Market overhaul

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Market overhaul

      I just wanted to discuss some of the changes made with the market overhaul update.

      1. Making it so you can’t trade resources with anyone through diplomacy.
      My issues with this is pretty much explained as why they made this change but I did enjoy bankrolling smaller or disadvantaged nations so they could come out on top
      (As for realism I’m pretty sure some major countries in the real world do this to influence the outcome of certain conflicts without getting directly involved.)
      I understand they did it to prevent cheating, using multiple accounts to boost one, but it still sucks.


      2. Removing the ability to trade units because it’s unrealistic.
      Have we not heard of the arms trade many countries in the real world often sell other countries arms. I admit maybe not physical soldiers
      but units such as

      Anti tank
      Air defense
      Artillery
      Sp anti air
      Even planes ( there was that thing where USA backed out of a f-35 deal with turkey because they accepted anti air weapons from Russia)
      These Are perfectly reasonable units to be traded between counties and also adds to my point about influencing outcomes of other conflicts

    • I hate this change, and the course of the game in general, but it is better to be fair: unit trading had a serious problem - in each stack the SBDE numbers are counted per level, and not per unit.

      For example, you could create a wonderfully killing stack of 5/5/5/5 interceptors/tacs where the last two 5/5 are units one level lower, traded by an ally. Then try beating that...

    • The changes were designed to balance a number of things that could really shift a game in someone favor towards the end of games.

      For instance, many people can have a 300-400 unit army towards the end of a game. Trade just 10% of that, and boom, you have 40 more units. Do that for 3 days and you've traded over 120 units. It can be quite the unwelcome surprise.

      Dumping all your resources could even be considered cheating in some cases.
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

    • Dumping all Resources can be considered as fraud, fair enough. But to avoid this a limit to 20% of the overall resources and also to max 50.000 would be sufficient to avoid such abuse.

      Removing trade at all limits the options for diplomatic activities considerably. For instance I used resources to pay for key regions occupied by not allied players. If for instance another play was interested in resources only I offered him the amount of 3 weeks income at instance. And I need to admit there have been occassions where I simply paid resources to avoid getting wiped out. I guess if one looks at the history of mankind there will be some samples of exactely that behavior, for instance the grain delivery of russia to nazi germany.

      For trade of units its quite similiar a restriction to 5% or 10 units outside the alliance, and 10% or 20 units within the alliance would also do. At lease trading units within an alliance should still be possible. Needless to say there are pretty much examples in history, for instance he land lease of the allies to russia.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by helmuth.moltke ().

    • Vlanchavic wrote:

      I just wanted to discuss some of the changes made with the market overhaul update.

      1. Making it so you can’t trade resources with anyone through diplomacy.
      My issues with this is pretty much explained as why they made this change but I did enjoy bankrolling smaller or disadvantaged nations so they could come out on top
      (As for realism I’m pretty sure some major countries in the real world do this to influence the outcome of certain conflicts without getting directly involved.)
      I understand they did it to prevent cheating, using multiple accounts to boost one, but it still sucks.


      2. Removing the ability to trade units because it’s unrealistic.
      Have we not heard of the arms trade many countries in the real world often sell other countries arms. I admit maybe not physical soldiers
      but units such as

      Anti tank
      Air defense
      Artillery
      Sp anti air
      Even planes ( there was that thing where USA backed out of a f-35 deal with turkey because they accepted anti air weapons from Russia)
      These Are perfectly reasonable units to be traded between counties and also adds to my point about influencing outcomes of other conflicts
      1. You can still put the resources up on market at a reasonable price and with embargo on, the smaller players might be able to get it.
      2. I don't think that's quite what they meant by unrealistic. What happens is players will trade back and forth units and maybe large amounts of it depending on their army size. This part is the unrealistic area as in reality, trades are usually less than a fraction of the size of your army.
      --
      Trying to be helpful, If my answers are incorrect, please let me know and provide the right information.
      I am not all serious, will tag along for a joke.

      Delby
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • Fair enough but I’d also argued that during the late games a single country occupying all of Asia and Russia would be quite unrealistic no? So the large scale transfer of troops would be quite fitting for the scenario. I imagine it’s just another attempt to crack down on multiple accounts cheating that the rest of us pays the price for.

      Anyway I’d just like to add that they’ve only limited trade to coalitions to force the market to be more relevant in the late stages of the which in my experience no one uses.
      And the restrictions regarding coalition hopping are only there to prevent players from joining coalitions specifically for trade and force you to use the market.

