Jump to content

Kosta

Members
  • Posts

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Kosta last won the day on August 10

Kosta had the most liked content!

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Leader Name
    Kosta
  • Nation Name
    Bear Isle
  • Nation ID
    106305
  • Alliance Name
    The Federation

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Kosta#2319

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Kosta's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (4/8)

540

Reputation

  1. RIP KT. Gl with the merge.
  2. Hang in there Black Skies. I am sure you guys will succeed.
  3. Congrats to your two alliances.
  4. Camelot lost King Arthur. I repeat. Camelot lost King Arthur. What???
  5. Kosta

    Tariffs

    Exactly! I feel like changes like this could be a stepping stone for further development in the economic mechanics field.
  6. XD Completely agree with you.
  7. @[email protected] I am just going to agree to disagree here. This is going to keep going back and forth. Probably best to let otherd make up their opinions based on what has already been said.
  8. @ZephyrWith every respect to you Zephyr, I must disagree. Your suggestions, although advocate for greater individual freedoms for members would work in a real life setting, however in Politics and War would make it a complete nightmare to run an alliance. This seems to be your interpretation of the game premise, and one that I 100% disagree with. If members were able to refuse actions such a taxes, embargoes, and sharing information (I know information sharing is already a mechanic, however it is not a problem because not many players know about it) it would be incredibly difficult to govern an alliance. Your premise would work if Politics and War were a full time job however your premise allows for zero mechanical governance by alliance leaders. Currently alliances have only one proper mechanical tool for governance and that tool is taxes. Taxes can have multiple uses however one such use is punitive. If members are able to refuse taxes, it defeats one of the important middle-grounds of punishment for inactive/non-compliant members. Instead the only way governments can deal with non-compliance is alliance removal, since taxes are "opt-in". Again, if Politics and War war was a full time job your premise would work. Would you expect an alliance leaders to physically ask every single member what their stockpile is? what their spy count is? If their compliant with embargoes? Are they paying their taxes? What a complete waste of time. We can literally see their information on the control panel. And also we can see their nations. If members had the option to cancel that information it would be a ridiculous task to coordinate. I am advocating for all governments here. Its simply not viable. Your are advocating for a system of zero mechanical control by governments except for being able to kick members which WILL NOT work. And before anyone swings the "tyranny" hammer my way. TF is looking to democratise in the future. And if Zephyr's model were implemented, it would be a complete nightmare any govt of the alliance. Perhaps alliances with bots could make things easier, but not every alliance has that luxury. TL;DR I disagree on most points.
  9. Making members "accept" taxes or an embargo is very counter intuitive. It limits the ability of alliance governments to control and organise their alliances. If members do not want taxes they should leave. They know what they signed up for. I really hope Alex does not do that.
  10. Kosta

    Tariffs

    Yeah. This allows for a bit of a dynamic between tax rates and tariffs rates. More choices for alliance leaders, and more avenues for revenue.
  11. Kosta

    Tariffs

    I suppose tariff brackets could add more flavour to this.
  12. Kosta

    Tariffs

    Hey guys, Politics and War is a very diverse game with regards to politics, communities and diplomacy. However it is also a very diverse game in terms of economies and economic systems. Many alliances vouch for large government controls and regulations of the economy, whilst other alliances vouch for moderate or even no regulation or taxation of the economy. I would like to suggest the addition of tariffs to the game. First of all what is a Tariff? "A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports." (Google) "A tariff is a tax on imported goods and services, and is also called a customs duty." (Economics Online) What are the two types of tariffs? "A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item, such as a $1,000 tariff on a car. An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item's value, such as 10% of the value of the vehicle." (Investopedia) What can tariffs be placed on? Imports - raising the price of imports into a country for citizens. Exports - raising the price of exports out of a country to foreigners. Why Governments Impose Tariffs in real life? "Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue, or to protect domestic industries—especially nascent ones—from foreign competition. By making foreign-produced goods more expensive, tariffs can make domestically produced alternatives seem more attractive. Governments that use tariffs to benefit particular industries often do so to protect companies and jobs. Tariffs can also be used as an extension of foreign policy as their imposition on a trading partner's main exports may be used to exert economic leverage." (Investopedia) What does this mean in a Politics and War sense? Alex could add import/export tariffs for alliance leaders to add to the Global or Alliance market (they should be separate) as an alliance tool. But why? Alliance leaders can impose a specific tariff (eg. $100 on the price of Iron) or a ad-valorem tariff (eg. 10% on the price of Iron) on imports to raise tax revenue for their alliance on the global market. Members who scroll through the market would, for example, have all iron prices increased by $100 or 10% of which would directly go to the alliance bank. Import tariffs can be used to persuade/force members to only use the alliance market. For example, an alliance could place a 100% tariff on the global market which would dissuade members from buying from there and instead use the tariff-free alliance-market. (This is for alliances with closed markets). This is similar with export tariffs, to dissuade foreign members from purchasing locally produced alliance member goods. This could help with the creation of tariff-free sphere markets. This could also be a selling point for alliances who pride themselves on their economic system (eg. no tariffs for economically free alliances or alliance exclusive markets for socialist or similar alliances). Hence, allows for greater role play. I hope this could be considered. Thanks, Kosta.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.