Player Trade Reconsidered

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Player Trade Reconsidered

      I have read on the forums a few threads about trading between players and how it is banned in CoN as compared to CoW. From what I understand the devs are very much against trading because of the potential for abuse. However, many people still want the trading feature and it is not impossible to implement. Here is my idea of how it would go:

      -Min level 20 to trade resources, level 30 for units and warheads
      This is the big one. Right off the bat, you cut off all the players who want to get a easy win by trading between two accounts. Level 20 takes some time to get to, and for many it will not be worth it.

      -Purchased units in army cannot exceed 20 percent of your total units (cannot trade infantry)
      This would prevent someone from buying themselves a big army without the hassle of daily limits. If you have 80 units, and you just bought 20 then you are blocked from buying any units until that ratio goes back down. Furthermore, a unit that has been exported becomes an allocated unit and has some restrictions. This is also realistic; a country cannot sell their own infantry, but they can sell vehicles. The US sold many different aircraft to the Japanese. By blocking the trade of infantry, you are stopping potential abusers from getting the units they need to conquer provinces

      -Purchased units cannot heal
      You just bought 20 advanced fighter jets from your good ally and sent them into combat. Some of them came back damaged. Now you have a problem: How can you repair these planes if they are not of your origin? You don’t have the parts or schematics to repair them because they are not yours! Once traded, allocated units will not heal at all even if given back to the owner

      -Real resources
      This is a questionable one, and it would be interesting to see how it plays out. When you trade resources with another player or on the market, they become a physical unit. It could be a transport truck, boat or plane. Each transport has a maximum capacity of 5000 tons. If you want to send resources to an ally, you have to send it from a homeland city to one of their own homeland cities. Your enemies are sharing resources? Shoot them out of the sky! With this feature, anti air bubbles and naval blockades become more important than ever, giving new life to subs, corvettes and TDS. While this feature would make more sense in CoW (remember Lusitania?) I think it could find a place in CoN. Want to go one step further? Plan a heist! Special forces that destroy a resource transport (such as a moving truck or landing cargo plane) take 50 percent of its resources. If this doesn’t work, it could be substituted with a basic limit on resources traded.
      This could even open up a new status (Embargo) and security council ability called “Blockade” on units. When you embargo a country, they cannot see your market deals (like CoW), and if you set unit behavior to blockade then any resource transport of a country you embargoed will be stopped (not fighting). This means that a embargoed ship entering your cruiser range will stop, and an embargoed cargo plane entering your AA/ SF range will return to the airfield (basically ATC telling them they are in restricted airspace). If the transport is rushing they will enter the range regardless and get destroyed without declaring war

      -Current abuses
      The current system is still prone to abuse despite the absence of player trading. Coordinated trade on the market allows players to trade resources without limit, especially since the market dies in the late game. All you have to do is put up a cheap sale and the other person can buy it before other countries take notice. Implementation of a new system would cut down on these abuses.

      I hope the devs reconsider this feature given the potential to stop cheating and abuse. Myself and many other CoN players wish that trading was still an option, and it would be great to see it brought back in a way that doesn’t negatively impact gameplay
      Yee Haw

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Colonel Waffles: Add in an extra part ().

    • I agree with most of this. I am a little skeptical about trading units between players, but imposing those restrictions may be a big help when considering this idea. You could also make it so that the country that is being traded the units must have the tech to go through with the trade.
      Want a tank and you are buying it from Russia? You must have the tech researched for tanks. If you buy a level 3 tank, but only have a level one tank researched, it's downgraded.
      Moreover, every unit should have a "base" price. For example, infantry is worth 2k. Countries trading those units cant trade them below that trading price, which could help with abuse as well, so you cant make tanks and jets dirt cheap. So trading units at the start of the game is really unrealistic, but as the game progresses, your capacity to trade increases. Spies should be able to gather intelligence about what troops are being traded to who as well!
      I also agree with the level system. You can't stop all abuse, and we shouldn't let it ruin possible features for the game. Setting a minimum level needed to trade would help curb some of this. After all, who has the time to level up two accounts, both to level 20, just so you can abuse the in-game system? It isn't worth it. I'd probably be surprised though ||
    • I like the idea of downgrading the units. If you buy T-14 tanks, but only have T-80 researched, then you will have issues. The tank itself is very good, but the shells you produce are not so good, reducing the damage, and the fuel quality, training etc. Maybe the tank stays the same, but stats are reduced. Or the level of it is between its original level and your researched level. I would want to see how many restrictions are enough to stop abuse though. If the traded units are terrible no one will trade then

