Simple Economy Systems

Scritto da Trumminator, 16.08.2013 at 11:22

Communism: Less Money, more troops

Communism focuses on industrial activities, so their economy is not a problem. Just because they use force doesn't mean their economy is weak. The only reason you use the term "more troops" is because, China is communist nation. As we all know China has population of 1.3 billion+. More population means more troops of course.

Please review the following discussion for further arguments.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7159&topicsearch=&page=1

Managing this addition to all new conquered countries(or territories) just means a lot more of management and you already use that at moving your troops and making more, for Quick Games I don't think this option is needed unless you add more minutes to the time, still quite interesting for Casual Games.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 12:38

USSR - 2nd highest GDP 50's-60's 3rd highest till the downturn

China - 2nd highest GDP currently

Vietnam- May not have a the strongest economy but is growing faster then every country in east asia besides china, and laos (8% growth!).

It's because of big population and if Admin's are planning to implement this I suggest they should change Communism to Socialism.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:04

Scritto da Roncho, 17.08.2013 at 13:03

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 12:38

USSR - 2nd highest GDP 50's-60's 3rd highest till the downturn

China - 2nd highest GDP currently

Vietnam- May not have a the strongest economy but is growing faster then every country in east asia besides china, and laos (8% growth!).

It's because of big population and if Admin's are planning to implement this I suggest they should change Communism to Socialism.

Yes because the population of cuba and laos is just massive right? o.O

Do Cuba or Laos has good economy? Why is Vietnam a shithole(no offence Meester ) instead of a country like South Korea or Taiwan? Why is North Korean economy so bad? It's because of Socialist/Communist government.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:21

Pretty sure north koreas economy is bad because they made a bunch of shit decisions and are mainly focusing all there efforts into a war that there not even fighting xD

Post War North korean economy was actually better then the souths mind you that made a dramatic turn after the korean war and still hasn't recovered after it defaulted in 80's

Taiwan isn't a country it is a province of china

Cuba economy is okay, doesn't make much money but it isn't going down and is growing.

Laos is the same except with much higher growth rates."

Both have agriculture as their main commerce while they are both making a huge shift over to a tourist economy.

Their both making money and growing.. so their economy is good.

Your message is a big BS.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:21

Post War North korean economy was actually better then the souths mind you that made a dramatic turn after the korean war and still hasn't recovered after it defaulted in 80's

This is North Korean government fault.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:21

Taiwan isn't a country it is a province of china

You know it's independent. Don't tell me that BS about it's still China province

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:21

Laos is the same except with much higher growth rates.

I'm pretty sure I can make Laos economy grow with selling the socks my grandma made.

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 13:21

Both have agriculture as their main commerce while they are both making a huge shift over to a tourist economy.

I don't know what people are thinking going to Laos for vacation.

Taiwan is independent. I don't think China has any influence on Taiwan. If USA didn't support Taiwan China would've attacked Taiwan. Why would a country try to take his own province? And isn't 54-76 post war?

The great nation of usa does not recognizes Taiwan China dont have to attack cause is part of china lol

Lol he got burned

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 16:20

Another stupid Terminal message without research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party

PKK, do you know it? Kurdistan is not a state, Taiwan is that's the difference. Turkish Soldiers are defending Turkey, Kurds are attacking them. Kurdish terrorist camps are in Iraq, not in Turkey. So technically Kurds are attacking Turkey. You should apply cold water not me. Your message is stupid.

Scritto da Cpt.Magic, 17.08.2013 at 16:26

Lol he got burned

You too.

Scritto da Roncho, 17.08.2013 at 16:27

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 16:20

Another stupid Terminal message without research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party

PKK, do you know it? Kurdistan is not a state, Taiwan is that's the difference. Turkish Soldiers are defending Turkey, Kurds are attacking them. Kurdish terrorist camps are in Iraq, not in Turkey. So technically Kurds are attacking Turkey. You should apply cold water not me. Your message is stupid.

Scritto da Cpt.Magic, 17.08.2013 at 16:26

Lol he got burned

You too.

Did u read what i said ;^)

The difference is ROC/Taiwan has land, and ROC/Taiwan 'terrorist camps' are in ROC/Taiwan. There is no country called Kurdistan. Their terrorist camps are in Northern Iraq. But I understand why you're not giving up. You have no brain.

Lol'ed at both of you nice guys
anyway i dont get why anarchism should not be in there too.

Terminal & Roncho:


Let's not get feisty pl0x?

So this argument is basically stemming from Communism vs. Socialism. Let's just accept that Communism hasn't been fully reached and never will be. If I'm not mistaken, Karl Marx basically sets it all up as a series of revolutions. The proletariat rising up against the bourgeoisie. Communism, in this sense, can't just be slapped onto atwar. That just is insulting (based on my assumption, that is.).

Socialism however is much more sensible to me. A planned economy, etc.
As for units in the "Communism" section in the OP;

I think in addition to +10 cost, we should decrease the maintenance. I feel 10+ cost is sort of gross for 'communist' manpower. It would be balanced by having the same exact maintenance cost for all units, which is lower than most but not lower than all. I'm not real sure how much maintenance is- I'm just throwing it out there that to really balance this and make it have that "communist" essence you'd need to make all units equal in terms of maintenance.

Scritto da Guest, 18.08.2013 at 00:03

Scritto da Dr Lecter, 17.08.2013 at 23:01

Terminal & Roncho:


Let's not get feisty pl0x?

So this argument is basically stemming from Communism vs. Socialism. Let's just accept that Communism hasn't been fully reached and never will be. If I'm not mistaken, Karl Marx basically sets it all up as a series of revolutions. The proletariat rising up against the bourgeoisie. Communism, in this sense, can't just be slapped onto atwar. That just is insulting (based on my assumption, that is.).

