What do you think is the most important factor on market prices?
I have heard that the market is set up so that one nation cannot buy out more than one product in a single turn.
I personally think this is based on their reserves and not on what they could have as surplus and natsell plus reserves to use.
When I have had alot of gold I have noticed that I could not buyout more than one product but I could come close to buying out two products.
Based on this premise then the single nation banker would have a greater effect on market prices than total gold in the game.
For those of you who all mindlessly bitch, perhaps you should try to read some silly things like “Mouth of Sauron”. Pay particular attention to volume 2. And this was published almost 13 years ago.
Fred
I believe market prices have a relationship to the total amount of a product available for purchase to the total of that product held in stores as well as to the total amount of gold in reserves. For example. A small amount of steel available for purchase, while there is a large amount in the total gold reserves will result in a very high price.(Lots of potential money competing for a small amount of product) If there was a smaller amount in the gold reserves then the price will be proportionaly lower. (Less money competing for the same amount of product) If there is a large gold reserve and a large amount of product available again the price will be in the lower range (lots of gold but lots of product available so an intermediate price) Just my thoughts on how it operates.
Regards Herman
I think it is obvious that not one factor drives prices. Total gold in one nation has a huge impact on the prices in the game.
Anyone that wants to say this is my opinion is being blinded by facts. Thanks a million to Dave Holt for pointing this out as I was skeptical as well on the one nation banker theory.
However, the total amount of products in the game, the total amount of gold in the game as well as many other factors still come in to play.
Tim
One last thing, as for the dark servants winning every game using this strategy. Our current dark servant team is still probably not winning the game on turn 10 and we have employed the strategy. However, a poor economy would have eliminated us by now and it has allowed us to crawl back into the game.
tim
Well there you go, your team were not good enough, but the 1 banker strategy has prolonged your life expectancy, unfairly! A good team can defeat a lesser team using the 1 banker strategy, but its not a level playing field!!!
Hope you read this Clint!
Even if it’s not level the game is affected for both sides. One question that was brought up was that do the DS gain from it? You can always play in a game where you agree not to do it if you think it inappropriate.
I’ve seen games where it was supposed that it was impacting and it’s interesting. The major factor then is the ability of the DS to sell product (ie they run out of product to sell relatively quickly). Ie the difference then would be something like 5k gold per turn per nation - not a major imbalance IMO even if the reason why it is (which I’m not suggesting is the case, it might be a factor in the market prices) is One Banker nation.
I saw players refuse to play when they perceived that DS had unstoppable agents, or FP unstoppable military… 
It’s an interesting debate I’d say.
Clint (GM)
An interesting debate you say Clint. How interesting for you when I and others like me decide to turn their back on MEPBM as its now unfairly balanced, yet the GM’s do nothing about it!
It’s, tediously, not a matter of opinion. The only time I ever saw a nation “run out of product” was when his last pop was eliminated. 5,000 from a small sell from a single camp is highly likely, what’s 500/25 - say, 20 of something. 5,000, product “running out”…what hilarity. Not sure your motive for such misinformation, the games where this happens (like 51 with it’s turn 1 doubled market) show quite clearly the effects of the Single Nation Banker. It’s no longer opinion.
Brad
“oh look, the DS sabotaged our bridge again, how much will it cost in timber to rebuild?”
“Oh don’t worry, its only 120,000 gold worth of timber, if they sabotage it next turn, oh how we will laugh at them!”
Griff - you have many valid arguments, but this sadly, is not one of them. A current FP game of mine we as a team produce in the neighbourhood of 30,000 a turn. Bridges for the FP are not a problem. The problem is knocking down MT’s, Towns and high producing camps from the DS no longer have the impact. Many DS nations are eliminated or teams quit for Economic reasons. This is no longer the case.
Why can’t the free do the same thing? This thread and the others like it make it seem that only the DS can do this banker strategy. If this is the case then there is indeed a problem with the game mechanic. If it is a strategy that either side can employ then the game is not broken. If it is so obviously broken Griff, why did it take 20 years for this issue to come to the attention to the gaming public? I doubt if it was an unbeatable strategy we would have been playing this long in my case 13 years without lots of people being as strident as Griff about turning their backs to the game unless it was fixed. I also doubt if it has been known and simply not used for that time as well. There has to be something missing from this discussion.
Brad J
Because If Fp do a agent company comes in and Steals the entire balance… Carrying Huge gold reserves By the FP is the quickiest way to a DS win … Trains their agents with thier superior artifact support to Kill FP com’s and get paid for it… So on of the Best tactics for winning as FP is run lean putting a Huge economic burdern on the DS… This even the odd’s in Game and keeps game in Balance…
Terry
I can only guess … That most of the original members may Have thought it was to unbalancing and to easy to win so wrote it off as unfair and would rather stick to the challenge of writing better orders…
The topic came up when discussing changes to 1650 to give more balance to the game… That the banker strategy imployed by DS team was unbeatable… So more players wanted to try this to see… Seeing DS team running below 40% tax rate and market prices are still Higher that game starting levels on turn 3… Is overwhelming… While I am still writing orders to counter thier military tactics in this game them running 40 or sub 40 tax rate and free running 60 to stay lean and try and kill the market… Leaves NO counter that will do anything to affect the banker… The FP do not start out with even an artifacted supported 50 emmy while the DS have 2 emmy artifacts… The FP have 1 agent artifact… By the time FP have emmy’s and agents capable of Dealing with HIGH loyality camps or other PC’s the DS will have Dragons to eat them so NO gaurds are needed!
Anyone get the POINT!
Griffy et al. I’m not convinced that’s why. I’ve had similar comments about players saying DS had an unfair advantage with characters etc. I’ve not see proof. As players have seen if I find something wrong etc I do take action and use input from players (GB, 1000 changes, etc are all examples of this - the latest Kin Strife module).
Note if players feel it’s a problem they can play 2950 - there’s less resources to do such a thing. I examined a game in 1650 where players claimed it was happening and could find nothing untoward at all. One game players sent to me (in another game) had an unusual market for example but I could put that down to other things going on in the game (ie I believe that the market gold total is the important factor and that’s at least 50% controlled by FPs - ie the FP can impact on it and have “proof” for that - and it’s clear to me that player opinion is divided just that some players are being very vocal.)
Players complained that 1650 had a preponderance of DS - I checked the facts on that and found that it was a misconception. In this case I’ve not seen proof yet. I’ll be doing my own investigations and have asked for feedback on me checking with a simulation of the game to see what’s up and will check that (I’m in the middle of the FTF event at present and not a big fan of knee-jerk reactions - prefer to check things methodically and then come back to you guys with suggestions as to what we can do. For example I’ve suggested that if you don’t like it don’t play in that format or get both teams to agree not to do it.
FP can certainly use it to benefit themselves. I’ve seen the games where players claim it to have occurred, money is not freely available so spending 100ks isn’t possible - and there have been plenty of games in the past where there were (and are) large quanitites of monies available within the game. My suggestion is play in a game and see what you think rather than read about it - seriously. (Hope this doesn’t come across harshly - I’m checking into it, I’m awaiting feedback and am on the ball with this).
Clint
Clint,
My willingness to play GB put aside, I find it to be somewhat naiive that you refuse to see what is plain before you. Whether you consider it to be a programing error or not, the “factors” that you wish to point to ar cirumstantial at best.
I agree that the FP have as much to gain from an inflated economy as the DS do, to some extent.
But that has little to no bearing on whether or not the “banker nation” is an exploit of a programming error. Simple, macro, and micro economics all survive on one basic principle. Need = price & vice versa. This game has no code written into it for inflation and depression that accurately reflects the market strategy of employing the LR banker.
