von Koenige
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by von Koenige
-
-
Baa-ism über alles.
-
Better idea: A vacation mode that locks your nation until next time you log in. Revenue is frozen, nobody can declare on you, or send you a trade offer. Your nation basically becomes invisible.
When you log back in, pick up where you left it.
I imagine that this was the original intention of your suggestion, but just in case it wasn't, I would like to mention that nations in this vacation mode should definitely not be actually invisible; they should be as visible as ever, but frozen in place and incapable of being interacted with until they come out of vacation mode.
This could theoretically be abused to wait out conflicts, but there would be little advantage to be gained in doing so.
The one problem that I see is if the nation is currently at war: on the one hand, real life doesn't usually wait for virtual wars to end before it throws us a curveball; but on the other hand, someone could just go into vacation mode the moment they fear for their nation's existence. This could be solved by making wars last throughout a nation's period in vacation mode, but this would restrict at least one of the war slots of an opposing nation, and thus put that nation at a major military disadvantage.
-
Perhaps a general section could be added for player-made content unrelated to P&W itself, with subsections for art, writing, music, etc.
-
I should have been way more stupid in that post, maybe that way more could tell it was sarcasm.
All apologies, then, for responding as I did. It seemed like sarcasm to some degree, but at the same time, we should keep in mind that this is a thread about literally redistributing every square inch of land on the face of the Earth in order to repair historical injustices; a lot of relatively extreme ideas have been proposed thus far, sarcastically and otherwise.
-
Don't forget that the Congo should get Belgium. I doubt they will be gentle with it, either, all things considered.
The Congo might be entitled to Wallonia, but not to Belgium as a whole; the Belgian monarchy has historically favored the Walloons while oppressing and exploiting the Flemings and their native Flanders. Very few Flemings had the same level of influence as Walloons did, and besides that, all Belgian colonial activities were initiated and supported most vigorously by the monarchy.
I am honestly baffled that some people are taking this thread seriously.
It's a good intellectual exercise; pick a position and argue it until you're hoarse, mate.
There have never been African Empires, except when there were (thus necessitating the conquering of other peoples.) There has never been slavery in Africa (unlike the Egyptians and Nubians)
...are you trolling, or are you being serious?
First of all, there have been a lot of African empires; too many to count and too many to list, especially since I am not a scholar of African history. Second of all, Egypt and Nubia are part of Africa, and the Nubians are incontestably Sub-Saharan, so you cannot simply discount this as Arab imperialism into rightful African lands. Third of all, there was slavery in other parts of Africa, initiated by Africans and non-Africans alike; whether it was as brutal and exploitative as the slave trade initiated by European colonialists is debatable, but it undoubtedly existed in very, very significant quantities.
We mustn't forget that North African Muslims often raided the coasts of South Europe and boarded European ships in the Mediterranean in order to capture Christian slaves, who were considered highly inferior and were often treated quite brutally, especially because their masters were not the peace-and-love Muslims but the pirate-life-for-me Muslims.
-
Honestly, even with only one moderator (two if we count Sheepy, but as you noted, he is more focused on development at the moment), this would be a good suggestion to implement; perhaps in the heat of the moment, you might warn someone for a post in order to stop an incident from getting out of control, and then later realize that perhaps it was not as bad an infraction as was originally thought, or not even really an infraction at all.
At the moment, it has little use, but the ability to appeal bans/warns one time (and only one time) shortly (but not immediately) after they are issued should be afforded to all players, in order to ensure as fair moderation as is possible to have (you have been very generous and fair thus far, which to some degree obviates the need for the rule change; however, you are only one moderator, and in the future you may not be the only moderator of the game, so we must set up a system to ensure fairness, rather than relying on the judgement of one man who may someday not be joined by less benevolent moderators).
-
That doesn't matter, there are people like me trying to build and there are bullies on this game ruining and destroying a progress and time each player has put into the game. How would you feel if you put some much effort into something you have pride for and someone destroyed it oh right... Learn from perspective. You don't have to war anyone man. Peace Mode should simply block war and that's its point.
