Jump to content

Enable Alliance Leaders to Set Embargoes For Members


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah I think it's a good idea. It'd add a lot of dynamic elements to cold wars and peacetime alongside prices in the market.

We have seized the means of production. Though union, and self-governance, we have organized between all peoples of the land.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think the idea is a worthwhile one that will add an additional level to the game. As it is, embargoes don't seem to matter much, I've never noticed them really. Adding to the embargo system and making it more in depth and meaningful will improve the game and the way people play the game, at least in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual nations can already embargo alliances. Personally I would find it a little more annoying using the market if entire allainces got blanket embargoed without me having any say in the matter. Although guess the disagreements which might arise could make things interesting. Even playing baseball is disabled with those embargoed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was proposed a few times earlier I believe, but somehow never came to fruition. As it is, embargo system is practically useless right now and offers nothing to make the game interesting.

It's a good idea and I doubt it would be hard to make it as the basis for it already exists. 

  • Upvote 1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Individual nations can already embargo alliances. Personally I would find it a little more annoying using the market if entire allainces got blanket embargoed without me having any say in the matter. Although guess the disagreements which might arise could make things interesting. Even playing baseball is disabled with those embargoed.

Thats kinda the point. It adds a level of dynamic not just with others but with ones own members. If your members fell its too harsh they will speak up.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2019 at 12:12 PM, The Mad Titan said:

Embargoes are an underutilized aspect of P&W, and could become a much impactful area. The solution to this would be to allow alliances to embargo other alliances/individuals. Just as the United States can control if its citizens can trade with Cuba/NK/Iran, alliance leaders should be able to embargo whole other alliances. This would lead to an interesting dynamic and potentially create conflict that could escalate. This would be a new element to trade and create a new political arena with leaders having to balance cutting their own members off from resources, retaliatory trade wars, and the increased tension. This beats the current decentralized nature of embargoes that lacks any real strength.

I think its a great idea, although one issue it might cause would be messing up trades for banking payments/ loans etc. So if a workaround for that was found it'll be an excellent addition. 

INB4: Everyone embargoes Pantheon.

Edited by Sphinx
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2019 at 9:12 PM, The Mad Titan said:

Embargoes are an underutilized aspect of P&W, and could become a much impactful area. The solution to this would be to allow alliances to embargo other alliances/individuals. Just as the United States can control if its citizens can trade with Cuba/NK/Iran, alliance leaders should be able to embargo whole other alliances. This would lead to an interesting dynamic and potentially create conflict that could escalate. This would be a new element to trade and create a new political arena with leaders having to balance cutting their own members off from resources, retaliatory trade wars, and the increased tension. This beats the current decentralized nature of embargoes that lacks any real strength.

(TL;DR at bottom) 

...No. No, leaders would not have to balance cutting off their members or have to worry about trade wars.  If we go to the trade page for steel (as of writing), we will see that no two members are in the same alliance. We have:

  • Polaris 
  • The Enterprise
  • Empyrea
  • Typhon
  • World Task Force
  • The Illuminati
  • Afrika Korps
  • Black Knights
  • and finally, the New Pacific Order

None repeat. At all. And because everyone is undercutting everyone by one, there's [almost] no price difference. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, I do, but it's not gonna have as big a difference as you'd seem to think. I could only see this happening if we made resources harder to come by making mines and stuff less productive, lowering the amount consumed per anything, and made it so you HAD to undercut by at least 5 or so. The undercutting mechanic and the less productive resource gathering would work together and counteract the other - while the amount of money you have remains static before and after the change. That way, there would be big price differences, and there would be an effect from Embargoing. But even then, if you were to embargo Pantheon (who at the time of writing this is the number 42nd lowest offer), chances are that even then there wouldn't be an effect. Because there are 232 different alliances, what are the chances that the lowest offering one is going to be your alliance's one enemy? 0.431%. That's not a lot of percent.

Maybe instead when you embargo one alliance, say, the Black Knights, you also embargo their allies - friend of my enemy is my enemy and all that. Instead of just embargoing BK, you'd also embargo:

  • Guardians of the Galaxy
  • Order of the White Rose
  • Camelot
  • Afrika Korps
  • DEFCON 1
  • Empire of the Moonlit Sakura
  • Yakuza
  • Hyperborea
  • and the Solar Knights 

There wouldn't be a huge difference, but at least there would be one.

TL;DR: The only way for this to work is for resource production improvements to be inefficient as all hell, for all trades be mandated to undercut the previous one by at least $5, and for the embargoed alliance's allies (all treaties but NAP) to also be embargoed by relation.

EDIT: Just realized I put nine alliances instead of ten in the first list - please ignore that. That'd be my bad.

