This is entirely unnecessary, and even detrimental to the "game" that is inherently played with companies and I'm going to explain why.
First, I'm going to state that yes this does effect me. I have made...four subsidiaries for Vanir each with a different task and meaning behind them. All of these subsidiaries serve a direct purpose that is not filled by the main company and doesn't even actually relate to what the main company does, instead it achieved a service/goal that the main company either could not, or would not expand to.
Now, with that clarified I'm going to start into my three point system of why this isn't needed.
1 - Subsidiaries serve an incredibly important function within the game of companies. Logically, most corporations cannot expand into every avenue for production in their local service, so instead of doing that they buy and or found smaller corporations within their own specialty. It helps them diversify their brand while still maintaining control over what is produced. Unsurprisingly, most of the time when this occurs it is larger businesses owning smaller businesses of the same type. An example would be food corporations owning smaller lesser known brands. This chart
here is a great example of that. Each of those companies own at least 10+ subsidiaries that all do things for them, with these new rules that would be impossible, cutting off an avenue of RP and development or members and taking a way a
very large part about how most businesses logically expand and grow larger.
2 - A Subsidiaries secondary function is to allow the expansion of a corporation into an area it holds no expertise in. What do I mean by this? It's actually pretty simple and again I can point out a real life example. The company known as
Tencent owns well over 20+ subsidiary companies, the ones listed on the wikipedia however, all serve a specific function. To put it simply, Tencent is a chinese company, with a chinese culture and a chinese way of doing things. For nearly a decade Tencent attempted to break out into foreign markets, however each time they tried they were unable to. Why? Because they simply didn't have the cultural understanding. So what did they do? They bought companies in foreign markets. These companies(subsidiaries) with Tencent funding were then able to expand and grow in their own market regions and become bigger businesses alltogether while still being owned by Tencent. A great example of this on the board is what I did with Vanir Technologies. The main company has no interest or know how in shipping, so they simply bought out a shipping corporation(subbed) to do all of their shipping for them and have expanded them with IC money.
3 - This is an entirely unnecessary rule when
you can just deny the submission. Subsidiaries need three things in order to function. A solid market share, a good directive, and capital. Whenever a subsidiary comes up for a Tier 3 company, you can see if the subsidiary, and the company that wishes to own/found it, would have those three things. If not? Deny it. You can absolutely at any time do that. A Tier 3 company logically shouldn't be able to have 10+ subsidiaries anyway because they wouldn't have the capital, you don't need another rule stating that.
3.1 - This would entirely ruin the ability to own, operate, and truly create a Holding Company thereby cutting off an entire avenue of roleplay. An avenue in which Alric got his start.
3.2 - This could entirely abuse and call into question the use of stocks. If I already own 4 subsidiaries but then go and make more companies but my company only happens to have say...a 49% stake in this new company with 2% being owned by a third party close to me(say an alt) and the other 49% being publicly owned...isn't that skirting the rules and causing more problems because it calls into question the use of stocks in Companies. Inevitably rules would have to be created around the use of stock and that would get more annoying.
3.3 - It just feels entirely unnecessary and lazy to create another rule that seems to be a small problem.
