Sorry if either ideas have been brought up before, but I was thinking that maybe a crime rate system based on things like government positions on immigration and drugs, cleanliness of environment, and maybe even the player choosing to take bribes from crime lords, could be implemented?

For example, nations with 2.5 environment stars get no effect on crime rate,but with each .5 stars below 2.5 get a +5% per -.5, while nations with over 2.5 have the opposite effect decreasing crime rate. Crime rate would also obviously effect population happiness, population growth, and population income negatively.

But as a boost for newer nations,crime lords can make certain offers through events that either offer large amounts of money or soldiers,but subsequently increase the crime rate by a certain amount. Being that the less corrupt a government is, the more desperate it's underworld gets,the more clean and crime free your nation gets;the more,and better offers you get.

Just a thought to make things somewhat realistic, although the idea could use some tweaking.

approved for discussion

I think this would be cool, maybe you could make it as a side bar option:

"The gems mafia is offering you 2mil for you to allow them to increase their available operating area.

Yes: You gain 2mil, but the value of gems is decreased by 10% for one month.

No: You refuse the 2mil, so the value of gems increases by 10%."

I think ^ would be cool, you could have one for every resources you import, but that would take way too much coding...

I support the OP.

I agree with this suggestion.

This is very interesting, and I approve

I support that, but are there going to be events? Or are there just bribe offers that pop up every month or so? Also:

Do you mean nations with clean environments will have higher crime rates than nations with dirty environments?

I think he means the other way around. Also, I approve of this.

Ideally they would technically be events that pop up more often than normal non bribe events,just for the sake of the coders I think it'd probably be easiest to present them like a normal event, but in the format of something like:

"Mr. X has a fleet of trucks full of secret and assumably contraband cargo waiting to pass at one of your borders, he's telling the guards he'd be willing to "donate" $250,000 to your coffers if you let him pass without questions asked."

Option 1: Have the border guards seize Mr. X's cargo and if it is contraband arrest him and have him and his associates stand a hopeless trial,after hours of brutal interrogation as to the whereabouts of the other cogs of his organization" Crime rate -10%, population income +$.50

Option 2: Apologize to Mr. X for the inconvenience and let him be on his way"
+$250,000,Crime rate +15%, population income -$.50

Option 3: We don't want anything to do with this, simply deport him back far, far away.
No effect

And of course the rewards for older and well developed nations would be much higher.


Dirty nations will have higher CR than clean countries,although if you have less of a CR you should get more frequent and tempting offers from desperate criminals. This could also prevent nations from exploiting corruption and making a sole income on bribery and encourage them to improve environment to get better offers. Just makes sense since a crime lord wouldn't need to ask a country politely if he already has its leader in his pocket.

This seems good, but how about drug/gun legalization (which only some countries would do), so if I legalise drug X, I may get a message:
Dear Ruler,
I am a 'merchant' who wishes to transport a truckload of drug X to a neighboring state, I am offering $1.5 million if I should get past unhindered

1) Take the money, allowing the 'merchant' to pass: +5% crime rate, +$1.5 million, +0.1 global radiation
2) Arrest him, publicly making an example of him: -10% crime, -0.1 global radiation
3) Arrest him, secretly taking and selling the supplies of drug X: -5% crime, +$500,000

So these events could add a moral factor/problem of the commons.

I'm pretty sure he means that the offers get better because the crime is going down which means the leaders of the gangs/mafia will be willing to offer more to get what they want.

I support this 100%. It would definately allow for a more realistic control over the game. Maybe even a national crime rate could be incorperated into this?

Love all the ideas!

@McSlaveman
Oooh... good idea. We can also can have population density play a larger factor.

(Always finding ways to make Land more worthwhile. ^^)

hmm that is a good idea,as it is,land really isn't that important,unless you don't have water.

This idea is pretty cool, I support it- perhaps have these improvements:

-Community Center: gives youths positive environment to develop in and creates a strong community presence.
(up to 5) +2 happiness -4% crime rate +2% literacy Cost: $60,000
-police station: +2 pop happy and -6% crime rate
-Federal Investigation Department: assists police forces through cutting edge laboratories and investigation techniques Cost: $100,000
+1 pop happy and makes police stations do -9% crime rate each but requires say 4 police stations to build FID.

