Print

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

[Criptfeind]

But how can you draw that line. Are you stating that I should never be able to move off this Island? Or that the southerner should never be able to get a chunk of the main land?

Obviously you need to be able to spread over some sea area, but where do you draw that line?

And from a role playing section it does not make a bunch of sense, the area still most likely has the needed Beast man bureaucracy to run, and they are friendly towards Sheb. And if they revert John is going to smack them down hard.

[Terenos]

Admittedly its not a perfect decision. But there are means to make it better. Tech advances, using a loyalty decrease over distance from capital province as a control, so forth.

Theres just this ridiculously tangled area of design space involving blockades, and split empires.

[Iituem]

At the end of the day this is about game balance as much as it is logic.  The most logical argument is that I should penalise small empires, but that's not terribly fun and screws intact small empires over more than I'd like.  The balanced argument is that split empires (in terms of trade splits etc) should give and receive proportionally split trade bonuses, but that has a logical issue vs why it should work that way when smaller empires don't suffer a penalty to receiving trade bonuses.

If someone can come up with a logical and balanced solution, it would be appreciated.  Otherwise I'll probably rule in favour of fun and balance, as per my general stance.

[Terenos]

And I understand my suggestion likely involves too much errata and rules regarding it.

[CyberGenesis]

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?

This conceptually also assists in many of the things i talked to you about in PMs regarding trade routes.

[adwarf]

CG's the Raiders right ? Hey CG are you anywhere near me ?

[Terenos]

For the right price, he totally can be!

[adwarf]

Can we hire Raider units like Mercenaries ?

[CyberGenesis]

I like the %-based trade situation for a number of reasons:

-Large empires are not going to send everything they CAN to a small empire. A small empire just cant afford the trade.
-Small empires are likely to trade with as many sides as possible, not rely on 1 route. Bandits dont prey on the small empires, they blockade routes to prey on large empires. Smalls just get caught in the crossfire. While yes, a loss of 150/turn to a small empire might be a lot, they should logistically have more than 1 route they're drawing from

Additionally - Large empires should be trading in more directions than 1

Of course this allows sheb to trade to terenos, bypassing the blockade entirely provided Cript was trading southwards as well

This then bring up another thorny situation: Do you limit the logistical capability of trade routes? Empire A shouldn't logically have access to the goods of an empire 6 slots in a route over. Not without months of seeding goods throughout the route. Therefore the logical approach is to percentile the income of a route via distance from the origin. Maybe 10% per hop. This would force players to use caravans more than once in a game.

[Criptfeind]

Can we hire Raider units like Mercenaries ?

Just send him a wad of cash and all your issues with go away!

[CyberGenesis]

Its true, i like cash. I like cash to hit people, to not hit people, to gather intel, to stand around and look pretty, to....

[CyberGenesis]

Late Winter, 1005

The days are looking up for us. I hear of a man in the southeast that is doing quite well for himself as a Sea Pirate. I might need to speak with him from one professional to another. I am quite intrigued as to how he managed such a force scraping together men and resources from the wilds. Maybe our paths will cross one day, until then I will just concentrate on keeping my men and myself alive in the coming days.

Shinala, Camorri Garrista

[Iituem]

When an empire becomes split as a result of blockades or similar, its territories can form multiple trade blocs.  Each bloc will access resources and receive trade bonuses independently, though all cash received will just enter the imperial treasury as normal.  Thus it will be possible for one bloc to have access to iron and slaves whilst another has access to spices and cloth and neither side has access to the other.

Blocs receive a percentage of the income from linked rival blocs (allowing for partial empires to trade link to other partial empires) equal to the ratio of their own bloc's income to their own total income.  Thus if a bloc provides 40% of its nation's revenue, it will only receive 40% of the trade bonus from its ordinary trade partner.

I've included an excerpt from my rough notes to demonstrate how this would work.  This also allows for redundant bloc linkage, so if you theoretically had all of your territory blocs linked to all of an ally's trading blocs you would still get 100% of their trade bonus.  Though by that stage they would probably just count as one bloc.

If Albia Bloc 1 is 30% of income (£300) and Bulmeria Bloc 0 is 100% of income (£2000):
   Albia receive 10% * 30% of Bulmeria's income = 10% of £600 = £60.
   Bulmeria receive 10% of Albia's Bloc 1 income = 10% of £300 = £30.

Abloc 1 = 30%, Bbloc 0 = 100%   
   A receives 30% of Bbloc 0.  B receives 100% of Abloc 1.
Abloc 0 = 70%, Bbloc 0 = 100%   
   A receives 70% of Bbloc 0.  B receives 100% of Abloc 0.

Abloc 1 = 30%, Bbloc 0 = 80%
   A receives 30% of Bbloc 0 (24% of total income).
   B receives 80% of Abloc 1 (24% of total income).

Abloc 1 = 30%, Bbloc 1 = 20%
   A receives 30% of Bbloc 1 (6% of total income).
   B receives 20% of Abloc 1 (6% of total income).

Abloc 0 = 70%, Bbloc 0 = 80%
   A receives 70% of Bbloc 0 (56% of total income).
   B receives 80% of Abloc 0 (56% of total income).

Abloc 0 = 70%, Bbloc 1 = 20%
   A receives 70% of Bbloc 1 (14% of total income).
   B receives 20% of Abloc 0 (14% of total income).

[Terenos]

Looks like a good patch on this sort of thing. Good on yer Iituem.

[CyberGenesis]

Note to everyone that intends to ever use my services: You never need to post it in your turn. It can be handled via PMs. All my dealings need to CC Iituem anyway, so your consent is all he needs to have. You CAN post your useage of my services if you wish, it can work out both ways for you. It may make it harder for you to hide your involvement, but it can also be a flag to your allies of my extortion.

Extortion is such a dirty word though...