Announcement Market Overhaul

    • Alphared made a good point earlier when he said,

      "The "market" is a commodities market, NOT a stock market, and should operate as such. Trading is the alternative to warring... some people call that diplomacy and whether BM understands it or not the allies (in both world wars) won because their enemies discovered several thousand troops suddenly appearing from someone else's army (in this case America's(!)). He might have hated playing Germany in 1944, since England had American, Canadian, Anzac, Polish, (Free) French, Indian, Norwegian, and of course English troops appearing overnight at Normandy - But, at least the real life Germans didn't feel a need to constantly point out how unfair the English were being." ... :thumbup:
    • gusv wrote:

      The market in my current game is not as active as the one shown by Pontus. I have cash, but can not buy resources in the market in my game. Have to spend some of that pricey gold if I have a shortage, making it expensive to play. Trade restrictions and taxes have killed the market in my game! ... :)
      Same here my coalition just about keeping me going since the market change
      GLOBAL UNITED ALLIANCE
    • I can accept (mostly) the premise that trading ground units may not have a secure historical footing - I mean all the allied ground units formed by UK (Poles, Greeks, Norwegians, Free French, etc) were never amalgamated into the UK armed forces as British units - they maintained their own national identity and this can be simulated fine by the game as it stands ie remnant forces of a defeated nation finding refuge with a more powerful friend.

      This does not apply to air and naval units. You only have to look at the 50 Lend Lease destroyers that the USA "lent" to UK, US "jeep" carriers lent to the UK and France, the battleship Royal Sovereign which was lent to the Soviets, the cruisers Leader, Achilles, etc that were lent to the NZ Navy and all sorts of minor ships and subs lent to the refugee forces by the UK (so not just DD's and subs were lent but major naval units as well). Then we get into the supply of air units, primarily USA to every one else, UK, France, Russia, etc which was a huge.

      Personally, my solution to this issue would be to allow trade of naval and air units but not land units. This would mostly get over the "problem" the game designers are trying to address with multi accounters mass trading units which, lets face it, is only a major issue at the start of the game where it is all about ground units anyway.
    • RogodeterSnowl wrote:

      I can accept (mostly) the premise that trading ground units may not have a secure historical footing
      If we should be able to trade troops again, pls don't ask for complications by distinguishing between 'this one yes, that one no'... After all, programming improvements seems difficult enough...

      BAck to historical correctness:

      Land lease to Russia...

      Thousands of convoys sailed from the UK to Arkhangelsk in Russia to bring them much needed weaponry.
      And many more examples have already been given.

      Furthermore:
      The Polish, Dutch et al were all under UK command and functioned as UK units, just having a different branding: made in Poland, Netherlands, whatever. None of them operated independently.
      Also the game can't be made 100% correct. How to send weapons in the game without crews? Not an option. But as soon as the weaponry trades hands, the manpower requirement for daily upkeep is on the new owner anyway.
      That covers it sufficiently.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by _Pontus_ ().

    • Going back to the so called Market Overhaul changes, I just started a game as a non-aligned nation (not in a coalition). After nearly a day, I thought to myself 'I'm overproducing certain resources, but underproducing others ... May be I should look for trading partners ... Oops! ... I can not trade resources with anyone because I'm not in a coalition!'

      Silly taxes and trade restrictions are killing this wonderful game! ...
    • New

      What baffles me about the so called Market Overhaul is that no such market restrictions exist in the real world. No such a restriction exist where peaceful nations can not trade resources with one another unless they are part of a coalition. It would be something like: "If you don't join NATO, or some other coalition, you can not trade with anybody" ... :(
    • New

      The market is dead.
      I can't trade outside a coalition and I do not join a coalition often.

      My favorite fire setting (aggressive) is ruined and thus my main reason to have HC.

      In all my games I am short of steel.
      In all my games I have buy offers at 30/t ... for weeks. Unchanged. There is NO market trade.

