More realistic incomes for countries

Okay, I just posted this in the India topic, but I feel like it deserves its own consideration.

Compared to reality, some countries just aren't realistic income-wise. I understand that giving the United States, for instance, an income relative to its real $12-14 trillion GDP would be overkill compared to other countries in the region, but in reality that IS the case. Also, Germany's income in-game is much lower than it is compared to India, which has less than half of Germany's GDP in reality. Again, I understand that Germany would then be a huge power in the region that no single country could take, but this is still realistic. It's not the 1940s but no single country took out Germany. I just thought I'd put this out there.

Long story short, I feel that incomes of certain countries should reflect reality.

I believe the creators of the game contemplated this and, for the sake of playability, decided to balance things out a bit. If the incomes were in direct variation with the actual GDP's of countries, Germany alone would have a higher GDP that all of Africa. This makes the game simply unplayable.

Wr1tt3n by Otokonoko, 30.03.2011 at 20:21

I believe the creators of the game contemplated this and, for the sake of playability, decided to balance things out a bit. If the incomes were in direct variation with the actual GDP's of countries, Germany alone would have a higher GDP that all of Africa. This makes the game simply unplayable.

agreed.

I think it should be some sort of a mix between the two.

Wr1tt3n by Otokonoko, 30.03.2011 at 20:21

I believe the creators of the game contemplated this and, for the sake of playability, decided to balance things out a bit. If the incomes were in direct variation with the actual GDP's of countries, Germany alone would have a higher GDP that all of Africa. This makes the game simply unplayable.

Totally agreed.

Qu0t3:

I think it should be some sort of a mix between the two.

That's the way it is already. Otherwise a lot more people would start playing in Africa instead of rushing to pick european countries.

Ive thought hard about this one and ran alot of formulas through my head like Gold per city=GDP/aw gold total/citys ecetera but in the end it acured to me the issue is not really GDP its that there is no form of resorce in the game other then gold.

i propsed ways to add resorces to the existing system to help give reson to hold a week country and you can find them in other posts about this subject.

Unfortunatly GDP being the only determiation for income will no matter how hard you try make a ballanced game.
Adding things like dimonds in africa to sell for gold though would ballance it out. Though i dont know Y you would by dimonds durring war time? Maybe lazer infentry or some space aged tank.

Luxembourg would have a 52.3 billion GDP.

That would be interesting though.

EDIT:Nevermind, thought Lux made less money.

Well, one of the things to realise is that the game is supposed to take place in a sort of post-apocalyptic setting, so I very much doubt that every country's GDP is going to be equivalent to what it is now. In fact, it makes a lot of sense for the richest countries to be scaled down, since a collapse in the global economy would impact them the most - take a look at the Great Depression: the US and Europe were devastated because markets and industry were unravelling, while the poorer and more agrarian Soviet Union suffered much less. Likewise, in the game poorer countries with little industry and trade will suffer less than countries like Germany and Japan whose entire economy is based on exports.

Either way, I think it's set up pretty well, especially with the balance of rich countries vs. those with large production. For example, Switzerland has 1 production but makes more money than the Ukraine with 15 production. Likewise, Turkey has one of the largest production capacities in Europe but a limited income and can't survive without rapidly expanding to richer countries. It balances the starting countries out, and means that under different circumstances, players will have to change their priorities on who to invade instead of everyone going for the same thing. There may be a few tiny balance issues here and there, but the system is a great one overall.

One thing to realise is that this is CITIES and not COUNTRY income.

Deal with it.

Wr1tt3n by BASED Ironail, 03.04.2011 at 05:43

One thing to realise is that this is CITIES and not COUNTRY income.

Deal with it.

Well it's not actually based on the city's income but the country's income in proportion to the population of the city.

Ok, fair enough. Though it still means that the total income of India will be higher than that of Germany on account of having many more cities to represent its RL GDP