No negative cash balance allowed

Currently, it it possible to build enough units that the maintenance cost exceeds income. The game result is to give a negative cash balance that continues to become more negative as turns continue. This could be seen as borrowing money on international markets (at 0% interest). If the situation changes, eventually the negative balance is worked off and the player again has a positive balance and can purchase units.

I suggest there be some maximum negative value (perhaps 3X gross turn income) beyond which the player is no longer able to borrow money (have a larger negative balance). Instead, the game should disband the players units until the maintenance cost of the units is below the income of the player. This can be viewed as troops deserting due to lack of pay / supplies / support.

There are various tweaks to this general idea.

The amount by a player is allowed to go negative may be based on chosen strategy. The reflects some strategies having better discipline over the troops (Iron Fist comes to mind).

Allowable maximum negative cash balance could also be based on world income that the player is not at war with. This would reflect the world borrowing markets. This would possibly motivate players to occupy neutral nations if only to deny their lending potential to the enemy.

The selection process of which units are disbanded / desert can also be tweaked. It can be based on unit purchase value or maintenance value. It can be based on distance from Capital. Each of these approaches has good and bad features. Elimination by unit cost or maintenance cost can lead to awkward holes being created in lines or units being left in the middle of the ocean by the desertion of the transport units. Elimination by distance from the Capital can make it difficult to complete the attack on that distant target that will fix all the cash flow problems.


These fairly simple ideas should put more economics into the game, forcing early expansion to be less risky and more attentive to getting and keeping income to support the military.

In all the games I played I got a negative balance in only one or two of them. This is not an Issue at all.
I suggest you pick a strategy that fits your starting country and expand on the money contrys to avoid negative
balance.

I've never gotten a negative balance. I've had negative income before, but that was always gone after 2-3 turns, long before my money went negative.

Yeah squirrels im not sure this will effect much at any competitive level, youre already screwed if you have no money coming in. not a bad idea, just not sure how worth it is for whatever itd be like to code.

Написано от VRIL, 03.08.2012 at 11:06

In all the games I played I got a negative balance in only one or two of them. This is not an Issue at all.
I suggest you pick a strategy that fits your starting country and expand on the money contrys to avoid negative
balance.

I would opine that you are not building fast enough / pushing your expansion as much as possible, if you have only gone negative cash twice.

Overbuilding is a reasonable tactic in the opening turns as you need units to rapidly expand. Since rapid expansion is what drives increased income and movement units (Air transports, etc) are expensive, it is quite reasonable to be negative cash flow and cash balance for a turn or two in the first five to eight weeks.

Overbuilding is also a reasonable response to a mid game situation where a player exits the game. Again, rapid expansion into the newly vacant territories is critical.

Finally overbuilding is a reasonable approach to the end game. If I need to send a massive wave of tanks towards the enemy capital, it is entirely reasonable to build more than I can supply and send them to battle. If they succeed, I have won and don't care about negative cash balance If they fail, their destruction restores my cash flow and I may have time to recover from the disaster.


I guess I see opportunities for using negative cash balance as a way to put more units on the board than I have resources to support. I expect it would be obvious how this can be an advantage.

Squirrels, are you talking about having a negative cash balance, or negative income?
Because everyone has said that they've had negative income, but not negative cash balance.

Negative is necessary, you have to "pay your deubt".
There should be and option to sell-destroy units.

Написано от Gking19, 05.08.2012 at 13:37

Squirrels, are you talking about having a negative cash balance, or negative income?
Because everyone has said that they've had negative income, but not negative cash balance.

Negative cash flow is obviously what leads to negative cash balance.

Negative cash flow is perfectly fine and a reasonable part of the game.

Negative cash balance is a problem. Essentially it allows unlimited deficit spending by a player. A player can overbuild forces beyond the ability to maintain and then go infinitely negative on cash balance maintaining them in the field. This is IMHO, a problem.

My suggestion is to establish some upper limit to what a player can have as a negative cash balance. Beyond that units would be eliminated until maintenance costs are equal to cash flow so there is no more increase in debt (negative cash balance).

I hate to be pedantic (JK I LOVE IT) but there already is an 'upper limit to what a player can have as a negative cash balance' and that number is 0. We'd have the same problem is the number was -1, -1000 or -1000000 because a player will always hit and be constrained by that limit.

The only people who go into negative cash are bad players and late joiners (not now though as the late join is only turn 5)

so this is not needed.

I'm confused, Squirrel, do you have another account? Just saying, because apparently you have played 6 games, and have made 40 forum posts.

Squirrel, no one goes negative cash unless they suck bad. Everyone has gone negative income though at least once.

Написано от El Cock, 05.08.2012 at 19:48

I'm confused, Squirrel, do you have another account? Just saying, because apparently you have played 6 games, and have made 40 forum posts.

Nope. This would be my only account and yes, six games. 100+ turns and most of a month of being around.

Did not realize there was an expected correlation between game time and number of posts. Let me know what the right ratio is and I will attempt to maintain that.

I tend to study a game as a prelude to playing it a lot. No point in putting in massive amounts of man hours just to relearn lessons that others have already posted.

Написано от I_like_squirrels, 06.08.2012 at 00:16

Написано от El Cock, 05.08.2012 at 19:48

I'm confused, Squirrel, do you have another account? Just saying, because apparently you have played 6 games, and have made 40 forum posts.

Nope. This would be my only account and yes, six games. 100+ turns and most of a month of being around.

Did not realize there was an expected correlation between game time and number of posts. Let me know what the right ratio is and I will attempt to maintain that.

I tend to study a game as a prelude to playing it a lot. No point in putting in massive amounts of man hours just to relearn lessons that others have already posted.

All of your words are incredibly odd, and have me at a loss.

Написано от El Cock, 06.08.2012 at 18:32

Написано от I_like_squirrels, 06.08.2012 at 00:16

Написано от El Cock, 05.08.2012 at 19:48

I'm confused, Squirrel, do you have another account? Just saying, because apparently you have played 6 games, and have made 40 forum posts.

Nope. This would be my only account and yes, six games. 100+ turns and most of a month of being around.

Did not realize there was an expected correlation between game time and number of posts. Let me know what the right ratio is and I will attempt to maintain that.

I tend to study a game as a prelude to playing it a lot. No point in putting in massive amounts of man hours just to relearn lessons that others have already posted.

All of your words are incredibly odd, and have me at a loss.

I still don't get the idea of this thread. Hardly anyone goes negative unless they really suck, so this is a useless idea.