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 Aries Empire is in your debt! Woe to the player that takes action against a player under the empire's protection!

Send a game message to Charlotte with corps you have lowered value on, and their location, and I will post your points here.

Who will have the most points! To the hunt!

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 you from starting/bringing in another corporation in it's place then? Isn't it more profitable to start and IPO corporations than actually run corporations?

So basically what I'm saying, can somebody please elaborate as to why people get upset when somebody has gained more shares than you do?? Is it because you lost 'control' of the corporation? Do we not still receive profit transfers from the corporation? The only downside I can think is that, a CEO may either 1. neglect the corporation, or 2. lower profit transfer payments. Of course if you are not happy with how the corporation[s] are being managed, can you not attempt to communicate with the CEO, because apparently he is active if he is purchasing your shares, and thus should be reeachable???? Has anybody tried politely requesting to CEO to release his shares because you would rather maintain control of those particular corporations . . ???

Is everybody's knee jerk reaction to complain to everybody else?? I question whether these 'victims' have even attempted to reach out to the CEOs in question????

Other than that I am unsure why everybody gets so upset about these things ?? If you wanted to protect your corporation, why did you have an IPO AND sell more than 50pc of the shares????? If you're afraid the corporation may be neglected, why don't you sell all your remaining shares and start up several new corporations with the cash received???

What is it that I am missing here . . .??? Perhaps I am completely incorrect in my perspective, so can somebody please enlighten me as to why some CEOs are so hated, by apparently everybody, for gaining controlling shares of publicly traded corporations??? Did you not know you didn't have to sell ALL the shares your country already had in a country-controlled public corporation (if that's how you started it) before you initiated an IPO, thus preventing other CEOs from gaining more shares than your enterprise??? I bet you appreciated that fast cash by selling those shares and allowing yourself to have less than 51pc, but now you're like WHYYY does somebody else think they can have more shares than me by investing in my successful publicly traded corporation???

If maintaining total control of corporations is important to you, why not just have only state or private companies in the first place??

I have lost some control of a few corporation I have founded, but I fail to see the issue as they're still there and am I not still profiting from both my 24pc share, and that they are located in my countries??????

I am assuming the reason is because presidents, rather than CEOs, want to maintain control of employee salaries to have really high, albeit unprofitable [to the corporation] salaries, so that countries receive higher income tax. That is understandable to me. If that is the issue and high employee salaries is your aim, than again I don't understand why you allowed yourself less than 50pc share of the corporation, or made it public in the first place . . . ???

I really must be missing something here, so again I would be happy if somebody explained what it is that I am missing. From my perspective, more CEOs allows for a more decentralized economy, so that if one disappears your entire economy doesn't. If corporations go bankrupt from neglect. . .than start/restart/bring in new ones yourself???

and just a sidenote:

Wouldn't it make sense to just start corporations, IPO them, and then sell all your shares anyway??? In that case, wouldn't it be a good thing if the company was mismanaged and went bankrupt to free up more sims so that you could rinse and repeat????? Isn't that [unfortunately] the proven American path to wealth these days anyway??? If you go by that strategy (not saying you are) and somebody else wants it after you've made your pile and you're done with it, then . . . so what??

and by the way, I'm not endorsing any particular strategies, such as the subject of this thread (purchasing more shares of other CEO's corporations than the founding CEO had). I am merely asking why is everybody getting upset when they find somebody else invested more in a corporation they had already sold the majority of their shares to . . ? ? ? ? ? To be honest, purchasing shares of other CEO's corporations is rather expensive and so I do not see the gain. It seems to me that it is much more lucrative to start a corporation for 50B in a low tax country and IPO it, than spend several 100s of Bs to gain controlling share, so should you not be pleased that your competition is, from my perspective, wasting their cash ???? I have noticed CEOs that gain controlling shares of other CEOs' publicly traded corporations have enterprises with high debt. That's your competition. What's the problem . .?? I noticed XON, for whatever reason, once bought a controlling share of one of my corporations and moved it to another country. That freed up sims for me to begin and IPO another corporation.

and don't get me wrong, I don't do that myself. I start all my corporations. but I'm not going to cry a river like apparently EVERYBODY ELSE does when somebody bought shares I already sold . . ??? To be hoenst I think I am really missing something here, so for the third time please go ahead and explain what I am misunderstanding. If I had not thought of something and I am ignorant of valid reasons to be upset about the activity in question, than I welcome some further reasoning in regards to that.

To summarize all that I have just said here, this is how I interpret these sort of threads I read here: WHHYYYY DID SOMEBODY BUY MY SHARES I SOLD [ON THE PUBLICLY TRADED EXCHANGE]??

and my immediate reaction: LOL

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 (and thus unrealistically stable) the stock exchanges are in that people seem to expect to never lose control of publicly traded corporations . .?? and to the point they get UPSET when it [inevitably] happens ?

