While We Wait: Part 2

[LittleBoots]

Yes, deciding your Eastern Orthodox buddy was of more importance than a Catholic coalition of nations in Europe

All of which stayed friendly for some reason, even when I actually managed to kidnap the Pope and relocate the seat of Catholicism to Toledo. Take that Henry VIII! I don't need to split from the Church I disagree with, I'll split the Church from those I disagree with!

If it makes you feel better, Dis and Panda were playing me, even if it the important stuff went my way.

 

[~Darkening~]

You know, i don't think I was mentioned once in that NES .

*sigh* All those rants from alex down the drain.

 

[LittleBoots]

You know, i don't think I was mentioned once in that NES .

*sigh* All those rants from alex down the drain.

Were you Lhasa? I have a bad habit of not reading the parts of the update that don't concern me.

 

[~Darkening~]

Were you Lhasa? I have a bad habit of not reading the parts of the update that don't concern me.

Lol. Lhasa is Birdnes . I was the Indonesian/Malayaian/Somethign state.

 

[Thlayli]

Poor Malayu. Well, if TNES ever restarts after a couple decades, there will always be a spot in Indonesia for you, Dark.

 

[~Darkening~]

Poor Malayu. Well, if TNES ever restarts after a couple decades, there will always be a spot in Indonesia for you, Dark.

I assume I will have another non-speaking role, huh ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

BirdNES Trade Rules:

Current rules have the world divided into areas and nations can establish trade routes with out of their area nations with which they have contact. 3 trade routes equal 1 additional EP.

With about 40 nations (25 players) the management of all the many combinations is totally out of hand; players are not putting trade routes in their orders so many appear only as one sided which don't count.

I am looking for ways to improve or change the trade rules so I don't have to spend so much time managing them and trying to match up who has an acknowledged trade route with whom.

I want to ignore trade with immediate neighbors (France and Spain or France and Austria. I think trade should improve EP). Overland trade could be included too.

Please give me some ideas guys.

 

[jeps]

My opinion is that trade should affect confidence.

If the nation can bring in these foreign goods you have never seen before, or used to be incredibly expensive, it should go up.

Since confidence affects EP...

 

[carmen510]

How about air or sea shipping costs EP for maintenance? The total income = Goods shipped - Shipping costs (Distance + 1 EP flat equipment like ships cost)

Immediate neighbors barely need EP to set up trade routes.

Also, the trade routes should have a logical route. (Ex: Air-drops while going over hostile nation is a big no-no. Having a convoy going along a predetermined route is okay, as long as it doesn't spiral over and over.)

 

[Symphony D.]

Immediate neighbors barely need EP to set up trade routes.

Also, the trade routes should have a logical route. (Ex: Air-drops while going over hostile nation is a big no-no. Having a convoy going along a predetermined route is okay, as long as it doesn't spiral over and over.)

Yeah, planes aren't a big concern in 1560.

I like j_eps idea. Also, quite honestly, trade isn't really a government regulated affair. If the King of Mali says "No more sales of Frankincense to England!" do you think that will stop the traders from going where there will be a profit? Not unless he starts killing merchants, which will have its own problem. Trade goes where trade goes. Make it a random event based on controlling trade routes and cut governments off of direct control of it entirely--their control is at best secondary and limited to providing incentives unless it's an actual government enterprise anyway.

 

[carmen510]

Passenger pigeons!

They carry about 1 oz. of droppings! Send them over the enemy capital! They won't betray a nation's identity, while costing some EP to clean!

 

[Azale]

carmen's idea is horrible, I barely have money as it is -_-

 

[alex994]

Carmen's not in the nes, he can be safely ignored

I agree mostly with symphony, government shouldn't have any influence/control of trade yet

 

[North King]

I disagree. It's 1560, isn't it? Yeah, sure, you can say all you want about individual merchants and all that jazz, but this isn't the 20th Century. It's not even the 18th. It's 1560, and governments still have a huge control over where money flows. Governments sponsor colonial programs, except in the case of England. Governments regulate all the tariffs. Governments do, in fact, dictate who you can and cannot trade with. You may talk all you want of what the individual merchant wants to do, but in the end, the merchant's opinion is irrelevant. If you think that free market forces have truly come into play, then my friend, you are sadly mistaken.

Of course, maybe BirdNES has had a MASSIVE divergence from the TL; I haven't been following it. But it seems unlikely.

 

[Symphony D.]

