| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 02:58 am |
Below is an excerpt from the country financial tab "Profit and Loss". From the monthly statement, "General Cost of Government" is described as follows:
"This is the cost of the government facilities and administration. It also includes the cost of local government and the police. The cost of government depends on the size of the economy and the population. Rich countries have more money to spend on government services, peaceful countries that are not burdened by the cost of defence [sic] also have more money for government functions and the cost of government is higher."
I'm trying to understand what is being said in this description.
"The cost of Government depends on the size of the economy of the population" - I'm going to assume the larger the population, the higher the cost; however, how does the size of the economy relate?
"Rich countries have more money to spend on government services" - Seems self-explanatory.
"peaceful countries that are not burdened by the cost of defense" - Makes sense..
This next part is confusing;
"..also have more money for government functions and the cost of government is higher." - ???
It could mean that the country would have more money for government functions MAKING the cost of government higher; or, have more money for government functions WHEN the cost of government is higher.
Now, with these two possibilities in mind, how does one reduce the general cost of government? I see in the cash logs that it is listed as a cost labeled "Social Services"; however, I cannot figure out exactly what this cost represents in terms of resources, products and services used and/or purchased by said government. Police and local government are listed as examples, but I don't know where this expense goes. This leaves the player with the dilemma of uninformed choice.
| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 02:42 pm |
I think social services is the cost of social security.
| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 07:02 pm |
Reads like something that attemps to balances itself but fails miserably... like because a country doesent pay for defense, must pay for more government?? Same concept as penatlizing players for secured mode, instead of incentive that was made called fearless blue.
They have been non active here, thats good thats good, they need to fix the legit crap that is broke and understand with their brains what us as players want and what will be a real incentive for thing such as war, other then penalty like hot coals on feet to keep players hobbling. Same as defending cheaters and defending broken, outdated in need of service features that cant be proved they do more good then harm, though have been proved other wise are not given a clear answer.
I still respect GMs and decisons but they need to really think and understand and fix crap, putting some jeep in a garrison now makes it relativly more exepnsive for war regardless of the type of weapons in the garrison. Just throw some crap in them and now they can all block targets, towns and counties included. What a crock.
| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 10:46 pm |
Your statement about making a country pay more just because of not having a defense pretty much sums up what I was getting to. It does seem ridiculous. Not having a defense is supposed to be cost saving.
The social services is charged to the balance, just listed under a different category separate from general government costs. They both sound similar, just different amounts from each other within the same month...
I have to say, there is an odd obsession with the war game and all of these changes. The GM has made countless changes; Iv'e lost count how many times I heard that the cost of weapons were dropping. Really doesn't make a difference, we're all buying the same products. The war game is just not really fun TBH; and I could care less if it is or not. I just see it as a calamity we all should seek to avoid. But the constant changes, and tweaking to the war rules only takes attention away from other aspects of the game needing attention while only adding more confusion to the already confusing war engine.
| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 11:16 pm |
yup exactly. Thats the reality of the situation, even super not to long ago had a problem with a score penalty in which he could not recieve an award he needed and should have got but a feature inplemented so generically it really is a crutch on a game mode, such as simply putting:
-why use peaceful and have a score penalty regardless of war level, when you can use full game in which YOU MUST level up your war level to continue the game. this is done to promote new players to level up to war levels and play in the war game. yet the game mode it self is penatlized, litterally make incentive for players to use full game and level up war level, but does not promote use of peaceful, let alone the claim that "peacful does not require out of war protection" yet its all based on WAR LEVEL in general, not game type played. Just a sad flawed manipulaion of the mind they believe that since most players HAVE to level up to continue full game, it should always be a supiror option when in fact some can be still risking it all same war level, using peaceful due to other options. not good not good-
Litterally to suddenly increase costs of all countrys because they dont have defense is litterally just a risky and stupid move that is just spiteful to players now and forever. There is such thing as a ECON game mode, please do not ruin one of the only things you guys have actually made some better. That will not inspire people to play the war game, just quit the game till it shuts down.
Hard to put it on right, but its alot of stuff being always imbalance cant even get started really its all speculation really except things like adding garrisons that block target occupation even if cleared, have to destroy the target taking ammo, already enough ammo for the garrison as is.
| Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - 09:16 am |
I'm wondering if this is a factor in why it seems like countries are not running surpluses like they used to.
| Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - 09:48 am |
Anyone else seeing govt costs running high? In comparison between several of my countries, there are huge differences in general government costs, like 4b compared to 40b. The populations between the two are similar as well as indexes. Interestingly, the one with higher employment has the highest government costs. None of it makes any sense...
| Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - 09:53 pm |
Pedant-mode: 'Defence' does not require a 'sic' after it.
In English, the noun usually has a 'c' but the verb has an 's'.
You can see this most clearly with 'advice' and 'advise' which is one of the few pairs where the pronunciation changes.
Simplified English (aka American - joke) uses an 's' for both verb and noun. This spelling is slowly gaining some traction in English (British English).