      I am bored by logging into my three games once per day to give build orders.

      THE MARKET, FIRE SETTINGS AND DIPLO-TRADE CHANGES ARE SIMPLY BAD FOR THE GAMEPLAY!!

      If this is an attempt to make me spend my GM on resources, dear Bytro, then that was a very cheap attempt to get me to do so.

      I have spend money with Bytro always on HC and cash on GM on and off for various reasons:
      - Bytro provided fair games which required some brain-input to master them;
      - if I would spend the time in the city, that I spend in this game, I would spend more;
      - I don't mind spending on a game that gives me pleasure;
      - knowing 1 GM of mine is worth 10-20 of the average goldspender and when someone was going really overboard, I would gladly match him with 10% of his expenses and still beat him (.... except once or twice, but at least I made his victory very, very expensive)
      - I remember well a S1914 tournament, where I knew GM was going to be flung around and the one getting the Winner Badge was getting nothing but a 'Certificate of Biggest Wallet'.
      Reaching the Final and getting the Finalist Badge was something else though ... if you did that with not too much GM. I remember I was testing some GM-spending tactics and my wallet was BIG, so - in an early qualification round I would win anyway - I decided to change the color of one enemy's country red just before reset, which was extremely funny .... and extremely expensive. Yes, I ruined his moral in all his provinces. Late game. That was real money :) If you are going to win with money, than not with a few extra cheat-tanks, but in style!
      After that early qualification, I did not spend a penny on the tournament and made the finals anyway (btw ... through diplomacy and diplo-trade and supporting allies with troops-trades ... all of which is no longer possible).

      So, all in all I have spend a fair amount in the past, including years on end the 12 months HC.

      Now I have decided:
      - to NOT join the next 6x speed event, which I really love. I don't feel like getting mobbed by some Alliance Coalition again, while I can;t trade with or support neighbors.
      - to NOT extend my 12 months HC (It is peanuts, I know, but it is not the about the money; it is about me not being enthusiastic anymore, after decades of enthusiastically playing s1914 and CoW)
      - to finish my 3 maps (Event: Free for all; Event: Endgame 1944; Historical 25) ... well, maybe not even al three; maybe only Endgame, because the rest is quite boring (just farming steel bc of a dead market and no more diplo-trades).
      - NOT to join any new maps, because I really feel bad, sad and pissed-off by the senseless mutilation of this once great game.
      - to spend my GM (but NEVER on resources; as said you fail on that attempt), so I won;t feel bothered by my stock, which was well over 160k a short while ago, when I should leave for good.

      I am taking a break from CoW and maybe for good. I am just too stunned by the recent BAD CHANGES to continue.

      I FEEL ROBBED

      Bye-bye my forum friends. Drop me a PM if Bytro reverts these BAD CHANGES or suddenly starts adding features ... instead of killing the game.


      (PS: I am trying out Supremacy 1 to see what it is like, because apparently that new game is the reason for the bad changes here due to coding blahblahblah. For now I can say that I see where this is leading: less strategy, more tactics, less options, more slaughter => more for 12 yrs old players. But lets see. For a while at least I can still be found there)
      -

      The post was edited 5 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

    • New

      _Pontus_ wrote:

      I am taking a break from CoW and maybe for good. I am just too stunned by the recent BAD CHANGES to continue.

      I FEEL ROBBED
      I completely agree with this. I too have been a consistent HC member and my annual sub is nearly over and I do not think I will renew either. I too am currently in 3 games and seriously doubt whether I will join any new ones once these are over.

      So far, as usual, there seems to be little input from the game designers on these issues which is (as usual) hugely disappointing. I am looking to spend my time in other games in future

      Please ROLL BACK those terrible changes
    • New

      A quota on the amount you can trade with non-coalition members would've been a better approach. I also don't see why the devs can't develop a simple mechanism to flag suspicious amounts of trade activity between players in games.
      "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu