Talk:CCRP IV

Discussion for resource finalization.

Full Economy (README)
Our CCRPII economy system is too complicated. Period. It has been the cause of multiple people leaving, is a massive barrier to entry for new countries, and is just a pain to keep up with.

Below is my proposed resource list for CCRPIV. You may notice that it is significantly smaller than previously, as I condensed most materials into categories.

I don't enjoy making sure that I have tin instead of lead, coal instead of natural gas, or iron instead of aluminum. This should make the game a lot more interesting and a lot less time consuming for Admins and players.

I agree there are too many resources and we have to calculate upkeep, population growth on so many resources. At first it is fun, but after months and months of doing it every five days it gets overwhelming. Perhaps if we only had a few materials and lengthened the year (to 7 days for a week or 8 to match up with the 400 day year in IV.) That could greatly help. Having this many resources is so complicated, in a computer game it is fine, but when we manually have to do it so often... maybe if we just set up a calculator on our projects with a little cloud so we can easily have it automatically go off every year and pay our upkeep, and we can imput changes in upkeep easily, that alone could be a great solution, stacked on the other stuff it would be great. - Roitwell
 * By far, by my quick count there is 28 different resources to deal with, and having to change that much a year and find them individually to create things is tedious and difficult. Changing the year length will help, but no one wants to do quite this much math just for a game, even a very enjoyable one. A cloud calculator isn't a bad idea though, I may look into creating a template project for that. I definitely think we'll make CCRP IV greater than its predecessors with just a few changes. --Fictia (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Core Resources: Credits (generic name instead of nocks) Food (obvious; stays pretty much the same from CCRPII though Pop upkeep is higher | can be turned into ethanol / biofuel) Minerals (building materials primarily, can be converted into metals) Metals (used for most advanced stuff) Fuel (includes biofuel | fuels are used to fuel stuff that needs fueling) Wood (can be made into fuel [biofuel], or building materials) | Forests can also be used for hunting

Special Resources (More Specific; Though not more important than core resources): Helium / Hydrogen Radioactives Water (for a few things, since the continent is Pangaea-like not all with have access). Countless others that I am too lazy to add right now

Locational Resources (affect an area around them): Resorts (can be used for industry or tourism; industry multiplies production of buildings in area, tourism gets you a BUNCH of money) Major Rivers/Lakes (a source of hydroelectric power and perhaps tourism) - Add More -

Resources
You can see the rough list in the actual page, please propose a new list here.

- Spy1 Titanium, Scandium, Terbium, Platinum, Lithium These are the resources that I would really like to add; are there any others? - Fictia I'm fine with those, I'd personally like to add more of the renewable energy sources on that list and charcoal (so wood won't be useless next iteration). Charcoal is already added. Anything under the "Flushing out resources" category is guaranteed to exist. - Spy1
 * OK, good.

Also, I'm thinking we should add a form of Fascism under a different name (for Scratch Team purposes, of course). What name should we use for it? - Fictia

I would suggest some google translate form of "servitude". (I like latin, but that is what I always use) - Spy1

Maybe national syndicalism? That was its original name. AnimatorsParadise (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want something slightly more different, here are some: Nationalism-Syndicalism, Syndicalism-Nationalism, Syndicalism-Nationalist, Nationalist Syndicalism, etc. AnimatorsParadise (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Not a bad idea, I'll use one of those for now. --Long Live the GUE! (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Upkeep
We just can't have upkeep... PU is the only one paying for it in CCRPII, and that is because Spy1 is managing it for them.

I propose that each technology has a "cost of maintenance", and that cost would be a certain value in nocks. You would have to pay it each year or the technology would fall into disrepair (you can fix it for half of its original cost), and 3 years after that if you don't pay then it is destroyed.

You also have to have a source of each resource that would have been needed (or rights to it) in order to maintain them (think of it as a government buying from a private economy)

This would make the RP easier for new players, and would mean that those that follow the rules aren't at a disadvantage. - OPSA Does Not Exist (talk)


 * The State of Fictia does pay upkeep and actually keep track (I just secured PCs on everything I needed so don't need to make trades for now), but it's almost too difficult to do it for the entire GUE and most really don't seem to do so. I like the idea of a maintenance cost in nocks (I'd give nocks a purpose anyway), but I don't think we should entirely scrap the upkeep system because trade would become unnecessary (except to build things, but then the problem is that superstate would have no motivation to trade). The system is a good idea though, and would be more fair to all. --Long Live the GUE! (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you pay upkeep for UBI? That is honestly the most annoying part of my upkeep, as I have to calculate which percentage of the population would technically qualify. (the people under a certain income per year receive money to put them to that income)
 * Back on topic for CCRPIV; I didn't really go into enough detail about the new proposed system. My plan is that you can still pay upkeep as usual, but there is a 'private economy' that you can instead access. This economy allows you to spend somewhere between 1.5 - 2.5 times the value of nocks in that resource instead. A step further is the 'black market', which you can use to get your hands on VERY valuable resources in unlimited quantity, but at a cost that skyrockets based on the amount that you want. (i.e. | 1 rifle costs 4 times what it normally would, but 100,000 would cost 20 - 30 times their value)
 * - OPSA Does Not Exist (talk)
 * I don't pay UBI upkeep (I just figure giving out crop/fish rations is enough), but I don't think literally anyone else goes that far with upkeep. Calculating minimum salaries per person isn't anything anyone probably wants to do, lol. Anyway, fleshing that out makes much more sense (especially that you can choose resources/nocks to pay with) and the black market idea is nice. Altogether, I think that (plus not requiring things like UBI, just general wages) would make upkeep far easier to handle. --Long Live the GUE! (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I honestly agree, Universia pays upkeep, but keeping track of union upkeep is so difficult with so many resources. Especially every 5 days with so much to do irl. Less resources would be best, maybe just compound all metals into metal, all food into food, all chemicals into Chemical Compound. And then we wouldn't have to worry about it so much. And we should make the year 7 days long.


