RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Questers]

Don't make up your own equipment if the result is you "guess" a helicopter has mach 1 speed. Just use things from real life.

[Lamoni]

Don't make up your own equipment if the result is you "guess" a helicopter has mach 1 speed. Just use things from real life.

Agreed. I don't want to sound elitist, but those of us who post quality designs on NSD, as well as GE&T, have spent long periods of time (sometimes months or years) doing the required research that would enable them to create such designs.

Research is what seperates the good designs from the bad designs (and designers) on GE&T, tbh. There are WAY too many badly done (or straight rips from Wikipedia) "designs" that really detract from the good designs, and make it that much harder for the people looking to buy designs to find anything that is well designed.

This is one reason why you don't simply "guess" that a helicopter has mach 1 speed. In fact the world's fastest military "helicopter," is the V-22 Osprey. The Osprey has a maximum speed of 262 knots, or Mach 0.39, which is far below Mach 1. The Osprey is also a helicopter/propellor aircraft hybrid.

The fastest pure helicopter in service in the military today is the Westland Lynx, at 216.46 knots, or Mach 0.32, and that record was set in 1986.

What i'm trying to say is... do the research, people! Sure it takes time (and motivation), but taking the time to figure out what DOES and DOES NOT work will save you many headaches down the road.

[Questers]

Of course. But I take issue with the kind of statement that says that telling a story on NS has to be done through some kind of underhanded coercion to win an argument. That's not the NS that I personally know.

I'm just telling you what happens, I'm not making any kind of normative judgment. Besides, not win "an argument", even intentionally.

I just wanted to touch on this (better late than never eh?). This might be true to a certain extent for war RPs and the like. But you can RP so, so much more in your nation than just fleets and armies, and a lot of players don't seem to consider the possibilities for making real, interesting stories that don't involve a ton of people shooting at each other. For example, a character RP where a guy from nation X falls in love with a girl from nation Y. How does one "win" or even "be right" in a game like that? At that level there's very little that's technical or needing research. It's down to raw emotion, dialogue and how well you can RP a character convincingly.

The answer to your (I think) rhetorical question lies within the question itself. In fact you answered it so perfectly that I'm not sure I can reply.

If you notice, my post wasn't about who wins, or who loses. It was only about your reputation as a player. Two people can both write about anything—what defines their reputation and their OOC buying power (which exists: look at the Best II Roleplayer series) is how good they are at it. In other words, how persuasive they are. In the example provide, alright, let's say that you write a particularly heart-wrenching series of posts that are widely read and applauded. You have actually won. You may not think you have, you may not have intended to, you may not even have thought about it at all. At the level of analysis of inter-player relations, what you have basically done is provided a reason for people to think you are good.

And suppose somebody else writes a ten thousand word tank writeup, well, they've done the same thing, at that level, despite the content being completely different. What I was saying is that your ability to influence people in the OOC realm directly influences both your OOC and your IC standing. How you choose to influence them isn't that important, from this perspective.

What I was saying is that the trend now is not to assume that people are capable of things IC only because of their OOC achievements, although there's still a significant amount of that that goes on.

Yeah, that's clearly true. But we all know who he's referring to. There are nations for whom it is unacceptable to lose a fight and they get away with it because of their status in NationStates while smaller, newer nations get called out on it. And if a multitude of these nations were to be concentrated in one region, well... That would just be convenient, wouldn't it?

Succintly put.

[Delmonte]

Of course. But I take issue with the kind of statement that says that telling a story on NS has to be done through some kind of underhanded coercion to win an argument. That's not the NS that I personally know.

I'm just telling you what happens, I'm not making any kind of normative judgment. Besides, not win "an argument", even intentionally.

I just wanted to touch on this (better late than never eh?). This might be true to a certain extent for war RPs and the like. But you can RP so, so much more in your nation than just fleets and armies, and a lot of players don't seem to consider the possibilities for making real, interesting stories that don't involve a ton of people shooting at each other. For example, a character RP where a guy from nation X falls in love with a girl from nation Y. How does one "win" or even "be right" in a game like that? At that level there's very little that's technical or needing research. It's down to raw emotion, dialogue and how well you can RP a character convincingly.

The answer to your (I think) rhetorical question lies within the question itself. In fact you answered it so perfectly that I'm not sure I can reply.

