[PON] World In Conflict - General Discussion Thread

[Jim-NC]

I don't believe that the consumption increasing techs are working as I thought they should. For example, they say that you should get a 10% increase in the consumption of almost everything, but in our game, as America, I don't see that happening. It seems to be smaller than that (around 3-3.5% per consumption group). I am basing this on the consumption that is in the F4 screen. It tells me that I am selling x out of a possible y units. Has anyone else been keeping close track on these techs and their effects? It's possible that the 10% is split up between the groups, but I thought that each group should go up by 10% (by group, I mean food/common/luxury).

[Lindi]

I guess, only gues, the 10 % is + the other %.

exemple if you have 3 new tech for to do 10 % in 100 good consumption :

10% = 110
20% = 120
30% = 130

So if you have 130 in the last turn and you see after other tech you take a other 10 % that do :

140 and not 143 (10 % of 130)

[loki100]

Hi

I *think* (and like much else in terms of PoN this is observation based rather than a real understanding), that it is 10% to consumption as per the F6 (population?) screen. I think I tried a couple of times to track changes and that was the only place I could make sense of it. That uplift is then weighted by social class (so an overall 10% on luxuries has less of an impact on the poorest) and then the various goods are drawn down to satisfy the change. So odds on, if you looked a single good on the F4 screen, the change will be minimal and could be masked by population changes in any case.

Equally, as you know, you need variety and I'm finding in mid-late game the population are worse than my cats. Picky buggers, they want choice, so the uplift may, for example, see no improvement in the demand for fish - they have had quite enough of that - as they want something new. In that case, my suspicion (with the caveat above) is that the gap is not filled (by observation of the F4 screen) and instead they get grumpy (yep this is really describing my cats).

[Ech Heftag]

Hi all,
I've some troubles with my internet connection. I will most likely be unable to submit the next couple of turns. The problems should be hopefully solved by next week.

[Jim-NC]

I am looking at total consumption for each type (not just fish or cattle, but food, common and luxury). The good news is I have a complete variety of goods to offer. So that is not the problem. The bad news is I can't figure out what happened. So when I got the mass materialism (I think it was called that). My total food went from 200 to 207 (for example, I am not sitting in front of the game, and so can't give the exact figures right now). I would have thought that my consumption should have gone from 200 to 220 (which would be a 10% increase). That means that I am missing something. It is possible that each food item went up by 10% (rounded down or something), and thus the total was not 10%, as some did not move.

I am very interested in this, as I play America, and am in the midst of a massively long depression, where roughly 50-66% of my industrial sites are shut down, and have been since the game started in 1880 (It varies as I shut down industries every so often to avoid wastage/corruption). Thus I was hoping that 200 would become 220, then 242, then 266. It now appears that 200 becomes 207, becomes 214, becomes 222. This results in a difference of 44 units if I was to get all 4 techs at the same time.

It appears I will need to do more research.

Facts and figures:

It was mass tourism, which is a 5% gain, not 10% gain (oops). Anyway,
My consumption before the change was food 279/279, common 227/227, and luxury 105/152 (for a total max of 658 being consumed).
My consumption after the change was food 289/289, common 235/235, and 103/156 (for a total max of 680).

680/658 = 1.033, thus a 3.3% gain.

The good news is I get to try and figure it out when I get national parks (in approximately 100 turns the way I am researching it currently).

Oh well, back to the old drawing board!

[Sir Garnet]

I expect the 5% is percentage points aded to the base amount and not a percentage compounding with any other bonus. This is consistent with Colonial Penetration, Development etc.

[Sir Garnet]

It appears the Italian Embassy in Britain was razed. Something which I still don't understand.


EDIT: Also the British embassy in Austria.

[Matto]

I have problem to connect to dropbox last 24 hours ... so I did not played last turn. Do you have similar problem?

[PhilThib]

No. But don't worry, as we are now in the last December 1885, I shall take 2-3 days before running it exactly, because the Zürich peace scripts are long and huge to make, I believe it won't be before end of the week

[coolbean]

Hey can the Russia .trn be added to the dropbox? I apologize for not being around the last few days - was finishing up with exams. Finally done, graduation tomorrow. There may be a time during the next month when I have to move to a new city and may not be able to submit a turn for a day or two.

