For clarity, I am looking at a coding solution to the OBN problem. Not an arbitrary number of gold that you’re allowed to have. It was a point to raise and discuss, I’ve taken that feedback on board and will test it out shortly.
Clint
Without a doubt, the DS benefit more. But the FP also gain some advantages that I think many players are overlooking. They can all basically have the “hire for free” SNA, which greatly simplifies and streamlines the orders/characters for recruiting; no cmdr left behind as a recruiting sergeant, NG can hire/recruit at about twice the locations. DS thefts don’t prevent hiring of armies nor naming of characters. All leather and mounts can be turned into HC, even by the poorest FP.
Tim said he could win as FP against OBN. I can’t remember if it was on this forum or on our team list, but someone pointed out, he and I have won against a grudge team employing OBN (or more precisely, OMN I’m sure). Sure, the advantage goes to DS, but it is not insurmountable.
Drew
I do see your point, and you are correct in that the opportunities are very much overlooked in the mad panic of anti-OBN. But I see the potential scope of the game very much reduced in that with full-throttle OB/MN, the FP simply have to do X, Y and Z. Some complain 1650 is being dumbed down too much by Clint. I would hazard that OBN as a fait accompli would dramatically accelerate that process. Consider.
Sheesh… The FP can already hire for free in essence… They can always name characters when they desire… But the FP do not Have +20 kidnap or assasins… Do not have the abundance of High ranking skill characters that the DS have… Cannot load their Coms up with arties becuase they are basically free of assasination attempts for the first 15 turns… The FP already are the economic Giants… It was designed that way so the DS could steal gold to pay for thier character and DS the metal resources to equipe thier troops in steel… … Please get real OBN effect only helps the DS Win… FP using it only helps the DS WIN! So please run huge gold reserves when I play DS i like easy wins!
All,
I have been playing a long time as well and I HAVE recruited the 100K dragon once (and only once) before. (Cant think of his name right now) If I am playing a DS nation (I am not at the moment) and have over 80K gold in my reserves and I am asked or told to justify my high reserves, then I will simply say I intend to recruit the 100K dragon if and when I run into him. That SINGLE REASON can not be disputed by anyone. The reason it can’t be disputed is that there IS a dragon that can be recruited with 100K. If 100K is required by design, to recruit the dragon, it was the INTENTION OF THE DESIGNERS that nations be allowed to have at least 100K in their reserves to be able to recruit said dragon. I have no complaint or objection if the single highest nation’s gold reserves are disconnected from influencing the market upwards. That’s my 2 cents worth.
John
Where do you get these statistics… or are you making this up?
I don’t ever remember having any conversations about how little gold to have with anyone… I distinctly remember having big balances with some positions so I could run 20 to 30k deficits without worrying about being able to natsell enough…
I remember ClL and IcK having big balances becuase of all their steals… and since they could net 20-30k off a nation per turn, it meant those nations also had to have a certain balance to begin with.
The first few games run in the UK had huge Gold balances… most people tend to forget that.
Having huge balances or no balances affecting the economics has always been known… the specifics of the gold being in 1 treasury were just not forum knowledge.
And Gold on its own does not make DS win.
While you are fixing the OBN issue, can you also fix the prices all dropping to 1 issue… surely the converse is also an IT bug…
Oh, and before everyone tells me that market economics means that if there is no money in treasuries, this is reflected in the prices offered and mirrors reality… then so does 1 very wealthy nations forcing all prices up… and if we are going to get rid of 1, we should get rid of the other.
Michael
I completely agree… OBN does not win on its own… it makes the pop centre / commander rich nations hire and equip very easily if done right…
There is still a limit to the DS pop centre wise…
Hi there John,
like I always though: you’re the Cat!
I’m not bad in tracking chars, I guess you know that when you’ll take a look on your results.-
Well, won’t try an OBN!
We would be able to do that (I guess you know) but you’ll lose 82 by “fair” means.
… as fair as killers and cursers may act.
Have Fun!
Gixxx
If they are stealing 20-30K off a nation then there are many nations with big reserves and therefore a boyant market… the argument is about 1 nation deliberately having a high reserve for the SOLE PURPOSE of having an inflationary effect on the market. If you read my earlier posts (may also be on anoth thread to do with ONB) you would see I advocated a 2-3 no more than 4 turn buffer of a deficit. So if you were running a 30K deficit I would expect to see a minimum of 60K reserve would be quite happy to see a 90K but would seriously start to question if it was getting over 120K.
Herman
Ack your wrong… in any market when nothing is being bought and everything is being sold market prices drops… Those poor caravan people want to make a profit… notice the buy price is still always higher… This trend continues until Buyouts are done… IE buying way more than is be sold… You can do this easily as DS but it requires a TEAM effort or a Economic powerhouse…
I did a Buyout by myself on turn 2 of a 2950 as a Nuetral. Only requires Gold and a mind a sharp as a writeable number 2 pencil!
Look folks, Clint has indicated that his intended fix to this is to fix the code.
Hallelujah!
That is the correct fix.
Telling players not to use a growing number of obstensibly legal orders under certain illegal circumstances and/or to get their nations out of illegal circumstances by issuing capital orders that they otherwise need is just a horrible band-aid.
It’s bad because it’s hard to police.
It’s bad because it’s increasingly likely that well intended players violate the rules because of their complexity and/or they aren’t even thinking OBN and do something against the rules.
It’s bad because it limits creative (and standard) game play. Is it against OBN/OMN restrictions to StlGold from a friendly nation as a way of training agents when that would put the nation treasury over the arbitrary limit (for example)? Why shouldn’t a well-to-do DS nation be able to fund a $100k dragon? Why should nations curb use of 690 to avoid going over an arbitrary limit?
No, Clint has it right. Fix the code. Allow people to use the orders in the game however they want. A single nation’s treasury shouldn’t hyper-inflate the economy. That’s just broken code.
Thank you Clint for seeing clearly both the forest and the trees.
Dave
Terry, I’m sure your events are just as true as Herman. But each of you are not accurate when you each talk about the market fluctuations. Herman, we all agree high gold reserves impact the market to some degree but you’re not right in assuming it’s sole purpose is to drive the market up. High gold reserves and low reserves have an impact on the market to some degree. And Clint is addressing this matter of degree as Dave has mentioned, but it should go both ways as another player in this thread mentioned. It’s pretty obvious the upward climb in prices is what some want limited, but the downward spiral ends at 1 and for DS’s that spells :eek:, while for Freeps that means 
But Terry, selling and not buying does not necessarily drop prices either. I’m in a game right now similar to another I just finished and both sides are selling a ton of product and the market is maintaining high prices. The main reason I can see is a handful of nations have large reserves which are keeping the market high. Prices are so high nobody can afford to buy needed resources in some cases. So to make a blanket statement like selling and not buying will lower prices is just inaccurate.
While a buyout is possible as a team Terry, going solo a nation is only able to spend a limited amount of gold to buy a limited amount of product each turn. In your instance, the market must have been near bottom and the available product minimal for you to try a buyout, meaning the game’s course had already been directed by the Free. You must have been really coveted in that game. 
what side did you join?
Dan