. 

[Buck Turgidson]

9 hours ago, Ripper said:

Nope.

Alliances would just change their memberships at will to bypass such requirements. An alliance could just make most of its members applicants, build the project and then get the members back on board.

The inverse would be done for infra requirements. Alliances would just borrow members from other alliances.

Just count applicants as members.

Alliance projects could be unique, limited in number, and perishable, with the same alliance not able to build the same project for a given amount of time.

Exploiters will do their thing regardless.

[Zaxon]

18 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I can tell you put a lot of work into this, which makes me feel bad, because I dislike the philosophy it's built on. As written, it rewards larger alliances and incentivizes giant blobs, kinda like Treasure Island ended up being, and I think that's a bad thing.

What if, instead, the projects were relatively cheap, but there was a hard cap on the number an alliance could have that was far lower than the available number of projects? Say, there's 10 available, and you can only have 3, no matter your size. Forced specialization.

Edit: They could have low costs to buy, but higher upkeeps based on number of people in the AA (actually probably better: overall population in citizens across the AA?), that require resources? Resource sink. Two birds one stone.

 

Yeah this could be concern and honestly originally I did consider putting caps on but I think I'm leaning toward my original idea of making them temporary to fix it.

 

9 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Just count applicants as members.

Alliance projects could be unique, limited in number, and perishable, with the same alliance not able to build the same project for a given amount of time.

Exploiters will do their thing regardless.

It's funny you mention that as my original concept idea was making them temporary so if I then lower the reset on rebuys ......I think I just may go with that and say make all projects limited to 180 Days and then lower the rebuy timer for 50 days then the most any alliance can have is 3 automatically . This way alliances can play around and experiment with different setups.

I think 6 months is a decent amount of time but I may adjust the prices a bit. Plus I got rid of infra limitations.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Zaxon

[Buck Turgidson]

52 minutes ago, Zaxon said:

Yeah this could be concern and honestly originally I did consider putting caps on but I think I'm leaning toward my original idea of making them temporary to fix it.

 

It's funny you mention that as my original concept idea was making them temporary so if I then lower the reset on rebuys ......I think I just may go with that and say make all projects limited to 180 Days and then lower the rebuy timer for 50 days then the most any alliance can have is 3 automatically . This way alliances can play around and experiment with different setups.

I think 6 months is a decent amount of time but I may adjust the prices a bit. Plus I got rid of infra limitations.

Yes, but it was all discussed before when I proposed this over a year ago. Well, it got nowhere then, so why not re-post the idea (someone probably did before me)?

Ultimately, it's only really interesting if it creates differentiation. Part of the issue is: what happens to an alliance that buys the project, then gains new members later - if the price is proportional, then how does it adjust? It would be interesting if members could opt-in to the alliance project to finance it and reap its benefits. Then there would be a major internal political dimension to it.

PS I have since graduated to global events, but it looks like we have a good one on our hands now...

Edited July 9, 2017 by Buck Turgidson
PS