Yay! Everyone play the Scavenger Hunt!

Well, it's kinda a scavenger hunt. Here is how it is played. There is a CEO on FB called Netherlands (with some silly dashes in there) run by a player named rhou69919. Check your private and enterprise-controlled public corps in your country to see if any of these corps are in your country. If they are, you can score points! Get points by reducing the value of these corps. You can do this in a few ways:

1. Raise your taxes. Yay! Tax the bum!

2. Reduce his workers. A bit trickier but you can do this by overbuilding corps a little and raising your salaries to be higher than his. Deny him workers!

Extra points if you notice a nearby C3 country hosts his corps and you conquer it and similarly take steps to lower corp value!

What can you win! You can win the favor of the mighty Aries Empire. Yay! With a power that the smart ones ask first before taking offensive action on another player, you will be glad that the A

Half of all of my public corporations are now owned by this player. He is destroying my empire on FB as well. I don't think he cares for workers. He's just some random CEO who just wants to gain corporations however he is causing a very big problem in my empire. Anyone who is able to hurt this player has my aid and I will be in your debt as well as Aries.

If I remember right, first it was XON that I heard complaints about, and now it's NETHERLANDS. . . .

I don't really see what the issue is if a CEO acquires more shares than you have allocated yourself in publicly traded corporations? You still benefit from having enterprises in your country, do you not? If the new CEO moved the enterprise, can you not move or seed another back into your country? Although I haven't tried to nationalize any public or private corporations (but I also hadn't got upset with any CEOs yet), if you were really upset about a CEO operating in your country, don't we have the option to nationalize corporations? Not sure if that works with public corporations, because as I said I haven't tried that [yet anyway]. I assume you would probably have to buy most or all the shares back, but can you not just raise taxes if you really wanted to?? If the corporation leaves as a result, what stops y

Don't listen to me though, yaa netherlandz xon bad people buying too many our sharezzwtf !!!!!1!!11!!11!111one11one1oneoneSHIFT

Joking aside, to be honest Aries is right though that if you got a issue [in that you think you've been financially assaulted], you have tools to fight back. Not sure why ANYBODY, Aries included, gets so upset about other CEOs [perhaps overly, according to your perspectives] investing in your PUBLIC corporations ?? I assume presidents feel they've been personally targeted by evil CEOs who are attracted to invest in your successful economies??? I DO understand if you're upset with anybody for any reason, bringing it out here to a forum. I just DON'T understand though why people get upset about these sorts of activities. The stock exchange can be sometimes like Vegas; don't put in what you're not afraid to lose . . .??

It's actually a bit silly to me how inactive (

John, lot of stuff there. Can't say I didn't do anything but skim it but are you saying you have a better understanding of the game or econ than I do? Why don't you stick with the thoughts you have on that you just don't understand and leave it at that?

If you don't want to participate that is fine. You have a number of countries out of war protection and I am aware of at least several players that are looking to play a more aggressive game, particularly on FB. If you would rather these players have my blessing when they look at your countries rather than my potential wrath, that's cool. Enjoy your stay on the war world.

Not at all did I say I have a better understanding of anything than you Aries. I have much respect for the mighty Aries, more than any others here, and so I do not understand why I received such an aggressive response to what is from my perspective merely questions. Is it not obvious that I am still learning things?

I didn't intend to come off as though I were making statements, no I was asking questions. Perhaps I made statements as background to my questions. What's wrong with asking questions? Aries don't you answer people's stupid questions all the time? How many of my stupid questions have you answerd in the past LOL??

I was saying I do not understand why apparently everybody gets upset when CEOs buy corporations.

I think I have developed enough understanding on the eco side to ask questions in regards to eco considering I'm worth approximately three quarters a quadrillion dollars and have a quarter quadri

well ill explain in quick note


really it comes to one to particular, control. Its similer(not quite the same but is similer) same as bidding over someones state corperations, since ones state corperations is setup to ones customization and to profit someone will come and bid over them possbile changing or affecting there set up,the player aries is talking about has taken corps from me before to, and i had figured that owning more then 24% was messing up the quality but of course, just the quality strategy not being utilized well. Other then wanting to control corporations how i want and to be able to rid of them when i want aswell as they might peform worse, or oddly even better(though the worse is assumed, and seen). i would say you got a good point aswell


One thing im not sure of is the difference in profits of ecpc and ccpc in tax payment, if a tax is paid more from ccpc as ecpc pays country resource profits a

I appreciate the real response. I'm just asking questions here, and look forward to any more real answers. As I suspected I think you may have already fully answered my primary question; in that it's all about 'control' is it not?

well I find it's very easy to make successful corporations, as I'm sure you do as well, so if you asked me it seems rather wastefully expensive to buy them though. 50B vs several 100s of Bs ?? If competing enterprises want to waste their money, that's OK with me. I've already made a load from the IPO in the first place, enough to seed several more corporations to be IPO'd in the future.

If a corporation has 24pc ownership, and than somebody invests in say only 10pc, corporation still outputs 330 Q right? Corporation only performs worse if an entity has more than 24.9pc ownership, right? Regardless of how many entities, right? but it's still a public corp, so country still p

I agree with what you have to say, effective use of buying shares isent bad for the game really, building corps esspeically for a ceo is nonsense its litterally insane how much it costs i can build 10 corps and suddenly it costed 1T it is outragous, and then they lose money for awhile until they start making peanuts for profit. I have noticed, why i dont even try to participate in the ceo game really, which i can observe must be alot in the share market. My mistake for looking it as the state corporation development, which i have never seen anything extreme in lose and in time they come around.

In the midst of it all really does come down to corporate control when share takeovers occur, and really can be good or bad based on players actions like i have said. only thing i can say will make this or break completely is the tax payments total of ecpc and ccpc;

an ecpc pays a country resource use as private corps do, which would lower th

well as I said I don't claim to have a better understanding than anybody, so I know everybody already knows these points (which are why I think ECPCs are far more profitable than CCPCs):

1. The "Profit from Enterprises," which is rather quite large in my main country. I don't even know where this cash comes from (besides of course the presence of ECPCs), along with 2. higher Q products.

and in regards to corporations, when I IPO I'm usually selling shares approaching 1 T in market value so I think that more than compensates for investing 50B in a startup company. I know they need help in the beginning and I admit I have not tracked how much I've subsidized these corporations along the way, but this process in general I think has been effectively profitable. Otherwise how did my enterprise perpetuate this into over 500 corporations ??

I could be losing cash and don't know it because I tra

I dont question share stategys honestly, i can see you have good well strategys based on what you have said and what i have observed. Believe it or not you have actually opened doors and ideas in the share market for me. Though i have to say in reality and purpose of this post was ones thoughts to stop take over of corporations because of manily control but the specify leading to malperforming countrys profit, as i actually was wrong and the player aries reffers to is taking more than 24%, effectivly making it a ecpc private corp standard, aswell as bad quality standards which results in less of payment of "country resource" and overall profit which affects the taxs. So if someone like a player like this is takeing corps and doing things like this, profits may be dropping out 200-300m per corp which doesent seem like alot but add that up to a few dozen corps and game months that can be 1Ts of profit in a long continues term of those corps running,

John, I choose not to answer your econ questions here. This is the scavenger hunt thread. Participate or don't. Just don't pretend you know what you are talking about when you don't.

Further, your initial post is not something I would put in the realm of "respectful". You wrote a monologue many times the length of the initial post, filled it with question marks, and used comments like "cry a river" and "REALLY?". In all of that, nothing you wrote supported my post and little that you wrote had anything to do with it. Why don't you go back and count how many question marks you have littered on the thread that I started and tell me again how respectful you are.

If you are truly seeking answers, take your newb questions to the Beginners or the Help forum. There, we can teach you the game basics, like what a truly/full public corp is. Maybe I will visit the thread and choose to answer your questions con

There's a difference in a CEO who simply gains shares of corporations in inactive countries and ai countries to gain control and a CEO who attacks the majority of corporations in an empire. Even worse to lower the salary then keep those corporations in the country that they are in. The Netherlands corporations have all been sitting in my countries at low hiring. He has no interest in moving them out of my country. Most people would say there's no big deal simply build more corps since it only takes a little bit of the work force. However there is a cap to the number of corps one can have in their country and it makes no sense at all for a ceo to keep corporations in countries with 75% tax and no workforce for months after they take control of them. I wouldn't complain if he moved the corporations out of my country after he took control but he doesn't. He just leaves them there for me to see everyday. If you played the econ game at the best

People who know how public corporations work do not sell shares simply to gain monetary assets from them. It's to upgrade the corporation for more profitability. Just to clarify. If I could send my own money in my IF I would. So I could control over 75% of the shares while still having 250 upgrades, but it's not that simple. That would make it too easy for econ empires to grow without competition. No matter what the case may be. To me buying shares beyond my control is an automatic target for me. Sadly enough everyone who does buy my shares is either in secured mode, or is only an enterprise. No matter the size of ones military on FB. You're immune if you're under wl3 or just an enterprise.

In real life, if someone attacked your finances you would legally retaliate. I wouldve attacked XONs empire if it wasn't in war protection. That's what bothers me. The fact I'm unable to retaliate against someone buying my shares. T

Aries my abrasive comments were not at all directed at you, I just so happened to write them on a thread you started in regards to questioning the standard perspective in my own way.

Because I wrote my comments on your thread than I understand why you took my words personally, after rereading my comments I admit I should have rephrased what I had said.

I'm not going to act like I'm a polite person but I apologize if I came off as though I was directing my comments towards you specifically. If what I had wrote looks like it implies it was directed at you than I must have miswrote/misphrased what I had said but that was not my intention.

