Khome,
The game already allows us to use isolated and protectionist Economics. By using State and National Corps, we can create relatively closed and self sustaining national economies.
The key difference is that such economies are less productive, uncompetitive, and inefficient. This is represented by State and National Corps being less profitable, and having tighter upgrade limits.
To have players build closed national economies, while also getting the CEO productivity bonus for open competitive economies, would be an exploit.
Frankly, the fact that Players get bonuses for having Corps "privately" owned and controlled Corps, while it's actually the same president owning and controlling those Corps, is already extremely generous by the GMs. Typically CEO's are limited to 6 corps per country. They have already allowed players to go way over that to 20 in countries they control. Expanding that even more, would just make
Well thanks for the jab at my opinion; I don't see it as a "joke". We could be a little more friendly about this, and didn't mean for it to be an argument.
There are other ways of seeing it, such as government subsidized corps, privately run, doing actual work within their own borders. Sounds protectionist, but to each their own I suppose.
Either way, I was mainly addressing the different economic types and their abstract implications; just a food for thought kind of thing.
A
abbotnettles
All worlds
that could be an interesting mechanic for players to invest in CEO's that are not part of their account, for a higher interest than from loans. Make a direct investment in the CEO Enterprise.
M
Mr Anthony King
All worlds
Thank you guys now I think I know what to do.