Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taricus]

Yeh, I'm ok with troop movements being kept secret, but I think construction/recruitment ought to be public.

Yeah, this'll stop a lot of arguements over tech and whatnot.

[Dwarmin]

Also. Iituem! Start haranguing any missing players to post their turns.

Or just skip them.

Three days should be the point where your about get passed up if you don't post. Fire off a warning PM and move on if they don't respond, that's what I say...

[adwarf]

Also. Iituem! Start haranguing any missing players to post their turns.

Or just skip them.

Three days should be the point where your about get passed up if you don't post. Fire off a warning PM and move on if they don't respond, that's what I say...

Has there been another turn if not I am sure I posted mine.

[Iituem]

Turn's not done yet, probably not til Friday.  Meanwhile, an interesting situation has developed.  By gaining control of Southern Maver, Brent technically bypasses the trade blockade, but this presents a pretty thorny logistical problem; if trade can happen with his non-blockaded territories, how are they getting the goods back to his centralised markets?

Considering altering the code to blockade specific territories for when a full-scale blockade isn't in effect (in this case, every territory save South Maver would be blockaded).  Resource access and trade will then work for S Maver but not for the rest of his territories (with returns to his trading partners being consummately lower as they are only working off the income from S Maver).  What do we reckon?

[Terenos]

Well, that would make sense. Theres no mystical teleporting of goods around the world. So it'd pretty much have to be a blockade of those provinces.

Also, this will still buff his income as he can collect the full benefit of the trade routes, and he wont be giving back much in return. I'd argue that if your empire is split, and the bulk of your empire is blockaded, you cant collect trade income in that unblockaded bit..

[Iituem]

I could set it up to return a percentage of trade equivalent to the percentage he's offering.  So if S Maver represented 1/20th of his total income, he'd only get 1/20th the trade value back because of the necessarily reduced volume in trade.

Or does that seem too harsh?

Edit:  I'm also stepping around the very thorny issue of what happens if his empire is split into two halves, each of which can trade with one half of the world and not the other.  That would be a nightmare to sort out.

[Dwarmin]

Blockades are supposed to be harsh.

[Kashyyk]

Well, if that was the case then a single territory state would have to be penalised somehow as well, because the territory it trades from is 100% of his income.

[Iituem]

Kashyyk, elaborate please.  Slightly confused by your wording.  I think you're saying that by that logic I should penalise empires who only have one state because their overall output is lower?

Also, it'll take some reworking of the code but I should be able to set it up so that portions of an empire are divided into separate 'blocks'.  Trade routes then connect (or don't connect) with independent blocks.  So block '0' can have three trade routes, block '1' can have no trade routes and block '2' can have trade routes to different regions entirely.

[Terenos]

Aye, this is a thorny issue indeed.
I don't know. I mean, yes there should be some allowance for trade, but its also not the whole of his empire. And if cash can flow easily around a split empire, then trade should too.
Maybe just disallow split empires? Course that may run into other problems.

[Kashyyk]

Yeh, I realise I mashed that a bit.

If Sheb can only trade out of Maver South (where is that btw? I can't find it on the map) you are saying he can only receive (for example) 5% of the trade he would get otherwise. However, a smaller state still gets 100% of it's trade income even if it's income is less than Maver South. Likewise a medium-sized state would get affected less heavily by trading from one territory, because it's overall income is lower. So to make it fair you'd have to reduce a state's trade income relative to it's size.

[Criptfeind]

I agree with Kashyyk. It sorta makes sense, but it opens a logic gate in our minds that one does not want to deal with.

[Iituem]

I don't really want to penalise empires for being small, as trading should be beneficial for them (perhaps to the point where it should be more beneficial than for their larger partners).  At the same time, I want embargoes to have a deleterious effect on the player being embargoed as well as his trade partners.

If I allow full trade to fractioned empires, the embargoed player is still getting effectively the full benefits of trade whilst his allies are suffering.  Good, but it doesn't make as much strategic sense as I'd like.  I suppose I could argue that it's due to the reduced efficiency of having his empire split in that manner (compared to a contiguous but tiny empire), but that doesn't quite sound right.

Suggestions are welcome, though.

[Criptfeind]

Well, I have a sort of idea. You could cap trade for both sides at the lowest economic activity.

So if you have Empire A that makes 3000 pounds per turn, and they trade with Empire B which makes 150 pounds per turn, then each side would make a trade income of only 150.

It favors the bigger players, much like almost everything else, but it offers a logical way to split split empires trade.

But then, smaller players would benefit less from trade, and as you said that might not be what you are looking for.

Edit: This is basicly a slight reflavoring of Kashyyk's then you would have to reduce everyones trade.

[Terenos]

I still think the best move here is to disallow split empires. The logistics of maintaining a loyal government across neutral or hostile space should have the smaller chunk revert to neutrality.

This would also add tactical space to players, to carve up larger empires by severing portions, to weaken them.