There are going to be a lot of senseless wars - such as Ragnar's declaration of intention to roll you, and his declaration of war against me despite the fact that I've never spoken more than a few sentences to him - and I would like to put a stop to them, especially considering that they have no in-game geopolitical justification, but I just think that peace mode is unfair.
I would rather lose my nation fighting against people who are petty enough to bring out-of-game conflicts into the game than risk allowing people to escape legitimate, geopolitically-justified wars by simply switching into peace mode.
I am attached to my nation and do not enjoy the thought of being rolled, but in general I would hold the interests of the game above my own interests, at least while in the Suggestions forum. I know that most people do not do this, but I like to try my best to.
-
I like at least several posts every day, and I've never hit the cap; I imagine that if one day there were a lot of good posts, I might, but not normally.
Honestly, a relatively low limit (like 10, which I believe is the default limit and the one in place on these forums) is good, as it forces one to conserve one's likes, and thus only like posts which they really sincerely believe contribute to the game or the thread, or which they can really relate to. There are a lot of posts that I agree with or think are good, but I don't like them all; I search out the one that best expresses my thoughts on a matter, and I like that particular post.
I can see perhaps a very small increase, as suggested, but to be honest, 10 seems like plenty to me. I think that, as Hereno said, if there is lot of relatively active people hitting the cap every day (or every several days), then it should be raised slightly; but otherwise, I think it is fine as it is.
But again, as I said, I am on here every day and I do my best to thoroughly read through every thread except those in the Bug Reports section while liking those posts which I think deserve a like, but I have yet to hit my limit of likes.
-
3
-
-
As someone who expects to be rolled in the near future, it would be in my best interest to support this suggestion.
Therefore, I staunchly oppose this suggestion, because I am well aware that I myself - as well as many other people - will at some point or other be highly tempted to switch into peace mode as soon as possible in order to prevent themselves from being attacked.
However, I do believe that new nations should have the opportunity to have a sort of no-penalty "spawn protection" for, honestly, between several days to a month after being created; many people need time to adjust to the game, learn the ropes, find a place in the world, and build up a small defense force to discourage constant raids, and they should be allowed ample opportunity to do so.
-
However, the regions you mostly speak of do not still feel the effects nor are still subjugated to the the legacy of colonial policies, policies still ongoing today throughout the continent.
On the contrary, my friend! Russia's culture was permanently reshaped by the Mongol occupation, the economy of the Balkans was permanently stunted by the Ottoman occupation, Eastern Europe was permanently influenced (both politically and economically) by the Soviet occupation, the Spanish language and heritage was permanently altered by the Arabic occupation, and the very religion of many people in West, Central, and even East Asia has been determined by historical imperialism on the part of the Arabs, Persians, and Chinese. There has been a very significant impact on the culture, economy, and history of these lands, which have had to restore prosperity to their people without such reparations as the ones that you demand for Africa; we must be consistent, lest we be seen as unfair.
You on de right track, Babylonian mon. Then we in no disagreement on de matter of Germany offering her lands to Poland for de brutal occupation and murder of its population.
We must keep in mind that Poland already took generous slices of German land in the form of East Prussia, West Prussia, East Pomerania, and Silesia; millions of Germans were deported or killed during the transfer of these territories, and so I feel that there is no need for further reparations to be payed. The Poles should, however, be allotted a generous portion of Russian land, as they were for a very long time occupied and oppressed by the Russian Empire.
I feel as though this would be the most fair division. In some places, some of the Babylonian lands were divided based on the convenience of their administration by the aggrieved parties. It doesn't really matter - they all look the same, anyway.
It should also be noted that the US would be divided up between South America, the Native Americans, Vietnam, Iraq, Persia, and Japan. As such, I didn't feel it necessary to give the South Americans, Iraqis, and Persians so much of Europe.
I must protest these ridiculous claims, on every ground imaginable!
The influence of the Germans on African history is very brief and limited in scope, and thus cannot be equated to the influence of, for example, the French, the British, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, which all lasted hundreds of years and involved a thriving slave trade in the earlier years. I also noticed that no Italian land was allotted to Germany, despite the historically brutal treatment of Germanic people who were captured by the Roman Empire and forced to serve in its army.
