Huge inflation

[scherbchen]

you guys got me thinking, never a good sign to begin with -.-

i see one flaw in that "the earth is one contained market and hence no new wealth can be created", sorry if i paraphrased that weirdly i think i still got the gist of it. there is one thing lacking in that reasoning and it's the reason why people today are "wealthier" than in 100AD: humans, specifically their knack for exploration and discovery. one guy comes along and has the brilliant idea that elecricity can be produced, next guy invents a phone, one comes up with an idea to make cheap cars (any colour you like, as long... well you get it). the materials to produce these have always been there in their raw form, yet items (read: wealth as we see it) were created by the x-factor humans.

those pesky buggers are also responsible for the fact that there are so many of them, some stupid ideas about crop-rotation, fertilization, cross-breeding etc. and they are the only ones to whom the concept of wealth means anything, the only ones who consume. more humans, more demand, more production, more wealth. that gold somebody digs up has no real value, it gains value as soon as somebody says "ooh... shiny... gimme!" but it's entirely arbitrary.

also -and now you will likely yell at me if you haven't started yet- the earth is not a contained system. that shiny bowl rotating around earth in civ vanilla? constant input of energy. take that away and you have a contained system. well, not for very long.

sorry for barging in like that

 

[Flash1]

I haven't gotten as far as corps yet. Once you go with a free market, Do you still need a treaty of some sort with the other civ who might want to spread their corp to you or vice versa?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Yes, open borders.

 

[mrt144]

i suppose the best way to protect yourself from foreign corps is to cancel all open borders agreements

 

[homan1983]

Yea but then you lose the whole point of free market and may as well just go mercantilism... LOL at least that way you get like a free specialist in all your cities.

 

[largedarryl]

The best way to use corps, but protect yourself from foreign corps is Mercantalism. Only negates the effect of foreign corps.

 

[mrt144]

Yea but then you lose the whole point of free market and may as well just go mercantilism... LOL at least that way you get like a free specialist in all your cities.

exactly my point

 

[Caldazar]

To me it's all backwards and evidently a lot of people feel that it's either an exploit or counterproductive. Corporations really ought to benefit HQ AND cities with a franchise mutually, with a distinct difference in output of course.

Corporations should never be seen as a weapon to cripple other civilizations, but as a mean to compete more effectively against them.


Here are a few points on how to make the whole thing less backwards:

* MAINTENANCE - I can see why one would want maintenance, mainly to prevent people from spamming their corps all over. However, it definitly needs to be managable at least for partially developed cities with courthouses.

* RESOURCES - Corporations really need to promote resource gathering, which would mean a whole new depth to civilization and its diplomacy. I really don't care for having to pay extra maintenance because I've been busy trading for extra resources for example. To emphaze this would lead to an important decision whether or not to spread your business to a civ which have many of the resources in abundance, making them less entusiastic about trading them away. On one hand HQ would produce more profit on the other hand the branches might not be as productive since you couldn't convince that civ to trade those resources with you.

* GROWTH - As the system works now you have to invest more money to grow your business, just as it should be. In contrast with how religion works, I feel that corporation should only be allowed to grow if you make a conscious decision to do so. In other words, no one but the founder ought to be able to build Executives.


In my opinion, positive effects are better than negative effects. You probably all remember, pollution in Civ3. They made the whole thing so much better by removing that heartache!

Conclusion, think positive!

 

[polypheus]

One change I think that would do wonder is to allow a Civ the option of whether to "patronize" or use the foreign Civ creating a branch in your city. The foreign Civ is expanding into your territory to make money. That is fine but I should have the option whether to use the services of that branch or not. If yes, then I voluntarily agree to pay for said services, if not then the branch is left idle. Alternatively they can allow one to be able to forcibly disband corp branches.

It makes no sense that a foreign Civ can expand a corp branch that you don't want or need but be forced to pay for it. In RL, corp expand to foreign lands because there is demand and need for those services otherwise the overseas branches die due to lack of demand! I have not seen modern corps force foreigners to buy/use their services that they don't need or want!

 

[CIVFITCH]

Can you reduce inflation with the xml?
or corp. maint.?

 

[dabub]

To me it's all backwards and evidently a lot of people feel that it's either an exploit or counterproductive. Corporations really ought to benefit HQ AND cities with a franchise mutually, with a distinct difference in output of course.

Corporations should never be seen as a weapon to cripple other civilizations, but as a mean to compete more effectively against them.


Here are a few points on how to make the whole thing less backwards:

* MAINTENANCE - I can see why one would want maintenance, mainly to prevent people from spamming their corps all over. However, it definitly needs to be managable at least for partially developed cities with courthouses.

* RESOURCES - Corporations really need to promote resource gathering, which would mean a whole new depth to civilization and its diplomacy. I really don't care for having to pay extra maintenance because I've been busy trading for extra resources for example. To emphaze this would lead to an important decision whether or not to spread your business to a civ which have many of the resources in abundance, making them less entusiastic about trading them away. On one hand HQ would produce more profit on the other hand the branches might not be as productive since you couldn't convince that civ to trade those resources with you.

* GROWTH - As the system works now you have to invest more money to grow your business, just as it should be. In contrast with how religion works, I feel that corporation should only be allowed to grow if you make a conscious decision to do so. In other words, no one but the founder ought to be able to build Executives.


