Thats a nice strategy putting it on the market thx! That would help explain the problem with the dropping networht after switch. I guess I wouldn't want to hold cash either because cash can't be put on market, so is it better to spend all the money to buy stuff before switching? Switch, and then use food to buy cheap troops in private market.

Don't you lose net worth when you change?

But it says you are HG not RG

I meant the OP.

But I guess you must be Dark holocaust? But that isn't a republican casher though.

Which game are you talking about anyway? Most of the countries in all three servers are around $20 million net worth at the top. Not a lot of days they can do 7 million jump back to back.

Or you can not join GDI, tear him down, and others tear you down. Because its a dog eat dog world out there.

35% is the default so no need to 'set'

Not if they join GDI.

Its also just one country. It can only mess with so many non-GDI countries per set. So it is a random draw.

People can probably still go without GDI and might escape being messed with simply based on odds. But GDI is free anyway if you use bonus points.

really? 70% for the first turn?

he must be a true libertarian

Do you leave it default or do you change it to something higher or lower? And for what strategy?

A delete country button might be useful. Not the original one in the main menu from the game, but you can make one for dropping all of your land.

Is this a front end for this site?

Why would someone want a front end UI for the web game?

If youre making a mobile UI that might be useful to some. But otherwise I don't see why anyone else would use it on their PC.

Its what mr ford said, its mostly perception over reality half the time with these things. Whether its 'recession' talk or 'oil glut'. You say it enough and it becomes self fulfilling prophecy and some people even begin to believe it.

Just people trying to stir the pot up so they create volatility to trade from.

For oil: The fact of the matter is, if price really followed a supply demand curve, then the change in price would have been gradual, not drop precipitously over a matter of months. We didn't just get a surge in supply and oil glut last year over a span of a month. What really happened was some OPEC members didn't wanna play nice. Threatened to flood the market with supply. And that jump started a trend downwards for oil that became nasty and fed on itself. All of a sudden people go from talking about peak oil to 'oil glut'. Quite literally overnight. Now "oil glut" is the new pet phrase among analysts. What a bunch of buffoons.

He can't AB someone that was part of GDI. So he can't screw over all GDI customers?

Hence the sales tactic?

There is the el nino this year that might change our expectations of weather patterns. I think they call the el nino this year Bruce Lee.

Why are farmers so popular then? Anecdotally, I think more people are farmers than cashers?

The point is, do you turn on the heater during the winter as you turn on the AC during the summer?

Exactly.

There is a comfort range. Each person will have a different set of temperature ranges. But deep freeze with wind chill temperatures are outside of most people's norms of acceptable temperature range, as is piss hot and humid weather.

The broader market only dropped a bit off all time highs.

Two sectors utterly and totally destroyed already, having their own '08 style breakdown and crisis, are Oil and Gold stocks. Some of these stocks are hitting decade lows.

People who own these gold and oil stocks must be feeling like people felt in '08, though most people now who don't own gold/oil stocks don't feel the kind of pain right now, something that they themselves felt in '08.

But everyone else wouldn't really feel any pain right now. 10-20% off the all time highs? Whatever. Some of those gold/oil stocks have fallen 80%+ and more and hitting levels not seen in the past decade through 2 stock market breakdowns.

If someone was Monarchy. One country focused on cashing (half enterprise half residential and buys bushel at $34). Another country only on farms. Both have the same amount of land and same amount of turns. Which country will come out on top in terms of $ (farmer cashing in bushels @$34 at the end)?

Basically does casher or farmer produce more income? Or are they balanced in terms of NW generation?

Ok. Minus a couple orders of magnitude. Say $10M a turn, so tops out at $10B cash storage. $10B is easy to reach in a round for longer games.

Its just a percentage. So it compounds.

But you only need to analyze it on a per turn basis. Assuming someone has no decay bonus, the decay is 0.1% above 2G. For a big country, say specializing in cashing, you can make net $10B per turn easily.

So you need around $10 trillion dollars reserve to lose $10B per turn due to decay.

Granted, at that point with $10T, turns don't lead to any gain in stored cash. And prior to reaching $10T, you have diminishing returns due to decay. Effectively making very little $ per turn. So the analysis is a bit more involved than this because decay bonus affects accumulated cash over the long term on one hand, yet on the other someone spending bonus on turns instead get to have more turns to cash more.

The decay bonus will clearly benefit a really really long game where you can amass a huge amount of reserves. But games are not even that long, even for Primary or FFA.