Give some more economy improvements as well as support a new type of game play. Also dig the pop density effect, makes a lot of sense concerning how crime spreads rapidly in crowded cities.

@McSlaveman
I personally think either Land needs to be buffed or Water needs to be nerfed.

the police hq as is,isnt really a first choice improv,this sounds like something that would maybe motivate purchasing it even before banks and factories .

another add on from me,i was reading about an uemployment rate in an earlier thread,the idea of it being factored in to the crime rate if it is implemented sounds very realistic,maybe even a challenge for once

That would be nice, maybe a higher crime rate equals a higher unemployment rate, and a higher employment rate = less money when collecting.

We could probably tie this with events too (for example, choosing Option 1 will increase unemployment, but gives you more population).

Yes, on the bolded. The rest is great but this game works on the KISS. Also, the impovments idea should be implmented if this idea is implmented. Then the crime rate should being be rated from 0.01 to 10.00 no one should have a 0.00 crime expite nations under beigner protection and nations in anrcey. How old you're nation is should also play a roll on crime rates because older a nation is has a higher crime rate.

@McSlaveman, Pikachurin, Lord Michael
How would unemployment be calculated? Infrastructure versus population? Taxes? Some primitive Keynesian model that incorrectly ties inflation to unemployment? (There are better theories now.)

Maybe we can somehow use population density.

Okay, this is what I came up with.

Nation age + tax % + pop. per mile = crime rate %
10

The crime rate is from 0.01%- 100%(unless in anarchy or beinger protection the it's 0% ) Then that percent is redust from citzen daily income.

Ex.

So a nation that's 100 days old with a tax of 15% and a population of 10.00 per mile has a crime rate of 35%.

100 + 15 + 10 = 35%
10

How does that sound?

35% crime rate! AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!
You mean that nation would lose 35% of income (criminals don't work), and I would lose:
326+42.12+30% = 104.72% crime rate, =- 104.72% of income!!!!!!!!!
10

Over 100% crime?!?!?!?!?!?!?

And my nation is not even that old, some 1000+ day old nations would have 100% crime FROM AGE!

I suggest you divide it by 10 (overall), and factor in soldiers/environment.
But we should also allow natins to grow larger (somehow), as if we only punish larger nations, it leads to stagnation.
Could b good, but the numbers are terrible.

I'm afraid this doesn't work. Any nation over 1,000 days old would make no collection at all. Even with a change in some of the values attributed to each factor, why would an older nation suffer more crime than a younger one?

if anything a younger nation should have higher crime rates,to them it would be like free money right?

@McSlaveman
No, a younger nation would have lower crime rates. Note countries in CN work much like cities IRL. Small cities with low population density and low minorities (HEY! WE CAN FINALLY USE MINORITIES!) tend to have lower crime. As a city grows bigger, so do both of those factors.

@Lord Michael
Use this:

(population per mile) / (10+(.1*population per mile))

Ex: A population density of 60 yields a crime rate of 3.75.

Crime Rate reduces either population or income by (X-3.5)%. (The two effects are virtually identical.) Anyhow, this will mean you want between 50-60 population density to escape the effects enitrely.

WATER WON'T SAVE US ANYMORE! BWAHAHAHAHA!

EDIT: Restated in whole numbers.

Can you insert Environment into the equation? Lower Environment = higher crime.

@Pikachurin
You mean HIGHER environment. A high environment score is "bad."

(population per mile) / (10+(.1*population per mile)-environment)

Ex: A population density of 60 and environment score of 2.00 yields a crime rate of 4.28.

And we can change the penalty to (X-4)% reduction.


During a nuclear war, 6 is the minimum environment score with the max GRL of 5.

Ex: A population density of 60 and environment score of 6.00 yields a crime rate of 6.

Ummm... I still think that's low because if you llok at the impovrment that Fighter26 posted that would give you 2% or less. My frume is bad and yours to low maybe a combotion of them?

yeah, i think that environment,pop. density,nation youth,literacy rate, and unemployment (if dually implemented),should factor in as well,maybe even military size and population hqs?

