Game Development Discussion: Tariffs

[Village]

Hey folks,

Village back again with August new content proposal the second, alliance tariffs!!

AI TLDR

The proposal for alliance tariffs in the game Politics and War aims to provide greater political engagement and market-based conflicts between alliances. Alliances will have the ability to set percentage or set number-based tariffs on trades on specific resources or all resources on specific nations or alliances. Tariffs could add a new dimension to the game, potentially triggering trade wars between alliances or spheres, providing a valid CB. Tariffs could help create more realistic and politically connected economic strategy through the potential for optimizing trades and adding a political layer to use of the market, potentially revitalizing it and adding more to market success than constantly updating your offer to have the lowest PPU.

The Goal

• To provide greater ability for alliances to engage politically with each other and encounter conflict through the market.

The Idea

Alliances will have the ability to set percentage or set number-based tariffs on trades on specific resources or all resources on specific nations or alliances.

• This will not effect personal trades.
• Money from tariffs will be added directly to the alliance bank.
• Tariffs will be noted beside the PPU on a trade offer in the market.
• There will be a public page where you can view an alliance’s issued tariffs.

Import Tariffs

Import tariffs apply to any trade resulting in resources being imported to a member of the issuing alliance.

Example

Alliance A issues a 10% import tariff on Alliance B. Here are a few scenarios, assuming the tariff applies to the resource in question. For the sake of these examples, Alex is a member of Alliance A and Bailey is a member of Alliance B.

• Bailey posts a sell offer at $2,500 PPU, Alex see the price as $2,750 ($250 goes to the bank), but everyone else still sees it as $2,500.
• Alex posts a buy offer at $2,500 PPU, Bailey sees the price as $2,750 ($250 goes to the bank), but everyone else still sees it as $2,500.

Export Tariffs

Export tariffs apply to any trade resulting in resources being exported from a member of the issuing alliance.

Example

Alliance A issues a 10% export tariff on Alliance B. Here are a few scenarios, assuming the tariff applies to the resource in question. For the sake of these examples, Alex is a member of Alliance A and Bailey is a member of Alliance B.

• Alex posts a sell offer at $2,500 PPU, Bailey sees the price as $2,750 ($250 goes to the bank), but everyone else still sees it as $2,500.
• Bailey posts a buy offer at $2,500 PPU, Alex sees the price as $2,750 ($250 goes to the bank), but everyone else still sees it as $2,500.

Why

Tariffs could add a new dimension to the game, giving alliances greater political engagement and the potential for market-based conflicts. This could potentially cause trade wars to erupt between alliances or even spheres, potentially providing a new source of CBs and conflicts. Wars could end with tariff terms, such as having the defeated alliance impose an export tariff for a set period, making it harder for members to interact with the market. However, it would also allow the defeated alliance to recover faster. Alternatively, victors could apply a specific tariff targeting the defeated alliance for a period of time.

Although this game is called Politics and War, there seems to be little point to anything other than war. Peace terms and gameplay without ongoing conflict can become tedious. Furthermore, while Politics and War advertises itself as a nation simulation, it lacks political intrigue. Tariffs could help create more realistic and politically connected economic strategy through the potential for optimizing trades and adding a political layer to use of the market, potentially revitalizing it and adding more to market success than constantly updating your offer to have the lowest PPU.

Feel free to comment below with your thoughts and what you think, have a great day everyone! 🙂

[Egosto]

Ac sounds good 

[Jacob Knox]

Can't wait for people to tariff Rose at 100% because "Rose man bad." We truly are entering the Golden Age of PnW.

 

In all seriousness, though, I like the nuance that tariffs would add to the game and the political intrigue it may cause.

[Themonia]

As the most influential player in the community I'd like to pitch in that this is not really a bad idea but it doesn't seem very essential. I doubt it would be utilized to point where it would make coding it worth the time.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Hecate

[Alan]

Seems like another way for alliances to manipulate the market, stronger alliances make more on stronger tariffs.

