Update to Trade

[Odinson]

Howdy,

As it currently stands, when I am RPing trade negotiations in MN, and when I am establishing a trade route, I get the same feelings that I do when I’m paying my taxes to the IRS: numbness, dread, and the overwhelming feeling that I’d rather be doing literally any other task. That’s because in MN, trade is largely irrelevant and is a “flavor” function of the game. I know that we can technically charge each other VAT or that our statistics supposedly improve with the move trade we have, but no one enforces the VAT and at least I can’t tell the difference trade makes in my national statistics.

I know that part of the goal of overhauling trade would be to not create any more work for the admins or staff team, and I think my proposal reaches that goal.

As Things Currently Stand
Right now, we each get 5 resources and we can assign VAT to them. We can trade with as many nations as we want, meaning that I could export Refined Gasoline to all 20 players on MN if I wanted to. This basically means that we have an unlimited amount of import and exports that we can do.

My Proposal
We reduce the number of trade routes a nation can make to 5 (meaning that America can only set up 5 export routes), however a nation can still receive as many “import” routes as they’d like from other countries (that is how things currently are now).

Next, whomever has the most trade routes in MN is given World Power Status and also gets an extra $500-million per tax period.

Also, whatever nations have the second and third highest number of trade routes is also given an extra $500-million per tax period, but does NOT get World Power Status. I think this is important, as it could be very easy for America or Sweden or Argentina to claim the top prize, but have a 2nd and 3rd place would easily give the opportunity for other nations to be able to win (that way no one says “Well I’m RPing I have no chance at getting 1st place so I won’t try”).

Finally, I would propose that we reduce the number of people we “Elect” to World Power status from 3 to 2, that way we can limit the number of world powers to 3 nations at any given time (2 being the ones we elect, and 1 being this Mercantile World Power).


How would this change things?
Now that we have implemented the above changes, trade routes have suddenly become a valuable and rare commodity. Every nation can now only make 5 active trade routes, while they can receive an unlimited number in imports.

This will suddenly make trade negotiations more important, and perhaps trading between allies will become more common, while not trading with enemies (and encouraging others to not trade with enemies) will also become more common.


How often will the status of World Mercantile Power be updated?
To keep workload on the Admins to a minimum, the “World Mercantile Power” is only updated at the same time that the other world powers are (once every 6 months). This goes the same for whomever is in 2nd and 3rd place for number of trade routes.

Conclusion
This would be a good way to increase competitive RP, and would also give the GA (or alliances or individual nations) more of a bite when they declare some kind of trade embargo on a nation.

I’d like to hear what y’all think!

 

[Jay]

I would disagree with limiting the number of trade routes players can create. While I personally like writing trade treaties and discussing them with others, I also know that isn't everyone's cup of tea and I adjust how I approach trade in this regard. However, the issues of trade have more to do with a lack of resource-based roleplaying. This meaning that now one is held accountable to have petroleum sourced to cover their basic-civil needs for energy or suffer the consequences. For example, South Korea consumes an estimated 2,605,440 barrels per day of petroleum in 2016. Based on this, it is a reasonable to assume that 2.6 million barrels is the minimum need for Korea to have electricity and be able to operate other functions.

Because this does not exist in MN, there is no incentive to find a trade agreement with players and it means that countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia who could otherwise have significant political power in MN by controlling the flow of petroleum, anyone can just ignore this component. This component is the same in military aspect, no one sources their jet fuel or other resources to have their armies move. The same is accurate for other primary goods like tungsten and iron which are crucial for industrialization and manufacturing weapons and systems. Semi-conductors are used in almost every product from vehicles, phones, military-satellites, etc...All are limited, however, those limitations or lack of supply are not taken into consideration either.

I think that your proposal does not at the end address the issue of Trade being 'flavor' and done on the whims. While it does making trading more exclusive and forces players to calculate who to trade with to benefit from, it does not make players have to seek out specific trade agreements. So, the US would not need to get Petroleum from Canada as there are no repercussions for a Petroleum deficit. I think in the end, the improvements are making World Power Status tied to a specific 'technical' reason, e.g. Trade Power for the last seat and makes the World Power Status less 'democratically based' and more 'technical based' for that one seat. While it does give incentives to Trade Powers with that extra cash in taxes and rewards them.


To summarize, Trade is only flavor because it has no tangible impact on a country. The way to improve trade in my opinion, would mean complicating the system and cause further burden on admins and moderators and ultimately disrupt if not ruin the experience of players who do not find trade agreements or negotiations to be entertaining. It is simpler for everyone to just discuss a free trade agreement as opposed to a trade agreement, and very simplified at that as well.

To address your aspect of how to make Trade more 'interactive' for players, it would be more interesting to explore the role of maritime aspect of MN. While often ignored, allowing nations to blockade, intercept, or limit the movement of ships would be a very interesting proposal to give more 'teeth' to trade related actions. For example if the GA or an alliance impose a trade embargo or sanctions, refusing docking rights, a country could find it difficult to bring in resources needed. However, once again, this ties into resources being an integral part of development and production process. Otherwise, it is just a cosmetic effect of saying the GA imposed trade sanctions on Korea, and I continue to just not RP the impact of those sanctions. Though, I do understand this is not the direction of your current proposal. Just my humble two cents.

Now, to what I would suggest as improvements although I do not personally agree with your current plan would be as follows.

