Other Announcements

If you gain a territory, say so in your nation thread and add it to first post.

When sending production PMs, I need to know some stuff

* How many PPs per day are you putting into a project
* How much the project costs (if it's on one of the lists)
* Where the project will be when completed (for units and buildings)
* Any other information

Doesn't really apply to research

This is so I can process your stuff faster when you don't send vague things like "I use my production to make a gunship"

Wait, is our PP the number we put into our stats?

I.E., MIlitary-3, Eco-2, Culture-2? Or is it the remainder from when we chose our starting units and buildings?

neather, if you look in your nation thread it says "Total Production points: 3" so you have 3 per day to spend, but seeing how you havent been approved yet you cant spend PP, and it probably isnt 3, it will be updated when you are approved...

Ah.

Because it encourages behavior intended to only provide advantage to nations without any real effort, and it's not fair to anyone who refuses to do it because they like to role-play, and it allows massive increases in economy without any work, trade with independents gained through mass-trade requests to many nations at once is void and won't be done anymore in the future.
I shouldn't have allowed it in the first place, but I got lazy and let it happen to one person, and then felt that to be fair i shuld let everyone have it, instead of no one

It might be too late, but a natural resources system might be beneficial for trade. Instead getting an econ boost from every third trade rout, routs with different nations could vary in effect based on distance, natural resources, and the transportation effectiveness of each nation (# of ports, airports, space stations, trans. infrastructure, etc). This would force people to RP in order to work out agreements (as the benefits would not always be equal or mutual).

Again, it's probably too late and it might not be possible to create a simple-but-effective system to incorporate the idea... but it's food for thought.

thanks for ruining it for us death



I mean anonymous

If I did natural resources that would give certain areas more benefits than others. I wanted it to be set up so ppl can live anywhere, like Elab in way east Russia, and Drag in Antarctica.
and I tried to avoid complexity in a lot of things

Who says the resources need to be related to the region, I mean whos to say there isn't Oil underneath antartica for example.

Well, how about you just assign a resource to all areas, no matter if it's realistic. Countries with the resource must build buildings to extract/use that resource.

So:


NEE:Oil
ME: Oil
SE Asia: farmland?
Central Asia: Farmland
NE Asia: Oil
SEE: MIning? Idk
Africa: Farmland
Americas: Oil or Farmland


The buildings would be as follows-

Farm-1 PP, Mill 1PP
Mine-3 PP, Mill 1 PP
Oil-Rig 4 PP, Refinery 3 PP

The buildings that cost less are easier to produce, and the resource is more abundant, but you get less of it per building than the higher-cost resources. Maybe we could have a 1-use PP system, where you get PP from something that can only be used once.

I was thinking something more along the lines of this:

Each territory gets one of the five (this number can change) natural resources: oil, coal, metal, wood, and food. How much a nation owns of each of these resources is determined by what territories they own; owning a territory with coal means that player gets 1 coal.

Players are then allowed to form trade agreements in which these resources are traded. For example...

China has 11 territories.
>1 oil
>0 coal
>1 metal
>4 wood
>5 food

China has an ample amount of food, so they set up a trade agreement with Manchuria. Manchuria is rich in coal, so China decides to trade Manchuria 1 coal for 1 food. Now China would have...

>1 oil
>1 coal
>1 metal
>4 wood
>4 food

If Manchuria, for whatever reason, canceled the agreement, China would simply loose 1 coal and gain 1 food. China could not trade the coal once they got it, though. Nations could also trade units or promises for resources if desired, but the terms of these agreements would have to be decided by the nations involved.

Okay... so now there's a simple natural resource system, but how can we use it to determine econ points? A nation gets +1 econ for having 1 of any resource, +1 econ for having 2, +1 econ for having 4, +1 for 8, +1 for 16, and continuing by powers of 2.

For math nerds, the formula would be, for ReasourceAmount > 0.....

If you decide to use the formula, be sure to round down. Otherwise, you could just think about it for 5 seconds. It's not near as complicated as that formula works.