If you notice, my post wasn't about who wins, or who loses. It was only about your reputation as a player. Two people can both write about anything—what defines their reputation and their OOC buying power (which exists: look at the Best II Roleplayer series) is how good they are at it. In other words, how persuasive they are. In the example provide, alright, let's say that you write a particularly heart-wrenching series of posts that are widely read and applauded. You have actually won. You may not think you have, you may not have intended to, you may not even have thought about it at all. At the level of analysis of inter-player relations, what you have basically done is provided a reason for people to think you are good.

And suppose somebody else writes a ten thousand word tank writeup, well, they've done the same thing, at that level, despite the content being completely different. What I was saying is that your ability to influence people in the OOC realm directly influences both your OOC and your IC standing. How you choose to influence them isn't that important, from this perspective.

What I was saying is that the trend now is not to assume that people are capable of things IC only because of their OOC achievements, although there's still a significant amount of that that goes on.

I wasn't going to shake the Best II Roleplayer cat out of the metaphorical bag, but as you have broken the ice, every player that gets nominated who hasn't written anything in months/years beyond the occasional OP that peters out is a slap in the face to all the players who work their asses off writing well consistently and frequently and receive no recognition. I know it's an enormous faux pas to dare to criticize another player, but I'm sorry, if you don't write? You have no business winning a writing award. It's like a movie that was never actually released winning an Oscar.

[Xiscapia]

Of course. But I take issue with the kind of statement that says that telling a story on NS has to be done through some kind of underhanded coercion to win an argument. That's not the NS that I personally know.

I'm just telling you what happens, I'm not making any kind of normative judgment. Besides, not win "an argument", even intentionally.

I expect you would probably know better than I would on that front. I don't get out much as far as warfare goes.

I just wanted to touch on this (better late than never eh?). This might be true to a certain extent for war RPs and the like. But you can RP so, so much more in your nation than just fleets and armies, and a lot of players don't seem to consider the possibilities for making real, interesting stories that don't involve a ton of people shooting at each other. For example, a character RP where a guy from nation X falls in love with a girl from nation Y. How does one "win" or even "be right" in a game like that? At that level there's very little that's technical or needing research. It's down to raw emotion, dialogue and how well you can RP a character convincingly.

The answer to your (I think) rhetorical question lies within the question itself. In fact you answered it so perfectly that I'm not sure I can reply.

If you notice, my post wasn't about who wins, or who loses. It was only about your reputation as a player. Two people can both write about anything—what defines their reputation and their OOC buying power (which exists: look at the Best II Roleplayer series) is how good they are at it. In other words, how persuasive they are. In the example provide, alright, let's say that you write a particularly heart-wrenching series of posts that are widely read and applauded. You have actually won. You may not think you have, you may not have intended to, you may not even have thought about it at all. At the level of analysis of inter-player relations, what you have basically done is provided a reason for people to think you are good.

And suppose somebody else writes a ten thousand word tank writeup, well, they've done the same thing, at that level, despite the content being completely different. What I was saying is that your ability to influence people in the OOC realm directly influences both your OOC and your IC standing. How you choose to influence them isn't that important, from this perspective.

What I was saying is that the trend now is not to assume that people are capable of things IC only because of their OOC achievements, although there's still a significant amount of that that goes on.

I think I understand what you mean now. I was looking at it strictly from the perspective of one involved player to the other, and I had trouble conceptualizing how one can win over another when there's no competition involved. But when you put it from a reputation standpoint, and one's standing in the larger community, I get that perfectly. Your credit as a RPer, to extend the analogy, is dependent on, well, producing good stuff. The better you are and the more you make, the more susceptible other players will be to your suggestions because of the value you can put behind them. After all, you know what you're doing.

What you are actually saying is indeed very different from what I thought you were saying. So I apologize for any confusion, and I do agree.

[Saltesia]

I'm still relatively new here, and haven't browsed this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked before.

What are the rules on involving other nations? Do you have to telegram them first asking them before you involve them in any scenario or war, or can you just start writing and pick a nation?

[Constaniana]

I'm still relatively new here, and haven't browsed this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked before.

What are the rules on involving other nations? Do you have to telegram them first asking them before you involve them in any scenario or war, or can you just start writing and pick a nation?

You have to ask them to declare war on you, otherwise they'd be likely to ignore it. If you're doing it for reasons like acquiring a colony then you could simply write up NPC nations for that, like I did.

[Saltesia]

I'm still relatively new here, and haven't browsed this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked before.

What are the rules on involving other nations? Do you have to telegram them first asking them before you involve them in any scenario or war, or can you just start writing and pick a nation?

