| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dunnoob 
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
 Topic: War and trade
Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:14 |
Apart from announcements in GC and on diplomatic pages (alliance + Herald) a war declaration apparently has no effect for the game mechanics: Folks can also fight without war declaration, if they have no NAP or confederation with their opposition. More differences between war and no diplomatic relations could be interesting.
One idea, trade offers should be invisible for the opposition. It would be easy enough to bypass this limitation with a neutral middle man, but direct trades with the enemy on the markets and at faction hubs should be impossible.
|
 |
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:50 |
|
It does put change the color of their cities. But I do like the trade idea. Though I would prefer lower taxes first if were changing trade.
|
|
Cerex Flikex
Forum Warrior
Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 211
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 00:07 |
|
Nice idea
|
|
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 01:10 |
I think trading should remain open, i.e. it should be possible to trade with someone else if their alliance is at war with others. An indication of stance in the trade listings would be useful though: indicate players at war with a little red disc icon; other stances have unique shapes, and same colour as the moving units on the map.
Corrupting the OP's suggestion a little, I'd like to see:
1. Diplo stance discretely shown next to player and alliance names (modifying the JS [] field parser - this gets everything in the UI). It would make GC look interesting, but that might be overkill.
2. New diplomatic stances between individuals, to override alliance stance (suggested elsewhere). For example, this would allow you and a neighbour to ignore war hostilities, or for you to 'go rogue' while in your alliance.
|
|
|
|
Magnificence
Wordsmith
Joined: 21 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 122
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 02:40 |
 Albatross wrote:
2. New diplomatic stances between individuals, to override alliance stance (suggested elsewhere). For example, this would allow you and a neighbour to ignore war hostilities, or for you to 'go rogue' while in your alliance. |
+1
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 05:08 |
Magnificence wrote:
Albatross wrote:
2. New diplomatic stances between individuals, to override alliance stance (suggested elsewhere). For example, this would allow you and a neighbour to ignore war hostilities, or for you to 'go rogue' while in your alliance. |
+1
|
Seems counter-intuitive to the whole point of this thread. If you allow individuals to bypass alliance stances against other groups of players, it does nothing but weaken war declarations and NAPs. It's basically saying, "We, Alliance X, declare war/peace on Alliance Y...oh, but only for the members who feel like agreeing with us." I actually like the idea of individual stances between players, but alliance stances should override them. As for trade, yes, you should be unable to trade with players who you are at war with. It makes no sense at all for any warring party to allowed sanctioned trade relations with an enemy player. "Oh sure, we're at war, but I can still sell these cows to you! It's not like you're gonna slaughter them into armor for your soldiers and use them against my alliance-mates!" I can see how players might wish to continue remaining friends or trade partners with friends when their alliances are at war with each other. It's understandable. But it befuddles me to hear it suggested that the game mechanics for war should specifically cater to this. If you want to betray your alliance for your other friends, do it manually behind their back. None of this nonsense of players refusing war status against certain players or trading on the markets with enemies of their alliance.
Edited by Hadus - 10 Nov 2012 at 05:10
|
|
|
|
Hoddmimir
New Poster
Joined: 02 Nov 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 23
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 06:34 |
|
I think it would be better to actually have your trade buy and sell orders invisible to your opponents, or even have the option to check off other categories like race, or what have you. Invisible is better than just letting you know what they are like because if I don't want to sell to a particular group I have no say over that because anyone could still choose to buy anyway. If we can choose to not sell to particular groups or specific people than politics and diplomacy have a bigger impact.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 10:38 |
Hadus wrote:
Albatross wrote:
2. New diplomatic stances between individuals, to override alliance stance (suggested elsewhere). For example, this would allow you and a neighbour to ignore war hostilities, or for you to 'go rogue' while in your alliance. |
It's basically saying, "We, Alliance X, declare war/peace on Alliance Y...oh, but only for the members who feel like agreeing with us." I actually like the idea of individual stances between players, but alliance stances should override them.... It's understandable. But it befuddles me to hear it suggested that the game mechanics for war should specifically cater to this. |
This disloyalty (or inaction) happens anyway. Individual stances are only needed when the game mechanics already restrict player interaction because of alliance stances, so point 2 is relevant if the OP is talking about restricting visibility of trades because of alliance stance.
For anyone not happy about the idea of insubordination in the alliance, then maybe the alliance can have visibility of individual stances, but I'd be reluctant to easily have such information available because such things are usually kept quiet.
If done well, individual stances can add to the game, rather than subtract from it.
|
|
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 10:29 |
|
Its regulating the game for some against their will. Like during this war I am sure I made Consone quite a few million gold from trades and the same back. It forces a certain game play that has so little effect that it hurts more than it fixes to put different trade restrictions down.
Lets just say perhaps at some points the mods decide that their list of things already planned for the game mostly done and they had to find something to do and added trade sanctions more or less. Is it really going to change how wars are done? Does it really add much to the game experience? It seems to be an addition for the sake of an addition.
Real world application lets say with Iran and our trade sanctions against them. They have almost no income which is required to actually finance your military and other services it provides. It also can't get imports (primarily things like food sources). In game why this kind of doesn't work is that trade does not directly feed into your income it can add to it but its not your sole income. Food is also grown at your towns and unless you run all your towns in the negative this you can sustain on your own.
Your probably better off just sending the other side a nasty letter in hopes it hurts their feelings as it may cause more damage than trade sanctions in this game. The only way to make it work is if your income was directly tied to trade which most would likely hate.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 17:18 |
hellion19 wrote:
Its regulating the game for some against their will. Like during this war I am sure I made Consone quite a few million gold from trades and the same back. It forces a certain game play that has so little effect that it hurts more than it fixes to put different trade restrictions down. |
I disagree with part of your statement, and agree with another. I'm not at all concerned with "regulating the game for some against their will." If you are in an alliance, and that alliance declares war, all the members of the alliance should be expected to accept whatever being "at war" dictates, not be given exceptions wherever they wish. Personally I was taken by surprise when many members of alliances in the current war fled to training or other alliances at the start despite having the size and infrastructure to positively contribute to their alliance's war efforts. Doesn't seem very loyal to me, but I hold back judgment as I don't know the full situation. That being said, I think you've made a good point in saying it "forces" a certain game play. It's probably better if trade sanctions aren't a mandatory part of a war declaration but an option available to alliance leaders. Another an option could be to receive a report when any of your members sends or receives caravans from an enemy.
hellion19 wrote:
Lets just say perhaps at some points the mods decide that their list of things already planned for the game mostly done and they had to find something to do and added trade sanctions more or less. Is it really going to change how wars are done? Does it really add much to the game experience? It seems to be an addition for the sake of an addition.
Real world application lets say with Iran and our trade sanctions against them. They have almost no income which is required to actually finance your military and other services it provides. It also can't get imports (primarily things like food sources). In game why this kind of doesn't work is that trade does not directly feed into your income it can add to it but its not your sole income. Food is also grown at your towns and unless you run all your towns in the negative this you can sustain on your own.
Your probably better off just sending the other side a nasty letter in hopes it hurts their feelings as it may cause more damage than trade sanctions in this game. The only way to make it work is if your income was directly tied to trade which most would likely hate.
|
I think it's more to do with what's on the other side of the trade. Gold might not be a big deal, but players acquiring military equipment from enemies, which they are likely going to use to build troops which will be deployed against the seller's allies, seems downright dirty.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
War and trade