. . REALLY ?? ? ?

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 quadrillion dollars in cash reserves.

I have studied the eco system extensively which I hope is apparent:

Cash Available 237,886.78B SC$

I merely point that out because I think I have at least a basic level of understanding in regards to the eco side of things, but I expect to be discarded as a noob anyway. To be more direct with my question, I will ask again WHY does anybody care if CEOs buy corporations ??

I put it in perhaps more words than necessary I admit, but that was merely my way of attacking this mystery at different angles.

and in regards to my countries outside of war protection, I have nothing valuable outside of war protection that would be worth even a noob's time taking. I actually just took the land to hold it because I found the land to be strategic buffer zones. I've hardly spent much time at all in developing anything outside of my main country. On the subject of war protection, I only even utilize it because I find it affordable at the present, so I figured why not.

and to be completely honest if I lost everything overnight it would hardly bother me too much, as it's just a game after all. I admit I'd be a little bit irritated if it was Aries in particular that attacked me only because my allegiance has always been with Aries. and on that same note, I don't actually know where I'm going with what I'm building. I would of course however be happy to do my best to be as irritating an adversary as possible to any invaders. I would be comparably as effected if John Smith called me a idiot as I would be if somebody took the time to defeat my simulated empire.

and furthermore in regards to the empire I have been building, it is really one that I did not expect to last as long as it has. It is really more of a experiment that developed into what it is now. I will never allow myself to get attached to a mere multitude of sims if you really want to know, but I will do my best to hold out for as long as I possibly can if anything just to see 1. how long I can do that, and 2. to be as irritating an opponent as possible.

Furthermore I add that if you don't share my perspective Aries that's fine with me, if you are drawn into a conflict I will be on your side even if you don't like it, and even if you don't accept my assistance this time around LOL. I would say that about nobody else.

but again I have trailed off, the subject of my question really was why does anybody care if CEOs buy corporations ??

ALL CEOs will always be welcome in any country under my control !!!!!!

Go ahead buy my corporations, I've already IPO'd them. Isn't that the objective of corporations anyway? To get IPO'd ???? If they sink or go away . .. I'll just IPO more and . . . make more money ??? WHY would anybody pay so much to take over successful corporations ANYWAY ? ? ? ?

I was really struggling financially until I IPO'd over a hundred corporations in a short timeframe. Than I had a decent pile of currency to get started with. I have considered moving all my corporations out just to reseed my country with more corporations to do another round of IPOs ?? ? ?

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 as private corps do. would a ccpc pay a hefty tax that would be more then that of a ecpc pay country payment+tax? Or the other way around? thats something i would say really matters here and i have never fully looked into it.

also why i have never complained when people took my corps;

fair game pretty much. if one needs to get desperate just watch the shares once even a fractional of shares are owned by the one who is taking over, close on site. I had to close dozens of them one time since they were feeding off them like maggots, and they had made the corps have very low value and hiring so it was damaging becuase there was alot of them at low hiring. Recent times i have grown a little more lazy, i check now and then but have really slowed down on IPO's due to this reason, because for some its easier to take an easy target then it is to make there own successful corps.

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 profits from presence of public corp, does it not?

Why does it even matter if the corporation may perform a bit less considering that you continue to profit from what shares you still have, and the country still profits from the presence of the public corporation, and considering the time people take in assessing the difference in profit margins, they could have started/IPO'd 10 more corporations ??? or made a sandwich ?? If they took the corporation and ran back to their country with it, does that not free up sims to begin another corporation for IPO ??

I do not know all that I am talking about but I will guess that Aries is irritated because he's maybe a perfectionist in that he seems to have already beaten the game, so he probably can't stand if somebody buys his corps and doesn't run them as effectively as he does ??

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with corporations when I can just buy commodities when they are high in surplus and sell them when they are high in demand. So with that in perspective, I'm not one who is going to get too attached to corporations anyway. I do control over 600 corporations though (yes I know some have several thousands), so maybe that's why I don't feel attached to any particular corporations, other than my space program because that took awhile to set up properly and I admit I'd rather not go through that again, but that's also why they're not public corporations.

In fact I have too many corporations that I need to start moving them out because I have a shortage of soldiers. I have already close approximately 50 corporations recently. If anybody wants to a good deal on corporations just grab them from Byzenti Republic, if you can afford it. I really don't know why I should care because do I not continue to profit from my 24pc share of ownership, no matter where a corporation is relocated ?? So what if it shows up on My Corporations page? A quarter of the profits is good with me.

I suspect the only way I really would be negatively effected is if a CEO lowered profit transfers to zero, but that would also negatively effect that CEO, so it seems illogical that a CEO would drop that much cash as to takeover a public corporation without the intention to receive profit?? with strategies of that sort I would wonder how would a CEO afford to buy corporations in the first place ? ? ? So I am not so concerned about that possibility.