      If it’s serious to deter coalition swapping then all I have to say is
      It’s war game betrayals happen that’s why we have spy’s to intercept communications so if you find out your allies betraying you you cut them loose or get revenge.

      I swear they trying to dumb down the game to appeal to wider audience while alienating the current player base

      As has been mentioned before not everyone wants to trade resources for money. And the restrictions seriously cripple your ability to resolve things diplomatically and only pushes you in one direction. War.

      I can’t now simply trade oil for a island near my shoreline I have first change all my relationships with the others to trade embargo just to sell to a specific country then hope they live up to their end of the deal and if they don’t then I’m forced to go to war to get what I payed for

    • Not sure what would be unrealistic about occupying the entirety of Asia and Russia. Given a large enough army to invade all the necessary countries and suppress any rebellions, I could see it happening. On the other hand, such a large scale transfer of troops would probably only occur in a scenario where a large country is helping a small country in it's efforts to fight a war and not just invading it themselves.

      While I agree the trading no longer existing between peaceful countries makes things in the game a hassle, it's definitely more realistic as trading between countries in reality involves a lot of diplomatic talks and discussions.
      --
      Trying to be helpful, If my answers are incorrect, please let me know and provide the right information.
      I am not all serious, will tag along for a joke.

      Delby
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • Delby wrote:

      While I agree the trading no longer existing between peaceful countries makes things in the game a hassle, it's definitely more realistic as trading between countries in reality involves a lot of diplomatic talks and discussions.
      well it’s not like I’m just sending people random trade requests hoping they’ll accept. There’s generally a good amount of diplomacy and negotiation before making an offer( at least that’s my experience) and now it’s a hassle to go through with a deal both parties agree on

    • Delby wrote:

      While I agree the trading no longer existing between peaceful countries makes things in the game a hassle, it's definitely more realistic as trading between countries in reality involves a lot of diplomatic talks and discussions.

      Yeah, you know, the very kind of diplomatic exchange which the update now makes almost completely obsolete/impossible.

    • General Nightman wrote:

      The changes were designed to balance a number of things that could really shift a game in someone favor towards the end of games.

      For instance, many people can have a 300-400 unit army towards the end of a game. Trade just 10% of that, and boom, you have 40 more units. Do that for 3 days and you've traded over 120 units. It can be quite the unwelcome surprise.

      Dumping all your resources could even be considered cheating in some cases.
      I guess then that soon it will be forbidden to have a single unit capturing a province, while 2 minutes later 50 units to exit from it, magically created. Or that your upgraded buildings are suddenly leveled. When talking about nasty surprises, these are in the top of the list of the normal players.

      Also, before the end game there is the midgame and the early game. There is also the map. No matter the amount of euchologies, these trade and diplomacy killers that were baptised "balancing" are degrading all these, to the extend that end-game becomes irrelevant.

    • helmuth.moltke wrote:

      But to avoid this a limit to 20% of the overall resources and also to max 50.000 would be sufficient to avoid such abuse.
      Can't say I disagree, the changes may have been a bit excessive.

      Also, a solution to the no units can be traded: Max 25 units traded per game, 5 per day, after day 8.
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

    • As far as uni trade off is concerned, the system seems to be adequate and am not one to be critical here, however I do think that unit trade should be limited to what military doctrine you are part of...meaning that you may only trade units with players of the same military standard....Soviet type, Axis type, Eastern type, Allied type.....this can balance the game one way or just simply...make it more interesting....please let me know how this system might appropriate.

    • bigboss_ironfist wrote:

      As far as uni trade off is concerned, the system seems to be adequate and am not one to be critical here, however I do think that unit trade should be limited to what military doctrine you are part of...meaning that you may only trade units with players of the same military standard....Soviet type, Axis type, Eastern type, Allied type.....this can balance the game one way or just simply...make it more interesting....please let me know how this system might appropriate.
      That makes no sense at all considering the game’s current army type distribution. Because widely different nations, who have nothing to do with eachother and that weren’t allied during the war, are sometimes given the same army aspect. That supposes alliances where there aren’t any in real life

    • That is what should and WILL make the game more interesting...already gaming patch is being configured to substantiate these attributes and let that be played....yes....this makes sense and I am willing to have a go at these doctrines on a standardised COW map.....alternative gameplay based on time period is the entire point to recreation and thus...modern strategy gaming.
      Images

      • hgnghnghn.png

        132.92 kB, 480×360, viewed 14 times