No I just write my thoughts, and I suspect I think like an a****le. but that's just how I am. and so with that I am not going to act like I didn't say anything abrasive, but I will point out that I admit I had incorrectly chosen words to describe my perspective and di

Sheep and Zen thanks for the very detailed responses to my questions they are much appreciated. so now that I understand better where you're coming from.

WHY would a CEO have the strategy you both mention (buying up all your ECPCs past 24pc and than lowering salaries). It seems expensive and stupid. Wouldn't a CEO eventually bankrupt himself with such a terrible strategy?? and then free up all those shares and the ECPC would eventualy return to your control?? but as I take a look, Netherlands enterprise seems to be doing alright, why is that ?? It seems apparent to me that the strategy of Netherlands is illogical. I don't understand what the incentive is that propels a CEO to do this very activity that is upsetting everybody ? ?

You say it's more profitable to have ECPCs than just start ECPCs. You may be correct, but I'll also mention that if I sold off all my shares in all my ECPCs right now, I would be so load

Some players could have good reasons for hostile takeovers of public corps:

1. Hostile takeovers are profitable, and very realistic, when the market value of a corp is below its asset value.

2. Even when the market value is above the asset value, sometimes a skilled CEO can increase the market value and sell the shares of an acquired corp at a profit.

3. A CEO simply might do a hostile takeover because he enjoys trying to manage a public corp more profitably than its current owner. That would be a good public service for the minority shareholders. But it's true that there's the risk of losing profitability by losing upgrades.

4. Gold coin awards for CEOs give a lot preference to CEOs with a high market value. That can provide an incentive for a CEO to buy overvalued corps that increase the CEO score. The gold coin award can compensate for some of the wasted game cash. Commodities trading could fund the rest of t

Interesting Mr Madoff. So from that perspective it seems likely that Netherlands is chasing coins huh?? or is he, as he has 100T in cash reserves (including loans given)?? He must be doing something right then?

Right and wrong in this sense is just opinion. If someone bid on shares in my corporations and took over, I'd take action against them as well.

However, I usually try to take additional steps to control my own corporations to where something like this wouldn't happen.

country profits from tax and payment from countrys are more from ccpc then ecpc i personally had not know the differences really since i had seen ecpc pays small tax payments, though i have noticed the high tax payments from ccpc are immense i wasent sure if the combination of a small tax and the ecpc resource payment to the country would rival it but based on some observations, that is not the case, and to agree with zen ccpcs are more profitable for a high tax country overall, aswell as easy control for them opposed to enterprise control. Though i would say ecpcs can be good for a 0% country as they pay more in resource payments to the country then private corporations do since they have an more advanced quality and efficiency.

To say again also, that player aries is talking about is actually hostile share buying and setting junk settings for his corperations, from setting them to ecpc private coration standard by overbuying the shares to horrib

Perhaps this is straying away from the primary subject again,

but after reviewing Madoff's link, I think it'd be interesting if CEOs had security/mercenary forces as Jack mentioned, that could garrison private/public corporations and attack and capture other private/public corporations. Such attacks however would be assisted by the host countries' defenses (interceptors/helicopters/counter-attacking units), so you may want to take more into account in regards to the location of your corporations (strength of the countries' defense). If an attack is successful in defeating the security forces garrisoned, all shares owned by the formerly controlling enterprise would be transfered to the enterprise that took the corporation. I also think enterprises should be able to set up some sort of bases/airfields (physically located in countries, not just 'in' an enterprise like spaceports), similar to like a priva

Yeah, take tangent discussions elsewhere. Meanwhile, I may change my strategy. I will look for countries with CEO-friendly policies that host Netherlands corps. I will start by looking at John's countries and pursue "weapons test" policies on such countries.

Hahahah OK man. You are the only one I have given my total allegiance too, but if you want to discard that and be my opponent, fine be that way. I appreciate the heads up that you put it out there.

Now I have allegiance to noone. That makes things simpler. I will do as you do and just put it out there. I will begin a presence on your homeworld Little Upsilon.

You moving to LU is not a threat to me. It is more akin to you being grounded, having detention, or being sent to the penalty box.

I responded to your posts 3 times. The first time, I put out a hint. You didn't get it. The second, I outright called out your behavior. You still didn't get it. I thought you might back down with a mild threat but I guess not. The last time a board threat of mine wasn't taken seriously, I took 5 player countries and crumbled a fed on KB.

You being the renowned master of warfare is of course not favorable to my position. It is not entirely unlike the master who does not know his students.

I responded to your posts multiple times to make it quite clear my comments were not directed at you in particular. You still didn't get it. I thought you might realize that I was talking about CEOs' habits of buying shares, inquiring WHY they do what they do, while also pointing out why I don't understand why everybody gets so upset about that. Rather than attacking [illogical?] perspective, which I repeatedly welcomed, you chose to attack my character. I already apologized for my poor choice of words but my character is still attacked. I will carry on being the madman that I may be.