Likewise, it should be noted that the Luxembourgers, the Czechs, and the Albanians had absolutely no influence on African history, except in that certain individuals may have exercised influence on behalf of other countries. Likewise, various peoples within the countries which could be rightly accused of great atrocities against Africa are, on the whole, innocent; the Basques and the Flemish, in particular, have been historically oppressed by the Spanish, the French, and the Walloons.
The Nordic countries had no influence on Iraqi history, and in fact had very little colonial interests at all; Denmark and Sweden at various points controlled very small, limited colonies on the east coast of North America and the west coast of Africa, and of course they controlled Greenland for a long time, but overall these colonial exploits were very brief and unobtrusive ventures. If anything, as Enver Hoxha mentioned, they deserve small amounts of reparations from the Russians.
As for Poland, it certainly deserves no more German land than it was already allotted in the wake of our defeat during World War II, and it certainly does not deserve the land of the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Belorussians, all of whom were occupied, oppressed, and exploited by the Poles for hundreds of years, notably during the interwar period in which the Polish state attempted to Polonize hundreds of thousands of innocent Baltic and Belorussian people. I would also protest the allotment of Finland to Poland, as the Finns and the Poles have had very little historical interaction at all, and if anything, the Poles would have occupied a dominant position in this limited interaction.
Southeast Asia certainly does not deserve as much Russian land as it has been allotted here; although several Southeast Asian nations were occupied for several decades by communist forces funded by the Soviet Union, this should not entitle them to such a large share of Russia, when many nations have historically been occupied, oppressed, and exploited by the Russians. In addition, Kazakhstan has never had any interaction with Southeast Asia of its own volition, and thus should not be subject to Southeast Asian demands.
I noticed that the Gypsies were allotted a very, very substantial portion of East Europe, spanning almost all of the Balkan regions and beyond. As they immigrated to Europe from India and have historically made their living by stealing from their host nations, it is clear that such people do not deserve any reparations for any damage that might have been done to them as a result of European efforts to defend ourselves from Gypsy treachery.
My final major criticism is in regard to Persia. The Persian Empire once occupied Anatolia, before the Turks arrived, but the Turks never occupied Persian land; only the Russians and the British ever did so to any major degree, and even then they did very little damage to the local population except in that they supported the Persian government, which it could be argued made a point of regularly oppressing its own people.
In general, there are many major problems with this proposal, not least of all the total disregard for the Kurds, Basques, Flemings, and Scots, all of whom have historically been oppressed and exploited by various masters. Many claims have been inflated to ridiculous levels, or invented with no historical or geopolitical justification whatsoever. All in all, a noble effort, but one which needs to be seriously reconsidered. I do commend you, however, on your wise decision to expand Palestine and Syria, which have certainly suffered great grievances as of late at the hands of Europeans, Americans, and Israelis.
And I suppose this civil war was naturally occurring, definitely not the result of decades of colonial meddling still ongoing.
If I may interject here, it is the drawing of arbitrary borders which has caused a significant majority of African civil wars; even where communistic, socialistic, and capitalistic rebels clashed (and continue to clash today), these rebel groups are primarily composed of individual tribes and ethnic groups which existed long before the European occupation. If each of these tribes and groups were given its own nation-state, to be governed by the tribe or group's own fellow citizens, it's evident that a lot - not all, but a large proportion - of African civil wars would be ended or prevented, although it is possible that they could then explode into full-scale wars of the nationalistic variety.
This would require some more European/American meddling in order to redraw the borders and ensure that each new African nation-state is able to set up its own government without interference by other new nation-states, but I think that in the end it would be more than worth it, if the Africans themselves were interested in accepting such assistance.
Hmm, I feel that perhaps the Nordic nations should be left alone due to their lack of involvement with colonialist and neocolonialist imperialism, perhaps they should be given parts of Russia, even.
I agree wholeheartedly with leaving the Nordic nations alone; however, only Finland really deserves any Russian land, as no other Scandinavian countries were ever occupied, oppressed, or exploited by Russian imperialism, and the Finns in fact lost a lot of historically Finnish land to the Russians, which has never been returned to them.
-
This is a pretty legitimate form of compensation for colonial exploitation, I think; but we ought to go the full mile, oughtn't we?
Latin Americans, Anglo-Americans, Asians, native Australasians, and Arabs should all get a little piece of those European colonial countries which once ruled them.
