Wisp

Well, if it's the high middle ages then Byzantium isn't THAT bad off, they didn't actually fall till late 1400s. High middle ages were up to 1300. And hell, Turkey's on the map, or atleast half of it.

Mongols weren't as bad as you make them out to be, unless you resisted them. Plus, no idea if the Mongols are even around in this time period, since I don't know the specific year.

Poland isn't exactly odor free.

Any chance we could move the game like 2 inches east so I can have Turkey or something?

Alright, now that I'm not painfully busy, I'll join. What's a country no one's currently invading?

No, I just know that 7% over 10 years is roughly 100%

Also, no offense to him, but what's the point of having a boat carry another perfectly good boat? And a Destroyer is 3-8b, depending on it's quality. Edel, not sure how 50% would give you any of those numbers, considering the gdp of the planet is like 60 trillion.

Can anyone give me any reasonable answer as to why we should base it on gdp/capita? With Mather's system, GDP would rise by 7% per year. So, in otherwords, his GDP would double in a decade. That is really, really stupid. It also means that the rich get way richer way too fast. Example: America, in one decade with Mather's system, would go from 13 t -25t Japan would go from 5->9.8 And then poorer countries, I'll use myself as an example since I know my gdp off hand, would gain very little, I would get up to 3 trillion. So in one decade, with Mather's system, Trol would have a 15 trillion lead on everyone else. The decade after, he'd have 50 trillion, whereas the next closest would have under 20. Basing it on per capita is stupid and will ruin the game.

Norway's GDP is under 500 billion. How do you plan to finish a 5t project in 5 years? Edel, that first number is 109 trillion. Second number is 24 trillion. You're doing something very wrong. You're budget, if you tax 20% is 200 billion.

And my system's too complicated?

Trol, you don't have 13 trillion to spend. You have, probably, 500 billion. And yeah, I was thinking of that retech, but I wasn't sure how to word it. Mather, yes it does. To find your budget, take how much you take, divide it by 5 (so if it was .3 or 30%, it becomes .06) then multiply that by your gdp. And Income rates per person don't matter per budget.

Stop wining that you have to do 10 more seconds of calculations. GDP per capita is [developmentally delayed]ed. If a family with two working parents pop out a baby, then gdp should (in theory) go down, one of them has to take a ton of time off etc. It's not like the baby suddenly creates a new job that earns him 30k a year. My system is very simple. For gdp: GDP+gdp*growth rate For budget (assuming 20% tax rate. Adjust as necessary) GDP*.04 Pretty damn simple. A lot more simple than: ((GDP+Gdp*growth)/Population)(Population+Population*growth)

And also Edel, in Heg v1/2, budget was 4% ish of your budget, not 20.

Yeah, how's Iraq going? The Army was out after the first year or so. Clearly it only takes a month to do anything in a country. Ok, here's the logic to using GDP vs. GDP/capita. Section one: Logic 1) If 1 million babies are suddenly born, they all aren't going to get 30,000 dollar a year jobs. 2) More population means the wealth is more spread out, meaning lower gdp/capita. This is why smaller countries with lowish populations are often the richest. EX: Norway, Lux, Qatar. 3) A family suddenly having 5 babies (or even one, or two) means that they can't work as much, and that lowers their gdp/capita. Section two: Gameplay: 1) Later on in the game, people can just use any number of researches to speed up population growth, so having a growth rate of 10% isn't unheard of. Increasing GDP by 10% (+the gdp increase rate) in one year wrecks the game. 2) It actually gives the game a more strategic element. You can choose to keep your population under check, and have a lower pool of manpower, and possibly industrial capability, or you can have a more wealthy society that's happier. Mather mentioned that we only counted those able to work into population. No, we didn't. We counted everyone. Edel, stop abusing the rules. Those were only in place to make it so people didn't gank eachother.

