Stock Exchange.

[Dynastia]

If we are to start assigning resources to countries we need to determine the geography of these nations. Obviously being the Arab part of Terra, Majatra would take a desert look to it correct?

An entire continent of desert couldn't really exist (to the best of my knowledge), and deserts have very little to do with oil. The middle east used to be extremely lush and fertile until overlogging or overgrazing turned it into a desert, and the oil was there long before civilisation was. But you're right about needing to consider the climate, at least ; especially if different crops are going to count as exports.

What major resources are you guys thinking of defining, asides from oil?

[EEL123]

They wouldn't have to RP every deal separately. There would just be a total import and total export of each type of major resource.

That's what I was thinking. However, I refer you to this:

I thought imports and exports would be determined by individual trade deals...

You can't have it both ways.

It doesn't matter. Whether it's the government or private sector, it has the same effect on GDP.

Firstly, if it's public sector, profits and losses (probably the latter in most cases, although I suppose we are talking about oil) have a direct impact on the government budget as well as GDP. Secondly, you'd be unable to do it by RPing individual deals, which you advocated (but apparently no longer advocate).

[EEL123]

An entire continent of desert couldn't really exist (to the best of my knowledge), and deserts have very little to do with oil. The middle east used to be extremely lush and fertile until overlogging or overgrazing turned it into a desert, and the oil was there long before civilisation was.

To be fair, he was taking about how it was cultural congruous to have a desert Majatra (I'd imagine primarily the eastern part), not directly about oil.

What major resources are you guys thinking of defining, asides from oil?

Things like iron ore, coal, uranium, natural gas, lumber, various strategic crops, etc. Anything that could potentially have a tangible impact on RP (which means that we won't bother with trivialities like Arctic trout).

[Siggon Kristov]

It doesn't matter. Whether it's the government or private sector, it has the same effect on GDP.

Firstly, if it's public sector, profits and losses (probably the latter in most cases, although I suppose we are talking about oil) have a direct impact on the government budget as well as GDP.

Private sector imports/exports have the same direct impact on GDP.
Public sector imports can be RP'd as a part of the budget, as in... spending 10,000,000 LOD on Food/Agriculture could include regular rice imports of 500,000 LOD and 9,500,000 on local agriculture stuff.

Secondly, you'd be unable to do it by RPing individual deals, which you advocated (but apparently no longer advocate).

When I say individual deals, I don't mean 10 deals about the same resource between 2 countries like oil exported by Company X and Company Y of the same country separately, I mean a country would export 10,000 LOD of oil to Lodamun, 10,000 LOD of oil to Valruzia and 10,000 LOD of oil to Baltusia. That's 3 separate deals.

[Opakidabar]

As to resources I would suggest a limited and revised list of Sid Mayer's civilization resources.

[EEL123]

Public sector imports can be RP'd as a part of the budget, as in... spending 10,000,000 LOD on Food/Agriculture could include regular rice imports of 500,000 LOD and 9,500,000 on local agriculture stuff.

And exports? (I'd suggest that they should be deducted from the budget, so if you export 500,000 LOD and spent 9,500,000 LOD on 'local agriculture stuff', then your budget should be 9,000,000 LOD, with a clarifying note in the bill description.)

When I say individual deals, I don't mean 10 deals about the same resource between 2 countries like oil exported by Company X and Company Y of the same country separately, I mean a country would export 10,000 LOD of oil to Lodamun, 10,000 LOD of oil to Valruzia and 10,000 LOD of oil to Baltusia. That's 3 separate deals.

Alright, I take your point.

[Siggon Kristov]

Public sector imports can be RP'd as a part of the budget, as in... spending 10,000,000 LOD on Food/Agriculture could include regular rice imports of 500,000 LOD and 9,500,000 on local agriculture stuff.

And exports? (I'd suggest that they should be deducted from the budget, so if you export 500,000 LOD and spent 9,500,000 LOD on 'local agriculture stuff', then your budget should be 9,000,000 LOD, with a clarifying note in the bill description.)

Exports have to contribute to GDP so that won't work.
I'm making an import/export feature on its own.

[EEL123]

I suppose that we could treat the budget of each department not as its net spending so much as the amount of money it pumps into the economy.

[Siggon Kristov]

I suppose that we could treat the budget of each department not as its net spending so much as the amount of money it pumps into the economy.

Yeah, because imports would mean more government spending which would mean more GDP, which shouldn't be so.
We should probably just assume all trade is private sector, or independent public sector firms responsible for their own funds.

[EEL123]

Yeah, because imports would mean more government spending which would mean more GDP, which shouldn't be so. We should probably just assume all trade is private sector, or independent public sector firms responsible for their own funds.

No, some countries are communist regimes, in which case, what private sector? (Apart from the black market.) I'd suggest, once again, that departmental budgets not measure spending but the amount of money introduced into the economy by that department. So if your government imports a lot of foodstuffs, then your agriculture budget will go down, somewhat counterintuitively, to represent the fact that the agriculture department is leaking money, so to speak, overseas, thus reducing GDP. Conversely, if your government exports a lot of foodstuffs, then the opposite would happen - the budget will increase. You'd then have to make an explanatory note in the bill description.