How effective have embargoes been?

[Alex]

It's been some time since we've had the ability to embargo nations and alliances. I'm curious how the experience has been for everyone.

 

Have embargoes been effective? Have you been embargoed? Did it make it harder/more expensive to acquire resources? 

 

Basically just give me some feedback about the system. This isn't about me making changes or repealing it or anything, I'm just curious to see how well it has worked.

[Dwynn]

To be honest, useless. It's simply a light pressure tool. For embargoes to have any sort of real effect it would have to be wide-scale use for anything political or economic warfare.

 

About the only thing I find they're good for currently is to block an alliance you're at war with.

[Greatnate]

I'm very glad that embargo reminds me who not to buy from or sell to, but I can't say if it's changed the recipient's behavior.

[Destroyer]

Well i have not yet used it

[Alex]

To be honest, useless. It's simply a light pressure tool. For embargoes to have any sort of real effect it would have to be wide-scale use for anything political or economic warfare.

 

About the only thing I find they're good for currently is to block an alliance you're at war with.

 

I was wondering if I was going to hear something along these lines. This makes me think that having a Rainbow Council or Color Senate with some powers over restricting trade based on color might actually provide some utility and add to the game.

I'm very glad that embargo reminds me who not to buy from or sell to, but I can't say if it's changed the recipient's behavior.

 

This is good to hear, and makes sense. that from a personal standpoint it can be useful.

[Shellhound]

Embargoes are more of a political than economic tool, people use it to put pressure on their enemies. Now, if you have a bunch of alliances embargo one then things start to get a lot more serious, haven't had that happen but I'd say give it time.

[Geronimo]

To me embargo is more likely a political statement to pressure on their enemies than an economic tool to damage their enemies through the economy.

[naTia]

I'd like to believe it is at very least an inconvenience to pay 50 more ppu for something when the highest bidder has embargoed you. It seems though I'd have to agree with the general consensus that this is most effective as a way to send a message and be a preface to further action.

[Alataq]

I have not used it, doesn't seem worth my time; just not that type of person. Looks good though.

[Destroyer]

I have not used it, doesn't seem worth my time; just not that type of person. Looks good though.

^^ This is what i was trying to say

[fistofdoom]

Me thinks it has little direct influence besides as a political tool unless it is widely coordinated with other alliances. Some political developments would need to take place for it to be used on such a large scale, but that'd be interesting if it came about anyways.

 

On Color Senate: Maybe have the three largest alliances on a color have a vote that influences their color in some way related to economics, with later increasing that number as the game size increases.

Or have the votes within the colors be based on some other statistic besides overall strength, idk. Maybe total member count on a particular color in the same color alliance versus the same for the other same colored alliances. You'd have a majority vote if you basically controlled the whole color, but it'd be interesting either way.

[Georgi Stomana]

I was wondering if I was going to hear something along these lines. This makes me think that having a Rainbow Council or Color Senate with some powers over restricting trade based on color might actually provide some utility and add to the game.

But isn't that how embargoes generally work, they only have effect if the nation in question already has a strong trade relationship with the nation enforcing the embargo. How I see if, embargoing an alliance or nation is so you don't mistakenly buy or sell stuff to them over the market, so you don't help them, rather than actually trying to do them harm.

 

To be honest the idea that the biggest nations in the game or each color can prevent someone from trading on a certain color or even worse trading full stop, it seems like it gives too much power to alliances - you'd basically have a big alliance on each color with their top tier nations as Senators with total control over who trades and who doesn't, smashing down embargoes on whoever they deem.

 

It would be better kept at a national level.

[Niklaus]

Embargoes are more of a political statement as said before. They can cause economic inconvenience in rare instances where the one embargoeing you is an active market user and either buys a lot of stuff daily or sells a lot of stuff for cheaper.

[Hereno]

But isn't that how embargoes generally work, they only have effect if the nation in question already has a strong trade relationship with the nation enforcing the embargo. How I see if, embargoing an alliance or nation is so you don't mistakenly buy or sell stuff to them over the market, so you don't help them, rather than actually trying to do them harm.

 

To be honest the idea that the biggest nations in the game or each color can prevent someone from trading on a certain color or even worse trading full stop, it seems like it gives too much power to alliances - you'd basically have a big alliance on each color with their top tier nations as Senators with total control over who trades and who doesn't, smashing down embargoes on whoever they deem.

 

It would be better kept at a national level.

i agree with your first paragraph

 

especially when, for the most part, it is much more useful to embargo with navies, which then supercedes the usefulness of the other embargoes

[Wiliam]

Until a wide scale war happens where coordinated embargoes happen, they won't have much effect. Just like in real life really.

[Neo-Nexus]

Until a wide scale war happens where coordinated embargoes happen, they won't have much effect. Just like in real life really.

 

 

Well said! 

[Greene]

As someone else already mentioned, embargoes are mostly a political statement. As an aside, I would be against any form of rainbow council or something that would give a small number of people an excessive amount of power over practically everyone, even if they're elected to have that power.

[Grillick]

Embargoes do exactly what they are supposed to do. They allow a nation to place global offers without accidentally selling to/buying from someone they wish not to do business with.

 

As an individual act against an individual nation, it is unlikely to be noticed by the target, but I never thought it was intended that an individual embargo would have any kind of coercive effect.