Verified:

HellraZor Game profile

Member
288

Feb 16th 2018, 15:05:19

To only attack countrys with same building development and not spend money on building? I mean after initial startup?

Edited By: qzjul on Feb 21st 2018, 22:46:26
See Original Post

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Feb 16th 2018, 15:53:08

well you need to finance army somehow and also buy oil so i'd say no, gerdler might say otherwise.
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Feb 17th 2018, 0:59:07

Yes, of course. But it is efficient to build, at least until a point.

Basically, you want to build until the point where you are not receiving positive returns from the costs of buildings and the ways you could have been using your turns otherwise.

I'll give you an example (with easy numbers cause I'm lazy):
You can spend $1000 and 1 turn to build. If you do so, you'll get a $2 increase in revenue for the next 750 turns. If you don't build, you'll get $300 extra from cashing. The net benefit of building is $200, so you build.

Now, if you're just grabbing and cashing turns for readiness, you see the problem here, right? I'd imagine there is not a net benefit to grab and only build to regain readiness either as you'll run into the point where it becomes costly to build quicker and your production won't be the same at that point as it would at a similar point using the same amount of turns where you have less land but it is more fully built. However, there is a time and place to do what your proposing, yes.

If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HellraZor Game profile

Member
288

Feb 17th 2018, 3:09:43

Gotcha thanks.