[PhilThib]

Some turns are missing because of upload issue with dropbox..I'll try to fix all this at noon

[coolbean]

Some turns are missing because of upload issue with dropbox..I'll try to fix all this at noon

Thanks!

[Sir Garnet]

I don't see a new Various Fixes file - would like to see the scripts for instructional value. Is disbanding the Upper and Lower Canada divisions an event?

[PhilThib]

I can send them to you by mail, but not before monday, as I am away from home now. I have not disbanded any units from anyone, so if it happened, this is either player action or game mechanics

[bjfagan]

Italy did not agree to any peace, so why was one implemented in the game?

[PhilThib]

By going to the Conference, Italy implictly agreed to the peace. This was clearly stated by both Britain and Germany as sponsors. If Italy refuses it, so be it, the war will be re-applied, but Italy shall then face the consequences

[Lindi]

Because Germany and British are the sponsors for this peace if not peace, British and Germany go war against Italy ?

[PhilThib]

Well, something for sure is that Italy will suffer a stiff diplomatic penalty in relationships with both powers for refusing their co-sponsored treaty. That may not be enough for allowing a war (CB or relation levels) but may surely cancel some existing alliances if the relation level goes to low...

[Lindi]

small question for the house rule.

If nation A declare war to nation B, nation C have defence treaty with B

but C have very good relation with A (for exemple 100).

Nation C can help the ally B with declare war to A or not ?

[bjfagan]

By going to the Conference, Italy implictly agreed to the peace. This was clearly stated by both Britain and Germany as sponsors. If Italy refuses it, so be it, the war will be re-applied, but Italy shall then face the consequences

I don't believe this was stated anywhere. Attending a conference does not mean forced compliance to an end of conference agreement, nor was any agreement posted for attendees to discuss. I did not see anything that mentioned a forced end to the Italian-Turkish war.

[PhilThib]

The intent of the Conference was clearly posted twice:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?28824-Diplomacy-amp-News&p=280285&viewfull=1#post280285

and there

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?28824-Diplomacy-amp-News&p=281708&viewfull=1#post281708

Italy never said it rejected the Conference proposal, and there was ample time left for this. As a consequence, based on the principle of “Silence is Consent”, the peace was applied as per the joint German-British proposal.

Now Italy can refuse that, and it will be reverted to war status. Relations with GBR and GER will be severely affected, and relations with other conference participants too.

[PhilThib]

small question for the house rule.

If nation A declare war to nation B, nation C have defence treaty with B

but C have very good relation with A (for exemple 100).

Nation C can help the ally B with declare war to A or not ?

Yes, this is the "advantage" (and also a liability IMHO) of Defensive Treaties...

Now Nation C can refuse to declare war, in which case her relations with ally B will suffer and the treaty will be cancelled (and B will have a temporary CB against C for breaching an agreement, like all breaches of agreements).
Also, to avoid "fake" DoW, as per house rule, if nation C declares war but does nothing within the first 4 turn of the war, it will suffer a 500 VP penalty

[Lindi]

Ok thank =)

[coolbean]

Ahhh didn't submit a turn because I thought we were already on break...

Are we on break now with the new year? When are we expected to resume?

[PhilThib]

I am planning to resume sometime in the last week of August, but I'll send a warning 2-3 days ahead of time for all to catch up

[Ech Heftag]

I have now solved the problems with my internet connection.

Now, I must say that I am slightly confused about the current state of the game. So it is currently on hold? And another player is playing Japan (or just substituting for me)? Any clarifications would be really welcome

[PhilThib]

No, the game is on hold at end of December 1885 till all come back from vacation, in the last week of August. Nobody took Japan over to my knowledge (besides the IA of course)

[Ech Heftag]

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Philippe!

Yes, I confused the current turn date. It was actually me who submitted the last orders for Japan

[Lindi]

just for know Italy continue the war or no?

[bjfagan]

just for know Italy continue the war or no?

Italy never agreed to any peace, nor did Italy sign any treaty from the Zurich conference. Attendance at a conference does not give blanket approval on whatever comes out of that conference.