      Don’t know about base price. The person selling used their resources to make the unit, and it is already weaker than it should be. But maybe I am wrong, it is up to the developers to decide which to put in and which to leave out. I do really like the spy idea. Currently spies aren’t utilized much and this would give them more purpose

      I think the right restrictions will eliminate this abuse if done right. It would not be worth it to try abusing the system with these changes. Imagine making a new account, spending a month getting it to level 20 only so someone can report you, get you banned and you find all of your work was for nothing. Even if they find a way after all these restrictions, smart players will find their trade routes and decimate their transports
      Yee Haw
    • THE WEAPONS MARKET ...

      It is a very good idea to create a WORLD WEAPONS MARKET. Not only tanks, but also artillery, aviation, warships, all equipment and missiles. This would be REAL LIFE in the modern world.
      But the maximum selling price should be any, not limited by anything. That's just the lower limit of the sale should be limited by the cost of the weapon produced and not lower.
      But you can't trade in infantry.
      It would also encourage players to buy more gold.

      This would be worth considering for developers in the future.
      However, thanks to the developers.
      They are working hard right now to modernize this good game that has a good future.
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ...
      -Purchased units cannot heal
      You just bought 20 advanced fighter jets from your good ally and sent them into combat. Some of them came back damaged. Now you have a problem: How can you repair these planes if they are not of your origin? You don’t have the parts or schematics to repair them because they are not yours! Once traded, allocated units will not heal at all even if given back to the owner
      ...
      By Jove he's right! I'm all out of left legs for these infantry I bought! And they only take Italian parts!
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Current CON market only works for first few days, after which any further trades are usally between allies and is in the lategame.
      Even defeated countries don't list their resources on the market, which could potentially sway any future battle against who ever they are at war with.

      Adding level restrictions is one thing, but considering its a feature that isn't really used, we would just see its usage fall even more. Id hate to think i couldn't support a sub level 20 player in my alliance with resources they might need.

      But adding a military aspect is insane, id hate to have to combat cheaters using multple accounts that has transfered all control to a single country. While it would be helpful to use allied military assets, the potential for abuse is huge.

      Maybe you could add some mercanary units, but what your purposing is game ruining.
      If you want more units, spend gold, games last months whats a daily limit going to accomplish.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by crazystoner ().

    • frankly i dont really like any of that

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Min level 20 to trade resources, level 30 for units and warheads
      This is the big one. Right off the bat, you cut off all the players who want to get a easy win by trading between two accounts. Level 20 takes some time to get to, and for many it will not be worth it.
      eh decent enough; if you ignore the unit/warhead trading

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Purchased units in army cannot exceed 20 percent of your total units (cannot trade infantry)
      This would prevent someone from buying themselves a big army without the hassle of daily limits. If you have 80 units, and you just bought 20 then you are blocked from buying any units until that ratio goes back down. Furthermore, a unit that has been exported becomes an allocated unit and has some restrictions. This is also realistic; a country cannot sell their own infantry, but they can sell vehicles. The US sold many different aircraft to the Japanese. By blocking the trade of infantry, you are stopping potential abusers from getting the units they need to conquer provinces
      If youre at that level of trust and teamplay that you're willing to trade units with eachother than you're at the level where you frankly dont need it; also would need more limits

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Purchased units cannot heal
      You just bought 20 advanced fighter jets from your good ally and sent them into combat. Some of them came back damaged. Now you have a problem: How can you repair these planes if they are not of your origin? You don’t have the parts or schematics to repair them because they are not yours! Once traded, allocated units will not heal at all even if given back to the owner
      that just makes purchased units completely inefficient and pretty much gurantees them ending up just dead; that just provides more incentive not to sell them

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Real resources
      that would just serve to punish the few ppl who actually do trade?
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      frankly i dont really like any of that

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Min level 20 to trade resources, level 30 for units and warheads
      This is the big one. Right off the bat, you cut off all the players who want to get a easy win by trading between two accounts. Level 20 takes some time to get to, and for many it will not be worth it.
      eh decent enough; if you ignore the unit/warhead trading

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Purchased units in army cannot exceed 20 percent of your total units (cannot trade infantry)
      This would prevent someone from buying themselves a big army without the hassle of daily limits. If you have 80 units, and you just bought 20 then you are blocked from buying any units until that ratio goes back down. Furthermore, a unit that has been exported becomes an allocated unit and has some restrictions. This is also realistic; a country cannot sell their own infantry, but they can sell vehicles. The US sold many different aircraft to the Japanese. By blocking the trade of infantry, you are stopping potential abusers from getting the units they need to conquer provinces
      If youre at that level of trust and teamplay that you're willing to trade units with eachother than you're at the level where you frankly dont need it; also would need more limits

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Purchased units cannot heal
      You just bought 20 advanced fighter jets from your good ally and sent them into combat. Some of them came back damaged. Now you have a problem: How can you repair these planes if they are not of your origin? You don’t have the parts or schematics to repair them because they are not yours! Once traded, allocated units will not heal at all even if given back to the owner
      that just makes purchased units completely inefficient and pretty much gurantees them ending up just dead; that just provides more incentive not to sell them

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Real resources
      that would just serve to punish the few ppl who actually do trade?
      Well, some of these are not strictly limited to who is in your coalition. It is trying to make the market feel more "open" between everyone in-game. Your coalition may not have what another coalition has. So trading becomes more viable.
      The current market system works, but only to a certain extent. I do not see people trading past day 10. How could that change?? Giving more options to players for trade opportunities and encouraging players to use diplomacy would make the game far more interesting.

      The unit trading, if it is at all being considered, needs conceptual reworks, no doubt. But it would make the game feel that much more politically tense. Right now, it's "big economy=more tech=biggest/better army=winning." This is fine because this game's strat is so in-depth. But giving more reasons to be political and engage with one another would make everything so much better, and open up new pathways for victory.
      I like the idea of being able to trade troops. The level lock limits abuse. And it's not "lockdown" the entire market. Only certain features.

      crazystoner wrote:



      Adding level restrictions is one thing, but considering its a feature that isn't really used, we would just see its usage fall even more. Id hate to think i couldn't support a sub level 20 player in my alliance with resources they might need.

      But adding a military aspect is insane, id hate to have to combat cheaters using multple accounts that has transfered all control to a
      This is the biggest hang-up I see with this idea. I agree level restrictions limit not only other players but your corporation between players. I think this feature would be reasonable if this wasn't the case. Moreover, as said here, potential abuse.
      How could you try and set up the market system in this way and avoid abuse? An idea I suggested was creating a cap on how many troops can be traded between countries at any given time, and there is always a long time period that countries have to wait before being able to trade troops again. But that won't stop abuse, only slow it down.
      If this problem is solved, then it would only be a matter of time before the idea picked up steam.
    • crazystoner wrote:

      Current CON market only works for first few days, after which any further trades are usally between allies and is in the lategame.
      Even defeated countries don't list their resources on the market, which could potentially sway any future battle against who ever they are at war with.

      Adding level restrictions is one thing, but considering its a feature that isn't really used, we would just see its usage fall even more. Id hate to think i couldn't support a sub level 20 player in my alliance with resources they might need.

      But adding a military aspect is insane, id hate to have to combat cheaters using multple accounts that has transfered all control to a single country. While it would be helpful to use allied military assets, the potential for abuse is huge.