This however does pull the Market Sharing feature into question. Instead of adding something like Tariffs why don't we buff Market sharing/alliance embargoes.

You can set market sharing to say 0% and all other trades are at the 10% tariff rate. Just add to what's existing and make the current features better with more involvement/planning.

[George Clooney]

Permission to love this idea and wait for all the screech owls to complain?  But please, do it any way.  Nice addition. 

[Lolgod2]

Gotta sort of agree with alan, top alliances could just tariff all the lower people and everyone else suffers cuz they have to buy food at like 2x the regular price. 

[Diomedes]

I think this a cool feature to add.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Yeah, this definitely isn't gonna work that way.

Basically every major alliance and sphere has their own active big name trade market players, who'd get screwed by this. 

It also screws over the other normal less intense players, who overwhelmingly sell to buy offers. 

The only thing I see this maybe achieving is getting spheres to use the alliance marketplace mechanic. Or even just individual alliances, really. Most are big enough to do that. 

 

Hell, I used to run the Econ for a 100/100 AA. Fully Autarkic. The only interaction with the market was me selling excess. As much as 40 active members, as few as like 18. It doesn't take alot to become independent of the market in this game. 

 

For that reason, especially the above paragraph, I'm not certain it'd even be used. There's not many types of resources in PW, so it's incredibly easy for a small group to be self sufficient. There's not much scarcity either, and this would mostly just inconvenience your average player and completely wreck your typical big trader. 

I just... Don't see any point or real benefit? Other than, again, creating closed off sphere markers and enforcing it with this? Unless that's your objective, then... I don't really see what alliance leadership across the game gets from this. Other than their market oriented members who bring wealth to the AA being livid and possibly leaving, and everyone else being annoyed that something they barely interact with anyway got more tedious and negatively affects their income and growth.

But then, everybody would do that, and it wouldn't really be much of a CB would it?

 

It's a nice idea, I see what you're going for. I just don't think it's really going to work, at least not how you imagine, if it does anything at all. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Zei-Sakura Alsainn

[Village]

Just now, Alan said:

Seems like another way for alliances to manipulate the market, stronger alliances make more on stronger tariffs.

The thing is, then their members just get outpriced and the offers never get fulfilled. It's inherently does some self-balancing through how markets work in general, sure a larger alliance can put a larger tariff on it's own goods, but no one's going to buy them then since the price is so high, meaning you have to lower your tariff or lose out. If every top alliance adds high tariffs then sure that could be an issue, but then that's something that invites a potential for a trade war or real war, as well as gives a huge opportunity to anyone willing to sell at less. As well, that scenario of all large alliances raising prices is no different from them simply artificially price fixing in the current system.

Just now, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

It's a nice idea, I see what you're going for. I just don't think it's really going to work, at least not how you imagine, if it does anything at all. 

I'm not certain it'll work, it depends entirely on how the playerbase reacts, but I don't think this introduces anything newly negative that isn't already possible so it's worth a shot.

[Kira]

this is a very interesting idea, but I can see it being abused against micros or any alliance not in the top 25.  so I suggest setting up some limitations, for example alliance 'A' can only set Tariffs against 5 alliances and 50 nations. 
I just hope I'm still playing by the time this is implemented in five years.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Kira
Grammer

[Danzek]

