Popular Post The Mad Titan Posted April 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 9, 2019 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. 8 32 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 First 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted April 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 9, 2019 Sounds good to me. This game is at its core a game of alliances not nations. Way too many mechanics are nation focused. 2 13 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impreza Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 I like it. But also that embargoes page—I dont want to see a billion scrubs embargo mountania. Lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapsie Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Gaius Julius Caesar Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 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 More sharing options...
True King Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Theodosius Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted April 9, 2019 Author Share Posted April 9, 2019 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) 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 April 10, 2019 by Sphinx 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) 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 April 10, 2019 by LUNCH Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 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 More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 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 More sharing options...
True King Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted April 11, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 11, 2019 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. 1 5 6 Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted April 11, 2019 Author Share Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) 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 April 11, 2019 by The Mad Titan 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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. 1 Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted April 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) 2 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. A compromise -- Give alliance leaders the ability to see the embargo list for nations in their alliance. That way they can see if someone isn't following the order to "Embargo Alliance X" and instruct them to do so. Or when an alliance wide embargo is put in place, the member has to click something on a trade or embargo screen to agree to it. "Your alliance wants to embargo alliance X for Y reason(s) do you accept this embargo". Edited April 11, 2019 by Prefontaine 5 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 I agree with @Prefontaine on this. 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Auctor Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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? 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 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. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodosius Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts