Sorry, but i liked the economy from before the patch.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 11 2005

U.S. economies in the game tank far too easily and are hell to keep going now.

Every single US economy (in the NW US campaign )tanked right after declaring war.

I have to turn off entire industries and live off of the accumlated stock to get a procash flow economy for my region.

But you cant do that forever,when the stock runs out, you have to turn those industries back on and than its back to the cellar for your economy.

If this was a MMO, Id be calling for a rollback

ozmono2005 · Post by **ozmono2005** » Oct 12 2005

well I hope that war causes more shortages but hey I cannot see why patch 3 would do this

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 12 2005

Restarted and played the scenario again( campiagn, first step NW US).

5 regions are in the negative in under 1 year with no war.Thats almost 1/2 the regions in the scenario.

I quarrenty the extra defcon costs of a war would put all the other regions in the negative also.

lordrune · Post by **lordrune** » Oct 16 2005

I'm playing the Australia scenario - as N New Zealand. It was *very* hard to start, as the game seemed to be throwing away half my income constructing some road somewhere. But once I got through that, I managed to get the economy growing - and stable.
Playing a few years of 'hands-off' later, GDP/C has grown to about 22,000 with good population growth and lower inflation/unemployment growing slightly.
The AI seems to be going a bit crazy, only three of the other five are in war but two of those have had *excessive* GDP growth - over $40,000/c - even while DAR lies in the doldrums. All five AI economies are bankrupt with DAR struggling between about 23-27, although they appear to be still 'functioning' while their cash debt goes ever higher. Their governments kept losing elections, predictably enough.
I think the new economy in patch 3 is better than patch 2, but the AI needs to handle different situations better - balancing the budget needs to be a higher priority.

skm · Post by **skm** » Oct 17 2005

Before Update 3 I used high domestic markup and low taxes. Communism allows domestic markups higher than 250%, and with taxes 40% people never complained about high prices. This allowed me to build nice army even in not so rich regions like Belarus in Ukraine scenario.

But update 3 changed it - now high markups affect DAR and there are complaints about prices even with taxes set to 35%. So for me economy was much easier before update.

The_Blind_One · Post by **The_Blind_One** » Oct 18 2005

skm wrote:Before Update 3 I used high domestic markup and low taxes. Communism allows domestic markups higher than 250%, and with taxes 40% people never complained about high prices. This allowed me to build nice army even in not so rich regions like Belarus in Ukraine scenario.

But update 3 changed it - now high markups affect DAR and there are complaints about prices even with taxes set to 35%. So for me economy was much easier before update.

True to that, also I noticed it's excrutiatingly hard to raise ur gdp/c while in communisme

, oh well

CptBritish · Post by **CptBritish** » Oct 18 2005

Thats cus really people in Communism aren't supposed to earn anything...

Everything is "Supposed" to be everyones...

skm · Post by **skm** » Oct 18 2005

People from all-the-time-capitalistic countries often confuse communism with socialism.

For example, communism was never built in USSR (it was only claimed as a distant goal). USSR always was socialistic.

So, yes, CptBritish, in communism there's no private property, but, I suppose, the game's "communism" is actually a socialism, like it was in USSR.

The_Blind_One · Post by **The_Blind_One** » Oct 19 2005

CptBritish wrote:Thats cus really people in Communism aren't supposed to earn anything...

Everything is "Supposed" to be everyones...

But that's a retarded arguement aswell.

Let's take the basics of an economy. (this is how SR2010 is sorta build on, I hope and else it's just spoofy economics wich they created :S, I hope they used some of keynes methods and harrod-domar and yada yada yada u know

)

National Production = National Income

Then if a communist state produces the exact same amount of goods as a capitalist state...then why the hell does a communist state have a lower gdp/c? it does not make sense.

1 consumer good is still one consumer good, in a capitalist or communist system, it's still the same, and thus should count as the same.

Hell an even better system for the communist state system in the game currently should be.

National Production = National Demand.

So if u produce 100.000 units of consumer goods, u should sell 100.000 goods, even if ur population doesn't like it, it shouldn't matter.

The only thing wich sets apart communist states and capitalist states is that capitalists are slightly more efficient, but that could be offset by the communists ability to engage in mass projects and the ability to allocate resources where it deems neccecary.

In a true communist state the state shouldn't have to worry about WHAT it produces, it should just care what it WANTS to produce, if the wants of the state or to fullfill population happiness, than so be it, maybe not, maybe it's preparing for a big war, but it doesn't have to.

This is all done in a communist state (as used by sr2010 definition) not a true communist state as not one has ever existed.