With this system, China would get 7 econ points.

>1 oil (+1 econ)
>1 coal (+1 econ)
>1 metal (+1 econ)
>4 wood (+2 econ)
>4 food (+2 econ)

The trade center could continue giving +1 econ for every 6 trade routs.

Too complicated, especially if we are to just switch systems suddenly. Besides, several people have trouble with econ and PP as it is and this will only make the problem worse.

It's really simple, actually... what's complicated about it?


I mean, as it is, there's no incentive to trade or not trade, so the entire practice is meaningless. Anything but mass trade spamming is just stupid.

It's like playing Starcraft, but the MCVs are free and don't take away from supply. Why not just build a billion of them?

Other than massive trade spam with independents, (which is fix'd now) we don't really have much of a problem.

So lets keep it the way it is for now.

CivBase wrote:It's really simple, actually... what's complicated about it?


I mean, as it is, there's no incentive to trade or not trade, so the entire practice is meaningless. Anything but mass trade spamming is just stupid.

It's like playing Starcraft, but the MCVs are free and don't take away from supply. Why not just build a billion of them?

What is complicated about it? Well, lets see...
1 - As stated before, there are people who obviously have trouble with the current system and it is painfully simple
2 - The proposed system would likely cause modifications to regional structures and change that aspect of the game as well
3 - We have been running on one system the entire time, drastically changing it like that is likely to throw off what is occuring in game right now and require an overhaul of everyone's economy and building list, not to mention reforming of trade routes and the following recalculations.
4 - MATH! If it might require a calculator, it is getting too complicated. Most people PROBABLY use them for everything anyways, but its generally good of you can quickly figure everything out without having to pull out some time of tool to assist you.

Trade has been a pretty broken system from the start and shouldn't have been carried over from OB's IN IMO. The current method of trade was fine in OB's game since it didn't use a strict economic system. It is NOT good in this game because you essentially get production from nothing. A nation that has no economy of its own can become a powerhouse by trading with everyone, which would probably never happen IRL or in most games for that matter.

And this isn't about your proposed system being bad... only ONE of the things on that list is something specifically aimed against it. We could probably change things up if there is a second run of the game or we pause for a couple of weeks to change everything.

Baconsen wrote:Other than massive trade spam with independents, (which is fix'd now) we don't really have much of a problem.

So lets keep it the way it is for now.

this

If this game was built with the resource system in mind it would make sense. However I think if resources are to be put in the game it should work like this


Oil=Faster mechanized construction in territory (Reduces cost by 1 in region)
Metal=Faster Building Construction (Reduces cost by 1 in region)
Food=Faster infantry production (Reduces Cost by 1, cannot be lowered below 1 in region)
Lumber=Faster Low tier building construction (Reduces cost by 1 in region)
Rare Gems=+1 Econ from region
Fish=Uncontrolled Militia Fishing Vessels in region

Much less confusing.

Side note:
Now if you want This to work with trade, PC nations will be able to trade resources with eachother, For example, A nation focusing on Airpower has no need for Food, While a nation at war might.

For the trading system i would suggest
Food, Metal, Oil, Lumber= -bonus in region for +1 econ bonus to the trade partner
Rare Gems can work as a useable resource that can be trading (essentially a Banked PP)
Fish=Food when traded.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:1 - As stated before, there are people who obviously have trouble with the current system and it is painfully simple

If they can't handle something as simple as my idea, then they probably can't do strategy anyway.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:2 - The proposed system would likely cause modifications to regional structures and change that aspect of the game as well

Why would you need to modify the map? Just add a resource to each territory.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:3 - We have been running on one system the entire time, drastically changing it like that is likely to throw off what is occuring in game right now and require an overhaul of everyone's economy and building list, not to mention reforming of trade routes and the following recalculations.

That's going to happen no matter what system you try to implement. Better, however, to change it early on than later.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:4 - MATH! If it might require a calculator, it is getting too complicated. Most people PROBABLY use them for everything anyways, but its generally good of you can quickly figure everything out without having to pull out some time of tool to assist you.

This doesn't need a calculator AT ALL. Can you do powers of two? That's all you need.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Trade has been a pretty broken system from the start and shouldn't have been carried over from OB's IN IMO. The current method of trade was fine in OB's game since it didn't use a strict economic system. It is NOT good in this game because you essentially get production from nothing. A nation that has no economy of its own can become a powerhouse by trading with everyone, which would probably never happen IRL or in most games for that matter.

And this isn't about your proposed system being bad... only ONE of the things on that list is something specifically aimed against it. We could probably change things up if there is a second run of the game or we pause for a couple of weeks to change everything.

Re-starting trade shouldn't be that big of a deal. BB could easily put in a grace period. People would have a thirty-day time span to set up trade routs before the new system is put in. Until then, we'd continue working on the old system.

If they can't handle something as simple as my idea, then they probably can't do strategy anyway.

And? The fact of the matter is some people appear to have trouble with the current format.

Why would you need to modify the map? Just add a resource to each territory.

I never said anything about modifying the map specifically... but adding in resources would likely cause the trade system to be unfair, as there will no doubt be situations where one nation will end up with better resources than another. That problem doesn't exist under the current system.

That's going to happen no matter what system you try to implement. Better, however, to change it early on than later.

Or we could just leave the system how it is for this game so that we don't run into any problems at all...

This doesn't need a calculator AT ALL. Can you do powers of two? That's all you need.

I think you completely missed the point of the argument... It is not as simple as the current system and would be more time & effort intensive. The math involved right now is so easy that you can do it very quickly and easily.

Re-starting trade shouldn't be that big of a deal. BB could easily put in a grace period. People would have a thirty-day time span to set up trade routs before the new system is put in. Until then, we'd continue working on the old system.

It would require the map to be overhauled to make sure it was balanced(and to add in resources to each territory). Let's not even get into possible problems people would have as they try to replace the current system, which may not be ideal but is perfectly fine for the game right now.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:And? The fact of the matter is some people appear to have trouble with the current format.

My point is that you can't take strategy out of a strategy game because a few people don't understand it. The ones who don't understand the current system are a small minority.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:I never said anything about modifying the map specifically... but adding in resources would likely cause the trade system to be unfair, as there will no doubt be situations where one nation will end up with better resources than another. That problem doesn't exist under the current system.

Each natural resource has the same value, so I fail to see how it would be unfair.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Or we could just leave the system how it is for this game so that we don't run into any problems at all...

I wouldn't be offering the idea if we weren't already running into problems. He may as well just drop trade at this point because there's no strategic value in the current system. Forcing people to do mass trade spam slower isn't going to change the fact that it's still mass trade spam.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:I think you completely missed the point of the argument... It is not as simple as the current system and would be more time & effort intensive. The math involved right now is so easy that you can do it very quickly and easily.

The math for the new system doesn't take much more time. If people aren't willing to put a minuscule amount of time and effort into improving their econ, then that is their loss.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:It would require the map to be overhauled to make sure it was balanced(and to add in resources to each territory).

You wouldn't have to overhaul the map. Just assign resources to territories, which should be pretty easy anyway. Territories would be pretty much randomly assigned their resources, but with higher concentrations of oil in the Middle East, wood in South America, coal in North America, etc.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Let's not even get into possible problems people would have as they try to replace the current system, which may not be ideal but is perfectly fine for the game right now.

I disagree. I've noticed this problem from the start, and now it's finally being addressed. The system I gave is just an example idea, but I want changes to the current trade system to be given serious consideration. This is supposed to be a strategy game, and I feel like econ is seriously lacking in that department (in much the same was as Failo Wars).

I'd like to point out that this game isn't really a strategy game. It's more of a "do whatever and have fun until someone rage quits" game.

i disagree, the WU is no fun, and pretty much everyone agrees with that...

I think the WU is fun!

The whole point of the game is to rule the world. How are players going to do that if the WU is on their backs all the time?