@McSlaveman
Well you can always just add a multiplier. Then the crime rate reducers would work better. xD

It's not totally a bad idea. Right now, we have a Police HQ improvement just kind of sitting there. Perhaps a variable corruption level related to infrastructure and techology that Police HQs could affect (much like how border walls affect environment) would be a decent idea.

Perhaps set a base value and make it related to a nations tech, infra, and land levels and make Police HQs a variable that can decrease corruption.

My thought is that a nation with a large infra and a large number of land but low technologiy would be more vulnerable to corruption than a nation with a high infra, high land, and high tech level because in the latter nation, the police would have more resources to catch the crooks.

As for the specific variable or formula, I don't know. Maybe

y [base value] x ((infra level / tech level) + (land level / tech level))

For me it would come out as

y x ((4999.99/3280.62) + (7,399.450/3280.62))

y x (1.524 + 2.256)

= y x 3.779

Perhaps it could be correlated so 1 point of corruption equals a certain decrease in population happiness or income. Literacy rate could be made a limiting factor as well.

To simplify you equation DK, just make it:
Crime rate = (infra+land)/tech, where 1% crime = -1% income.

Although really, more land means more space to do jos, and we're fed up of tech hoarders, so how about:

(Pop Den - ((Lit-Tax) / 10)) / (20 - Env)

So I would be:
(41.63 - ((100-30) / 10)) / (20-8)
=(41.63 - (70/10) / (12)
= (41.63 - 7) / 12
= 34.63 / 12
= ~2.88% crime

So I would lose 2.88% of my income.
Maybe you could factor in age as well (to give some benefit to smaller nations).

Typo

I think this is an awesome idea, realistic, original (I think), and overall just a cool suggestion.
I would be pretty excited if this was to come into play in-game

I don't think literacy rate should have any adafech on the crime rate. Look at the US we have 15% crime rate (I think) and we have 99% literacy rate. So literacy rate doesn't mater.

Yes, but the US also has many other bad factors, such as the welfare trap, and anyway, if people are literate, they can get a job and won't resort to crime (after all, Japan is also highly literate but has very little crime).

So you want a bad enviroment? since if you have a 1 enviroment you have a lower crime rate

tl;dr

All the ideas I read were good. Would this be possible also: If the crime rate goes too high, the nation gets thrown into anarchy?

Point.



Yes! But, what percent? 75% that's 3 out of 4 cometing crime.

If I remember correctly, a nation goes into anarchy if the soldier count goes below 20%. So, maybe if the crime rate goes past 80% the nation would be in anarchy. The effects of anarchy would be the same as for a war, but you wouldn't be able to get out of anarchy until crime rates drop to ~50%

@Duncan King, Doom Lord
I really do not think technology and infrastructure need any more perks than they already have. Beside, these factors don't really affect crime. Crime has been around since the most primitive of cultures. The key is population density and government stability. We can perhaps have government positions that also decrease crime rate.

Also, literacy doesn't really figure too much into this either, but I think literacy rate needs to be clarified and expanded so a resource like Scholars can perhaps be much more important.

Literacy should not factor unless its formula is going to be revamped.

I agree,what does literacy matter for someone without lead and lumber?(which is the majority)

and i think maybe this could make the whole "leaders smoking dope" option more attractive cause if you choose it,all you get it half less enviro points

@ewyndon
1 is a perfect environment

@Taishaku
All I did was simplify DK's equation, my equation does not incorporate stright-forward tech or infra

Maybe infrastructure should make a country more susceptible to crime... after all crime afflicts urban areas more than rural ones.

That makes sence but how do we lower it. Tech and happiness?

The police headquarters could lower crime in addition to what they do now

Also you could remove the cap on poilce stations, but all police HQ above 5 do not have the happiness benefit, only a crime lowering benefit

Okay and also lower the crime rate by tech. So then all we need is an fromual. EX:

admount of infa
admount of tech - number of HQ's = % percent of crime (then that's the percent taken off your income)

So a nation with 300 infa and 100 tech and 1 HQ has a 2% crime rate.

300
100 - 1 = 2%

Sound good?

More land could decrease the crime rate... this gives land a little bonus, and its realistic since crime rates are highier in cities/denser areas.

So someone with 10k tech and 5k infra with 5 police HQs would have a -4.5% crime rate and get an income bonus? I don't think that formula works.