You have to ask them to declare war on you, otherwise they'd be likely to ignore it. If you're doing it for reasons like acquiring a colony then you could simply write up NPC nations for that, like I did.

What are NPC nations (sorry, still learning everything here )

[Tiami]

You have to ask them to declare war on you, otherwise they'd be likely to ignore it. If you're doing it for reasons like acquiring a colony then you could simply write up NPC nations for that, like I did.

What are NPC nations (sorry, still learning everything here )

Non-Playable-Character, or in this case, a non-playable nation. No one person owns that said nation. You can RP with the NPC Nation, choosing what happens during the course of an RP.

Edit: Delmonte when more in-depth about other types of nations, so I suggest reading his/her post too. ^.^

~Tiami

[Delmonte]

You have to ask them to declare war on you, otherwise they'd be likely to ignore it. If you're doing it for reasons like acquiring a colony then you could simply write up NPC nations for that, like I did.

What are NPC nations (sorry, still learning everything here )

NPC stands for non playing character. You can have as many nations as you like in NS and there are three types:

Active Nations: This is a nation that you write with actively and have a background developed for.
Puppet Nations: This is a nation that has its own account run by you, you acknowledge this, others acknowledge this, and it is for the purpose of advancing the plot of an active nation (typically).
NPC Nations: These are nations run by you, effectively, but they do not have their own account. You just post about/as them when you have to utilizing one of your active nations' accounts.

#themoreyouknow #knowingishalfthebattle

[Rich and Corporations]

Don't make up your own equipment if the result is you "guess" a helicopter has mach 1 speed. Just use things from real life.

Agreed. I don't want to sound elitist, but those of us who post quality designs on NSD, as well as GE&T, have spent long periods of time (sometimes months or years) doing the required research that would enable them to create such designs.

I know, it's very difficult finding obscure documents to support a design.

Like my coil gun tank, which is apparently very feasible with next generation technology.

Hmm. As a question, what is your turret motor drive? I think for the NGT-2013, I will have power-takeoff from the engine pressurizing hydraulic fluid.

[The Soviet Russian Empire]

Today's Updates to my factbook thread.

[SquareDisc City]

I'm still relatively new here, and haven't browsed this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked before.

What are the rules on involving other nations? Do you have to telegram them first asking them before you involve them in any scenario or war, or can you just start writing and pick a nation?

You have to ask them to declare war on you, otherwise they'd be likely to ignore it. If you're doing it for reasons like acquiring a colony then you could simply write up NPC nations for that, like I did.

If you aren't particularly fussed about who the other nation is, you could also start a sign-up thread explaining the sort of roles you want people to RP. For example if you wanted to do a state assassination, you might need one person to RP the target individual and the nation they're a citizen of, and then another person whose nation the target resides in when the assassination attempt happens.

[Tiami]

Today's Updates to my factbook thread.

Well, I am highly against raising your own population, especially if it's from nine million to one billion. Many nations cap their population. This helps for a more realistic role play. As for your naval ships, as I've said, tone them down more.

If you like, send my a telegram asking for the factbook help. I'd be more than willing to devote some time to helping out. We can get some proper numbers and more description in your FB. ^.^

~Tiami

[Lubyak]

Today's Updates to my factbook thread.

It seems a bit off that only 5% of your population is 'underage' and only 5% is retired....it seems you're going to have massive issues in the near future if your birth rate is so low...I can believe the low population of elderly as representative of massive demographic impacts due to war, but only 5% as underage? That's going to lead to serious problems. For reference, Japan--which is heading for a major population crisis as the birth rate falls and the existing population ages--has 13.2% of its population under the age of 15. You are claiming 5%...this going to cause serious problems and needs to be changed. Honestly, IIRC, a healthy population is going to have 25% underage, 25% overage, and about 50% of the population as the available work force.

People have already criticised your history and military, so there's not much I need to add...just bear in mind that your current organisation is very poor. Notice that no one IRL organises their military the way you're doing it, and a good rule of thumb is that if no one has done or wants to do it IRL, there are very good reasons why that's the case. So, honestly, sit back, do some research, and redo everything if you want to not just get, 'lols' when you post your military.

