Screenshot 020910

[unmerged(2695)]

I think you should take a look at the map of the Baltic states again.

1935 Estonia was not 1721 Estonia and 1935 Latvia not 1721 Livonia or province of Riga.

Or doe sthe map indicate that the Baltic republics won't be playable?

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Georg I.
Like most people on the board I´m somewhat pleased with the possibility to trade goods, but I am disappointet that there is no money(gold) present.

It was said that lend lease is in. Do I as the USA have to give the Brits everything for good?

That was basically the point of lend lease, USA giving free stuff to the allies. Eventual repayment is beyond the scope/time-frame of the game.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by 17028
I have a question. What resource did Germany have in excess, to be able to trade? Not steel. Not oil. Not rubber. Maybe coal? I'm just seeing a problem here for the German player.

Coal was IIRC a biggie, as was loot from conqests (gold and weapons), synthetic oil and rubber are possibilities if in small amounts, or one is desperate.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by spizzer
This screen is great. The commerce will be included, that's all I care about.

Anyway, I think this screen answer to a question asked by the previous one. Notice that blue Port in the Baltic States (future USSR territory), in the city of Riga. It's in the Fog of War so that mean it's not blue because there's ships docked it this port but because it's a greater port than the other. (otherwise would be a flaw in the game, and that would make FoW useless. If this is not about espionnage, but I don't think) What was speculation is now nearby a certitude.

I think amounts off commerce look awfully small, compared to stockpiles, but maybe it is monthly.

Didn't ports in FoW change shape in EU2 as well, when ships enter or leave. I think it is engine-related

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Ighelkott
Regarding gold:
I think one way of modelling the importance of gold would be to give vps for the size of national gold reserves. A neutral country would want to get gold because it would gain vps, while a country at war could gain more vps for using resources to achieve military gains. Ideally this would happen:

A country entering the war would have a gold reserve (set from the beginning of the game + whatever traded). It would use gold to buy supplies necessary for the war (and just as important: other countries would want to buy it as long as they have the goods available). As the war progresses, a country would use more gold, and would use all if it's fighting a desperate battle.

The main effects of this system would be (1) the US gets a lot of extra VPs and (2) Switzerland becomes a viable player nation.

Seriously, there is something a little odd about putting so much emphasis on gold as key monetary element when the game starts at the precise point in history when the Gold Standard had ceased to operate. (France, Holland and Switzerland went off gold that year, joining the UK and the US)

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Keynes

The main effects of this system would be (1) the US gets a lot of extra VPs and (2) Switzerland becomes a viable player nation.

That would be good and historically accurate . Anyway I intend to try and provoke the Germans into attacking my mountain fortresses once they're completed.

Seriously, there is something a little odd about putting so much emphasis on gold as key monetary element when the game starts at the precise point in history when the Gold Standard had ceased to operate. (France, Holland and Switzerland went off gold that year, joining the UK and the US)

Yes, but some resource poor minors need something to pay for their purchases. I wonder if you can trade weapons for resources.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Winkelried
Yes, but some resource poor minors need something to pay for their purchases. I wonder if you can trade weapons for resources.

Sorry, can't resist:

You can do what the Swiss did: Supply electricity to German industry and demand weapons in payment.

 

[unmerged(358)]

Actually in many ways I thought the point of being resource poor meant you couldn't afford anything ? That's basicly the way it works in EU2 and I never heard of anyone complaining about that ? In other words the reason lot of the world is regarded as minors is because they only had to power to affect things in minor ways, i.e. they could only afford a minor army...

Cobos

 

[unmerged(9938)]

Originally posted by Cobos
Actually in many ways I thought the point of being resource poor meant you couldn't afford anything ? That's basicly the way it works in EU2 and I never heard of anyone complaining about that ? In other words the reason lot of the world is regarded as minors is because they only had to power to affect things in minor ways, i.e. they could only afford a minor army...

Most will expect minor production to be minor, or at least much smaller than that of the majors. But I thought for a moment that some minors wouldn`t have any resources at all, and without resources no production. But judging from your post I guess all countries have resources, and that as a minor you can save them to build up your stocks and then trade. Thus even minor nations will have some production, but due to their limited resources it won`t be much, and that`s ok.

TMO

 

[unmerged(358)]

I don't have any secret fountain of knowledge. I'm only guessing like everyone else

Cobos