In my opinion, positive effects are better than negative effects. You probably all remember, pollution in Civ3. They made the whole thing so much better by removing that heartache!

Conclusion, think positive!

I agree completely. I think the way corporations are implemented right now need some tweaking. How I envision it should be is as follows.

1. Have a fixed maintenance cost in addition to a scaling cost that increases per resource consumed by the corp in that city. The effect of this will be to make the cost to benefit ratio better as more resources are available for the corp to consume. This will promote trading for more resources to feed your corps. In addition, you would want to think twice about founding and establishing corps that that you have very few resources to feed but might be willing to pay for if it provides a crucial resource.

2. The money generated at the HQ should scale with the number of resources consumed as well. It should start out being a net loss if the city with the corp only has few of the resources for the corp but as the city acquires more, the increase in money should outpace the maintenance at a certain # of resources consumed. This again will promote trying to acquire more resources to feed domestic corps.

3. In addition, establishing foreign branches should cost substantially more then domestic ones, forcing players to make choices on which foreign city/civs to expand their corp to that will generate enough profit to make it worthwhile to pay the upfront fee. The opponnent civ will of course have higher maintenance fee for having more resources but will also gain more benefit as per #1. Expanding to a city/civ without a large # of resources will not be as worthwhile for the owner of the corp in making money but will also give a worse maintenance cost/benefit ratio for the receiving civ.

What do you guys think?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I agree with point 1. I think HQ should actually give a little less; that way maintenance could be reduced a little without overpowering the system, allowing foreign corps to acutally be worthwhile to use if you have the resources.

 

[dabub]

Well I agree that the actual values will need to be tweaked and balanced. I'm all for a general reduction in maintenance and hq benefit cost but I would just like to see the benefit from the hq scale rather then a fixed rate. The reason is with a fixed rate per corp, the maintenance cost will begin exceed the benefit as more resources are acquired which seems counterintuitive to me. Corps doing more business, consuming more resources, producing more product should cost more maintenance but should also create more profit for the corp hq.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I had an interesting thought about corporations and the "Laffer curve." Maybe too complex for good balance, but thrown out for conversation.

It would be interesting if you could adjust the "corporate tax rate." Make it lower, and you get less income from the HQ, but each city gives a better cost/benefit ratio. Increase the taxes, and you get more from the HQ, but each city gives less benefit and more cost per resource.

This way you could choose to have your corps. provide more benefit in cities, or try to suck money from your rivals. But if you put the taxes too high, other civs might just do you one better and switch to SP!

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I had an interesting thought about corporations and the "Laffer curve." Maybe too complex for good balance, but thrown out for conversation.

It would be interesting if you could adjust the "corporate tax rate." Make it lower, and you get less income from the HQ, but each city gives a better cost/benefit ratio. Increase the taxes, and you get more from the HQ, but each city gives less benefit and more cost per resource.

This way you could choose to have your corps. provide more benefit in cities, or try to suck money from your rivals. But if you put the taxes too high, other civs might just do you one better and switch to SP!

I like that idea.

But I also think Corporations and Inflation are both fine as they are now.

We've had this game barely a week, and I think it's a little presumptuous of us to say everything is broken before really digging into and understanding how it all plays together.

On that note, I wrote this thread:

Corporate Maintenance Explained

 

[Shylock]

You might want to take Economics 101. The amount of times money changes hands grows the economy as a whole and increases the taxes governments earn. This is why goverments, both national and local, frequently give subsidies to corporations to set up shop in their area. The jobs and sales created and the corresponding taxes more than makes up for the subsidies and loans they give.

This has the potential of creating an artificial bubble. And plus it makes them complacent and less responsive to market forces because the government is giving a sweet bonus.

And tax revenue isn't "earned", it is stolen. EB Games earn revenue when I bought C4BTS, they didn't send me a form to fill out one day and threaten my life if I don't pay up to a bunch of strangers.

 

[homan1983]

I like that idea.

But I also think Corporations and Inflation are both fine as they are now.

No they're not and your post is flawed in so many ways that only you yourself should spend time on realizing why.

Learn to play the game please and stop complaining that flaws are game design.

 

[jkp1187]

No they're not and your post is flawed in so many ways that only you yourself should spend time on realizing why.

Learn to play the game please and stop complaining that flaws are game design.

WEll, that's not fair, Homan...I mean, we don't let your obvious personality flaws get in the way of attempting to understand your posts when you're trying to make a point.

Seriously -- please calm down. You're bringing some interesting points to the discussions on corporations, but there's nothing gained by being a jerk....

 

[Bushface]

This thread contains a lot of discussion of economic theories, and even more discussion of what Corporations ought to do in BtS.
What I want to know is what Corporations currently do in BtS, and how best to use them.

 

[homan1983]

WEll, that's not fair, Homan...I mean, we don't let your obvious personality flaws get in the way of attempting to understand your posts when you're trying to make a point.

Seriously -- please calm down. You're bringing some interesting points to the discussions on corporations, but there's nothing gained by being a jerk....

But when i make a decent post explaining who there is a problem atm with corporations, his response seems to be "learn to play, your not using corporations right"... Im so sick of people instantly assuming that its my fault when I try to make an argument about some problem with the game (believe it or not civ4 isnt perfect)