However, to point out a key problem, I need to look at your missile forces. Number one, your speed is too low. RL ballistic missiles are going way faster than Mach 5 upon reentry. Also, you've made a common mistake and given your missiles yields in the tens of megatons which is grossly inefficient. Realistically, the impact of a nuclear detonation is going to fall off very quickly as you move away from ground zero. What this means it that if you wish to destroy multiple targets located near each other, it is better to have a separate, smaller, nuclear warhead for each target, rather than trying to just use one massive one. This is why RL ICBMs have something like 10 300 kt warheads rather than 1 10-20 mt warhead. There are other benefits to do this too, ranging from the fact that these multiple smaller warheads are more flexible in choosing targets and are better protected from interception, as instead of having to hit just one warhead, the enemy now has to try and intercept 10 plus an unknown number of decoys.

[Oppressorion]

I know that there are dedicated threads for MT military questions and FT, but is there anywhere I can ask about economics? Specifically, how (or if) my nation's economic system could work, and possible downsides to it?

In case the answer turns out to be 'here', I'll put it here:

My nation operates what you could call a 'hand in glove' market. On the surface, it's a mixed market like in RL: shops on the street are owned privately, and compete with each other for customers. But if you go deeper than that, you'll see it's controlled by the government. They own all means of production, and through that have an enormous amount of power.

Take bread, for example. IRL wheat is sold to bakeries, who sell it to shops, who sell it to customers, each taking a percentage for profit. Not so here, where both bakeries and wheat farms are owned by the government, who then contract with various independent retailers around the city through a central distribution office. Essentially, instead of the shops buying bread, the gov. pays them to sell it for them.

Theoretically, this system was set up so that in the event of disaster, supplies could be distributed quickly to the general public as the suppliers are already owned by them. In addition, it means that all workers involved can be paid fairly.

[Jogka]

I know that there are dedicated threads for MT military questions and FT, but is there anywhere I can ask about economics? Specifically, how (or if) my nation's economic system could work, and possible downsides to it?

In case the answer turns out to be 'here', I'll put it here:

My nation operates what you could call a 'hand in glove' market. On the surface, it's a mixed market like in RL: shops on the street are owned privately, and compete with each other for customers. But if you go deeper than that, you'll see it's controlled by the government. They own all means of production, and through that have an enormous amount of power.

Take bread, for example. IRL wheat is sold to bakeries, who sell it to shops, who sell it to customers, each taking a percentage for profit. Not so here, where both bakeries and wheat farms are owned by the government, who then contract with various independent retailers around the city through a central distribution office. Essentially, instead of the shops buying bread, the gov. pays them to sell it for them.

Theoretically, this system was set up so that in the event of disaster, supplies could be distributed quickly to the general public as the suppliers are already owned by them. In addition, it means that all workers involved can be paid fairly.

I don't see why it wouldn't "work" although it may not be the best option. A large part of it depends on how the government is run. Since in your example the government has both a wheat and bread monopoly, and is the government, they basically can decide the price of bread, and the wages of farmers and bakers. So one question is how good is the government at regulating itself? Also, if there is no profit motive or competition, the bread industry will probably be less innovative and and bad at cost cutting. If there is a profit motive, the industry would abuse its monopoly. Also, there would be diseconomies of scale.

With bread it probably wouldn't be a big deal, although I think it would make more sense for the bread to be sold by the baker, instead of adding another middleman. That is the government would run wheat farms and flour mills, but the bread would be baked and sold by private businesses. This way you would have fresh bread, baked on location. Unless all your people just eat sliced bread off the shelf of the supermarket.

[Oppressorion]

Since in your example the government has both a wheat and bread monopoly, and is the government, they basically can decide the price of bread, and the wages of farmers and bakers. So one question is how good is the government at regulating itself?

My nation is a very introverted (and paranoid) nation. A huge amount of resources are devoted to maintaining integrity and preventing corruption, right up to mental conditioning. This may be why most of the population is still on the bread diet.

Also, if there is no profit motive or competition, the bread industry will probably be less innovative and and bad at cost cutting. If there is a profit motive, the industry would abuse its monopoly.

IC: True, bread production isn't as high as other, more liberal nations. But what would you have us do? Trust people? Give them their own means of production? Pah!

Also, there would be diseconomies of scale.

Why this system more than others?

With bread it probably wouldn't be a big deal, although I think it would make more sense for the bread to be sold by the baker, instead of adding another middleman. That is the government would run wheat farms and flour mills, but the bread would be baked and sold by private businesses. This way you would have fresh bread, baked on location. Unless all your people just eat sliced bread off the shelf of the supermarket.

I was talking about your bog standard supermarket bread, yes. For cafés and small bakeries, I imagine that they rent their equipment from the government, who take possession of goods produced from such and contract with them for sale.