Whether you choose to see it or not is not important, or even relevant. I use the word “choose” on purpose. My information states that Ausie team 2 has been using the tactic for some time. PoWeR 16 was grudge format with a non-grudge team that used it successfully. Game 51 apparently is using it.
Right now you are sounding suspiciously like the “Bugsplatter Beast of Traal”. (I.E. I don’t see it happening, so, therefore, it must not be happening).
Bad JuJu…
Wade
…I find it to be somewhat naiive that you refuse to see what is plain before you.
I’ve not seen any positive proof Wade. I’ve seen evidence but that evidence could prove many different things (and be caused by many factors). Game 16 could be for one of two reasons (or more) IMO. I’d need to see more evidence.
A similar thing was claimed of DS wins - that they needed to be brought back into line to give FP a chance. I found the proof that this was not the case (nearly 50/50 and if anything in favour of FP given that I feel that the more experienced players play DS over FP by choice).
I’m not disputing that it couldn’t be the case (the votes show that other players feel similarly to me) and I have been wrong before and admitted it (and changed aspects of the game in part because of it).
Part of the reason I have this form of dialogue is that players can show me where I have been wrong. At present I don’t have enough evidence. I would like to collect that evidence in an impartial way (from a test game as I’ve described in the other thread). One piece of evidence that was put forward was Game 37 - I checked that and cannot see anything wrong there. I checked game 16 and found that both teams had very high balances - ie evidence to support that Gold in the market is major factor.
Another piece of evidence was that Threatening a PC failed due to the nations being able to downgrade their tax - something that I similarly dispute. I try not to use overtly-emotional language as I find it clouds the issue at hand. Does all the above make sense?
Clint
Sheesh, I wish all you ninnies would have the patience to shut up for a while and give Clint time to look at the issue properly. Rather than saying “convinced” let me say I “think” the DS central bank strategy inflates prices – I’ve only used the tactic once so that’s not much of a data set – and that it would be a “bad thing” for future game balance assuming it works. I trust Clint will look into it and respond appropriately.
Drew
Has food ever sold for three on turn one when the banker nation was not used. If anyone has a pdf showing food selling for three on turn one I would like to see it.
Tim
You may be interested to know that the Banker Nation was used in the FtF and Clint was on the DS team that used it.
Despite this, he’s not convinced it’s the game killer you might think it is. I like that attitude - some call it stubbornness, but he’s right, there is a knee-jerk reaction of doom and gloom on the board at the moment. [Ahh the irony of me being the one to say “cheer up”]!
I used the FtF (apart from it being a good laugh) as an exercise to try out the Banker Nation tactic (although I was in G16 as well so I know all about it). Clint did not want to try it and took some convincing it has to be said. I told him we were DOOMED if we didn’t and he finally relented 
The FtF also allows me to have every nations PDF and XML file so I can accurately track all the gold on the market and all the buys/sell prices. I’ve tabulated everything and measured the influence of the price rises etc so that someone more talented than me (ha!) can pick out the bones of the spreadsheet.
Right now I have analysed just the DS nations but the FP nations will be added shortly.
Taking into account the fact that there was only 16 nations instead of 24 - and thus we produced more - and could sell more - and thus made more money it’s still quite a convincing data set.
On the last turn, the Free sent most of their gold to the banker nation (we chose the WiK - which wasn’t the most sensible choice but it was that sort of game). WiK ended with 1M+ gold. Mithril sold for 856 and MO 185. Food sold for 5 (never seen that before).
When I’ve finished the sheet I’ll post it (I think I can post it here) and you can analyse it to your hearts content.
It DOES give the DS an advantage BUT I now have an economic theory to kill this tactic on turn 1 and it doesn’t involve stealing or other guff. The more I think about it, the more I think it can work.
I’ll post it when I’ve finished the analysis. The theory needs more careful thought (probably later this week).
Bobbins…