Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Counter offer - one I've offered before.
I think we could graft a population solution onto the current game without being disruptive.
Simply assign an "infrastructure factory" based on pop.
This could be 1 per an absolute number (1:25mil, 1:50, 1:100 etc) or sliding ( 1: 1-10mil, 2:11-30mil, 3: 31-90mil, 4: 91-270mil, 5: 271-1 billion)
I favor the sliding scale, though in my case I'm not sure how it would apply (i.e. would my nations be bundled, or separated by continent)
These factories could only be expended on "infrastructure " - Factories, docks, slips, and would reflect the increased labor pool available.
This would allow both smaller countries to focus on actual ship building, and very large population nations to see benefit from that.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Counter offer - one I've offered before.
I think we could graft a population solution onto the current game without being disruptive.
Simply assign an "infrastructure factory" based on pop.
This could be 1 per an absolute number (1:25mil, 1:50, 1:100 etc) or sliding ( 1: 1-10mil, 2:11-30mil, 3: 31-90mil, 4: 91-270mil, 5: 271-1 billion)
I favor the sliding scale, though in my case I'm not sure how it would apply (i.e. would my nations be bundled, or separated by continent)
These factories could only be expended on "infrastructure " - Factories, docks, slips, and would reflect the increased labor pool available.
This would allow both smaller countries to focus on actual ship building, and very large population nations to see benefit from that.
I would prefer such a proposal .... may be we could spend a little bit more fine-tuning in it but i looks good in my eyes.
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
Here's a proposal.
All large nations (+20 factories) get an additional 3 factories.
All smaller nations (-20 factories) get an additional 4 factories.
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
E. I would go with that proposal Hood only if we included ships reconstructed or refitted in that time .
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
F. How about : Go back through sim reports to the beginning, figure out what % of each nation's output has been committed to IPs for factories, award bonus factories in accordance.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
F. How about : Go back through sim reports to the beginning, figure out what % of each nation's output has been committed to IPs for factories, award bonus factories in accordance.
This could conceivably be a good idea - although I'd like to note that it would quite heavily favor larger players (who have invested in IP for factories) rather than the small players who have not.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Oct 22nd 2012, 4:26am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
My suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it shows if we continue the intial logic of WW's creation that it no longer makes sense. But then by re-writing that logic now, the past no longer makes any sense.
I don't quite understand Kirk's logic. If nations have been paying IP towards new factories then that IP has already been spent to acquire a factory. Why award a "bonus" when that capacity has already been paid for from the system already in place? It's like a buy-one-get-one-free offer. How is that in any sense fair since that IP has already been created by the factories and consumed into creating another factory. Yes its growth, but its growth already sustained within the current system. If Belgium can afford to spend a qaurter of its budget on factory production already then does it really need further expansion? What would Belguim do with a BOGOF result, then spend 50% of its resources on more factories?
Also, it ignores IP spent on other solid products like docks and slips.
I think before we go much further we really need to find a justification for increasing capacity. Using the Belgium exmaple given by Kirk, given its small fleet and construction requirements spending on factories makes more sense than building ships it doesn't need or can't support. So why would it want more factories when it has nothing to produce except more IP to feed back into the system? Given we just amended the surplus tonnage rules to increase the unspent amounts of tonnage that can be saved for a rainy day, that would imply a degree of surplus already in the current system. So the question is who really doesn't have a surplus from their construction needs/ IP spends each quarter? I see all this as a mechanism to get more tonnage when in reality most players probably have more than enough with proper budgeting. [China's second-hand spree is another example of this, plenty of tonnage to use up buying old 1910-1920 era floating scrap every quarter without exception.]
If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
I think before we go much further we really need to find a justification for increasing capacity. Using the Belgium exmaple given by Kirk, given its small fleet and construction requirements spending on factories makes more sense than building ships it doesn't need or can't support. So why would it want more factories when it has nothing to produce except more IP to feed back into the system? Given we just amended the surplus tonnage rules to increase the unspent amounts of tonnage that can be saved for a rainy day, that would imply a degree of surplus already in the current system. So the question is who really doesn't have a surplus from their construction needs/ IP spends each quarter? I see all this as a mechanism to get more tonnage when in reality most players probably have more than enough with proper budgeting. [China's second-hand spree is another example of this, plenty of tonnage to use up buying old 1910-1920 era floating scrap every quarter without exception.]
If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH