… and it won’t be a single OMN for long if the other DS (particularly those who aren’t primary recruiters) decide to focus on economic development.
This is VERY EASY for the DS to employ, and very difficult for the FP to counter. For that reason alone I feel it challenges the game balance.
Listen to this man, he speaks the truth.
However, I’m totally against the use of “house rules” to address this issue. Either fix the code or just let people play the game as is…
What about game 51? This game was well into play when Clint passed the new rule for governing gold levels and transfers. The Free won the game and neutralized the DS gold nation(s). It took a few turns, but the Free side committed to naming numerous agents early on and it was not uncommon to see 25k+ stolen by a free agent, a NG agent for that matter. This is not heresay, it happened and the DS lost. Yet in game 85, nobody stole a single piece of gold from our rich nation.
Let’s put this to rest by having Clint investigate how often our opponents harassed our rich nation. A nation that played within the rules. In my opinion, any nation that plays within the rules should be able to do what they want with their resources. If they want to save a gold bundle and risk having it stolen away, then more power to them. But if nobody comes to steal it, then let’s punish the nation for having to much, pleeeeeeezzzzeee!
Those claiming there is no way to attack a rich nation or bring down the market are wrong. Everyone on the Free side in game 51 knows that its possible to win against a high market and rich DS nation(s). It just takes good teamwork and agreement on a winning strategy. IF guys agree on a strategy they think is a winner and they are wrong, does that mean the code is broken and needs to be changed? Or was the strategy weak? Are we even able to acknowledge a weak strategy? It seems some have issue with this.
For myself, when I’m on losing teams, it’s the result of our overall team strategy, not codes. Codes may be somewhat flawed to some degree, but for a fantasy game, it’s pretty good. It’s the team goal that is hard to define in some games.
Dan
Rematch 
You would be on a hiding to nothing. it cannot be countered. DS free to upgrade pops, no need to ensure money gets to the needy as all nations will be fully funded with one natsell. Instead of having to tough it out for the first 15 turns waiting for their characters to come online they just ramp up recruiting (Armies and characters) and meet the Freeps on an even footing from turn 2. No I have no desire to be on the recieving or dishing end of that.
Regards Herman
The way I see it (with my poor eyesight) is that once a certain amount is reached by a single nation the market becomes inflationary. Surely it can’t be too hard to change the code to look at an amount and say "if amount is greater than X (lets say 90K) , then the amount = 90K. Therefore it will only ever calculate at a maximum of 90K even if that nation had 500K. Just my 2 cents worth.
Yes, the FP won 51… but that was an indy game where there are a lot more random factors. The DS were clearly having some coordination problems (enough that some of the neutrals felt it necessary to bail them out), and IIRC didn’t Steve bankrupt Harad by mistake?
Let’s put this to rest by having Clint investigate how often our opponents harassed our rich nation.
Clint told us you didn’t have a “rich nation”, that the market was a result of generally high amounts of gold across the board.
For myself, when I’m on losing teams, it’s the result of our overall team strategy, not codes.
I’m glad you’re such a wonderful loser.
I really don’t understand why people keep defending the OBN by saying the FP can just steal from the nation.
It’s a clear flaw in the game, it should not be one the FP’s should divert agents to deal with.
It’s an error that helps one side, so it shouldn’t be there.
I can understand people saying they think it’s a poor solution to make house rules about gold levels, since it’s the coding that needs to be changed.
Rollin… SNA’s are in the game per intended design, it’s part of the rules. OBN is not.
People thus accept to play the game on the designed setup, people don’t accept to play on terms that are not by design, such as OBN.
I would suggest publishing, each turn, the name of the nation with the current highest gold reserves in the game, and the amount of gold in that nation’s reserves.
That seems to me to be by far the best solution I’ve heard.
Interesting idea. It’s a prize i wouldn’t want to win, FP or DS 
Adrian
Okay I take the point about reducing gold. I don’t want to impact on that fun element.