Edited by LUNCH

Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LUNCH said:

(TL;DR at bottom) 

...No. No, leaders would not have to balance cutting off their members or have to worry about trade wars.  If we go to the trade page for steel (as of writing), we will see that no two members are in the same alliance. We have:

  • Polaris 
  • The Enterprise
  • Empyrea
  • Typhon
  • World Task Force
  • The Illuminati
  • Afrika Korps
  • Black Knights
  • and finally, the New Pacific Order

None repeat. At all. And because everyone is undercutting everyone by one, there's [almost] no price difference. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, I do, but it's not gonna have as big a difference as you'd seem to think. I could only see this happening if we made resources harder to come by making mines and stuff less productive, lowering the amount consumed per anything, and made it so you HAD to undercut by at least 5 or so. The undercutting mechanic and the less productive resource gathering would work together and counteract the other - while the amount of money you have remains static before and after the change. That way, there would be big price differences, and there would be an effect from Embargoing. But even then, if you were to embargo Pantheon (who at the time of writing this is the number 42nd lowest offer), chances are that even then there wouldn't be an effect. Because there are 232 different alliances, what are the chances that the lowest offering one is going to be your alliance's one enemy? 0.431%. That's not a lot of percent.

Maybe instead when you embargo one alliance, say, the Black Knights, you also embargo their allies - friend of my enemy is my enemy and all that. Instead of just embargoing BK, you'd also embargo:

  • Guardians of the Galaxy
  • Order of the White Rose
  • Camelot
  • Afrika Korps
  • DEFCON 1
  • Empire of the Moonlit Sakura
  • Yakuza
  • Hyperborea
  • and the Solar Knights 

There wouldn't be a huge difference, but at least there would be one.

TL;DR: The only way for this to work is for resource production improvements to be inefficient as all hell, for all trades be mandated to undercut the previous one by at least $5, and for the embargoed alliance's allies (all treaties but NAP) to also be embargoed by relation.

EDIT: Just realized I put nine alliances instead of ten in the first list - please ignore that. That'd be my bad.

I think already his initial suggestion could cause big enough annoyances; there could be internal conflict in alliances if its used to much. Don't think it needs to be expanded to automatically block interaction between even more nations than the alliance intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I think already his initial suggestion could cause big enough annoyances; there could be internal conflict in alliances if its used to much. Don't think it needs to be expanded to automatically block interaction between even more nations than the alliance intended.

As said before, there would be very little annoyance. Offers are usually beneath the other by a factor of only $1. Let's say the United Nations embargoed EVERYONE. That would have very little effect. Only effects would be that nobody could buy from the UN, and the UN couldn't buy from anyone. Anyone wanna know the chances of you wanting to accept an offer from 1 particular alliance out of a hat containing 232 alliances? 1 in 232? 0.431%. All that would happen is that everyone would leave the alliance because now they can't buy anything on the market.

However, I do see how that could be used in a non-stupid manner - the Commerce Union or whatever could embargo everyone, and make it so that their members can only trade with each other at fixed prices, with a certain percentage of profits going into the alliance bank. This way, all producing nations know they have a sustainable stream of income that will not ever fluctuate, despite current market index. They could have their own little ecosystem, in which the market is controlled and systemized beyond what we'd ever dreamed... I'd actually like to see this happen. 

@Alex, why don't you weigh in?

Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LUNCH said:

As said before, there would be very little annoyance. Offers are usually beneath the other by a factor of only $1. Let's say the United Nations embargoed EVERYONE. That would have very little effect. Only effects would be that nobody could buy from the UN, and the UN couldn't buy from anyone. Anyone wanna know the chances of you wanting to accept an offer from 1 particular alliance out of a hat containing 232 alliances? 1 in 232? 0.431%. All that would happen is that everyone would leave the alliance because now they can't buy anything on the market.

However, I do see how that could be used in a non-stupid manner - the Commerce Union or whatever could embargo everyone, and make it so that their members can only trade with each other at fixed prices, with a certain percentage of profits going into the alliance bank. This way, all producing nations know they have a sustainable stream of income that will not ever fluctuate, despite current market index. They could have their own little ecosystem, in which the market is controlled and systemized beyond what we'd ever dreamed... I'd actually like to see this happen. 

@Alex, why don't you weigh in?

If an alliance leader can embargoe entire allainces; they would already be able to embargoe every ally of the alliance they really want to. I don't think it should automatically embargoe all their allies as well, unless its an additional option they can choose to toggle on maybe.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

If an alliance leader can embargoe entire allainces; they would already be able to embargoe every ally of the alliance they really want to. I don't think it should automatically embargoe all their allies as well, unless its an additional option they can choose to toggle on maybe.

I could see that. Let's go with this.

Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
21 hours ago, LUNCH said:

@Alex, why don't you weigh in?

You don't need alliance leaders to be able to force embargoes on your members, just have the alliance leaders instruct their members who to embargo.

If you can't get your members to cooperate, kick them out of the alliance.

I don't like the idea of taking away more sovereignty of individual players and putting it in the hands of the relatively few nations that control alliance governments.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 6

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alex said:

You don't need alliance leaders to be able to force embargoes on your members, just have the alliance leaders instruct their members who to embargo.

If you can't get your members to cooperate, kick them out of the alliance.

I don't like the idea of taking away more sovereignty of individual players and putting it in the hands of the relatively few nations that control alliance governments.