But, you know what, the Turks also exploited the people of the Balkans pretty heavily while the Ottoman Empire was in existence, permanently stunting their economic growth, suppressing their culture, and often kidnapping and castrating their children for slave labor. I think that Turkey should be divided up among the Balkan countries, for fairness.
Those early Islamic Caliphates were also pretty vicious towards their Christian subjects, though; a lot of the Arabian peninsula should probably be given up to the Spanish and Portuguese.
Hold on just a second, actually; I mean, let's not forget the Mongols and all of their mighty Khanates. They reshaped Russian culture entirely, and oppressed entire continents, often using vicious biological warfare to force their subjects to acquiesce to their demands. Eastern European, Chinese, Turkic, Iranian, and Arabic people should all have some of Mongolia, as reparations for these heinous crimes.
But wait! How could I have forgotten about the Omani colonial empire? A lot of East Africans deserve their own personal slice of Oman, considering that their ancestors were enslaved and shipped off to foreign lands by their Omani overlords, until of course the British outlawed the slave trade and forced the Omanis to stop.
And even within Europe, we should do some shuffling of land. Germanic prisoners-of-war and even civilians were often captured and forced to serve in the Roman Empire's vast army, often as a human phalanx, obliged to sacrifice their lives in the stead of the Romans who had captured them. Germany clearly deserves a pretty hefty portion of Roman land as compensation for this brutal, unethical treatment.
But what about cases that are ongoing today? China continues to oppress Tibet, Russia still contains many conquered Caucasian and Turkic people, and the Kurds have never stopped fighting for independence from their Turkish, Iranian, and Arabic rulers. I think that all of these people need to be freed immediately and have their native lands enlarged with substantial helpings of their former colonial masters' countries.
This is going to be a lot of work, but I'm sure that future generations will be thankful that we did it all here and now. I applaud you for your initiative, guys; you could really iron out a lot of historical unfairness if you get enough support behind this noble mission of yours.
-
6
-
-
So, with EMP, you basically lose all use for the improvement, and then still have to pay for its upkeep. That causes you to lose money.
It's more of an economic weapon than a military one, to be honest.
While we're on the subject, does anyone have any ideas for blockades? It was brought up a while ago and I recall thinking that it would be a very interesting concept; it would, for example, prevent an alliance from being able to consistently send large amounts of aid to an ally in need, thus forcing them to either enter the war, risk losing a lot of funds and resources, or helplessly watch their ally be destroyed. (I realize that this probably merits its own thread, but it seems somewhat relevant.)
That's more of a navy thing. You don't blockade with nukes.
I know. It seemed relevant, since we briefly touched upon the subject of economic warfare. The whole topic deserves its own thread, though, really.
EMPs could block large trades by rendering the the transportation (boats/aircraft) of the items useless.
Perhaps EMPs should add a bonus to blockade attempts, as they would cause delays in shipping and possibly even hinder the naval and aerial capabilities of a nation, especially if, for example, its docks or airports weren't powered and its civilian shipping was "in the dark" sometimes, and thus vulnerable to enemy naval or air raids.
-
1
-
-
So, with EMP, you basically lose all use for the improvement, and then still have to pay for its upkeep. That causes you to lose money.
It's more of an economic weapon than a military one, to be honest.
While we're on the subject, does anyone have any ideas for blockades? It was brought up a while ago and I recall thinking that it would be a very interesting concept; it would, for example, prevent an alliance from being able to consistently send large amounts of aid to an ally in need, thus forcing them to either enter the war, risk losing a lot of funds and resources, or helplessly watch their ally be destroyed. (I realize that this probably merits its own thread, but it seems somewhat relevant.)
-
I really think that we should keep the war system simple.
So in terms of standard units, we have our Soldiers, Tanks, and Planes; maybe we'll get some naval unit or a special forces sort of thing at some point in the future, but we don't know, so we don't care. That's 3-4 units in total.
