[4leAdmins] International Resource Trading
Shoi12
I'm not stupid enough to think that eRep is anything near RL, other than that both have incompetent leaders and pointless wars for the sake of glory. ...Actually, it's remarkably similar, in a sense.
But to the point. eRepublik is by all means, merely a war game. Not a strategy game, not a political simulation, barely a community, since everyone's a scumbag that betrays each other. It's a war game, and that's fine. But why do nations fight wars?
There are two reasons for war: resources and glory. Resource wars are pragmatic at their core; they have something we want, they won't give it, so let's kick their teeth in. There's always gonna be wars for the sake of getting resources, and rightfully so. Fighting to make a stronger nation and fighting against imperialism are always going to be two central forces as long as there are resources. Glory wars, on the other hand, aren't focused on resources, but rather for, well, glory. Be it for slightly practical purposes such as congress/congress denial or to protect an ally, enemies will always fight one another even if there isn't a resource to be fought over. Both to protect themselves and to harm fiendish foes, these wars will also exist.
Now, let's look at what change the determination aspect has caused. It essentially means that holding territory for a long duration is impossible. And rightfully so, because it lets smaller nations have a chance. But it also means that land rentals, a key part of peaceful internal improvement, are also extremely nerfed. There's no way for a nation to rent land without it escalating into a horrific mess after a few months, especially if a smaller nation is renting from a larger one. What once was a difficult but doable situation becomes an impossibility.
In some ways, the fact that land rentals are now impossible is a good thing. After all, even the strongest nations will need effort maintaining their empires. But this means that the strength of countries relies too much on their starting position. Some countries have no chance to get some resources without overextension.
There's also the issue of duplicate resources. Ultimately, there's no real point in having duplicate resources, now is there? I mean, having multiples gives no extra resource boost. However, there's a nice solution to this: selling resources on the market.
What do I mean by this? Instead of each region being a resource, it instead produces 1 of the resource. Instead of Alberta being a cattle region, where owning Alberta means that Canada has a cattle bonus, Alberta instead produces cattle, a cattle resource that means we get its bonus. This means that rich nations such as India and China will have multiples of various bonuses. Of course, this means nothing so far. Having multiples won't give extra production or anything along those lines. So how does it change anything? Now, nations are allowed to sell the resources to other nations for monthly cc or trade for other resources.
Think of the benefits this will give. Rather than force nations to conquer one another for bonuses, this provides a viable option for peaceful internal improvement. And instead of countries being limited to their immediate surroundings (barring the cross-continent moves
Whoa whoa this is overpowered, most of you are saiyan. A super powerful alliance like TWO will be able to conquer all the resources, then sell them to each other for low prices. Full 100/100s for even the weakest country, what an unspeakable atrocity! And indeed, so far, the system feels a bit broken. Another worry is that nations will get permawiped rather than only taking the resources that the giants need. After all, having one occupied territory is no less difficult than holding down an entire nation, and if the powerful countries can take the excess and sell it, it might be broken, and perpetuate the broken cycle. However, here comes the second part of the system: the embargo.
We already have embargoes. But in all truth, embargoes are mostly pointless. After all, plenty of trade markets, and losing one won't matter at all. But under this system, nations can block trade routes by embargoing a nation.
Let's look at an example. Spain wants oil, and asks the Brits for some help. The Brits agree to trade one of their oils to Spain. Currently, Spain and Britain have plenty of routes to get to each other. Just like irl, where nations trade through various routes, the shipping lanes are open. Alarmed by the deal, though, Canada, USA, Portugal, Ireland, France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark all blockade Spain. Of course, with such a system, rival alliances will already blockade each other on the monthly, but the result is the same. Spain could previously go through many paths (South America, USA, Europe) to loop around and get its oil, but since they're blockaded on so many fronts, the deal can't be accessed. Infuriated, Spain decides to attack the easiest target: Portugal. In response, and hoping to cut the trade lanes, USA attacks Spain.