 * Should the metal and fuel resources be produced from minerals, or be a separate thing on the map entirely? - OPSA Does Not Exist (talk)

Food Cost + other questions
Food Cost: Currently the expected cost of food for the new iteration of CCRP is 1 ton per person per year, since the average American eats 1 ton of food a year. However I'd argue that this should be changed a bit to 1 per 2 people per year. I got to this number using this info that shows what the average person eats in grams per year, using the oldest year they provide, 1961, and changing the grams into tons it shows that the average person in 1961 ate around 0.5 tons of food in a year. If you want to add another feature to CCRP IV though you could implement some sort of national development index for a country, and the more developed they are the more perks they get (like faster tech research and things along those lines) but also the more food the average person in the country consumes. (If you go to the info you can clearly see that more developed countries of the era have a higher average consumption of food per year.)

Also what RP year would CCRP IV start?

--Trianglepanbrain2 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we'll take that into consideration. I think a national development index is actually a really good idea in a few cases, since tweaking food consumed per person would be more accurate and give both upsides and downsides to becoming a powerful country. Also, the starting year is unknown, but was likely going to be a little earlier than the CCRP II late-1800s start date. Now that years last 7 days, that might change though. --Fictia (talk|contribs) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I do like the national development index a lot! As for the start date, we have quite the dilemma. The tech tree is currently set for 1800 - 2100, so I would like to make the RP last that long. (roughly 300 weeks, which isn't ideal) My true plan was to have technology advance at a '10x' rate, which adds more versatility to the RP. It also further enhances the background lore of the CCRPIV Ancients, which is quite central to the whole of CCRPIV. --Spy1

Should we have sub-admins for comment monitoring purposes? I've noticed in CCPRII we've had people committing war crimes or making other unacceptable actions, and if everyone knows there's a team of people looking out for things like that, they're less likely to do it. This also makes life easier for true admins, so if there's anything that needs to be decanonised, there are people who are in charge of finding those and drawing admins' attention to them. Constable-Angua 23:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot! The only potential problem is getting volunteers for the job. -Spy1

I could volunteer. AnimatorsParadise (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be OK with doing that, although given my current sporadic usage patterns I couldn't do it consistently. Constable-Angua 01:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Will you be able to change your government?
I was wondering if you will be able to change your government. I was thinking of starting out as a Benevolent Dictatorship, then changing to another form. AnimatorsParadise (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can change your government, they'll be a cap of 1 change every 4-5 years but that's the only restriction. --Fictia (talk|contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, great. I'll make my country project now. AnimatorsParadise (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Benevolent dictatorships
Libya was (kind of) a benevolent dictatorship for 42 years, so why can they only last 5 years in the RP? --Zelfen (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Balance (Benevolent Dictatorships have no major default downsides so they should only be able to last a few years) --Fictia (talk|contribs) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I know I keep responding to stuff on this page late, but: Reading this it sounds fair enough, although I'm somewhat annoyed by such a rule since it crushes some of my hopes for my own country. IRL nobody would try to overthrow a benevolent dictator, and said dictator is still a dictator and thus can hang onto power for a long time, so maybe to make this realistic we should add another rule saying benevolent dictators have to be over 70 years old. Constable-Angua 07:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The 70 years old (or thereabouts) rule seems fine to me; so long as it is watched. If a ruler lives to become 200 years old there is something fishy going on (and I am not talking about riverianism). - TheSpy


 * I'd agree to the 70-years rule, and I know it seems rediculous but think about how OP having a beloved dictator running a dictatorship would be, cons would be impossible without a limit. That's the only reason we're doing this. --Fictia (talk|contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Land Value tax
Could we have the ability to replace income tax with land value tax? Land value tax is a form of taxation where the government taxes the value of the land, and the economic ideology that comes with it (Georgism) was generally in favor of replacing all taxes (but primarily income tax) with a land value tax. This could be useful for large or highly urbanized countries. A con to it could be that it can only be established under certain government types like Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Benevolent Dictatorship, just generally ideologies that aren't extreme. If you want to make it a technology (or make an economic tech tree with pros and cons to each economic decision, which I could make) it should probably be unlockable around the late 1800s. --Trianglepanbrain2 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, we don't want to make things too complicated but it might be a good idea as an alternative for some countries. --Fictia (talk|contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)