It seems someone will have to run a proper simulation here to figure out which scenario is better for the server in question, either all bonus on turns or all bonus on building decay bonus. Other factors also diminish earnings over time, such as increase in military stock overtime if you have industrial complexes.

So definitely a proper simulation is in order due to multiple variables running simultaneously and the different server conditions. Ultimately there are different cost curves and at different points in time, will have different leaders for each strategy depending on the length of the game.

But anecdotally it seems decay bonus is totally not worth it as it stands. It almost seems like its better to use bonus for turns than to reduce decay as it stands. Your diminished earnings are likely insignificant and outweighed by simply having more turns to cash. Right now, it seems the decay is too ineffective and the cost to buy it is way too much. The pay off isn't there at all.

The above example is for cash. So storing food might be better because food is more condensed due to the price multiplier larger than 1 for cash, and its also still just 2G food before decay kicks in. So another thing they should change is make decay threshold for food lower and make decay threshold higher for cash.

But food loses in terms of the buy/sell spread when it comes time to spend on military at the end of the set to increase net worth. As a casher, your cash generated per turn, in food price terms, might be higher than simply being a farmer to produce the food too given the same amount of acres used. I don't know about that. So maybe that evens it out between casher vs farmer strategy. But a casher that buys food and then later sells it end of set to buy military will have the loss in the spread.




TL & DR: Someone run a simulation of a casher for different servers and compare whether spending all bonus on turns or all bonus on reducing decay is better, and then get back to us. I suspect there is a definable transition point when one strategy is better than the other, after a certain number of turns are used. What is this magic number? Are any of the servers even long enough for all bonus on reducing decay to be a leading strategy?

Yeah but say 1 turn. Someone could be making $10M per turn for a big country. Are you really losing $10M per turn due to decay? If you are not then its wasted efforts. I am just trying it out but I think resource decay bonus is a total ripoff. The effect is too little and it costs way too many bonus points. They should change that.

Just wait till the winter and you'd wish it was that warm.

Grass is always greener on the other side.

Why would they do that? You're basically describing a troll then.

If you're arguing that, you're always at risk of someone messing with or trolling you anyway.

If you have no tanks they use AB on you randomly. Or they just do that randomly anyway to mess with you. Its basically the same thing.

Is the payoff even there for spending on resource decay? Considering the alternative.

One alternative is to use it on extra turns. That's a lot of bonus points and a lot of bonus turns.

Is it possible for you to make more cashing those turns than you do the resource decay bonus saves on the loss? In other words, resource decay bonus doesn't pay off?

Yeah... well it clearly only kicks in if you have any resources above 2G, so unless you can obtain that in the round, this will have absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

I think its a ripoff though. They should lower the cost of the decay or improve its performance. The way it is now, it takes so many bonus points and it barely puts a dent on the decay. I think spending it on turns might be more worthwhile it seems.

No I did it I just happened to ask here. Its the same principle everywhere.

cool tx. Looks like a rip off of points. Not worth the payoff for how much bonus points I'm spending.

I've been spending the last week's bonus points on reducing resource decay. I'm at -12.6% owned.

Is that -12.6% reduction applied to the 0.1% decay? i.e. my decay is now 0.0874% above 2G resources? I figure this is the case but just wanna hear a confirmation as there is no literature about the game.

Where do you find out how the game calculates all of the parameters? i.e. all the formulas.

Why? If someone hits you outside of your self imposed rules that only apply to you, they would look like a first grab. So you can only retal him once also.

And if you're gonna argue about having no gentleman rules then just ROR or 1:k retal policy.

I think you're talking about tricking the tape of the market in a thin market. But there is no bug here in that you cannot sell less than the price you set for sale.

So are you saying that there is a proven bug then? Because this sounds like a bug if it does that.

If someone has a S.O. for a lot of goods but has no money, he buys 1 troop and then he gets free 1 million troops?

This doens't happen though. I've put S.O.s so large that I don't have money to buy. It just buys when my money comes in. I never get free goods or cheap goods. The order stays there until I've got the money.

Technically the game shouldn't allow anyone put an order they can't afford to buy. You can't do that in real life.

Yeah but after you run out of money then that's it. My order stays. Your S.O. can stay too, but I will never sell to you at $0. You can just assume that the spread of bid/ask is virtually zero but still no transactions because you have no money. My order becomes the new asking price and either my entire order gets filled or there must be a lower bidding price in the order book.

Basically if the game was programmed properly where I am not allowed to sell items at a lower price than the price I set, there can't be any con.