Ben - check out the earlier threads about why OBN is broken, why it’s a bug, and what solutions we came up with. It’s a strategy that cannot be effectively countered or impacted in many ways. (There are limited answers, but they make it that the DS gain a major advantage IMO).
I’m looking at a game code change with the next GB game so need 2 more players for that. Ideally I’d like to test a grudge game though.
Clint
Darrell
Sounds like a damned good idea. Simple to implement I assume - although would it be included in a gunboat game?. Might not even need to state the amount. One other possible problem. If the DS are transferring funds they lose 10% each time in caravan dues. Is this enough to counter a ONB/ONM effect? If not, once they got someone up there they could possibly maintain an inflated market by switching the goldpile each turn despite the 10% fee. Which would make it difficult for the FP to counter.
Guys
I think part of the heat in this debate is because there was confusion over what was said. The FP asked Clint whether the DS were using ONB and he said they weren’t. However by that he meant what was meant at the time, i.e. that the DS weren’t shipping gold to one nation. It sounds like they however assumed he meant that no DS nation was stockpiling gold and hence affecting the market. Hence they may not have been looking for such a rich nation? Furthermore, since it was the CL, they helped him considerably by running large treasuries.
Clint’s modified rules closes one loop-hole I had noticed, that teams could before that transfer goods to a nation for it to sell to boost its treasury. Think whatever we decide that needs to be kept. The max treasury limit is what seems to be generating the most controversy. Possibly with Darrell’s suggestion we don’t need that. You might still get an awkward situation where say a CL playing ONM keeps a couple of stealthy agents back to ambush anyone who tries to steal from him. [Although this isn’t without lost opportunity cost and since he starts with 1MT and 3T its difficult to cover them all].
A lot would depend on how quickly the DS could make the effect play. Early on the FP are deficient in agents and if they don’t get either of #1 or #175 it can take a while to train up agents so if the DS can get inflation running before this occurs it can be destabilising.
I would say that something needs to be done to prevent the economic effect of ONB as it is too easy for the DS. ONM it depends on how long this takes and what counters are available and not sure if anyone has enough information to decide on this point. I know I don’t. As such I suggest Darrell’s fix and the ban on transferring gold or goods to boost treasury. [The latter is a little more difficult to judge as a nation in trouble can often be send lots to good to sell to keep them afloat. However fairly easy for Clint and gang to tell whether its for that purpose or to allow them to sell and inflate their treasury later]. Personally, while I like a challenge, I wouldn’t be happy trying to play the FP against an unregulated ONB. However, with a good team it might be interesting trying against a ONM with the proposed changes.
Steve
PS Just noticed how long it took me to compose this as Clint sneaked in a reply while I was writing. 
Have to speed up.
Clint
My suggestion is simple find the part of the code where market prices are influenced by nations gold reserves and either A. reduce it or B. remove it… then even the gold transfers limit could be removed… It’s all that really needs to be done.
While the current ruling works it does not prevent the effect… It can be prevented currently that I am sure of… Apply the right kind of pressure On the DS can make it impossible for the effect… I see little to no chance in Gm 76 for the DS with Harad and corsairs to pull this off… GM 51 after the ruling was made… Yes we the FP was able to effectively combat the DS… My feelings are not to make any more policed rulings until a code change is in place… So that we can keep our current player base, these discussions create passionate responses from many very good long standing players… Let’s remember we are all friends and competitors here all enjoying a game where our creative military minds can be excerised in a fun harmless venue.
Why not identify the top three FP and top three DS nations with gold, but not the amounts?
I still don’t agree with this strategy or any other beyond what is currently implemented in the house rules.
Rollin
It is already in the game - please check the sell prices in the data I posted from Game 85. Despite the CL reserves doubling from 86K to 173K over only three turns, sell prices were approximately the same. Apparently, the counterweight for this reserve is the amount of product in the market; since the number of units on the market were also increasing at the same time, the sell prices were roughly steady.