[Jogka]

Since in your example the government has both a wheat and bread monopoly, and is the government, they basically can decide the price of bread, and the wages of farmers and bakers. So one question is how good is the government at regulating itself?

My nation is a very introverted (and paranoid) nation. A huge amount of resources are devoted to maintaining integrity and preventing corruption, right up to mental conditioning. This may be why most of the population is still on the bread diet.

Also, if there is no profit motive or competition, the bread industry will probably be less innovative and and bad at cost cutting. If there is a profit motive, the industry would abuse its monopoly.

IC: True, bread production isn't as high as other, more liberal nations. But what would you have us do? Trust people? Give them their own means of production? Pah!

Also, there would be diseconomies of scale.

Why this system more than others?

With bread it probably wouldn't be a big deal, although I think it would make more sense for the bread to be sold by the baker, instead of adding another middleman. That is the government would run wheat farms and flour mills, but the bread would be baked and sold by private businesses. This way you would have fresh bread, baked on location. Unless all your people just eat sliced bread off the shelf of the supermarket.

I was talking about your bog standard supermarket bread, yes. For cafés and small bakeries, I imagine that they rent their equipment from the government, who take possession of goods produced from such and contract with them for sale.

Well, no system's perfect. The effect of diseconomies of scale will vary based on the size of the company, or in your case the nation. Keep in mind there are economies of scale too, but you asked if there was downsides. If there is anything that economics teaches us, it is that each choice we have is a trade off.

[Questers]

Suppose some new economic good is created, let's say, microprocessors. Since the state is the total arbiter of economic conditions, how do you address new technology? How are prices set for things unfamiliar? If you are naturally paranoid and untrusting, is it not safe to say that there will be a lag in the acceptance of advanced technological processes?

If your Government is in posesssion of absolutely every economic good, this can start adding up. From the humble flash drive to the solar panel to the electric engine.

The problem with this system is that it doesn't differ greatly from what existed in the USSR.

[Oppressorion]

Suppose some new economic good is created, let's say, microprocessors. Since the state is the total arbiter of economic conditions, how do you address new technology? How are prices set for things unfamiliar? If you are naturally paranoid and untrusting, is it not safe to say that there will be a lag in the acceptance of advanced technological processes?

Oh, yeah, it's been stuck at the tech it started with for ages.

[Alae Essato]

Hello everyone, I'm about to start roleplaying as a nation ruled by a conglomerate of different corporations, but I would like to set up the numbers and characteristics of the whole thing before posting anything. Basically, the "State" is the conglomerate, acting like your average company. As it's a quite atypical kind of nation I'm dealing with, I'm bothered by several issues.

Let's take the NSEconomy stats here How can I transpose them to that of a company's? Does the GDP now correspond to the consolidated revenue? If so, then what do the "Government Budget" and the "Consumption" mean for a 100% corporate state? I just need to now what should be what in order to play, you know, more legitimately. The division of this value between the different corporations of the conglomerate is easy once I can set up the stats.

Also, given that I will RP with only 1% of my population (don't like to superstate), do I also need to reduce my economic stats proportionately, or can I for instance multiply my GDP per capita by 1.5 or 2 (to make something like 40-80K)?

Some help from far more experienced RPers, especially those specialized in playing-as-corporations or corporate states would be much appreciated, much thanks already

EDIT: Damn, forgot to thank people for the answers. For the next question I guess

[Oppressorion]

Let's take the NSEconomy stats here How can I transpose them to that of a company's? Does the GDP now correspond to the consolidated revenue? If so, then what do the "Government Budget" and the "Consumption" mean for a 100% corporate state?

Tracker stats don't mean anything if you don't want them to. You can make up whatever numbers you want, and provided you display them well (e.g. a link in your signature), the other players will give them the same regard they give nations that use trackers.

Note to any rules lawyers out there - this does NOT mean that you can claim super-awesome numbers just because you've got them written down. Other players are still free to reject them.

[Maltropia]

I realise that the validity of tracker stats has already been criticised, and I'm not of a differing opinion, but I'd like to make something clear on the exchange rate front in case you do want to follow what's said there.

I would be very hesitant about inflating your GDP per capita. As it stands, your GDP is down as roughly 47,000 dollars. That's a little bit misleading, as that's actually your GDP measured in your own currency. To get a value in NSD/USD, you multiply it by your existing exchange rate, giving you a value of 90,894.39 NSD. That's substantially more than the GDPpc of Luxembourg, and nearly twice that of the United States, so if you were to increase that further it might be overdoing it.

