Hi all,

I've been a stout Commie Indy for the better part of 13 years and I've always dreamed of making the top 10 one day in total NW. It is my belief that we've had little love over the years in making my dream come true, but I believe I have the answer to help fix that.

We should raise the amount of military you can put onto the market from 25% to something around 40%. In today's era, I'm still unsure 'why' the 25% rule was in effect. A 40% sell rate would allow us to earn approximately 60% more income per sell. This would still set us lower than your typical techer/farmer, but at least be a step in the right direction. I think the per-turn losses we experience even when triple/quad-selling each day would even the playing field.

Please consider it.

Signed,

The Commie Coalition for a Positive Future

i'm not sure if its all servers, but commies are now able to sell much more than they used to.

http://forums.earthempires.com/...t-of-new-government-rules

it's posted there, but they now have a +35% Market Sale Size instead of the normal +25%

mmm they have +35% which leads to something like 25%*1.35 = 33.75%

so 1/3 instead of 1/4

Thanks for the update. It's still not enough unfortunately.

Any way we could consider a 40% sell rate in conjunction with your tech increases?

Cheers,

Rick

what server you play rick? there should be a commie the top ten of primary this set, or thereabouts anyway. don't forget the increased max for indy tech is 160% now - really helps.

yea, that too

I play Alliance; triple/quad sell each day and have been stocking like a mad man. I'm still half to a third of my techers' stock levels.

I'll update on my progress, but I think I'm going to be lucky to be top 75 this set even with a TMBR finish.

Commie indy has very specific strengths and weaknesses. It has the strongest start by far, has the least efficient stocking, and has the most efficient destocking (up to a point). If you want to finish top ten with a CI, you'll need to figure out a strategy that incorporates those strengths and weaknesses. Right now, the alliance server is one of the worst servers to attempt that on. If you play your CI the same way as you would an all-X farmer, you aren't going to finish top ten.

http://team.www.earthempires.com/topplayers?resetid=66

Well of course.

But you're not going to see commies taking the alliance server unless people are all at war. If the game is still just going to rank you based on NW, then I think an effort to make most main strategies viable to take a top title should be done.

Most hardcore commies do *tons* more work in relation to other strategies and will never actually realize any sort of netting accomplishments.

"Well of course"? You cited a TMBR finish as being superior to a CI destock in alliance.

I'm not sure what you want me to say here. If you consider what I posted to be obvious, then you should have finished in the top ten at least once over 13 years.

There are three main obstacles to a CI finishing in the top ten in the alliance server: the reset length, the server politics, and most players, even the "hardcore commies", not understanding how to play the strategy.

Whoa,

Retract the claws please. I hope I didn't say anything to jab you, but I'm definitely feeling a jab back.

I understand commies quite well thank you. I'm trying to get some kind of discussion on the issue and you're capping it as if there is no need. How would you suggest a CI destock without going TMBR? Maybe I am missing a very basic strategy note so please do elaborate.

You are absolutely right politics play a big role in C/I's failing given the land-reliance C/I's have in finishing strong. Barely any grabbing goes on and we're kind of stuck.

But if such is the case, and you realize this as an administrator; don't you think adjusting a variable in your database to make us more viable could at least be discussed further without absolute dismissal? Hell, if things changes 6 months down the line you can readjust the % for a new set with new political landscapes.

As an unrelated note; I finished top 10 several times, but none in recent history because of the land restrictions. I believe the last time was when GoSu and I hit 100k acres eons ago. Clearly, that cannot be replicated again here unless something changes. So, in lieu of that, perhaps my suggestion could go through some more scrutiny.

Regards

There was no jab intended. There are only so many ways to explain the same thing. To me it looked like my first attempt didn't work, so I tried a different approach.

The reason that I'd personally dismiss this idea right now (though note that I don't have absolutely authority over game changes) is that three recent game changes massively benefit CIs. It usually takes players at least a few resets to adjust to the new changes. We haven't even gone through a single alliance reset with the new game changes!

Your explanations I figured were common sense for ALL strategies in that they all have strengths and weaknesses. I didn't mean to irritate you in my seemingly lack of comprehension. I reread the thread and apologize.

But under the current climate (this set and past sets) it's still relatively impossible in comparison to other strategies - if all things equal - to make a top NW country with a commie indy; would you agree?

I believe that it's possible to get top ten but probably not possible to finish in first place. I would do it myself as a proof of concept but it would require tactics (that other top ten players use) that I'm personally not willing to use.

Well if circumstances played themselves in such a positive way and you played the markets with friends and stuff, I suppose you're right.

Not withstanding market manipulation, FAing, and farming inactive players or ex-alliance mates, and your assertion that commies are likely not possible to finish first place anyways; I think it clearly says C/I is not a viable netting strategy. We probably subscribe to different philosophies; but I just want to have all main strategies balanced to a point where it is actually (within normal, common, etc) strategy to compete for the top spot. Nothing is ever going to be exactly equal, but I would argue vehemently that there is a gap between being where we are today and where we'd be "sort of balanced".

The changes you reference above are a great step in that direction but I hope this is revisited at the end of this set for example so we can continue to narrow that gap.

Cheers

what you can do rather than destock work out losses per turn in relation to money made if you could sell.

ie if you make 100k jets per turn and lose only 4m thats better than paying say 7m for them.

i have a commie on 25m net in FFA on 38k acres that loses 5m a turn. i need to lose about 14m a turn before i dont make any money.

so i could probably cash all the way to 50-60m net for my finish from 3b

then my 200-300m bushels can buy miltary
and if u play like that at the end bus/res is well cheap so you can jump just by playing turns.



what would make alot of difference is
if 10% could come down to circa 7-8% as its too much of a hit.

you would almost be better going demo. because if you dont go tmbr your paying,
10% on your food
10% on your food destoking
10% on your miltary sales

then 10% on your miltary buys.

thats alot at end of set
when other govs only pay 24%

40% costs of raising and selling bushels and miltary of 300m bushels is
120m

normal goverment pays 75m bushels

idemo costs none of that and over a set, do you really gain that much by govt bonus?


imo the gov sales percentage should be 7.5/8% rather than 10 and that will make it furthur competetive