In terms of special operations, then, we shouldn't have more than 3-4 options. Nuclear strikes (or some sort of equivalent) are, of course, always interesting. Standard missile strikes are generally a good alternative to nuclear strikes in that they are cheaper and they tend not to get everyone's panties up in a bunch (lookin' at you, human rights activists). That leaves us 1-2 slots left to fill, if we so desire. I like chemical strikes (because they're like miniature nuclear strikes, and they have lasting effects! :3) and electromagnetic pulses (because it adds a bit of flavor, if implemented correctly).
Chemical Weapons:
Im thinking this could be a weapon, that when used, has a slow, not too damaging, but lasting effect. What that effect is, Im really not sure. Maybe we could have it kill off a certain percentage of soldiers every day for x amount of days and reduce commerce.
If this is added, I feel like it needs to have fewer prerequisites than nukes, however, I feel like it needs to somehow be self damaging in a way. Making it not necessarily something you want to use in any given situation.
Chemical weapons are notable in that their effects are a) devastating to unprotected infantry,
useless against armored vehicles, and long-lasting in their effects on the nation as a whole. My great-grandfather, for example, died in his early forties from diseases caused by German mustard gas deployed against him during World War I; one must imagine that, with potentially millions of young men (and, in modern armies, women) dying halfway through the most active period of their lives (the period during which they can work), a nation's economy would quickly become beholden to a lack of cheap labor.I think, therefore, that chemical strikes should have an immediate effect against Soldiers (gradual attrition doesn't make sense unless the chemical weapons are deployed over and over again; you either die immediately or you're incapacitated, but you don't get back up, keep fighting, and die a week later), but have a lasting effect on a nation's population.
For example, a chemical strike might kill a certain amount of soldiers, and reduce the national population by about 2-4% for the next 7 days. Repeated strikes would be expensive (not for any realistic reason, but because we don't want them deployed wantonly during every battle of every war) and, one must imagine, would draw international concern; even if other alliances didn't intervene in the war, they would at least be wary of any government willing to deploy chemical weapons repeatedly.
Electro Magnetic Pulse:
This could be used to knock out power to a particular city. How its done or how long it may last isnt something I feel I should answer here. Reason being, I think it needs discussed. But this one in particular, Id love to see added. Since we have power as a factor.
Personally, I think its prerequisites should be high (Higher than nukes? IDK). Its cost however, should probably be cheaper, due to its non lethality.
EDIT: Here is how I think the mechanics should work:
*A nation can only be attacked with an EMP once per week. (7 days)
*A successful EMP attack will cause the targeted city to lose power for 3-5 days.
*A city without power has no access to or use of powered improvements.
An example:
Nation A+B declare war on nation C.
Nation A attacks nation C with an EMP.
The attack is successful.
The targeted city of nation C loses power for 3-5 days.
Nation B, now cannot attack nation C with an EMP for 7 days.
This is a good idea and I like it. There isn't much more to be said.
They're useful because they a) provide another weapon to use once a nation's missiles are all launched, and
do a lot more economic damage in the short-term, as they could potentially disable manufacturing and commercial centers wholesale, rapidly crippling a nation's economic capabilities.I do think, however, that EMPs should be able to be deployed more than once per week. That limit seems a little bit low; even to nations like my own (which, I'm sure we can all agree, will eventually be only mid-tier at best), one city per week without power is nothing. Just shift resource production there and commerce somewhere else, and all of your problems are solved. It would take two or three cities without power before a nation the size of my own would start to suffer real effects.
I would suggest one of two solutions: either only a certain percentage of cities or total infrastructure (<33%?) be able to be disabled, or else disabled cities should be unable to buy or sell improvements, forcing a targeted nation to suck it up and deal with the damage done for a week. I prefer the latter solution, personally, because too many EMPs would make for an irritating war of economic attrition.
-
1
-
-
I think that, as has been stated by various other people, the rule preventing "impersonation of alliance government" should be revoked. It makes sense from a neutral standpoint - after all, it would be mighty irritating to have someone log into the forums as, for example, "von Koenige " and attempt to impersonate me - but in reality, cases such as that can be labelled harassment and trolling under other rules just as easily as they could be labelled impersonation under this one. With that in mind, the only purpose that this rule actually serves is to potentially force the moderation team to intervene in alliance politics (by preventing coups, power struggles, spying attempts, etc.), which would obviously not be healthy for in-game alliance politics.
