Article

75025

First off, I want to say that there should be a 'Suggestion' category. I appreciate that there's a suggestion area on the forums, but seriously, I think maybe 10 people regularly even look at it and most people don't even realize there's an official forum.

Anyway, what I want to talk to you about, today, is the idea of an Economic Union.

In the current state of the game, large nations tend to conquer smaller nations. Rarely is this a symbiotic relationship, because conquering smaller nations means there will likely be constant Resistance Wars. Even if not by the conquored nation, it's a strategic liability. The first thing anyone does when you open a battle against them is they open resistance wars in any nation you occupy.

The problem is, this doesn't add any strategy to the game. It just makes wars a logistical nightmare.

Now, some nations prefer things this way. They have a lot of people and use those Resistance Wars to keep people busy and that's fine. We don't have to do away with that and we can still hold smaller nations by force.

But, this does not have to be the only option nations have for gaining the benefits of high regions.

And, I would argue, that if we were to offer another option, we could all spend less time managing tedious resistance wars in tiny countries and larger countries could focus on squaring off against each other.

Here, in the United States, we've developed a symbiotic relationship with our neighbors. Despite having vastly different foreign policies than that of Canada and despite a long history of tension with Mexico, we have all recognized that the United States has a very powerful economy that could be harnessed for the benefit of our smaller neighbors.

As such, we've made agreements with both of these nations to pay them 100% of the payroll tax income from their regions. In exchange, they gain the benefit of our product and job markets and the United States get more and cheaper goods on our market. This has worked so well with Canada that they have started, themselves, one Resistance War during the nearly three months we've had this arrangement and, when third parties open Resistance Wars, Canadian damage in them is negligable.

So, why don't we formalize this system?

It's a pain to track and count up all the money we owe them, every week. It sucks that we have to open ourselves up to the liability of Resistance Wars, when neither party wants them. And it really sucks that, in order to gain the benefits of Yucatan and in order for Mexico to gain the benefits of our market, they have to forefit any ability to expand in any direction, other than the US.

What if, instead of that, both nations could sign an Economic Union agreement, in which one nation agrees to give up its own currency and markets and tax rates and abide the other nations markets, currency and tax rates? Part of this would, obviously, need to be the agreement to exclude citizens and stock companies in the joining nation from the import tax of the absorbing nation and automated redirection of income tax to the proper countries treasury. It could even be set such that VAT taxes be redirected based on citizenship or the countries can agree on a percentage of taxes be divided between the two.

This way, the small nation can retain its political autonamy, signing its own MPP's, going to war as it pleases and retaining a greater sense of independence and destiny. The large nation can gain resources and focus on the nations it would like to fight, rather than be caught up in capturing and holding nations which it just needs for economic purpouses.

This would create an entirely new geo-political dynamic, in which countries that can't come to reasonable agreements with their neighbors would face the liability of having to hold them by force, while people who can come to mutual understandings gain an advantage (and therefore represent a greater danger to countries that choose to be greedy or stubborn).

Consider the case of Latvia. Now, they currently occupy part of Lithuania, but lets just imagine the slate wiped clean. Everyone in their natural borders. Latvia isn't a very big country and is known to be more of a mercenary state. So, how would history be different if, instead of Lituania conquoring them and holding them by force, as has been the case at various times... what if they could offer Lithuania the value of their economic benefits without the strategic liability? More over, what if Sweden and Lithuania were making competetive offers for Latvia's business?

Or ask the same question about Bosnia, who borders many much more powerful countries? What if they became a strategic tool instead of simply a fat target for occupation? How many ways could that have changed the history of this game? How much more interesting is that than simply being the ever occupied state it is?

This also creates a greater value in smaller nations and immensely improves their diplomatic options. As it stands, a small population has little choice but to abide whatever is demanded by those around them. But, if we were to make them into a competetive commodity, then the nations around them might need to consider making them a better offer and consider if they're willing to defend this nation in order to maintain its economic benefits.

It creates a game that is less focused on stomping out weaker nations (which drives players away) and more focused on larger nations having larger battles with each other.

Isn't that way cooler than 'Resistance: Battle for Western Russia #700'?

Sure, we might not always use it or want to. But wouldn't it make for a more diverse and interesting game if we had the option?

Just saying.

Love,


Previous article:
Very Demotivated (12 years ago)

Next article:
Y U NO LIEK MONEY? (12 years ago)