AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) PROPOSAL 1: Conventional weapons (tanks, aircraft, and ships) may be bought and sold freely on the Global Market just like any other commodity. (EDIT: Note soldiers may not be traded.) 2: Missile and Nuclear Missile weapons may be bought and sold via private trade. (EDIT: Note purchasing nation still requires the projects that build/launch these systems in order to store and use/launch foreign missiles.) 3: There is a natural storage capacity in each city for 300 soldiers, 25 tanks, 2 aircraft, and 1 ship. This is natural storage capacity only and does not confer any ability to produce these weapons. 4: Each new Barracks, (tank) Factory, Air Base, and Dry Dock purchased as infrastructure serves to augment a city's natural storage capacity (+3000 soldiers, +250 tanks, +18 aircraft, and +5 ships), plus allows the nation to self-produce the particular weapon system at current production rates. 5 (maybe, maybe not): Each city's natural storage capacity is tied to overall infrastructure, so that more infrastructure or land confers a proportional increase in natural storage capacity. (EDIT: Counters the overall purpose of this proposal, which is basically to help expand the defense options available to newer and smaller nations, and can really snowball-benefit as a nation grows.) REASONING As in the real-world, nations should easily be able to purchase weapons they can't produce themselves from nations that can produce the weapons. To facilitate this ability, several tweaks are needed, specifically, a low-level natural storage capacity in each city in order to warehouse any foreign weapons purchased. Currently the only storage/warehousing available is tied to factories that produce the weapons. Even nations that can produce weapons can benefit by using the proposed system to purchase weapons beyond their current production capacities. Great, especially during times of emergency. This would better reflect real-world simulation in that it would acknowledge and make possible international defense trading. Edited December 14, 2015 by Athretvari 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 This would mean rich nations would have an insane amount of nukes. Coz you can only make 1 nuke a day. They would buy unlimited nukes a day Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 NO. It will be abused,it has been discussed before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 This would mean rich nations would have an insane amount of nukes. Coz you can only make 1 nuke a day. They would buy unlimited nukes a day The nation producing the nuke of course is losing a nuke for (hopefully) a profit. Just to point out, I'm not making a suggestion for an increase in production rates or capacities. So yes, theoretically a rich nation can give other nations lots and lots of money to buy their nukes, but how many nukes can they produce to sell? Still just one per day each, so the rich buyer needs lots of nuke missile suppliers. Not to mention, selling nukes should be viewed like in RL, really not-so-good behavior of a civilized state. But what's you're option in the real world? What if North Korea decided to start selling nukes to any other country? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 NO. It will be abused,it has been discussed before. Can you please expand, I spent a while digging and found zero on this topic. Thanks for anything constructive in advance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Just to point out [...] rich buyer needs lots of nuke missile suppliers. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 North Kore buys nuclear manufacturing material and equipment from Israel 1 Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 Proudly a member. Thanks for taking the time to note it. This is strictly a game-mechanics issue. One I think members of other alliances would find interesting. Besides my nation isnt one that believes "neutrality" equates to being or needing to be "weak," quite the opposite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 If you don't prepare properly or are caught with your pants down, you must pay the price. You shouldn't be able to pay a price to get you out the shit! 1 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 If you don't prepare properly or are caught with your pants down, you must pay the price. You shouldn't be able to pay a price to get you out the shit! I'm trying to have a serious discussion of a particular game-mechanic, specifically the simulation of real-world weapon trade. There is no difference between weapons and regular commodities except the restrictions on warehousing/storage, and actual trading of weapons. The restriction on warehousing/storage is specific to needing to build a factory to first produce, THEN store the weapons. While in real-life, many many many nations, do not develop or build their own weapons, but instead buy them. My proposal first addressed basic weapons trading, then addressed the issue of warehousing/storage for non-producers with a natural storage capacity per city. Besides, small nations purchasing weapons before an unwarranted attack from a larger raider would be "preparing properly." Please, constructive criticism only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I think this would be reasonable... but the market for stuff like nukes would be insanely high, like higher than credits high, because people would want to make a profit over the amount of money they spent for the nuke, not to mention money they spent to buy the resources to buy the nuke, so I don't think that would be a huge problem. And it would be realistic; in WWII, the US sent the other Allies resources and weapons and tanks and stuff before they joined the war. There are other examples too, but this post is getting long. Anyway, I think it's actually a good idea. I don't think you should be able to buy soldiers, though. I mean, really. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 I think this would be reasonable... but the market for stuff like nukes would be insanely high, like higher than credits high, because people would want to make a profit over the amount of money they spent for the nuke, not to mention money they spent to buy the resources to buy the nuke, so I don't think that would be a huge problem. And it would be realistic; in WWII, the US sent the other Allies resources and weapons and tanks and stuff before they joined the war. There are other examples too, but this post is getting long. Anyway, I think it's actually a good idea. I don't think you should be able to buy soldiers, though. I mean, really. I totally agree with you on the nukes. And soldiers. I purposefully lelt them out of the trade part, but did include a simple 300 soldier capacity per city as a basic "barracks" a newbie could use before buying a real barracks. (Guess that's not really needed to make this work though. More a little freebie there.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 Removed the natural storage capacity for 300 soldiers. This proposal is really specific to facilitating weapons trade, and soldiers won't be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) PROPOSAL 1: Conventional weapons (tanks, aircraft, and ships) may be bought and sold freely on the Global Market just like any other commodity. What would be the point? Without enough Shipyards, Factories and AFB's to house them, you won't be able to buy them anyway. Sellers will want to make a profit, meaning market weps will cost more than if you just produced em... pointless. 2: Missile and Nuclear Missile weapons may be bought and sold via private trade. (EDIT: Note purchasing nation still requires projects to build and launch these systems in order to store and use/launch.) See above. 3: There is a natural storage capacity in each city for 300 soldiers, 25 tanks, 2 aircraft, and 1 ship. This is natural storage capacity only and does not confer any ability to produce these weapons. Utterly pointless. 4: Each new Barracks, (tank) Factory, Air Base, and Dry Dock purchased as infrastructure serves to augment a city's natural storage capacity (+3000 soldiers, +250 tanks, +18 aircraft, and +5 ships), plus allows the nation to self-produce the particular weapon system (current production rates). See above. 5 (maybe, maybe not): Each city's natural storage capacity is tied to overall infrastructure, so that more infrastructure or land confers a proportional increase in natural storage capacity. But this really snowball-benefits as a nation grows. Which counters the overall purpose of this proposal, which is basically to help expand the defense options available to newer and smaller nations. Maybe not... Constructive enough for you? Edited December 14, 2015 by Wayne Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 What would be the point? Without enough Shipyards, Factories and AFB's to house them, you won't be able to buy them anyway. Sellers will want to make a profit, meaning market weps will cost more than if you just produced em... pointless. See above. Utterly pointless. See above. Maybe not...Constructive enough for you? No, but nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I like it, it gives nations an extra incentive to blockade/break a blockade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted December 15, 2015 Wiki Mod Share Posted December 15, 2015 It's unbalanced & exploitable, & further the OP has presented zero case for it other then realism to which I say P&W > Reality 2 Quote 23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves 23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous 23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed 23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves 23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love 6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Temple Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Make it so that if you trade nukes/missiles, it has like a 80% chance of being hidden, thus making people unware of your trade, but if a new spy op came into the scene, like gather trade intel, you could find out if or when they last bought missiles/nukes, yet the rate of success is around 30% max Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Been discussed before. Been shot down before. Too easy to exploit. Exploits daily purchasing cap. Promotes keeping minimum military. This is lambda quality. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Temple Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Been discussed before. Been shot down before. Too easy to exploit. Exploits daily purchasing cap. Promotes keeping minimum military. This is lambda quality. What ever get shot down can get up again... just like that catchy song! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 What ever get shot down can get up again... just like that catchy song! like you,getting shot down. ad nauseam 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.