| DexterK (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 04:35 am 
I had abandoned the idea of expansion in favour of better economic management, but cartographic aesthetics (is there any other reason to choose one land over another?) has made me toy with the idea of a third country. Having recently purchased enough MIBs to get lvl 2 (just waiting for the index to catch up), will the extra military focus disrupt CEO activity in my country and hurt the relationship? I'm especially keen to hear from CEOs in either of my countries.
Dexter.
Nullarbor & The Riverland. |
| The Crafty Cockney (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 02:57 pm
As long as you remember weapons need soldiers/officers, so don't short yourself of LLW or MLM, I dont foresee any problems.  |
| Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 01:01 am
Drop the military pay (government salaries) below the rate CEOs are paying workers. Units will go to the reserve instead of effecting corporations. Also saves some cost. You can also set up a few state corps with salaries even loser than the military so that any worker shortages effect them first.
There are a lot of reasons to choose one land over another. Aesthetics is a very odd reason. |
| DexterK (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:14 pm
Thanks. So as long as I keep the pop coming in, I shouldn't run out of workers, and if I do slip up, my army suffers first and doesn't piss off any of my CEOs.
The country I'm looking at will make a neat cluster around a bay. Ocean views. Grouping them close, I guessed I get a military advantage with all my countries within range of an airforce based in the centre. I may have this wrong. I don't know of any other reason for one land to be different to another. Rainfall, resources, rivers, size? |