The Trade Market has previous trade arrangements with non-existing countries still present. Which artificially inflates the rate for older players than newer players. It would be fair to reset the trade market and have players re-address their trade arrangements. If we take your proposal at the moment, the current top three trading powers are Argentina, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Dutchy benefits from other players creating trade agreements and thus is #3. Now, while your proposal to limit trade would address this and force Dutchy to adopt new trade routes, it would not change the pre-existing trade routes for imports. This is a minor loophole in your current arrangement. Newer players would be a significant disadvantage to catch up to a player like Naio who RP'd very extensively trade relations through his south-south proposal.

To Summarize the suggestion would be to reset the trade relations and have trade relations only exist with countries remaining. If you trade with Korea and I leave, all the routes are all cancelled.

I think the arrangement of the Mercantile Power of 3 and the top being a World Power is a good arrangement with its cash incentives. With 2 elected and 1 unelected world power alongside this. Which of this, the 1 unelected would have that cash bonus alongside technology boost. It is a good arrangement, however, I would recommend that the unelected world power could have a specific boost, perhaps no limit on civilian technology. So they could produce vehicles and ships, trains, etc... as far as 2021 or so, in association with their status as a trade power.

These are my humble opinions, and I hope they do not come across as disregarding your proposal or views. I apologize if that is how they come off. If I misinterpreted anything, please let me know as well. Thank you fro the wonderful proposal regardless!

For your own interest, here are all countries ranked on trade power with their associated trade data points included.

Trade Power | MN | November 1998

Argentina	12.98
United Kingdom	12.28
Germany	11.58
Spain	11.23
South Korea	8.77
Ukraine	7.37
Brazil	5.26
Australia	3.86
Netherlands	3.86
Poland	3.86
United States	3.86
India	3.51
Indonesia	2.46
Sweden	2.46
Saudi Arabia	2.11
Thailand	1.75
Vietnam	1.75
Turkey	1.4
France	1.05
Canada	0.35
Denmark	0.35
Bangladesh	0
Iran	0
Iraq	0
Israel	0
Mexico	0
Serbia	0
United Arab Emirates	0

 

[Odinson]

Howdy Jay

Context
Your assessment that I largely ignored the problem of resources having no specific value in MN is astute. However, I did this purposely. I've come up with ideas in the past on how to improve trade in the game, including introducing just a few resources to the game that all nations would need (i.e. gold, oil, and grain) and having different nations need different amounts based off of population or some other variable, but once I explained this idea, I was then immediately told how unrealistic it was because of the ungodly amount of work it would put on the administrators. In the end, I agreed with their assessment. Because MN is a simulation, we of course can't have an economy where tens-of-thousands of different raw and refined resources are required for a nation, and unfortunately I do not think we are able to handle something like what I suggested above (having just three resources everyone needs). So, if the amount and kind of a resource that a nation imports really has no effect on said nation, how else can we make trade something that the player-base has an interest in? (See my original post for this answer)

When thinking of this proposal, my thought process was, "What will Jamie and Hollie have to do extra if this is implemented?"
The Answer:

• Hollie will have to remember to add $500-million to three nations taxes each tax cycle,
• Hollie or Jamie will have to assess who has the most trade power when it comes to choose new world powers, The
• Moderation Team will need to keep track of the Mercantile World Power who can make equipment that is 5 years ahead of the MN present-day.

That being said, I entirely support your idea of removing trade routes from nations once they are no longer active. I agree, that it would fudge up all of the numbers in my proposal if this was not done.


On the matter of 2021 Tech
Letting world powers have 2021 tech (23 years ahead of 1998) is out of the scope of what I proposed, or trade. However, I will say that I think this is extreme and would be way too OP, nor would it be realistic. We chose 5 years because it was a moderate but large enough bump to give players an incentive to want to be a world power.


Conclusion
I may be entirely outspoken on this, but I hate everything about trade in MN right now - mostly because it has no impact on my nation any whatsoever. While the issue of a lack, or surplus, of resources having no real direct effect on a nation cannot be fixed without a larger administrative staff, the importance of trade can be increased among the player-base. That is the context in which I wrote my proposal, and why I think the technology suggestion you gave is outside of being reasonable. That being said, I think that your suggestion to wipe all "old" trade is entirely reasonable and something that should be done (perhaps on a monthly basis, and of course when the "winners" are being decided). Thank you for your feedback on my suggestion!

 

[Jay]

Thanks for the context and updates. I would firstly just clarify your the second portion of your response. I did not extend the 2021 technology to world powers. "Unelected world power could have a...no limit on civilian technology. So they could produce vehicles and ships, trains, etc... as far as 2021". Just wanted to clarify this part. Regardless, my additions were merely my two cents on things to be suggested. Whatever is of use to your proposal and whatever is not is for you to decide. Best of luck with that!

On that note, my personal belief is that I still oppose the limiting of trade routes. It does not any benefits in my opinion, personally, I would like to still rp my trade agreements and Naio likewise has worked hard on the south-south cooperation based in one part the cooperation on trade and advanced their trade markets. In the end, MN is what we make of it. Everything can have no impact, but everything can also have an impact. We are the Potters and MN is the clay. So to speak.

Though I believe that your proposal offers a new perspective on how to bring change the forum. I hope others will contribute and discuss this more. Don't let my opinions just be the only ones here! You have thought process on how to implement it, so, I do not have any worries about the impact, but, merely my own like for trade discussions and advancing trade relations as a part of my foreign policy.