Fwurg

[Brend]

Chriz and I have found something that seems to be a bit of a disappointment: Union-wide projects to reduce costs in one or more facets of the Union are illogical to start.

Because of the return on investment estimates from On technology design which puts any project firmly in the '52 ' area, while investments by the Union (as per the newly introduced budgetting system) are in exactly at the 25 mark. This leads us to the conclusion that only projects that create new options are to be investigated.

Any project that is about taking advantage of the economy of scale (such as a cost reduction of the bozzy spine, or improvements to the Bozzy Spine junctions, or improvements to the Union fleets) is to be ignored in favour of investing that into the generic 'investment by Union' option and using the returns as a direct reduction-of-costs.

I'd much rather see the contingency budget used on cool and interesting projects that impact the game world one way or the other. Right now, it feels a bit like this: "I'd like to improve facet X or Y, but the only sane choice is just investing instead of doing this cool project". (I know that not all projects need to have a statistical effect on the game world, but those projects tend to be proposed more often as they offer measurable benefits.)

To remedy this, I propose we drop the whole 'investment option' from the ministry budgetting proposal, or we reduce the impact to a ROI of 50 . I am aware that this would screw up the current budget as things like the bozzy spine maintenance become untenable with the current Union income... But to me that is of less importance than having the Union be better at investing than at doing cool projects (oh, and we can just rule it 'fixed' in a matter of minutes :P).

What do you people think?

(Note for fun: a completely inane plan would be to just invest all that contingency money into the Union investment trick. That would net the Union 1200 per at the end of each electory period (with a ROI of just 25 this is actually very favourable and a good way to lower taxes...))

[Elmer]

I think by making the ROI 50 there will be an actual choice of invest now to get profit later, or make some benefits now. Though in a way I think offering a way for the Union to earn their own money is a bit strange. We already have a way of 'lowering taxes', it is called 'return to Union members', that way the members can invest in more economy and by earning more money they have to pay a lower percentage tax while the Union earns the same amount of .

What I try to say is: on second thought I don't like that the Union can invest in projects to earn more tax this easily, and the budgets should either be used, or returned to the Union members.

[Mercury]

I agree. This is an error. ROI should be 50 not 25 turns for great balance.

[Chriz]

Even with a ROI of 50 it is still better than a project that costs around 50 due to the fact that you can claim the rewards directly and don't have to wait for the project to complete before you can gain the benefits... If the ROI is 50 a large Union wide project should have a ROI of at most 40 to be even worth considering.

[Brend]

I propose we do away with the investment all together. The fact that the Union can save money is already a benefit, and having the Union generate its own income does not really induce a 'we invest in our members to get more income' feeling.

[Elmer]

It does the contrary. Instead of investing in members so they can grow, we can invest in this black box that magically increases our income, while the logical way of the Union to grow is by their members to grow.

[Mercury]

I would be in favour of making the investment option private, with the union loaning money to member worlds in return for a payment in perpetuity. However, I also have to consider that this poses some serious risks of abuse and the amounts are imho too high. So I don't think it'll be possible to balance...

[Fedor]

I think that they money could just be invested in union scale projects, like bozzy spine extensions, and that this would be the most fun and balanced way of handling it. This way there is a choice as to what project should be done and each can be unique and individually balanced. The invest into the union option seems like too much of a black box to dump all the money in.

The loans seem like a cool idea to me, but I agree they would be hard to balance.

[Brend]

@Fedor: We had loans. We deliberately removed them because they weren't cool because it cut it a cool option for PCs to help other PCs out. Such things don't need to be in the rules, it is perfectly possible to handle this IC.

@Mercury: I think we are talking past each other. I know that Elmer's proposal was not to have a direct 'invest in member' option.


My proposal was to just drop the whole 'direct investment' option. IMHO the option to reduce taxes is already an 'investment' of sorts; more money for the members means more growth potential. Together with the fact that the Union can somehow safe money in funds, which is already an edge it has over other entities (such as all members both PC and NPC), this already gives the Union the option of 'investing' in members and saving up for large projects.

The only thing not covered by that is the upkeep of such projects. Though the problem with this is that if the Union can really do such projects better, and can somehow generate upkeep, that this kind-of invalidates the existence of our own economies. I think the Union should be this overarching organisation that we join because we can then have nice benefits such as a collectively maintained bozzy spine and a set of defence fleets. Not because we can just sink more money into it at a better rate then we ourselves can get return on investments.


So, again, I propose to just drop the direct investment option. Becuase, if we remove the 'direct investment' option, projects like 'reduce bozzy spine upkeep' are basically already investments. We invest X now to safe Y later on -> this sounds suspiciously like an investment, except that there is an upperbound to the amount of money that can be safed. So if the ROI on such projects is 50 , we can do away with the direct investment, and still have the option of freeing up Union money by engaging in the right projects.

This also engages the Union members more in the project, as there is a distinct advantage: the project is tangible, might require large amounts of products and special goods, and can readily be assisted by PC and NPC worlds with the right expertise. Whereas the generic 'direct investment' option does not allow any of this.

[Gerben]

I agree with Brend on this one, direct investment should be removed as an option. More times with the Union, present a higher level of commitment and offers options for indepth roleplay with effects on a Union wide scale.

[Brend]

See Union Budget, version 2.

[Brend]

I think we need to put the ministry budget rules on the wiki?

[Elmer]

I think so yes. I think turn 100 is a good time to re-asses the growth of the NPC's.

[Brend]

We put the rules for Union budget management on the wiki (we took the turn 80 notes as a base)!

Someone might want to check them, and maybe fix them where necessary.

[Mercury]

The budget guidelines look excellent to me. [ Stamp ]