Ugh! You mean you decide. The way your saying it is as if you are the boss of all things, its as if I was to say "Right, I am your new leader: anyone who disagree's is kicked from the game". I think we should stick to GDP as its easy to calculate (three function buttons on a calculator) Ok, one: That's pretty much how it worked in Hegemony v1. I've never 'kicked' anyone from the game, and never even mentioned that. I think you're having issues with understanding how I'm saying the system should work. Previously, people calculated it based on gdp per capita. So if they had a 10% population growth, their gdp would grow by a minimum of 10% per year. The way that works better is that it's based on total gdp, so that overpopulating your country only decreases the quality of life. My way is actually simpler, with gdp per capita*population, it would have to be (Pop*growth rate)*(gdp/capita*growth rate) My way is (Gdp*growth rate) It makes the game a lot less [developmentally delayed]ed too, seeing as in the first hegemony everyone just gave themselves huge gdp/capita and population growth rates. With this 'system' you can only sustain 2% growth rate for gdp (by comparison, in the last successful hegemony, people had general around .2% growth rate per year). This also means that you could, in theory, have higher population growth rates, but that would just cause greater poverty.

K, ground rules. Your gdp increases based on itself, not population. So If you have a growth rate for population of 10% per year, and a gdp growth rate of 5% per year, the average gdp per capita will go down. So in otherwords, you don't increase gdp per capita, you increase gdp. Also, we're gonna say that any growth rate above 2% is unsustainable, and even that will lower.

I haven't actually been explained as to what IEG is but I have a hunch its a bit like the IAG system of the last hegemony, if any system is to be used it must be able to be worked out by a player in about thirty seconds otherwise people just won't stand for it, I know I wouldn't. But if it is short and easy for anyone to work out please share it here. As for the research system I don't see any point at all unless you are to use something such as a laser but anything else (for example a tank, exosuit, gun or robot) should be determined by how good the design is not on how long someone spend on it. and for someone with OCD the level system would probably make them sick, I know it would make me sick due to the fact that every time I improved a level I would be compelled to list the upgrades or change the picture to something new. Also, the research system only was needed in the last hegemony as everyone stopped posting the status of their research so I reckon that if they did the mod could work out which laser is more powerful. I've only written out an explanation a good 3 or 4 times now. Go and find it, I've literally posted it in 3 different threads, including your own. The research system is objective, and it also lets the mod or whomever is dealing with it make sure that research doesn't just turn out like this "We discover X in a crazy breakthrough" Who's to judge who has a better design? That's really stupid, no offense. I mean, sometimes it's obvious, but in most cases that's very far from the truth. And everytime you went up a level you would be told what the improvements were, in general. You could draw yourself a new picture whenever you wanted.

No, it's not 20%, it's how much you tax times 20%. So if you tax 20, you get 4% Brazil is mine. Surprise! We start training an army, and project Scatter begins.

Can we just set it up to use the IEG thing? And maybe the research system? the research system is just for the sanity of people determining warfare, and does not take away from any creative elements of the game. That being said, I call Brazil.

Also, to decide the mod, how about this. We see who wants to be mod, and then we vote or make a consensus. Sound good?

One and two were the same, just a continuation on a different thread. Archi was the mod for most of the second half of one. He was the mod for two, and the mod for three.

Learn what a griefer is please.

I don't like the city system already. That map gives me a seizure.

30mb... What the hell? How can a map be 30mb? And that means we have to download that 30mb whenever we look at the home page of the thread. How is it a step backward for the better? Simpler isn't always better. If it was, all combat would be like this: Infantry beat anti tank units, tanks beat infantry, anti tank beats tank. How is this system any easier for the casual player? With my system, all the player needs to do is tell the mod that they start the research. With your system, they have to keep track of it every day or few days, and have practically a spread sheet to keep track of all their research levels. With your system, it's subjective, so if steve thinks his lasers are better than nick's, and vice versa, it's a stalemate. With my system, it's objective, meaning that we have a way to determine whose are better.

It's taking a step backwards it seems. The research system from the last game was the only way to compare research values, see who has better lasers for example, otherwise its just everyone throwing up links to posts where they briefly mentioned a project name which may or may not have been about lasers 100 days before. I don't really think we should have this based on cities. It's gonna mean that for bigger countries they just have like 5 cities spread over a huge area that's impossible to defend.