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 the amount of tax paid, as the ccpc does not increasing it so, however does the tax+resource payment of the ecpc triumph or equal the tax of a ccpc or does the ccpc dominate tax triumph? which leaves a question if a ceo over takes a ccpc to ecpc, will take profit or make profit for the country?

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 trade commodities approximately 3-4 times most days. I don't have all the numbers you guys got, but I think this strategy is working for me though. All corporations I start are made for IPO purposes, and so I'm not sure I should care about them anymore after that?? The only corporations I find worth controlling are strategic and space related.

If I am wrong about how I am going about my business, anybody is welcome to break down what it is exactly I am misunderstanding so I can make MORE money ! ! !

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, small things add up over time. And this is to not mention aswell as now the tax is affected by the "country resource" payment, income from enterprise corporation.

Thats what i am saying about ecpc and ccpc, both go to a max of 336.9Q And 250 Qu and Eu sets, while one will pay to country resource and one will not, both having shareholders to pay, which overall effects the tax payment the country requires from the corporation. Which i was saying between the ecpc country resoruce+tax payments vs a large tax payment from a ccpc, it could make a major difference in countrys profits even if they are performing to there best standards. Which to say an ccpc to ecpc in a tax 75% based economy as i said not sure if the ecpc resource+tax will pay out more or equal to ccpc tax payments.

IPOs are pretty much nothing but profitable if done right which you are, but in the reality of why this fourm post exists because of taking over corperations in countrys that a utilizing ccpc and might want to close and change them and are not only forced to deal with problems of a new owner also involved quality, hiring and salaries issues, its possible that the payments made from the ecpc wont be as much as ccpc tax payments, plus the reality is, private corps for ceos usally are not good in 75% tax locations; though this usally happens in countrys with 0% tax that are IPOing corperations, thats were i lost control of my corps. Though i dont doubt a take over and snatch from a 75% tax location since they are likely at a lower value due to taxing, because once you own a ecpc you can move them(or so i was able to).

So in essence of control comes pains for those who it loses it, i know it boiled me pretty bad when i saw my corps taken but i dident lose my cool heh i know it was my obligation to watch those corperations and make sure to stop anyone from doing so, as i have said for whoever a take over might happen to. Its really annoying in the overall as i said profit is effected in this case already, and then just hassle of unwanted ceo presence that block ceo cant even stop, it really is annoying. I dont have problems with people buying shares or using shares for a profitable purpose i simple will say if they go for IPO share takeovers should really consider if they are taking from a player who really cares and might effect their economy, or simply target a player who isent active and not watching their shares.

Why aries and zen are against the player who took there corporations, there countries economy are effected by this, they wouldent say that if he dident effect them, my countrys have been effected by him, not to say it isent fair game, but he is effect players econamys which has them upset. To disclaim aswell i cannot fully speak for their opinions but however i can see from my own view that they are unhappy with it as i was and presented with difficulty as i was.

What funny though is i do have some corps of his in a ceo friendly country of mine, and they are welcome and please even though he took them from me i dont care the countrys economy is simply built around such profits and type of corporations while others are not and if such things happen it can result in damaged profits, i really cannot conceive this thought another way as to the extent to what i have seen, the current takeovers result in a less profitable corporation.

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 constructively instead of going off on a long rant like a crazy person.

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 of your ability you would want as many public corporations as possible. With 25< control of shares for the 250 upgrades and max profitability. Later buy up your own shares in investment funds with your other countries in your empire. CCPC are more more profitable then ECPC simply because you can not tax an ECPC. Any profit sharing you do in that ECPC will go to all of the share holders respective to the percentage of shares owned in that corporation. When you have high tax on an ECPC or CCPC all of the tax goes to the country first. Then the rest goes to the share holders. If you run an enterprise and have an ECPC in a foreign country and you own 24.98% shares for example. The rest are spread in IF funds. Your enterprise will only get up to 24.98% profits at 100% profit share. You lose the other 75.02% to the other share holders. You can not put your own tax on the corporation, that makes no sense. ECPC in my opinion are simply less profitable to the owner then normal private corporations. Which is why I stopped making my enterprise corps public.

The reason some CEOs are hated is simply because they'll take control of active player owned public corporations, and then take away the upgrades that it had lowering its profitability. At the same time said player 9 times out of 10 can not buy the shares back because the ceo has control of the rest of the shares. So the saying "just buy your shares back" doesnt work. That ceo has no interest in selling his shares down to 25<% simply because he will profit less. Making you, the president lose profits because of their control. The worst part about it to me is however. I can not take military action or threats towards that player since they're only an enterprise. There should be more rules in place for FB. FB should not be a world where people can simply set up without worry of defense and gain military assets and take advantage of the FB weapons market. It's simply not fair to the ones who put time and effort in their FB empires. One should not be allowed to own an enterprise on FB without an empire as well, but hey I just complain right? All I'm saying are more rules that in my opinion would benefit/balance the game and attract more players who actually want to learn a thing or two about defense and military strategy to FB. There's more econs then warlords on FB.

