gecko Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 I would like to propose a new order to allow buying and selling of resources on the world market. Resource Trade Order, buy/sell, #units, resource, max/min, port buy/sell - purchase or sell resources on the world market #units - number of 100 unit lots to buy or sell resource - pet, food, hvy, lgt, coal max/min - maximum price to be paid by buyer, minimum price acceptable by seller port - port resources to be delivered to or sold from Sellers would offer their resources for sale, setting their minimum prices. Whether the selling nations are identified is a topic for discussion. The resources would have to be available in the port city designated by the seller. The offers to sell would be posted on the results for 3 tech periods so that bidders could place bids. Any bids outstanding would also be added to the turn results for all to see. Maybe new sell offers could only be made available every 5th tech period. This prevents allies from getting around the slowness of trading resources, and makes the bidding process more available to all nations. The seller's minimum price would be the floor price and the winning bid would be $1 above the 2nd highest bid. Sales would be filled with winning bidder buying the quantity of the resource from the lowest minimum price offer. 2nd highest bidder filling his order, etc until all resources offered are sold, or all orders filled. Delivery would be the following turn to the port the buyer stipulated. Maybe there's no interest, but after a PET shortage made a recent game less satisfying, maybe something like this would help. Gecko, awaiting next game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Gecko, I think you're missing the whole point of this game. It's about alliances and enemies. In the system you're proposing you can trade with anyone, including the very country you're attacking. Doesn't seem very realistic..... Furthermore, as you say, the only option that's anywhere near realistic is to have all goods delivered to a port city, and this seems to be a serious disadvantage for countries like Switzerland and Austria, so it will also affect the balance of the game. Finally, as far as I know, no more changes will be made to the current Victory! engine. A new version of Victory! will be developed (soon I hope, but I've made that point before.....) but I seriously doubt this order will make it there, for the reasons stated above. Hamish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gecko Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Hamish, You've been fortunate never to have run short of resources. My shortage of PET&COAL tapped all my allies, 1 whom was also short on energy. Being an island nation, lots of PET was consumed just getting energy to where I could use it. And having no energy production of my own, RPD orders weren't the route to go. Now, with no allies being able to supply, and no immediate energy available to be conquered, does the nature of the game dictate that I simply fade away? Not my style. Land locked countries would have to rely on their allies for use of a port, and rail capacity, whether the port ownership changes hands would have to be decided by the players in question or as a rule limitation. I had already considered this, but the point didn't make the final draft. Yes theoretically, enemies could possibly trade, but, if you know your enemy is short of a resource, are you going to offer it to the world market? We generally try to fight only 1 alliance at a time. That means 4-5 countries. With 4 allies, that leaves another 30 nations that are "supposedly" neutral to the situation, all viable trading partners. Why shouldn't resource rich nations be able to fund their war efforts in this manner? I really didn't expect to see this rule in the current version, but something for Pete and Russ to consider for Version 2. Gecko, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Gecko, I don't know which country you played recently, but I think every country has enough Coal and Petroleum resources to at least have a decent chance of conquering some coal mines and oil wells. If that is really not the case, I would suggest giving a country like that some more Coal and/or Petroleum to start with. I very much like the idea of alliances being about something else than just securing your borders. I'll admit, I haven't frequently used them as such myself, but I think they should be, and trading would reduce their added value even further, as you would no longer need allies to trade resources. Maybe you should have chosen other allies. Someone with a lot more energy to give to you. Or you should have chosen other enemies, again with more energy to "donate". Hamish P.S. Maybe we can work together in another game and work something out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd_ernst Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Gecko, In all my games I've selected those who I ally with on two criteria: 1) how can they help me strategically 2) how can they help me economically Only when both criteria are met I'll offer a TA. This, however, works both ways. In my experience raw materials are seldom a problem. In my current game I have a great surplus of 1 type of commodity while a lack 1 other. My TA has the same problem only reversed. So the problem is solved, it costs money to build enough sea lift capacity or rail-capacity but then again that's where money's for! So, to cut all the crap: Trading should not be an option in this type of game because diplomacy can solve all your problems. So go out there and diplomacise...! Donald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gecko Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Well the general concensus doesn't support my idea. That's fine. As for my situation, I was playing Iceland- no coal or pet production, TA'd with Norway - short coal/pet, Great Britain - whom could supply some coal, but I had to haul it, expending fuel, Canada, whom could supply some fuel, 1 queen mary working on a round trip basis, and USA whom dropped about the time my needs became evident. With the particular axis group we were fighting, securing pet supplies via annexation, expended more fuel than I could afford. Anybody mounting an amphibious attack understands the huge fuel requirements for this undertaking. I've played this game for a number of years, and find it very hard to believe nobody else has found themselves in need. Yes, I probably made mistakes in my game plan, and I agree that allies are important. An ally would still be a more secure source, but allies cannot always fill the gap. And as for working with anybody in future games. My options are always open. I'm currently waiting for the next game to start. Gecko, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Gee Gecko, sounds like you were my ally (norway) and I was constantly short of energy. (and I did RPD's left and right) In fact, if I hadn't made an amphibious invasion into Stettin Germany and captured a large stock of Coal/pet, I would have been out of energy for many turns. I had a decent fleet that couldn't move very far because I had no fuel. Fortunately Denmark/Germany are not toooo far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.