Country Resources Used

Last I played, Country Resources Used were between 36% to 40% of a private corporations' income. Now it seems to be 19% for fully upgraded corporations.

I searched the documentation and game news for information on this, but none was found. Could someone please confirm the above?

At first thought, this makes countries with 0% tax and fully private corporations a much less attractive option than in the past. I'm indifferent to play-styles, but it must be noted that pursuing the "low tax, private corps" required cooperation among players to work. In this aspect it should be promoted by the game by offering a non-insignificant advantage to the player to pursue it.

Seems like the best thing to do now would be to lower taxes to around 20%, and hope that the lower taxes are higher welfare index is enough to pursued CEOs to come, without underperforming on the all state corp alternative.

Can I hear your t

I've never been a fan of CEOs, as someone who remembers a time when they didn't exist. I never embraced them beyond the fun of taking pot shots at their corps with missiles. I just don't see how two players can get more from one corp than a single player gets from one corp. Seems to violate some rule of finance. But it has always given great pleasure to some.

But having said that the situation for CEOs is worse than ever, as evidenced by the lack of CEOs (~20 not counting GMs, well on KB anyway).

I think one problem is the unbalanced corps. CEOs generally pay higher salaries. This is because they compete for employees and because it's supposed to make corps profitable.

But, higher salaries now are a losing proposition. Increasing them, increases welfare, which increases the production numbers of the corp. This is how it works, and to a point should increase profit. However, these days the cost of corporat

The key difference is that private corporations can be upgraded to 225.

The narrow question for a President would be:

Is 19% of the income + taxes from a private corporation more than the profit of a state corp?

The narrow question for a CEO would be:

Will my corp generate higher profits here or in a C3?

If they both answer yes, perfect.


There are other technical considerations, like the housewives, disabled, game levels, cashflow volatility, etc. needed to formulate the full question.

In terms of management, running an "open economy" lets others keep your country near full-employment, as CEOs are always on the look for tax havens; they also become invested in the stability and success of your country; salary levels become aligned if you are building a military country; etc.


My main concern is in building an environment that

To your point on cooperation. I think CEOs can help here.

Those most likely to benefit from a CEO is newbies and free players. And these are the players we need, because time has proven the older players are reticent to socialize. So if your wanting to foster cooperation this is a good way. So, from your perspective, Laguna, it's probably worthwhile. The issues will get fixed, or a skilled player will workaround.

I've thought about but can't quite commit the GCs just yet.

Laguna,

Compared to past years, corporations are much larger and their profitability is much higher than before.
Turnover too is 2 to 5 times what it used to be, the are many more workers in each corporation.

The reason is that countries now have much higher population numbers and the number of corporations had to increase and with it the complexity of managing hundreds of them.

Also, there were complaints about profitability in general and especially in enterprises.
we have gradually (during many years), increased the profitability of corporations.
some can make 3B profits each game month while in the past their turnover was less than 2B per game month and profitability around 300M.

The payment percentage for resources to the countries declined gradually.
with the growth of the corporations and their turnover, the amounts were increasing.

By reducing the percentage, we improved the profi

Thanks for giving some context, Andy. Yes, I agree with all of that. I've been looking into several countries, enterprises and corporations and it checks out.

I took note of the much higher turnover, and that's why I checked the rate of the country resources used fee, and noticed it was approaching 19% instead of 40% as in the past.

This made me note that nobody these days is making an effort to promote CEOs into building corps in their countries. This makes me think this strategy isn't as competitive as it was before. Hence I asked for other players input on this, even if to little avail (thanks, hymy).

To return to my main concern here: while this is not my preference, I want to encourage this play-style again. We must admit it made the game more lively and it was a conduit for relationships to develop among players. And these flourished because they were a win-win for both the President and th

Game doc update?

do you mean that the problem is that there are corporations that are not documented in details yet?

Oh no, that's a separate issue. I just wanted to calculate if a President's and CEO's interests were aligned.

I would love to hear your conclusion and see the numbers.
we are, as you know, open for corrections if the numbers show the way.
Many many improvements are the result of players comments.

I am again, inviting criticism that comes in a constructive way with
the aim of improving Simcountry.

I am definitely interested in a quantitative analysis of CEO/president synergy. I don't think it's been done.

I've never been sure how to tackle it.

My suspicion so far is that it can be highly lucrative to run a country with all private corps. But I'm not sure, however, because I really need to model all the corps to sense how this plays out in practice. But I placed that endeavour on hold because it was too time consuming, and I still need to crack the progression on Robotics and Factory Maintenance.


Anyway, the problem needs to framed as such:

1. CEOs will focus on building the most profitable corps for them. So first I need to figure out what those are.

2. Then I need to figure out what are the most profitable corps a President can build.

My educated guess is that it's going to be natural resources for both. But let's assume those go to the President, and after that, he opens the country to Enterprises.

3. Afterwards, it's a matter of comparing the most profitable corps for CEOs, calculate the country resources used (CRU&

The most profitable corps are a mining, and the level 4 - 5 High Tech sector. Production plant recently joined the high profit ranks. Just skimming my corp list. Others that are not awful: Chocolate, Interceptors, DMB, Books and newspapers, Shows, Nuke defense batts and missiles, medical materials, Boats (sometimes). That should give you a place to start.

I already cracked the connection between salary level and corp production volume. So if you need that at any point just holler. I have a sheet that can calculate the rough profit of any corp, that utilizes that bit reverse engineering. But much like your problem it's very time consuming, and I've basically just been building the above mentioned corps. I use the sheet if I have time just to try and optimize my corps. But generally I always find that 220 quality and the lowest reasonable salary are all that can be done there.

My recollection is that the robotics and factory

We never made that analysis in this way.
I am interested in the results.

I dont have much to speak to in regards to the numbers and raw data, but I will share my opinion on gameplay as someone who has played with both enterprises and countries on multiple planets for many years.

To me, it just feels like duplicating the gameplay of a president, while ripping out the country management aspects of it. The core functionalities of a CEO in this game are building corps, maintaining those corps so they're profitable, and adjusting your portfolio of corps as the world economy changes. If you chose to, you can participate in the stock market, stockpile resources, and take a much more hands on approach to managing your corps. You more or less decide what level of micromanaging you want to do.


All of those tasks, (and more) are also required of presidents to do. In fact, one could say the president has a tougher job since there are many more things to manage that can create many more costs to worry ab

I understand what you mean, Nathan, and it is on my mind. In truth I trust most that have dedicated some time to playing the CEO game just see it as a cash cow and a weapon depot. And that's understandable.

In a broader way, people need to see a reason to log-in everyday. A reason to spend some time, put in some effort and see results. That is on my mind.


By the way, the reason I don't give a greater insight into my data or results can be summarized by this video: https://youtube.com/shorts/0OnBERx0Bzw?si=ntEgusBF7aquer2j

Well there's plenty of meta to this game, for those will to dig around.