Elite AI
What is causing or preventing AI's to put Sell orders on the market... is it changes in AI or is it the changes in market mechanics. I'm Day 6 into my game and NOT A SINGLE sell order has been placed in my game by AI's... after I bought all the goods off the market on day 1.
Cooldown after leaving a coalition
How long was Italy's "cooldown" for leaving the Axis? I'd be curious for a single example where a country suffered a penalty and was NOT accepted immediately by the inviting party after betraying a coalition they just left. Just one historical example would be all that's needed to make this mechanic "realistic". This explanation makes no historical sense, no diplomatic sense. Is it not the point of the game to break up alliances and make them weaker? Lie, cheat, threaten or steal whatever you can from your enemy to weaken them. If I promise someone a spot in my coalition if they betray their current coalition, they leave that coalition and declare war on their former mates... And I refuse to take that person into my coalition because they are untrustworthy and if they betrayed their former mates they might just betray me as well... Will he now be able to get back into the alliance I just convinced him to leave.... I doubt it... So I've just weakened my enemies and improved my position. Why would you want to prevent that kind of play?
Multi Accounts
What you area saying is this... because a guy rode past my house in a loud red car last night... I'm burning all red cars in the neighbourhood to prevent loud red cars from waking me up a night.
This doesn't make any sense to me. You are trying to shape game play into something that has no basis in fact, in history or current world affairs. Alliances shift, have shifted and will shift in the past, present and the future. That's the nature of diplomacy. For you to try to input some framework to create some form of Interaction that never existed in the real world is just whacked.
An Intelligence spy in my coalition mates capitals does provide Intel on their trades... so I do currently have way of finding out if they sending resources to an enemy. By simply making all Player-to-Player trades visible to other coalition members would that not solve that issue immediately ? Game mechanics seem to be mostly in place to do that.... making artificial boundaries that have no parallels in the real world seems an odd way to go about trying to solve this issue.
You might want to try... say checking IP addresses... I'm not computer geek but that's just something I came up with off the top of my head.
As for the Market being used "as a private Storage" concerns...
If I'm about to lose my capital, and place a Buy order for 1,000,000 cash and I've payed the 100k Tax, and then have my capital captured... what happens to my 1,000,000 offer... If I cancel it after losing my capital... I've just evaded losing 550,000. So your 10% tax did not prevent me hiding my cash.. it just added a cost to it.
The ONLY way to prevent it would be by simply adding a game mechanic which immediately cancels all placed orders on the market of a player who has Unfulfilled Market Orders outstanding and loses their capital, then calculates the rewards for capturing a capital once those orders have been cancelled. Seem like a much easier way to implement that desired outcome.
What is causing or preventing AI's to put Sell orders on the market... is it changes in AI or is it the changes in market mechanics. I'm Day 6 into my game and NOT A SINGLE sell order has been placed in my game by AI's... after I bought all the goods off the market on day 1.
Cooldown after leaving a coalition
How long was Italy's "cooldown" for leaving the Axis? I'd be curious for a single example where a country suffered a penalty and was NOT accepted immediately by the inviting party after betraying a coalition they just left. Just one historical example would be all that's needed to make this mechanic "realistic". This explanation makes no historical sense, no diplomatic sense. Is it not the point of the game to break up alliances and make them weaker? Lie, cheat, threaten or steal whatever you can from your enemy to weaken them. If I promise someone a spot in my coalition if they betray their current coalition, they leave that coalition and declare war on their former mates... And I refuse to take that person into my coalition because they are untrustworthy and if they betrayed their former mates they might just betray me as well... Will he now be able to get back into the alliance I just convinced him to leave.... I doubt it... So I've just weakened my enemies and improved my position. Why would you want to prevent that kind of play?
Multi Accounts
What you area saying is this... because a guy rode past my house in a loud red car last night... I'm burning all red cars in the neighbourhood to prevent loud red cars from waking me up a night.
This doesn't make any sense to me. You are trying to shape game play into something that has no basis in fact, in history or current world affairs. Alliances shift, have shifted and will shift in the past, present and the future. That's the nature of diplomacy. For you to try to input some framework to create some form of Interaction that never existed in the real world is just whacked.
An Intelligence spy in my coalition mates capitals does provide Intel on their trades... so I do currently have way of finding out if they sending resources to an enemy. By simply making all Player-to-Player trades visible to other coalition members would that not solve that issue immediately ? Game mechanics seem to be mostly in place to do that.... making artificial boundaries that have no parallels in the real world seems an odd way to go about trying to solve this issue.
You might want to try... say checking IP addresses... I'm not computer geek but that's just something I came up with off the top of my head.
As for the Market being used "as a private Storage" concerns...
If I'm about to lose my capital, and place a Buy order for 1,000,000 cash and I've payed the 100k Tax, and then have my capital captured... what happens to my 1,000,000 offer... If I cancel it after losing my capital... I've just evaded losing 550,000. So your 10% tax did not prevent me hiding my cash.. it just added a cost to it.
The ONLY way to prevent it would be by simply adding a game mechanic which immediately cancels all placed orders on the market of a player who has Unfulfilled Market Orders outstanding and loses their capital, then calculates the rewards for capturing a capital once those orders have been cancelled. Seem like a much easier way to implement that desired outcome.
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"