my thoughts

• I think people are overestimating how much control an alliance can have over market prices.
• It'll mostly be used for alliances wanting their members to trade more internally
• I do think some big alliances will try to game it, specifically with food (which has more concentration compared to other resources). 
• Several groups adding tarrifs to a single or a few alliances could make trading more difficult for those, but would likely be less profitable than a free trade scenario. 
• In order for small players to lose out, they would need to be affected by tarrifs. So it's a question of whether they are overlooked, or get targeted. 
• If the goal is profit, then to profit from tarrifs you'd need to have a significant percent of producers or consumers colluding, and to tarrif most of the game (rather than only a specific alliance). 
  • Done poorly, you just shoot yourself in the foot, and shift profit to resellers.
  • I think without the ability to set default tarrifs, or if there are any caps on how many alliances/nations you can tarrif, it may be difficult for any kind of price war, due to the inability to address resellers. 
• If we want trade wars, it might be useful to have the ability to set price ranges for tarrifs, or min/max selling prices.
  • irl example, the west's price cap on Russian oil at $60 a barrel. 
• Anything can be a CB. I do doubt tarrifs will ever be the deciding factor for major alliances to go to war, though it could be a peace term. 

 

> Money from tariffs will be added directly to the alliance bank.

Perhaps make it an option whether the $ goes to the alliance or the trader. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Borg

[xCJoC]

I do agree with the sentiment that Politics and War is a glorified war simulator. I like this idea and hopefully it will be optimized to a point where its neither abused nor a waste of time. On top of an aforementioned suggestion, perhaps a system where there is a range in which you can terrif. Similar to war ranges so as not to have a top 25 alliance absolutely assaulting a micro.

[Village]

9 minutes ago, Kira said:

I just hope I'm still playing by the time this is implemented in five years.

It won't be five years, end of August, if not then September.

Just now, Borg said:

If we want trade wars, it might be useful to have the ability to set price ranges for tarrifs, or min/max selling prices.

That's an interesting thought (generally agree with the other stuff you brought up so don't have any specific comments), maybe we'll throw that in as an option as well.

Just now, xCJoC said:

I do agree with the sentiment that Politics and War is a glorified war simulator. I like this idea and hopefully it will be optimized to a point where its neither abused nor a waste of time. On top of an aforementioned suggestion, perhaps a system where there is a range in which you can terrif. Similar to war ranges so as not to have a top 25 alliance absolutely assaulting a micro.

All they can do is make it harder for their members to trade with a micro and vice versa, they can't sanction trades with anyone else. And in any case it's a less powerful mechanic assault-wise than embargoes which already exist.

[Spukey]

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before given how many times it has been suggested. I'm with Sakura though, I'm doubtful as to whether or not it'd add much beyond confusing micro leaders but I'm not totally against the option.

 

[Vanek26]

I just want to be able to tax raw resources and finished goofs at different rates. Been asking since 2015 for that. 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can we finally allow alliance banks to conduct buy/sell trades rather than continually making it go through members to execute?

[lightside]

I dislike this idea. People will just temporally leave/join alliances to minmax and avoid them. This would make trading annoying because of that...

[Lord Tyrion]

Just now, Vanek26 said:

I just want to be able to tax raw resources and finished goofs at different rates. Been asking since 2015 for that. 

This 100%. The formula has always been wrong b/c it taxes your gross production and doesn't account for the input costs. Taxes should always be calc'd on profits, not gross revenues. At a certain tax percentage, people producing manufactured goods are actually losing money.

[lightside]

Just now, Lord Tyrion said:

Can we finally allow alliance banks to conduct buy/sell trades rather than continually making it go through members to execute?

Forget the tariffs lets get this added instead

[Dorothy Latimer]

Please add togglability to automatically expand tariffs to M-, o-, PIAT &/or Prot allies of a tariffed alliance, and/or their market sharing partners

Edited August 22, 2023 by Cassandra Moore

[Majima Goro]

Me like this. It help Black Market Trading, i.e, people selling via proxies.

[Phi]

This idea sounds amazing, but there are loopholes around it. If they're sealed then this really does add an intriguing aspect to this game. I'd really love to see future treaties based off this.

[matyo]

I think it would be awesome if u could set a default tariff to all alliances making it a lot more useful to trade in the sharedmarkets also i like the idea that alliances could sanction bad alliances with it without fully blocking the trade with them 

[Pascal]

Good idea on paper, I don't think it'll be used much during peace time though, but during wartime probably