I in no way endorse the use of trackers though, aside from that one time I had a more valuable economy than just about everyone in NS with just 96/100. A good factbook is always preferable to tracker stats that probably don't reflect your nation as it's roleplayed.

[Jenrak]

My nation operates what you could call a 'hand in glove' market. On the surface, it's a mixed market like in RL: shops on the street are owned privately, and compete with each other for customers. But if you go deeper than that, you'll see it's controlled by the government. You're going to need to define how deep private versus public ownership is. If shops on the street are owned privately, then are you referring to the ability to sell such products? Please clarify. They own all means of production, and through that have an enormous amount of power. What do you mean in terms of the means of production? The means of production is a pretty antiquated term nowadays, and there's so many different actors within a given network that simplified Marxist terminology isn't going to provide image. Again, can you clarify?

Take bread, for example. IRL wheat is sold to bakeries, who sell it to shops, who sell it to customers, each taking a percentage for profit. Not so here, where both bakeries and wheat farms are owned by the government, who then contract with various independent retailers Does that means that all material and resources are controlled and constructed by the government? How do you differentiate between primary, secondary, and tertiary industries? What happens if an independent contractor from outside enters the market? Is that allowed, or would they have to work through the government? What about grey and black markets? around the city through a central distribution office. Essentially, instead of the shops buying bread, the gov. pays them to sell it for them. What about goods that the government would have difficulty procuring? Say, for example, rare earth metals. If you had a natural shortage or comparative disadvantage of rare earth metals and can only get it from somewhere else, what role would the government play, if at all?

Theoretically, this system was set up so that in the event of disaster, What sort of disaster? There are a variety of disasters that affect economies in different ways. Please clarify. supplies could be distributed quickly to the general public as the suppliers are already owned by them By the government, you mean. There are two major problems with this assumption. First, you're assuming that there is a plentiful amount of given resources at any given time. This is usually not the case in a good economic climate, and even worse in a very bad economic climate, especially one that is predicated by something sudden like a disaster. The scarcity that comes about means that you have to either use what you have to deal with the situation by yourself (which, depending on the type of disaster, may be catastrophic), or you need to open borders, allowing inbound goods that are not controlled by the government. How does the government account for something like that? The second problem is that you're assuming the government is more efficient than the private in allocating goods. That may not always be the case. In many instances that is true, yes, because the government has the supreme command of territory because of a military force, but it's still beholden to massive redundancies, inefficiencies, and corruption. This problem may be even more pronounced when you consider that governmental relief must account for a lack of altruistic actors, whereas private actors may not (for example, donation organizations in a crisis can field more volunteers with less corruption per unit because that's their shtick. Governmental relief doesn't have that sort of luxury, because it's built into the administration). In addition, it means that all workers involved can be paid fairly. Not necessarily. You're imposing a very simplistic mechanic on payment. For a better understanding of payment, you need to account for three major things: base versus relative costs and benefits, sectoral bargaining, and financial freedom. Base versus relative cost means that for an organization, when you put X amount of money into an organization, you gain Y amount of utility or goods. Some organizations benefit from greater utility or production compared to others with the same fixed costs. This allows more money to be allocated to other things, such as pay. The private sector allows multiple actors to experience multiple amounts of X > Y, with the ones that best maximize the relationship to grow the best. You're assuming that the X > Y relationship for the government is already optimal. There's nothing that implies that to be true. Please account for that.

Sectoral bargaining are unions. The government needs to address unions, whether formal or informal. This is even more important when you consider the immense reach of your government in the private sector as well as the fact that you're implying that one entire sector (tertiary) is private, where the others are not. What happens is the tertiary sector becomes to start bargaining against the government? Does it have an answer for something like that? In primary and secondary dominant locations (such as rural farms) that may not be an issue, but what about heavy financial and technology sectors, that don't rely on too much physical product? How does the government prevent monopolistic or monopsonistic practices from popping up?

Financial freedom is tied to the second one. You don't mention finances, which are incredibly important because they can determine not only how much eat unit of physical product is worth (and thereby the government's strength in bargaining as a bearer of primary goods), but also what happens when your sales are private. I'm assuming that since your tertiary sector is private, people will need loans to rent out stores or purchase licenses to sell or to purchase product to sell. That means that banks will have to loan them out. Do you have a private or a public reserve? How do you account for something like capital? Please clarify.

Notes bolded and italicized. Looks good, but I have some questions. Addressing them might help you get a better idea of what direction you'd like your nation to go. Added red, because I'm going blind.