Popular Post Zhen Posted December 5, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 5, 2017 I feel it's come time that the function to allow alliance leaders to embargo another alliance should be implemented. Meaning, if the leader/leadership in alliance A embargos alliance B, all members in Alliance A will not be able to buy/sell with anyone in alliance B. I feel it would add a bit more bite to the embargo so to say. If people in the alliance are against it, they can always petition to not have it, or just leave. Embargos hardly have any weight to them anyways, so I don't see it as a 'game changer' by any means, but it would add a little more political weight if this were allowed. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 I proposed something like this before, but it got shot down because people thought it should be up to leaders IC to get their members to mass embargo alliances instead. Still, I like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 119 Edited December 11, 2020 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Always supported this idea so yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 yes maybe embargos will mean something now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeNova Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 I like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 100% support On 12/5/2017 at 6:06 PM, Zhen said: If people in the alliance are against it, they can always petition to not have it, or just leave. Embargos hardly have any weight to them anyways, so I don't see it as a 'game changer' by any means, but it would add a little more political weight if this were allowed. Every time someone points this out, people always say alliances shouldn't have that much power or something stupid like that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 You could do it based on alliance tax rates. Any bracket where the sum of the money and resource tax rates is greater than X could have alliance embargoes set for all nations in that bracket. That would further flesh out the distinctions between centralized and decentralized alliance economies and make tax rates a more important consideration for alliance leaders and players, especially those that focus on trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhen Posted December 10, 2017 Author Share Posted December 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Edward I said: You could do it based on alliance tax rates. Any bracket where the sum of the money and resource tax rates is greater than X could have alliance embargoes set for all nations in that bracket. That would further flesh out the distinctions between centralized and decentralized alliance economies and make tax rates a more important consideration for alliance leaders and players, especially those that focus on trading. I feel this is an overly complicated input to a new feature. Perhaps it would be a window in the Alliance Control Panel near the Treaties where you can 'add' alliances that you can embargo. This would make it where all members of each alliance can not trade with each other. It'll add more of a bite to the embargos, both politically and economically. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 40 minutes ago, Zhen said: I feel this is an overly complicated input to a new feature. Perhaps it would be a window in the Alliance Control Panel near the Treaties where you can 'add' alliances that you can embargo. This would make it where all members of each alliance can not trade with each other. It'll add more of a bite to the embargos, both politically and economically. I don't see how it's complicated. It's a couple of extra clicks per embargo on the front end and few more lines of code that check what tax bracket a nation is in on the back end. It wasn't meant to be a suggestion about which user interface we should put the button in, it was meant to be a compromise between the "don't be lazy, mobilize your players" camp and the "why isn't this already a feature" camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhen Posted December 10, 2017 Author Share Posted December 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Edward I said: I don't see how it's complicated. It's a couple of extra clicks per embargo on the front end and few more lines of code that check what tax bracket a nation is in on the back end. It wasn't meant to be a suggestion about which user interface we should put the button in, it was meant to be a compromise between the "don't be lazy, mobilize your players" camp and the "why isn't this already a feature" camp. After having two extra cups of coffee, I completely see what you are saying now. I apologize for that. At the very least, this could be implemented in this way. But that might require 'effort' so...We shall see lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhen Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 It should be an easy implementation as well, since the system of treaties makes it where nations in treatied alliances can't attack each other, then embargoes against alliances will make it where the nations in those alliances can't trade with one another. I feel if the NAP treaties being hidden on the treaty web can be fixed up within a hour of being suggested, a response to this thread certainly could be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Karl VII Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 While we're at it, how about we let the alliances choose city build ups for their nations as well. How about we just shift everything to the alliances and the only thing people can do with their nations is edit their social policies and use the dossier. .... Oh now that I think about it, not of huge fun of this nvm. Nearly the entire games content is controlled by the govs of like 10 alliances (~30ppl), we don't need to expand this into the trading sector too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavee Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 I also wanted that idea but it'll be good and bad both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 7 hours ago, Karl VII said: While we're at it, how about we let the alliances choose city build ups for their nations as well. How about we just shift everything to the alliances and the only thing people can do with their nations is edit their social policies and use the dossier.Oh now that I think about it, not of huge fun of this nvm.Nearly the entire games content is controlled by the govs of like 10 alliances (~30ppl), we don't need to expand this into the trading sector too. If you don't like how your alliance embargoes people, join another alliance. You aren't forced to stay there, unless you took out a loan or something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Karl VII Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said: If you don't like how your alliance embargoes people, join another alliance. You aren't forced to stay there, unless you took out a loan or something. If you don't like how there's no option for embargoes by alliances, play another game. You aren't forced to stay here, unless you're Sheepys sex slave or something. The whole "if you don't like it you can leave" type of argument is just overall not a good argument. ... And my main point still stands, alliances already control most of the games content, I just think there is no need to expand their control into the trading sector. Edited December 15, 2017 by Karl VII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 If you really want to embargo another alliance petition or order your members to do it, its not that hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhen Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 17 hours ago, Darth Revan said: If you really want to embargo another alliance petition or order your members to do it, its not that hard. That would work well in smaller alliances with maybe twenty people or fewer. Other alliances that have more than this (basically the top 25) would have a much harder time with this. Who knows, this might also help break some of the deadlock politically in the game. And for a lot of people this would be a great aspect to introduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 I like tbis. Sheepy make it so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted December 19, 2017 Wiki Mod Share Posted December 19, 2017 (edited) This isn't candyland, doing something should require effort. If you can not coordinate your alliance to mass embargo, you do not deserve to have a mass embargo. Edited December 19, 2017 by Dr Rush 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...
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.