Popular Post Johnny Costello Posted May 23, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 23, 2018 I may have suggested this before. But we do war quite a bit. We don't trade like we could and it's kinda outdated imo. So my suggestion Is. Alliances tarrif other alliances. Example being TKR puts a 5% tarrif on Pantheon. Any Pantheon nation buying goods from TKR has to (automatically of course) pay 5% more on the sale price of goods. This could be a neat thing to add to war terms as an ingame political tactic. We have nation Embargoes. We should have tarriffs. Also some way we can (encourage) trade amongst allies or in alliance members Say a 3% Ally discount or 5% Alliance discount. Where you pay a reduced price for the goods to better encourage trade 7 Quote I hold the Right to my own Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Pendragon Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 I personally think that the mechanics of tarrif's wouldn't work with P&W's trade system cause a tariff in real life are for against countries that really have no other choice to trade with that country those things, but in P&W so many people produce so many things that would just either wildly effect prices or just make the person trade with someone else, cause 5% of an $80 ppu food or whatever makes it's total cost 84, other people would be selling it for 81~83 more than likely. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Arthur Pendragon said: I personally think that the mechanics of tarrif's wouldn't work with P&W's trade system cause a tariff in real life are for against countries that really have no other choice to trade with that country those things, but in P&W so many people produce so many things that would just either wildly effect prices or just make the person trade with someone else, cause 5% of an $80 ppu food or whatever makes it's total cost 84, other people would be selling it for 81~83 more than likely. I personally think you don't understand the point of tariffs in general, nor the point of them in a setting like PW. Forcing people you don't like to spend more on resources, by you putting tariffs on them, is a simple but logical tactic. Especially, if, say, you are Rose, putting tariffs on NPO. NPO is well known to have outstanding debts already, you're just spitting on their shoes now. Don't be so close-minded, think in-depth about how this would affect relations, before saying its pointless. Two people who have, both think you're missing something. That's 66%, maybe reconsider that. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Pendragon Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Lairah said: I personally think you don't understand the point of tariffs in general, nor the point of them in a setting like PW. Forcing people you don't like to spend more on resources, by you putting tariffs on them, is a simple but logical tactic. Especially, if, say, you are Rose, putting tariffs on NPO. NPO is well known to have outstanding debts already, you're just spitting on their shoes now. Don't be so close-minded, think in-depth about how this would affect relations, before saying its pointless. Two people who have, both think you're missing something. That's 66%, maybe reconsider that. I get the point of putting tarrif's on people, but I'm saying practically they'd just go to another source. I see what you are saying about relations and stuff though. Because not everyone selling steel would be from Rose, to use your example. The person from NPO could just buy steel from someone from BK. Unless I am misunderstanding what the mechanic is it would be that people from NPO buying from people from Rose would be charged more. If it's not that I am probably wrong but otherwise they'd just go to another source probably because it'd be cheaper. Edited May 23, 2018 by Arthur Pendragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 20 hours ago, Arthur Pendragon said: I get the point of putting tarrif's on people, but I'm saying practically they'd just go to another source. I see what you are saying about relations and stuff though. Because not everyone selling steel would be from Rose, to use your example. The person from NPO could just buy steel from someone from BK. Unless I am misunderstanding what the mechanic is it would be that people from NPO buying from people from Rose would be charged more. If it's not that I am probably wrong but otherwise they'd just go to another source probably because it'd be cheaper. I agree. Resources are too easily interchangeable in this game. And it would effectively be about as much of a nuisance to the nations of the alliance imposing it as those on the receiving end. I don't think the mechanic would be harmful, but it probably would not be used very much. In real life, tariffs are used for protectionist reasons to protect or grow certain industries in a way that doesn't exist in P&W. You impose a tariff because you want to give an industry space to be competitive against foreign competition in your domestic markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 22 hours ago, Lairah said: I personally think you don't understand the point of tariffs in general, nor the point of them in a setting like PW. Forcing people you don't like to spend more on resources, by you putting tariffs on them, is a simple but logical tactic. Especially, if, say, you are Rose, putting tariffs on NPO. NPO is well known to have outstanding debts already, you're just spitting on their shoes now. Don't be so close-minded, think in-depth about how this would affect relations, before saying its pointless. Two people who have, both think you're missing something. That's 66%, maybe reconsider that. He has a valid point on how tariffs could affect trade rates. And tariffs of course won't have the same affect as it does in the real world. I think that's what @Arthur Pendragonis saying. I'm not saying I totally disagree with tariffs but after all the facts are presented it could be decided on whether its a good idea or not. 4 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.