Colonial programs aren't international trade--they count as domestic revenue for the purposes of the economic system, seeing as both halves are controlled by the country in question.

Secondly, you have tariffs. Exactly. This isn't about free-market forces. All trade is driven by supply and demand. That is the very basis for trade to begin with. Guess what? Rare goods in your homeland don't mean anything, because they aren't rare there. You can find all kinds of ivory in India. You don't find any in Scotland. So where do you sell them? In Scotland! Supply and demand. Your government taxes you for profit. Their government taxes you for import. That doesn't mean your government tells you "Hey, ivory carver, go sell your wares in Scotland, as they don't have ivory there, and you'll make a killing and then I can tax you!"

Doesn't work that way. Trade flows from supply to demand. As I said, governments influence that by raising and lowering tariffs. They neither create the demand or the supply though unless they create a government-run corporation--that trade exists wholly independent of them, and therefore Scotland should not be able to go "Hay India, we wantz j00r ivoriez, maek ur d00ds come sells it to os" because trade definitely doesn't work that way in any time.

Trade routes should exist, governments should be able to adjust their taxes up and down or to try and alter the route's course or otherwise provide perks to influence their respective stake, but Norway shouldn't be able to go out and sign some exclusive deal on jade with China in 1560. Don't work that way.

 

[Nylan]

I will say just this: Adam Smith wasn't considered a revolutionary for nothing.

 

[North King]

I will say just this: Adam Smith wasn't considered a revolutionary for nothing.

Exactly. We seem to be thinking the capitalist application of tariffs. In reality, no one thought that way back in 1560. Nobody used tariffs that way. They used it to try an exclude others from their home markets, to make others lose and them gain. That was what dictated their economy: the government did, in fact, decide who you could and could not trade with. Period. While Symphony's examples are "humorous" in a very loose sense of the word, they are obviously distorting the point by dragging up ridiculous examples. Obviously Tawantinsuyu and the Kongo Kingdom aren't going to trade by the Silk Road, but that doesn't deny the existence of the Silk Road.

 

[Symphony D.]

Yes, giving a name to something that already exists but was previously undescribed means inventing it out of the aether, even when you weren't the one to name it. Karl Marx was a revolutionary too, and all he did was define pre-existing trends in ways nobody ever had before and make a prediction as to where they would lead. That doesn't mean the things he named didn't exist before he named them.

The terms and the concept still function in a mercantile system, and they function in any economic system which has diversified beyond tribute or gift economy. There are still supplies, there are still demands. Who is demanding or supplying them, what they are demanding or being supplied, and how the market is established or operates is rather quite tangential to the point of both factors being required for the existence of trade.

Trade exists without governments. It will occur whether governments interfere or not. It can be assisted or hampered by governments, however, and governments will involve themselves in it because they stand to gain from doing so. None of that means it is solely directed by governments, in case we have forgotten Guilds or things like the Silk Road or Red Sea trade, most of which involved, yes, small groups in caravans or convoys out for profit, and which were only occasionally maintained by the governments in question directly, mostly to secure greater profit.

This is all ignoring such anachronisms in the current system as Ethiopia trading with Muscovy in the 16th Century.

Obviously Tawantinsuyu and the Kongo Kingdom aren't going to trade by the Silk Road, but that doesn't deny the existence of the Silk Road.

Yes, because China, the Central Asian Nomads, Persia, India, and the Ottomans all got together and decided to build and maintain a trade system sending goods West to get rich. It didn't occur as a result of individuals or groups wanting to get rich and then the government noticing and deciding that such a stable revenue system should be protected. Most definitely not.

They all signed Trade Agreements with Byzantium Poland-Lithuania and Genoa and spent EP on projects to construct it.

 

[Israelite9191]

As I've said, the best way to handle this would be to simply remove trade routes all together and replace them by adding more eco centers where necessary. Eco centers are meant to represent, among other things, the influence, regional concentration, and, most importantly here, amount of trade. Additionaly, eco centers represent both gov't control and merchant freedom, as gov't can take actions to increase/concentrate trade to make new eco centers while merchants determine wether the efforts succeed or if an eco center pops up without the gov't doing anything at all. Finally, in terms of modability, eco centers are far superior as they are really rather easy to manage, especially compared to trade routes.

 

[Nylan]

There is a significant difference between trade routes, trade agreements, and tarriffs. Switch your subject, and certain elements of your argument will become invalid.