W3C - Countries "Nearly" Bankrupt

well the only thing it seems you edited was the part of me saying i was speaking on someones behalf... the rest is the same

Looks like I've just been hit with this new rule. 6500 MIB's have went inactive. My cash was -500B but the country was in war and took lots of damage. I'm guessing there was more than 500B worth of neg construction.

Andy did you's consider countries at war when making this new rule? It could be exploited rather easily I think. Doing 1T worth of damage especially to large countries isn't that hard. If they don't have the cash or cant get online to put money in, like me. The army will deactivate and there country fall.

I'm with Rage. If the players can log in than I can't see what they're whining about.

I assume you set up a notification telling you when cash is low.
At -500B, nothing happens.

If at war, and you have +5T, also nothing happens.

I understand the point but these situations never happen to players without money.

The serious cases I see, are empires with money sitting in other countries and on the account.

It is their choice to play in this way.
It is accepted.
but there are consequences to the lack of cash in a country.

One of the consequences is that you cannot purchase anything.
Another is, that your country makes the best effort to fix it because it gets to an absurd situation.
Take a loan if you wish but you cannot walk around with a negative amount of cash in you wallet and negative number of vegetables in the country stock.

Yes Andy I got the neg cash warning but I didn't send the money because it looked like the country was about to fall. Why would I send the money in that case? I knew I had -500B cash but the negative supplies rule I didn't take into account.

Why would I keep 5T in a country when it's about to fall?

Sry Andy but -1T isn't an absurd situation. Far from it. Sending your army inactive for a 1T combined cash/supplies deficit is harsh.

Especially when you take into account how long it take to reactivate that army. At 10% a month those 6500 MIB's would take about a real week or 2.

Surely there can be an exception for countries in war? War with other players that is. C3's could be used to get around it.

I've no idea why someone would intentionally keep there countries neg cash. What's the benefit?

Typical case.
you complain about it while you could easily transfer 10T to that country.

There is no problem at all.
the complaints all come from players who can easily solve the problem but choose not to.

I could have but that would be handing my enemy A 10T gift. Doesn't make sense.

What benefit is there to having neg cash in the country? I only kept it that way as it was about to fall into enemy hands. All other times I send the money.

With the measures that where already in place I had to send it or else you couldn't run the country. So why the need to tighten the rules?

Well sorry if I'm complaining but having my entire army sent inactive for a meesly 1T deficit is a huge inconvenience.

What is the GM loosing out on with people running neg cash? That's what I don't get.

This sort of thing should be player choice. If I want the system to step in and save me that should be my choice.

If I want to tank my country just for kicks then that should be my choice.

These interventions are unrealistic and extremely inconvenient. That's putting it politely.

I don't need the game to play for me.

What effect does a player tanking there country have on the game. It doesn't effect anyone except the player themselves. Why should the GM care if someone's country is falling apart.

If it's for new players then let us that aren't new choose to opt out.

Even for new players these rules just complicate an already complex game further.

It doesn't make sense at all and that make me suspicious there's some other agenda.

Interventions are unrealistic? Such a poor situation should lead the people to throw you out of office.

You choose to rule the country by force or purchase. Take care of your people.

I'm an evil dictator and my people will do what there told.

This has nothing to do with taken care of your people anyway. You could have a 130 welfare index and still get shafted by this.

You could have the no1 FI and still be effected.

-1T is such a poor situation? How many trillions does the US owe and it can pay for it's army without any trouble.

Anyway. the game reason is found here:

"Purchasing of products stops, part of the army goes into the reserves, units are dismantled and more weapons go to the reserves. "

First part there. Your country no longer purchases things from the market.

and here:

"As consumption continues (the population must continue eating and continue some spending), materials go short but the population does pay the country for the used materials. "

Your products go negative and the population pays the country for the negative amounts.

In short, your country is no longer a consumer of goods from the world market for as long as a short cash level is present. This adds up when it is effecting multiple countries and amplified if large population empires are concerned.

So essentially the game generates temporary needs for your population at the cost of the forced financial measures your country takes.

You might have something with the US example, I admit. The financial standing of the empire should be taken in account with credit conferred to all states.

Loans are better alternative and would not effect the market or see the need for forced measures. These loans would be conferred to the empire leader should the country be dropped or lost. Excessive loans could then be the trigger for forced financial measures.

And that's realistic is it?

Realism isn't even what I'm bothered about. the fact the game stepping in and doing what it likes to my country is my problem. And for a meesly -1T at that.

Yes loans are exactly what would happen in the real world.

Shit the IMF would be throwing money at me with the assets/ potential I have.

I am with you on loans. The market is not effected. The loans remain the responsibility of the empire even if the country is lost.

It is a win for the countries who would otherwise be subject to forced measures. It is a win for econ players who don't see sudden fluctuations in product demand due to the same measures. Those players will also have the opportunity to fulfill the supply need for the additional needed loans.

It is more realistic. yes

Yep. There isn't a country on earth that doesn't have debt. Infact the whole system is built on it. For the game to step in when you have 0 debt but a slight neg cash issue is absurd.

We used to have auto loans when the cash was negative but the GM says it was a problem somehow. And that large empires should have to handle there own finances. Which completely contradicts this new rule.

Loans actually make sense. Corporations do it automatically, unless Private of course. Even then they tap the owner Entity's cash first, then loans. I would not be opposed to automatic loans, if negative cash reaches a trillion or so. Didn't Slaves use to tap the Leader country for cash, like Private Corporations do their owning Entity? Why not allow this?

0 debt empire wide but the game needs to handle my finances. Good 1

I suggest the credit-worthiness of countries be based on the Financial Power (FP) level of the player described here on the Player Power Level suggestion thread:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24236.html?1413825997

For simplicity sake, something like for each Financial Power (FP) level the player has his countries seek 1 trillion of loans before forced financial measures seems appropriate. For example, if your FP level is 4, each of your countries could seek 4 trillion in loans to meet obligations first.

actually finland doesnt have debt i think... or maybe it was norway... one of those 2

I said it now several times so maybe this will be the last.

negative cash is not an option.
you can either transfer money or take loans.
Many did not like automatic loans but we can bring them back in these specific cases and solve it in that way.

Negative materials also means nothing.

In fact, what we should do is bankrupting the country when the asset value goes negative.

The "nearly bankrupt" state is added years ago to try and save these countries. We will now put such condition on the country page.

I would not like to let a country with a population of 200M go bankrupt but if the assets are negative....

We think that the repair function is working fine and once more countries are removed from the brink, we will reactivate and tune bankruptcy conditions and document ahead of time. (it will probably be negative assets).

I understand that a few long time players resist many changes. In this case, they all have a lot of money and they will resolve their shortages one way or another.

All the cases we have seen are rich empires. They can transfer 40T too. They do it for other countries.

Bankruptcy, as it always worked, transfers the negative cash, loans and negative materials to the main country in the empire.

Fixing the problem makes sense as bankruptcies could be cascading across the empire and more countries could go. we had that in the past.

In any case, it is very small scale and these empires probably have enough money to absorb the inherited negative assets.

new players do not and will not have any such
problems as they are helped before such shortages start.

We have different support functions for beginners and small players. They never go that way.