1 player is likely gone for good. Another is also likely gone for good. Another is likely never playing a grudge again. I have no intention of starting another 1650 grudge for a long time.
Gents, all the pettiness aside, there are impacts on players and the community as a result of this debacle.
[QUOTE=pseudiferus;58494]Howdy All,
In this one aspect of the game, I’m not sure that I agree with you Kevin in that a FP team can “thwart” a OMN strategy. [QUOTE]
Check our last team win as FP, and compare it to the data posted for Game 85. The T11 market and sell-prices were almost exactly the same.
>>I don’t think the FP can develop enough good agents to “steal gold of significance” by turn 10, let alone identify “the” OMN nation. <<
They did in 85, they just were focussed on the BS. Moreover, the FP fueled the increase in reserves; had they practiced more, ah, fiscal discipline, the increase would have been halved - and in the face of the increasing product amounts on the markets, the sell prices would have fallen, perhaps dramatically.
>>Knowing that it is possible, and trying to devise a strategy to defeat it as a FP team…would pretty much dictate the entire FP team strategy IMO, because if you don’t thwart it, then your team will lose to the “better character advantage” in the end. <<
The long run DS advantages (and dragons, etc) do dictate FP team strategy in every meaningful way; this adds nothing.
>>And what do the DS have to do to employ such a strategy…simply allow OMN raise his treasury. This is VERY EASY for the DS to employ, <<
But it has a price - some that can be seen, some not. This was not OBN, where the market runs upward and every position was rolling in cash. Two positions were lost to ecocide because the cash wasn’t there to ‘protect’ against it.
And we do not know what will happen if the FP find and eliminate the stack swiftly. I would imagine that the impact of a sudden collapse of the market on a DS that is not running lean and mean could very well be decisive. A DS team would have a very critical decision at the game start - do they employ what may be a High-yield, high-risk economic strategy or not.
>>and very difficult for the FP to counter. For that reason alone I feel it challenges the game balance.<<
We don’t know that it’s difficult to counter. In 85, the FP did not know OMN was in the realm of possibility, so they did not attempt to counter it.
Let me also point out that, from a message posted in this thread, the FP 85 expected the market to go to sale prices of 1 1 1 40 1 1 1 (or something like that). Look back on all the team games you’ve been in, regardless of which side, have you ever seen that kind of market?
>>I agree that knowing the possibility exists for an OMN means that someone can devise a good defense for the long haul. But it certainly can NOT be prevented from occurring in the first place, giving the DS uncounted turns of market benefits at the most critical stage of the game (turns 6-11).<<
It would not take the long haul, not by a longshot. The FP in 85 had the assets to do this - they were just focussed on preventing the BS from learning curses (or try to steal one back). The Dun SNA becomes a lot more valuable.
Growth is also very slow for a DS OMN, unless you attempt something radical like retiring a CL or BS starting army. That has it’s own price in a team game. Harad though, could ramp up quick - but they are exposed.
>>I feel like one of the key strategies a well run FP team can employ to defeat the DS is via ecomomics. By dropping FP economies and forcing the DS to try and market manip to fund their nations…This can be directly thwarted. Keeping reserves low also makes it difficult for DS to name additional characters, fund armies to fend off the inevitable FP assault, etc., one of the keys to slowing DS character progress is to make it difficult for them to fund/name new characters.<<
A cap, as being discussed, forces the DS into only one way to fund their nations - market manipulation. There are no choices, which detracts from the game.
Until the code changes, let’s play it and see if the FP have counters to this strategy. If they don’t, they put in some ‘brakes’ - or change the code to something less severe (like total reserves, not highest single reserve). Right now, we have one team complaining that they lost because of it and Clint jumping in to take drastic action.
>>One of the keys to winning the game on either side is to eliminate enemy nations. Doing so financially is probably the most effective tool. This can impact the FP as well as the DS, in that a FP running a low treasury can get an unexpected seige/challenge to his ability to nat sell and get eliminated in that fashion, just as the FP are trying to do the same with the DS.<<
Can, but generally won’t because of the relative sizes of the taxbases. A missed natsell that costs say, 8k is at most a 20% tax increase for the average FP, it can bankrupt most DS nations.
