With lowered military expenses meaning people hold onto more military shouldn't this be changed as well? Or even removed all together. The difference between a 14% loss on a 3m net country is a lot different than a 14% loss on a 30m net country.

you start losing more than 14% when you're above 12M nw; it peaks at something like (~30 says slagpit)% losses above 60 or 70M nw...

oh, you mean lowered/removed

i don't see why really

it should be costly to switch govts, that's part of the strategy

I think the peak is closer to 31% than 69%. I believe his point was that because sets are longer and we encourage countries to hold more military, government switch costs should be slower to increase to keep all things even. I made the same argument a few months ago.

Can anyone even think of a good reason that the switching costs aren't flat?

I think they should be flat. I can't think of any compelling arguments for a non-flat switch.

I think the point is to prevent any really large countries from switching govts.... for whatever abusable behaviour there could be there...

originally there were just Monarchy, Communism, Democracy right? maybe dict or tyr?


I don't really see any reason we should change it... clearly mehul had a reason when he put that in....

Clearly Mehul had a reason? hahahahaha
I do wonder if that was a result of some sort of feedback on game mechanics.

I feel like it might be from the concept of "the bigger you are the more you lose" but then in some way rather than destruction growing linearly with size it was selected to require an increasingly larger percentage. I suppose that would reflect having to get things down to some "base level" to be have been completely overthrown. I do think we have an interesting view of these revolutions, where they are a tool to improve the country, rather than people revolting for better lives ;)

On a related note, did you guys make the loss rate a continuous function or piece-wise?

Well I'm sure Mehul had his reasons for the previous tech levels but ya'll changed them =)

Trolling aside like I said the difference between switching at 3m and 30m is huge with both at 14%. You're encouraging people to hold more military with less expenses but when the switch losses start jumping at 12m net you have people still trying to stay under that.

it's continuous; much easier to code than piecewise

Yes, but that effectively means changing govt at low nw is cheap, and VERY expensive at high nw, which, to me, is probably how it should be

.14*small ~= small
.14*big ~= big


I am certainly fine with it the way things are, I just see no reason why it needs to escalate.

That's what i was getting at ;) though he didn't take into account the fact that it goes up.

Still; if you're 100M nw CI doing a switch to Demo for whatever reason... that (14%) becomes not so expensive if you put 1/3 your NW on market as CI but it sells as demo... as you save 12% on 1/3 your nw in sales, and lose 14% of 2/3, so it practically pays for 50% of the switch.....

Bring back anarchy!

commie to demo is the only extreme example of tax though...

since commie has highest tax, demo lowest, and commie has highest % they can put on market

any other gov't to gov't switch would not be able to pay for nearly 50% of switch like c->d

not sure why there is a high cost myself either

why would a 100 mill NW country switch? demo tech bonus?

large theo trying to get away from the negative SDI? but most large theos are MBR and wouldnt want to switch anyway... except if a war broke out, but then switching would wreak their NW

i think it could be flat rate without a significant impact on the game though

does demo have that tech bonus now which mehul removed?

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

yes