Nicholas II Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I was thinking that a mechanic could be implemented that could add an interesting twist on both economics and inter-alliance politics, tariffs - a tax on trade. This could be set up like embargoes are, being that you embargo specific people/alliances, this would be to discourage trade with specific persons (ergo deterring your resources/money going to a hostile, or condemned, alliance). I find it blatant that this would affect both economics and politics. But also, in address to past suggestions, inter-alliance economic blocs/syndicates/cartels were thrown around before. This mechanic is not, by any means, a mechanic specifically created to form these types of unions, but it will foster something of the sort inherently, naturally. I think that this sates both sides to the original proposal, that there is no true mechanic designed for such economic unions, but there is a side-step to establishing such things... while not being an economic union itself. I believe that this would be a very interesting mechanic. Edited January 21, 2015 by TsarNicholasII 4 Quote His Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II The Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4918 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Need to work out the specifics, but could be interesting. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas II Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Well I figured that it would be a percentage, perhaps 10% (?) (or it could simply be decided by the alliance, perhaps with a maximum point - I like this idea more), of whatever bought/sold is taken from what you actually get. But this could not just disappear to anywhere, and it is imposed by alliances (looking over it, I do not see why individuals would do it), so the 10% would be taken by the alliance, into the bank. i.e. Person A's alliance has an embargo on B's. Person A buys 20 steel from B, so A gets 18 steel and 2 goes to the alliance (if to be a 10% tariff). or Person A sells 20 steel to B at $1,200 per ton. So $24,000 total * .10, means that Person A receives $21,600 and the alliance bank gets $2,400 (again, if 10%). Edited January 21, 2015 by TsarNicholasII 2 Quote His Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II The Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4918 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Sound's like a great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleccs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I second this idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Well I figured that it would be a percentage, perhaps 10% (?) (or it could simply be decided by the alliance, perhaps with a maximum point - I like this idea more), of whatever bought/sold is taken from what you actually get. But this could not just disappear to anywhere, and it is imposed by alliances (looking over it, I do not see why individuals would do it), so the 10% would be taken by the alliance, into the bank. i.e. Person A's alliance has an embargo on B's. Person A buys 20 steel from B, so A gets 18 steel and 2 goes to the alliance (if to be a 10% tariff). or Person A sells 20 steel to B at $1,200 per ton. So $24,000 total * .10, means that Person A receives $21,600 and the alliance bank gets $2,400 (again, if 10%). Scenario one would not be possible if the nation had an embargo in place. Also, this seems to be simply a method to tax resources that aren't being created. Not only that, it does nothing to affect the offended nation/alliance (the one the tariff is against). Instead, what you're proposing is detrimental to the member of the alliance who placed the tariff. Now, reversing the situation: if Alliance A has tariff against Alliance B, and member from alliance B tried to purchase, Alliance A would be directly impacting finances/taxes of alliance B if the taxed/tariffed resources went into alliance B's bank. Overall, it seems like this is simply asking for an additional method to tax individual nations on an alliance level, and that just isn't necessary. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Its a fun idea. Certainly adds more to the political table/discussion. Quote ~ " Fighting through the Storm " ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I like this. Quote <ni431> oh my <ni431> something moved in my pants <Kurdanak[Rose]> sorry, that was me <Kurdanak[Rose]> carry on * jack3top slaps Melisandre around with a large fishing trout <Melisandre> The !@#$ was that for <Melisandre> Noeryu was showing you porn, not me <jack3top> for raping me just now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Matt Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Let it be done. Quote 1x Gentleman of Economics @ TSG 1x Leader @ TSG 1x Minister of Prosperity @ TEL 1x Adviser @ TEL First Recipient of the Order of the Jarl @ TEL - Honoring service to the alliance. 1x Associate @ tS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Juan Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What if alliances can set tariffs on other alliances only? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Read my lips...no new taxes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Ryan Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think this a good new idea and would produce a new dynamic in game, so thus I support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegleg Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I am the Minister of Finance for an alliance. As I hold this position I see the need to have tariffs for trade. This would work the same as embargoes except that without STOPPING trade you are simply adding a tax to the price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Do you want tariffs on all imports, or the ability to impose them on imports from specific nations or alliances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizban Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I merged these two threads because they are the same topic. Quote FORUM RULES - ALLIANCE FORUM RULES - MOD QUESTIONS - APPEALS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegleg Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Do you want tariffs on all imports, or the ability to impose them on imports from specific nations or alliances? It would be for certain nations and alliances. For Example: My alliance wants to trade with your alliance but you have a 5% tariff. I have to lose 5% of my would-be profit to your bank. The lost profits would always go to the buyers alliance bank. This would help where an alliance wants to stay neutral and doesn't want to cause problems by cutting off trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas II Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) To quote myself . . . i.e. Person A's alliance has an embargo on B's. Person A buys 20 steel from B, so A gets 18 steel and 2 goes to the alliance (if to be a 10% tariff). or Person A sells 20 steel to B at $1,200 per ton. So $24,000 total * .10, means that Person A receives $21,600 and the alliance bank gets $2,400 (again, if 10%). Edited January 31, 2015 by TsarNicholasII Quote His Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II The Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4918 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trotsky Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Bump, I would like to see this happen 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.