Of course, this is all hypothetical, but there are benefits to this system. Excess resources now have a place in the world, regions have actual strategic value, weak but rich nations have options in allies, and there will finally be an international market. The world is not a collection of regions. It's a world. An alliance can be more than just a system of war fronts, but a collaboration to get resources and support each other. Airstrikes can have actual strategic value other than just 'FU ESTONIA HUE'. Securing resources either to sell or hitting regions to block off a thriving trade route can be the new 'Saxony RW'.
Sure, there are some risks. There's a possibility that empires have more incentive to permawipe, and it's possible that countries will try to expand even more to sell resources. But now that there is determination, it'll be a tedious balance between ensuring bonuses for both you and your allies and making sure it's sustainable. And most importantly, this allows peacefully obtaining resources and cooperation a viable option once more, now that rentals are out of the picture for the most part. Who knows? We might even see price wars over oil 😉
Anyway, lemme know what you guys think. If there's anything I overlooked or if I should just jump out the window (I'm on a plane as I type this), feel free to give feedback! Merry Hanukkah everybody! ....I think that's right.
Meh, being on a plane is boring 😛
Can anybody help me find the flaw in my logic? XD
Until next time, take care!
Archives here
Comments
pertamaxxxxxxx
o7
Peace will never bring dollars to Plato. You idea is bad and you should feel bad.
~_^
Voted. Nice ideas.
great ideas, but i think invasions and wars bring more RL $ to the money crazed powers that be running the show...
but this would certainly elevate the game play for the players and nations and would increase the importance of the political sphere
Shoi for Admin
Sounds OK but I see eRep slowly devolving into a "buy gold, mash 'fight' for FF and BH medals, screw everyone else, I just want to have the highest score I can in the rankings" game. (If you can even call this a game.) It is all about how much you will pay in RL with your time and Visa. Not only is there no econ now there is no real war strategy.
I hate to be a downer but I don't think admin will even consider anything which doesn't promote gold buying. 🙁
Great ideas! Voted and Shouted!
"eRepublik is by all means, merely a war game. Not a strategy game, not a political simulation, barely a community, since everyone's a scumbag that betrays each other. It's a war game, and that's fine." Wise words O/
voted S2
pfft kissup :3
:3
any idea that means less war will mean less gold buying, therefore it will not be implemented. Nice idea though.
Can't be bothered reading the whole things - too long. What annoys me is when I moved to Canada I was suppose to pay ten gold to buy a license to sell goods in the Canadian market. Just another money grabbing decision by Plato
Plato Is not happy, you thoughtcriminal, U shall be punished for your Crimethink
d|{D
Fool.. You know not the ways of the game. Admins do not seek world peace, how do you get money from wars when there are none? You have much to learn young one.
I approve.
This sounds liek an awesome idea! Nice way to add a layer of complexity to the economy. While not on an individual scale this would be a global change. And the whole complexity of trading resources is great.
So, here are some ideas to complicate things further (may not be a good idea to overcomplicate)
-taxes are tariffs for trading trading through a country, because you should get a benefit for not embargoing someone. And this might help neutral countries. And if you need to trade some through a longer distance then it's going cost more (makes sense)
-but this will mean you might have to consider multiple routes for trading , shouldn't be to bad.
Also, who's going to be doing trading? This trading might take a lot of time and if you want to do arbitage you'll need someone active. And if the CP has to do it it would add to their duties. While if more people had access, more corruption. Trades should tagged by who did them.
One thing you forgot to consider. While you aim to make this more fair, you forget to note that some countries have much bigger countries. There original placements have much more territories (US). How would you make it more fair for everyone.
Excellent idea - and unlike some of my friends above I don't think that it would reduce the number of wars. If anything it would only make those wars more focused, more tactical and overall improve the game mechanics.
What would be interesting to see would be if countries would trade across alliance borders. Think current RL Ukraine. Russia uses economics to help influence them from one side to the other. Could smaller TWO countries be tempted away by the prospect of getting quite cheap bonus from the other side? Would alliances fall apart based on the 'powerhouses' demanding cheap access resources?
This gives many more options to smaller countries and heck even small alliances.
#Supported
I once sent suggestion to Plato that resource areas could change slowly within time. That could mean changes in international politics and military operations.
But as I expected, nothing was heard after ordinary "Thanks, we'll think of this" answer.