Thats horribly inefficient and makes embargoes basically unenforceable trying to check 150 peoples embargoes. Members already have sovereignty by being able to vote with their feet, if they dont like the alliance policies they can leave. This is no different than being able to set an alliance tax rate. If thats your solution no one will ever do it and Embargoes will remain a pointless function of the game. 

Governments already control FA, and embargoes are an extension of FA. This is no different than how it would work in real life. 

The basis of this games are the alliance not the individual nations. They are citizens of an alliance and the alliance should be able to set "laws" so to speak. In game mechanical enforcement makes life easier and more engaging for the game.

Edited by The Mad Titan
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Thats horribly inefficient and makes embargoes basically unenforceable trying to check 150 peoples embargoes. Members already have sovereignty by being able to vote with their feet, if they dont like the alliance policies they can leave. This is no different than being able to set an alliance tax rate. If thats your solution no one will ever do it and Embargoes will remain a pointless function of the game. 

Governments already control FA, and embargoes are an extension of FA. This is no different than how it would work in real life. 

The basis of this games are the alliance not the individual nations. They are citizens of an alliance and the alliance should be able to set "laws" so to speak. In game mechanical enforcement makes life easier and more engaging for the game.

@Alex, I can't help agree with him. This is a game of alliances, not of nations, whether or not that was ever your intention. 

  • Like 1

Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Alex said:

You don't need alliance leaders to be able to force embargoes on your members, just have the alliance leaders instruct their members who to embargo.

If you can't get your members to cooperate, kick them out of the alliance.

I don't like the idea of taking away more sovereignty of individual players and putting it in the hands of the relatively few nations that control alliance governments.

IF they don't like it they can leave, I'm not sure why you think its such a terrible idea, honestly. Would you restrict alliances taxing members, saying that the members need to manually put their money in each turn? No, of course not, if players don't like the tax rate they can go somewhere else. 

Its really the same thing, idk why you've always died on this hill, practically no one else agrees with you. Members, alliance leaders, and everyone else agree with this. Its got broad support. 

In terms of admining, I would just say that members are usually not active unless they join the community of an alliance/overall community. So "sovereignty of individual players" isn't a good defense considering that, even without people raiding you 24/7, its practically impossible to grow without the help of others(trade, loans, grants, raiding others, etc). Most players would leave the game before it was time to buy city #10. 

Alliances are the lifeblood of the game. You have reversed SEVERAL coups to keep players in SEVERAL alliances happy. Why would you not add a feature a lot of people want?

  • Upvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
4 hours ago, Alex said:

You don't need alliance leaders to be able to force embargoes on your members, just have the alliance leaders instruct their members who to embargo.

If you can't get your members to cooperate, kick them out of the alliance.

I don't like the idea of taking away more sovereignty of individual players and putting it in the hands of the relatively few nations that control alliance governments.

 The idea that there's a critical mass of people that are actively concerned about the 'sovereignty' of their nation, as opposed to seeing themselves in terms of their membership in an AA, is just flat out wrong.  The overwhelming majority of players appear to identify with their AA (and their role within it) rather than their nominal position of His Excellency Lord High Emperor of Nation 38903-A, at least in my experience.  And, as Leo pointed out, individuals who are dissatisfied with embargo policies (or taxes or MMR or their AA gov in general) always have the option to vote with their feet, which is the ultimate expression of sovereignty for those who are concerned about it. 

Having AA-wide trade policies are no different than having AA-wide tax policies and it makes about as much sense to have to chase around 150 people to individually embargo another AA as it would to chase around 150 people to individually deposit their taxes every turn.  I mean, yeah, people can do that, but it would be easier for everyone involved to allow AAs set a general policy that doesn't require a ton of hassle to enforce.  This appears to be one of the few suggestions that members of every sphere can agree on, so denying it to defend a conception of individual sovereignty that the player base doesn't actually subscribe to seems wrongheaded at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your alliance already has the ability to impose a tax rate on you without your consent, are we really making trading on foreign markets the hallmark of rugged individualism?

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, I don't get where this notion of individual sovereignty comes from conflicting with something automatically imposed like the embargo. If people wanted to be able to determine their alliance's policies, surely democratic alliances would be more prominent. People choose to pool their sovereignty under the government on other hand here. This is because it is not an individual nation game. It's an alliance game as Sketchy said. If you want it to be an individual-oriented game, then you should have not introduced alliances to begin with and limited cooperation between nations based on geography or something else. As long as cooperation is needed, people will unite and forego individual autonomy to some degree. The embargo isn't any more imposing than an alliance color or application process. There are plenty of non-mechanical things you can introduce to increase individual playability as RP aspects keep people animated in other games. The government types have a lot of potential. Playing as an individual nation is suited to single player games or short runs, not collaborative browser games where people are reliant on each other.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 11:23 PM, Auctor said:

Your alliance already has the ability to impose a tax rate on you without your consent, are we really making trading on foreign markets the hallmark of rugged individualism?

sHaLl NoT bE iNfRinGeD

  • Haha 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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