>>A OBN/OMN game makes this tool much more difficult to employ.<<
Not automatically in an OMN. Three positions in 85 were lost this exact way. Again, let me point out that even running an unopposed OMN only maintained the market, it did not cause the runaway markets that the original OBN inevitably caused.
OMN, what we did in 85 is being unfairly lumped in with the OBN that dominated the discussion for 5 months back in 2006 (August to December). The data from 85 - run when the FP were unaware it could even exist - clearly show that they are not the same animal, not by a long shot.
Kevin
Debacle II
It turns out that the heat of my argument was that in June Clint Said X when really Y was the truth. Besides the various opinions on OBN, OMN, etc, right, wrong, how gawd intended it to be after he created light and dark, etc, blah blah… I was upset, and this Game 85 in question crashed into a wall as a result of our FP assumptions on the wording Clint chose to use in regards to our complaint that the DS were OBN/Quasi-OBN/OMN’ing whatever.
Well, it turns out, some of the 85 DS are my ALLIES in Game 88, also DS. In that game, in MAY, a Month before the 85 FP even asked for an investigation, an 85 DS on the 88 DS board asked about whether we would use the Cloud Lord Quasi-OBN strategy in that game…(88)…!!!
So My most violent criticism has been against Clint’s confusion when, it turns out, I was told fully 4 weeks prior by the enemy themselves that they were doing this! And I, of all nit-picking, technocratic detail-oriented email nags, I missed a quite important email in regards to pre-game planning on one of my own grudge teams~!!!
So apologies have been emailed through both those games and Clint, and I would like to also issue an apology to the broader community for any of my language used here that was inflammatory, accusatory, etc. Really, talk about people in glass houses and all… I humbly accept the crow, excuse me, I’m going home to put it in a pie…
Mind you, I still believe Clint’s conclusion that this is Broken. I still believe the existing rule is unacceptably Weak as a response to the market code. And I still believe that until a Code Change is made, thusly allowing Harad to hoarde 300,000 gold without unduly impacting the rest of the game, than some sort of rolling-cap, that yes will, include restrictions on in-game orders, is the best compromise.
Brad Brunet
Like so many, you are confusing OBN with OMN. This was not the case in 85, which is the ‘game of contention’. The FP felt that we were free to run unlimited armies and improve all our popcenters, as a DS nation I can assure it was not. Outside of the OMN nation, the rest of us ran pretty lean and mean - and we lost Dog and IK because of it.
It’s just occurred to me there was one more salient fact about 85 that needs to be considered. Unlike the normal WTC division of neutrals, where the DS have Harad and Rhudar, we had Harad and the Easterlings. That’s an entirely different economy. Although, as expected, the Easterlings swiftly lost six towns, it was still a decent sized DS position (C/MT/2T). Most importantly, it wasn’t the money pit that Rhudar typically is, as the remainder didn’t need continual garrisoning & hiring. Furthermore, as a result of there being no Rhudar, we did not invest materiel in supporting WK - and outside of securing Murazor (and maybe Angulion), we did not sink funds in recruiting the expensive WK characters.
Oh, lawdy, that’s too funny - and he even gave you the name of the position. I do want to make this clear, and it may not be all that appaernt in my defense of OMN - I now appreciate the handicap you were operating under. I only bring up your team’s specific actions in the context of demonstrating that even though OMN was running unopposed (and inadvertently aided), it was not the monster that the original OBN was.
There’s one thing we can all agree on - the Code that links the market to “Single Highest Reserves” should be altered as soon as can be.
We only differ on whether we need any arbitrary ‘rulings’ in the short-term. My position is that we let this play out for a while - at least in the Grudge team arenas - and see whether it really is the one-sided beast it’s being depicted as.