Socialism however is much more sensible to me. A planned economy, etc.
As for units in the "Communism" section in the OP;

I think in addition to +10 cost, we should decrease the maintenance. I feel 10+ cost is sort of gross for 'communist' manpower. It would be balanced by having the same exact maintenance cost for all units, which is lower than most but not lower than all. I'm not real sure how much maintenance is- I'm just throwing it out there that to really balance this and make it have that "communist" essence you'd need to make all units equal in terms of maintenance.

Did you read the argument xaxa xD it wasn't about communism vs socialism.

I am not worthy.

Anyhow, a - maintenance cost is still a good addition to socialism/communism in my opinion. I don't know much about it so someone more versed please lecture me.

We need roncho to stop sleeping and come back to continue this debate!its too funny.please!

Scritto da Guest, 17.08.2013 at 21:39

Scritto da Roncho, 17.08.2013 at 16:56

The difference is ROC/Taiwan has land, and ROC/Taiwan 'terrorist camps' are in ROC/Taiwan. There is no country called Kurdistan. Their terrorist camps are in Northern Iraq. But I understand why you're not giving up. You have no brain.

No ROC doesn't have land they are occupying a part of china, same as the the kurdish terrorists occupied parts of turkey before the PPK withdrew from turkey in april.

They didn't fucking occupy Turkey. They attack Turkish soldiers, shoot cars, bomb targets etc.

Termy, Ronch is right for the first time :p

There is no land as called kurdistan. PKK makes terrorist activities. And they re using guns,bombs etc when they have NO LAND. It s clear that some ppl supports them with monies and guns. Maybe America ?

Anyways no need to discuss more i think. Cause you will never understand what is happening in Turkey. Who cares Turkey ?

Scritto da tesla, 18.08.2013 at 03:00

for the first time

D:

Scritto da Roncho, 18.08.2013 at 03:08

Scritto da tesla, 18.08.2013 at 03:00

for the first time

D:

let's all be glad it wasn't

"you have failed me
for the last time!!! >:D"

lol. Anyway back to topic...

is this actually a plausible implementation? Would there really be a way to relate economics with gameplay in AW?

Scritto da Fruit, 01.04.2013 at 01:12

Anarchy: -
Cities can use reinforcement without capital (cos nobody uses none seriously)
-no country bonus for any country

Capitalism:
Gives 10% extra income to cities and countries
- units cost +3 per turn (since capitalism does not mean lower quality, but it does mean higher cost due to contracting companies)

Communism:
Increased militia given on occupation of city (unlimited reinf sounds op), +5 Crit for Militia (to represent propagandas huehue)
-Increased population causalities when defending (best not to mess with reinf)

Fascism:
Capital starts with 10 reinf (even small countries, keeping in mind it increases reinf of others on start) and units cost 10% less after first turn
-15% Lower population growth rate in all cities and higher population causalities while attacking(u kno y)

Monarchy:
Gives you an extra unit: King. King cannot move(what king leads their army into battle these days?) and adds +1 def to all units in capital, +5% income from newly occupied countries(heavy taxation ok) and stacks with general.
-Cannot recruit from newly occupied countries for one turn after first turn(so it does not ruin first turn expansion), if king dies half of your money is taken away. Can be recruited for free in capital once it is reclaimed (since king can only really die if cap is taken) and will lose 50% of money each time he dies.

Dictatorship
Replaces General with Dictator(receives general upgrades, though). Dictator gives +1 attack +1 defense to stack and can be recruited in home country if dead at high cost
-Dictator is high upkeep which should scale with income (swiss bank account), 5% lower population growth in all cities

Democracy
Nah

Theocracy
Seeing as we have some IRL and LB is not manly enough, +10 Crit(to represent faith and their disregard for death)
-90% population growth, +10 cost to infantry and tanks

This is better.

Taiwan is still not a country

Scritto da Guest, 18.08.2013 at 08:53

Scritto da Cpt.Magic, 18.08.2013 at 08:51

Taiwan is still not a country

Scritto da Roncho, 18.08.2013 at 03:08

Entertaining discussion on Taiwan guys
I would say you both have good points. Still, I think it would be accurate to say that Taiwan's status, although controversial, is generally thought of as an independent country (even if it is not recognized by some for political reasons).
Take a look at this: Is Taiwan a country?

Scritto da Guest, 19.08.2013 at 21:46

Scritto da Grimm, 19.08.2013 at 19:11

Entertaining discussion on Taiwan guys
I would say you both have good points. Still, I think it would be accurate to say that Taiwan's status, although controversial, is generally thought of as an independent country (even if it is not recognized by some for political reasons).
Take a look at this: Is Taiwan a country?

Even that says Taiwan fails two criteria for being a country. Also the criteria says Yes it does for 7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory. But yet Taiwan claims all of china. This means taiwan does not have control over the majority if its claimed land. You can also say China controls taiwan in certain ways through its policies enforcing that taiwan cannot declare independence and such.y no means do the majority of people in taiwan feel that taiwan is not just taiwan. Polls show that people are split between wanting control of mainland china, wanting to join china, wanting to maintain status quo, and wanting a new state.

Still Taiwan has sovereignty over the state of Taiwan. For the rest, you might argue that it has major territorial disputes with China. Again, I realize it is controversial. Certainly, it is not obvious that it is or isn't a state.
If current day France were to lay claim to all the territory it had taken during the Napoleonic era, would it cease to qualify as a state? As to your other point, I think that the policies of many states are influenced by more powerful countries. Complete sovereignty, in the strictest sense, probably is very rare or nonexistent as few countries are self-sufficient and decisions are influenced by global economic and political concerns.