-
Two possible solutions:
1) Disallow empty strings and other invisible characters for city naming.
2) Instead of having cities accessed by clicking their names, have a button next to the city to achieve this.
I like the first solution - because, to be honest, I think that all cities need a real name, even if that name is just "City 001" (because I can imagine a blandly communistic society where everything is numbered rather than named) - but I think that the second would be more elegant and consistent. If someone wants to try and confuse the enemy by keeping all of their city names blank, let 'em. We'll fire blindly into the fog, but by unswerving will the Great Sheep, we'll hit something or other.
Actually, if you just press tab enough times then press enter, you can still get to it.
But I'm a fat lazy 'Murican and I don't like that so that's not what I'm gonna do. >:|
-
2
-
-
the past way before the Third Reich
10/10 Western view of German history
The memory of der Schaefer's vast and accurate stores of historical knowledge, and his willingness to share them so freely with those around him, shall never fade from the hearts of his many admirers.
-
1
-
-
When I think of socialist economies, I think of like Yugoslavia under Tito or modern-day Vietnam. I have a feeling that you're more trying to represent the social democratic countries like Sweden or Norway, which have regulated mixed market economies. I feel as though changing the name to that would better reflect the moderation in political thought between laissez-faire capitalism and hammer-and-sickle communism. Perhaps it would be better to add in "mixed market" as a fourth option?
Also, while I'm whining, do you plan on having economy type ever effect us in any way?
The problem that you're encountering is that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, while communism is an entire ideology about the way countries and in fact all of society should be, which just so happens to incorporate total socialism as its economic system. Nowadays, of course, most people imagine communism as being just the economic system embodied by the Soviet Union and its various satellite states, because - as so many should know - Stalin was not a communist but merely an authoritarian socialist and a Russian nationalist, and it was his ideas which ultimately shaped the future of the "communist" Soviet Union.
If we wanted to be accurate, we would do best to eliminate the Communism option and add Mixed Market in between Capitalism and Socialism; however, Socialism being a very, very broad category, this would lump countries like Nazi Germany (definitively socialist, but with a market to decide anything not already centrally planned) with countries like the Soviet Union (also definitively socialist, but with no market and everything decided by central planning).
In conclusion, I like your idea of adding Mixed Market between Capitalism and Socialism.
-
1
-
-
Sure the caps can be adjusted whenever admin deems it fit.
Again, I think that manually adjusted caps are... not the best idea. I'd prefer something capable of auto-adjusting. If we can find a good in-game number to peg caps to, I'd be all for them, especially if it was a relatively slow-moving number.
Also, we should keep in mind that growth slows down over time; $4 million is more than $2 million by a smaller margin than $2 million is more than $1 million, in terms of raw growth possible from a certain amount of money.
Incidentally, it was mentioned in the IRC logs above (I just skimmed them because seriously, guys, write up your ideas, don't just bomb us with a mess of logs) that growth could be limited by time; I actually like this idea. Perhaps the price of things could increase by like 3-4% per purchase until the next collection, thus causing anyone who attempts to grow too quickly via foreign aid to face rapidly mounting prices within his nation. Within about twenty purchases, the price of any new purchases would double, in addition to the natural increase in price's caused by a nation's growth; this would clearly hinder excessive growth in a short period of time, without placing a hard cap on aid, growth, or the global market. We could run some numbers to find a good percentage that would allow for normal growth without a significant problem while hindering rapid growth caused by having unnatural quantities of money or resources available.
-
I think having a market as described in my previous post for trade and a separate system for aid (including favorable trades with allies) would basically do the trick as such a market system wouldn't lend itself for aid while you could limit the aid system with caps and a limited amount of aid slots.
I feel that, in general, solid caps are a bad idea; we need caps that will automatically scale with the size of the game and the individual nations/alliances in question.
And the problem of banks/warehouses will remain, unfortunately.
-
Problem is, if you properly coordinate that 1 iron for $100 mil deal on IRC you could easily make almost entirely sure that it doesn't get hijacked by someone else. Therefore unlimited market = unlimited aid.
