Trading System

I think atwar should allow two or more players to trade things. It would be useful when you want to give your ally a certain ammount of units to fund their war effort but do not want to get involved or if you want to trade provinces, like Texas for England or whatever.

I asked people in room chat and they find this to be a jolly good idea. What do you guys think?

I don't want to give someone any of my units and money is already tradeable

I support any average idea, im supporting this

كتب بواسطة Tirpitz406, 07.06.2014 at 05:07

I don't want to give someone any of my units and money is already tradeable

Well if you ever had to, or wanted to, then wouldn't this be a useful idea? Money is not tradable for another item, you can only give it and ask for money in return, which is quite useless..

Support

Please dont do this

كتب بواسطة Lemonade, 07.06.2014 at 06:45

Please dont do this

This.

Abuse: Player 1 is imp. He spams inf in all his cities, and then moves them to Player 2's countries, and gives them to Player 2. Player 2 is IF. See the problem?

Same thing for territories.

Therefore this idea is just unfair.

What if my enemy trade a nation with one of my ally. when im about to take it. I can't anymore because it's own by my ally.

كتب بواسطة Htin, 07.06.2014 at 09:09

What if my enemy trade a nation with one of my ally. when im about to take it. I can't anymore because it's own by my ally.

That's too bad then..

كتب بواسطة EndsOfInvention, 07.06.2014 at 07:09

Abuse: Player 1 is imp. He spams inf in all his cities, and then moves them to Player 2's countries, and gives them to Player 2. Player 2 is IF. See the problem?

Same thing for territories.

Therefore this idea is just unfair.

That's too bad I suppose, he is simply helping his ally out. Not much regard for what strategy he is using, if he is using IF then that's bad for whoever he is warring. It's not a smart idea to give a majority of your army to someone else which would leave yourself open to invasion.

كتب بواسطة QwertyNigger, 07.06.2014 at 09:25

That's too bad I suppose, he is simply helping his ally out. Not much regard for what strategy he is using, if he is using IF then that's bad for whoever he is warring. It's not a smart idea to give a majority of your army to someone else which would leave yourself open to invasion.

You say abuse is all too bad, but what would the proposed advantages be that would outweigh the disadvantages?

كتب بواسطة QwertyNigger, 07.06.2014 at 09:25

كتب بواسطة EndsOfInvention, 07.06.2014 at 07:09

Abuse: Player 1 is imp. He spams inf in all his cities, and then moves them to Player 2's countries, and gives them to Player 2. Player 2 is IF. See the problem?

Same thing for territories.

Therefore this idea is just unfair.

That's too bad I suppose, he is simply helping his ally out. Not much regard for what strategy he is using, if he is using IF then that's bad for whoever he is warring. It's not a smart idea to give a majority of your army to someone else which would leave yourself open to invasion.

You have to be ally? so is this a team game setting?

Support only if u improve this idea for senarios

think about it. if one of ur allies decides to betray or troll he could take ur city then give it to enemies or make a huge stack just outside ur cities and give them to enemies. This would do more harm than good

Support, I think it should be a setting that mapmakers add in during editing. Like if they intended the map to be a trading game, they include that in settings. However, this would not be an option for normal eu games. Example: evening I have premium, when I make a game, I can't just make this a game option, only if the maker of the map wanted it to be one cud I include it

كتب بواسطة Emperor Lelouch, 08.06.2014 at 03:07

think about it. if one of ur allies decides to betray or troll he could take ur city then give it to enemies or make a huge stack just outside ur cities and give them to enemies. This would do more harm than good

That's stratergy and what happens in the real world. Bigger countries give support to other countries by giving them weapons and money. Sometimes in return for something and sometimes for free. If you are USA and your friend is India, and he is fighting China, you'd want to give him some tanks wouldn't you? Or else he'd be crushed and China would take it over..

كتب بواسطة QwertyNigger, 11.06.2014 at 00:52

كتب بواسطة Emperor Lelouch, 08.06.2014 at 03:07

think about it. if one of ur allies decides to betray or troll he could take ur city then give it to enemies or make a huge stack just outside ur cities and give them to enemies. This would do more harm than good

That's stratergy and what happens in the real world. Bigger countries give support to other countries by giving them weapons and money. Sometimes in return for something and sometimes for free. If you are USA and your friend is India, and he is fighting China, you'd want to give him some tanks wouldn't you? Or else he'd be crushed and China would take it over..

This will make ally fag much stronger

كتب بواسطة Cpt.Magic, 07.06.2014 at 22:12

Support only if u improve this idea for senarios

Yeah this would be disastrous for scenarios.

USSR being traded tanks for militia by the US would destroy the WWII scenario so that the USSR could steamroll right into Berlin.

كتب بواسطة KYBL, 11.06.2014 at 12:52

كتب بواسطة Cpt.Magic, 07.06.2014 at 22:12

Support only if u improve this idea for senarios

Yeah this would be disastrous for scenarios.

USSR being traded tanks for militia by the US would destroy the WWII scenario so that the USSR could steamroll right into Berlin.

Would option for mapmaker to use this ofcourse