I simply can not just sit still without being able to do a thing while watching someone destroy something I worked for by clicking a few buttons and buying up my shares. Now I have to trash the country for being inactive and allowing him to take my corps. Look at his enterprise. He doesn't take care of his corps. He just buys them and trys to keep growing. Large enterprises dont make as much profit as large empires with correct management. I could make much more monthly profit with 2000 corporations spread in 5 countries from an enterprise with 2000 corporations.

I'll stop here. Sorry I actually care to try to make my economy as profitable as possible and try my best to make a strong economic empire. It takes more skill to make a strong empire from a large enterprise. Which is why I'm restarting my countries so I can fix that.

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. There is no fear factor when buying shares.

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 did not intend to imply anything negative towards Aries, but that was merely my mistake in how I phrased my questions.

Isn't it a good thing I'm not a journalist?

I know I should be more respectful with the only player that has been useful to help me get to where I am going, but I'll also say be chill dude, I'm just talking about CEOs trading shares.

and no I don't want to participate in the scavenger hunt so I apologize also for hijacking your thread. but I don't have any issues with the scavenger hunt, I find it's actually find of funny.

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 loaded with cash I'm not sure I would need any cash, from that selloff alone, for who knows how long.

So to make a terrible analogy, it's like your saying somebody is buying cars with 330hp motors and removing the turbocharger on them, and running them only on 300hp. well that's lame, but at least the car can still be sold for a good return can it not ??

but you know you're talking to somebody who's country requires aid from the enterprise. Maybe I look at things backwards than everybody else. My enterprise keeps my country afloat and thus my economy is 'global' rather than local. The only thing my country seems to be good for financially is 'profit from enterprises.' I assume that's only from ECPCs (is it not from private corps, right?). I also assume you still receive that regardless whether the ECPC is producing 330 or 300 Q, right?

On an unrelated note (secondary to the convo here), sometimes I think even having a country [on FB] is nothing more than a drain/liability. I have considered just moving all my weapons to my enterprise and just bringing them out into a country if I ever wanted to strike at somebody. Could I not just use a small country to form mobile units, and stockpile them in an enterprise. . .for free ? Of course I appreciate there are presidents so I can have corporations in low tax countries. but again I'm on FB. Although as I write this, I realize that a country would be profitable on a world where you don't require a standing army. So with that in mind, why does anybody care about their countries' eco on this particular world?

Shouldn't you only care about such activities like Netherlands on any other world but this one??

Further on an unrelated note, when I started here on FB, I expected a lot more drama and constant total war, but I realized with time that it's actually a very stable world, and that I could even purchase invincibility status hahaha what is up with that?? Now I've built up my military to a point where I'm just losing money from even having a country and I'm beginning to question why people even have countries on FB if they are not actively engaged in wars.

Somebody might say well John West WHY did you build up your primary country on FB, only to complain about the costs of maintaining a large military? and I will say because I thought it was the place where borders change everyday (also did not understand the game mechanics at the time), but instead I see it's a place where people are getting upset over CEOs' actions ??? Interesting . . . and no I'm not talking about Aries here, I'm talking about EVERYBODY (but me), be cool Aries man lol. we all know Aries is the master of war so my comments about how bizarrely peaceful FB is of course do not apply to Aries, so putting that into perspective I'm not surprised Aries is here upset with bad CEOs, as he's one of the few who would go to war with one if the CEO had a country.

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 the wasted game cash.

N_E_T_H_E_R_L_A_N_D_S is a good example of that gold coin strategy. It's ranked #1 even though it's terribly unprofitable.

With those various kinds of hostile takeovers, it's nothing personal. It's just business.

It used to be possible to hit CEO corps in sneak attacks or war. Some of us have suggested for years to bring back that feature.

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 horrible producation levels, what that player is doing is not helpful towards countrys and from what i have seen very damaging to some. There needs to be a way to stop ceos from dominate corporations like this, and cut them back when there weeding up everything.

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 private military company headquarters/branch office or whatever.

Not sure if that's the best idea, but I think it'd be interesting. As the GM said, such sort of changes will probably never happen though because it'd require more time to implement than they are willing to put in. but if they did, then you could retaliate against CEOs such as Netherlands in a more direct way! and also I'd say countries should be able to do this as well with their standard military forces, thus reverting the ECPC back to a CCPC.

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.