What could be done though is to have the market automatically match up the sellers and buyers such that if you offer $100 mil for 1 iron you would instead end up buying 1 iron from the cheapest seller at the time for whatever price they happened to have offered it. And if you offer 1 iron for $100 mil you just end up at the bottom of the sellers queue such that someone that wishes to buy your 1 iron must first buy all other iron that is being offered at the time for whatever price it is offered for.
Similarly, if you would offer 100k iron for $1 you would instead end up selling that iron to the highest bidding buyers at the time for whatever price they are bidding, while if you offer $1 for 100k iron you would end up at the bottom of the buyers queue such that someone that wishes to sell you that 100k iron would first have to sell to all the buyers that have an offer outstanding at the time for whatever price they are bidding.
I think that this is a good solution. Anyone who doesn't like it isn't trying to use the market in the best interests of their nation; they're clearly using it to benefit someone else. But I don't think that's always a bad thing.
We have to address legitimate individual and alliance agreements (that is, trade which is not even-handed but is also not meant to be simple aid). Let's say that Sweden produces a lot of Iron/Steel and Norway produces a lot of Oil/Gasoline, while both are the most powerful members of their alliance, the Nordic Union. It would clearly be in the interests of these nations and their alliance to sign a preferential commercial agreement by which they can cheaply and consistently trade resources with one another, thus keeping most of their Oil, Gasoline, Iron, Steel, and Money within their own economies and their alliance-wide economy. They want to be able to offer relatively cheap resources to little Iceland, too, so that it can maintain its own growth despite having little beyond Food resources of its own, and to Denmark, which needs to build up its military in case of an attack by big, strong Germany.
Allowing individual deals solves this problem, but introduces once again the problem of aid being sent en masse. I don't think there's any consistent policy that can be applied, across the board, without marginalizing one tactic or another. I think, in the end, a combination of this limit on public trade and your earlier mentioned limit (exponentially increasing penalties for overpriced or underpriced goods) on private trade would be best. My only concern is that there's no way to determine a fair "average price"; the median price of all public transactions might be a good indicator, I suppose, as was mentioned earlier, but it's by no means perfect, and fixed prices are definitely a no-no.
A random final note: I sometimes look through the public trades to see if there's anything I would like to buy. I doubt that I would complete many transactions unless it was either coordinated with another nation specifically or completed as a result of me stumbling upon a good deal. That can be solved by displaying the lowest/high prices offered for buying/selling resources, but it must be taken into consideration, I think, from a psychological perspective.
There are lots of other considerations, but I think that this would basically solve most problems.
However, I view an alliance bank/warehouse as absolutely necessary for use by alliances to collect taxes, distribute aid, prepare for war, pay reparations, and so on and so forth. The presence of such a bank/warehouse would render any of these proposed solutions essentially extraneous. Does anyone have any ideas on that?
(Personally, I don't view alliances aiding their smaller members as a large problem, because I see alliances rather than nations as the basic units of nation simulators; but I will admit that it is highly irritating to see new nations suddenly explode in power and prestige, and I'd like to prevent such occurrences every bit as much as anyone else.)
-
Would you mean similar to NationStates 3 parameters, which fluctuate depending on decisions? Or rather that like EUIII, most policies are actually replaced by some adjustable slider? Latter would seem like a different suggestion altogether, former seems like a visual representation of the main suggestion.
Sounds interesting and could have potential if later more ressources and policies could become possible.
Yeah, I just suggested a couple off the top of my head. Ideally, we'd have at least a few dozen potential policies.
Yeah, I first tried to think of more, but there isn't much of a policy to increase usage of steel or aluminium. Thus it could make more sense to do this once more than 4 manufactured goods are present.
Public Works, Disaster Relief, and related programs could use Steel and Aluminum.
-
I have a personality type of INTJ, according to this ancient and probably less than absolutely unquestionable test.
INTJ
Introvert(67%) iNtuitive(62%) Thinking(1%) Judging(22%)- You have distinctive preference of Introversion over Extraversion (67%)
- You have distinctive preference of Intuition over Sensing (62%)
- You have marginal or no preference of Thinking over Feeling (1%)
- You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (22%)
Not particularly surprising, though, to be honest.
-
1
-
Sorry for being blunt but that's just bollocks. First off, your suggestion that one's nation should be competitive in the early stages just takes away from one of the most essential concepts of the game, i.e. nation development. The fun in developing your nation is exactly to achieve stuff (such as being competitive) that you do not get for free initially. That's only possible if there indeed is stuff that you cannot do initially. Also, the game already works that way for the 'resource' money. In the early stages you can't afford some of the improvements, later on you can.
Anyway, I'm just saying that other resources than just money being more of an (additional) limiting factor would make the game more interesting. Especially because it would encourage resource trade and thus interaction between nations and alliances.
As for older nations sponsoring the young... yeah, I agree that could potentially spoil the game. However, it is an entirely different issue. With the current situation where money is the limiting factor older sponsors can already donate a ton of it to new nations. I'm all for trying to counter this, but again, it has nothing to do with creating a higher demand for resources as per my suggestion in the OP.
Hence my suggestion to exclude the mines/wells/farms from this. A small nation would be able to get food and energy for their city and mine some resources. If they wish to refine them though they have to build manufacturing improvements, which already use resources. As such my suggestion is merely that Supermarkets, Banks, Barracks etc. also use resources (other than just the money for operational costs). Obviously, the more advanced the improvement the more resources they would use, again just as it already is with money.
When I say "competitive", I mean "able to have some hope of eventually competing with the top nations", not "able to immediately compete with every nation in existence". All apologies if that was not clear in my first post.
To be honest? I agree with you, in principle. I'm all for making resources play a larger role and be more than just a wartime necessity, to be purchased rapidly from every available source upon preparation for war; they should play a consistent, major part within the in-game economy, and city-building is unarguably the basic tenet of the in-game economy.
Imagine, however, that you are a newly-christened nation on the continent of Africa, and so you have no Iron and no means of obtaining any. All of the Iron on the market is too expensive; larger nations need that for their own development. You don't know anyone else, you aren't part of a large alliance; nobody wants to grant you any preferential commercial rights or aid your development. But Iron is necessary for building Supermarkets, Banks, Shopping Malls, and Stadiums, massive structures that those things are; so you must simply wait with your people wallowing in poverty until you work your way into enough hard-earned cash to buy some Iron at last and start improving your citizens' average income. But by this time, your European and Asian competitors - born from the same generation of revolutionaries as you - have had such improvements for years, as well as Police Stations, Hospitals, and all sorts of other nice things. You can hardly afford child soldiers, much less an army capable of opposing them. Your hat is, like, much shorter and less jewel-encrusted than theirs. And if you think that you might at least be competitive within Africa, well, you're quite mistaken, because some people have connections; some people have been importing Iron and other valuable resources from your competitors at cheap rates this whole time!
Civil and Commerce improvements are basic necessities for growth at any level. Average Income is the single biggest factor in the entire game capable of generating rapid national growth early on. Your revenue will literally triple if you can push that Average Income from minimum to maximum, which isn't very difficult after a couple of months of play (which I am aware of, as I did not, in fact, use exploits to attain my position; I was here literally a week before anyone else, possibly more, and I spent a lot of my early days idling and unintentionally collecting funds for a sudden boost to the top). If one can afford to focus on such things, that is.
Now, I do think that Manufacturing and Military improvements could do with a resource cost, because building up a military force is not essential to national growth, but merely reflects past growth. The core of the nation, basic cities powered and running at capacity, should be able to be built without resources. Everything beyond that should require resources. Otherwise, I foresee many people finding themselves left out of the race to the top.
I forgot what I was talking about at first because I returned to this post multiple times with breaks of several hours between each return, so if the continuity of the writing is questionable, or it seems as though I'm skipping from one point to another without any connection, please point that out and I will clarify what I meant.
I've heard that you developed your nation through an exploit in buying and selling land though. If that's not the case then I apologize for mentioning it, but if it is the case then I'm not surprised that you don't seem to grasp that there's fun to be had in nation development.
Liars and slanderers should be tarred, feathered, and hung like the uncivilized scum that they are. Your friend, whomever he is, deserves no better.
I can be blunt, too.
-
1
-
You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day
in Suggestions Archive
Posted
Damn right it has.
von Koenige 2014: defending P&W from the scourge of ego obesity, one fattening suggestion at a time. B|