      Maybe you could add some mercanary units, but what your purposing is game ruining.
      If you want more units, spend gold, games last months whats a daily limit going to accomplish.
      I’m not sure you read correctly my post. I never suggested a daily limit, but I did suggest ways to counteract the combat cheaters. In order to abuse they must deal with the following:
      -Their cheating accounts need to be leveled up
      -They can’t trade infantry
      -They can’t have more than 20 percent allocated units
      -The units can’t heal
      At this point, there are no benefits at all to trade the units if you are controlling all the countries. They cannot transfer power to a single country. In fact, they will be better off not trading units at all, since the units will be at full strength and they have full control of them. As of right now the cheaters can already control multiple countries and use their units so why would they trade them in the first place? I’m not seeing what there is to abuse that is not already abusable in-game

      The level restrictions are necessary precautions to stop the cheating. It is not that hard to reach level 20, and the goal of reaching new levels to unlock these abilities in addition to officer levels will keep people playing longer, which will then help Dorado Games
      Yee Haw
    • Teburu wrote:

      frankly i dont really like any of that

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Min level 20 to trade resources, level 30 for units and warheads
      This is the big one. Right off the bat, you cut off all the players who want to get a easy win by trading between two accounts. Level 20 takes some time to get to, and for many it will not be worth it.
      eh decent enough; if you ignore the unit/warhead trading

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Purchased units in army cannot exceed 20 percent of your total units (cannot trade infantry)
      This would prevent someone from buying themselves a big army without the hassle of daily limits. If you have 80 units, and you just bought 20 then you are blocked from buying any units until that ratio goes back down. Furthermore, a unit that has been exported becomes an allocated unit and has some restrictions. This is also realistic; a country cannot sell their own infantry, but they can sell vehicles. The US sold many different aircraft to the Japanese. By blocking the trade of infantry, you are stopping potential abusers from getting the units they need to conquer provinces
      If youre at that level of trust and teamplay that you're willing to trade units with eachother than you're at the level where you frankly dont need it; also would need more limits

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Purchased units cannot heal
      You just bought 20 advanced fighter jets from your good ally and sent them into combat. Some of them came back damaged. Now you have a problem: How can you repair these planes if they are not of your origin? You don’t have the parts or schematics to repair them because they are not yours! Once traded, allocated units will not heal at all even if given back to the owner
      that just makes purchased units completely inefficient and pretty much gurantees them ending up just dead; that just provides more incentive not to sell them

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      -Real resources
      that would just serve to punish the few ppl who actually do trade?
      The point of the unit trading is not to replace mobilizing new units. If that was the case then what would be the point of researching new units if your allies will just give you their own? They are nerfed to encourage research of your own units and to discourage cheating. Despite their nerfs, they would be useful to strangers and allies in need that don’t have access to those units. Wouldn’t you rather have the option to acquire certain weakened units than not have the option at all?

      let’s say for example I need components badly. I message around and find that New Zealand has a lot of components, but their navy is weak. We trade components for some cruisers. The cruisers are not a replacement to their navy (the healing nerf enforcing this) while being a good enough force for them to defend their country until they can build their own navy.

      Or perhaps my ally, Brazil, is getting nuked by Mexico. I could send my TDS to Brazil, but I want to remain as neutral as possible because Mexico’s allies share borders with me. I give Brazil a few TDS so that they can fend off the nukes for a while until I am in a position to join the war. This is essentially what the US and Britain did in World War I.

      Real Resources was pretty far out to be honest. It’s more of a wild idea than a serious suggestion, but that doesn’t mean it could improve the game
      Yee Haw
    • One thing id like to see, is units on your tiles coming under enemy command.
      Plenty of games where you still have an army, but your production is gone, so to be a good allie you can defend you allies cities, but if i was then inactive, why can't they change command?
      Or you clear out tiles, but the enemy sends tanks, or reco units or other non capturing units. Or you take a tile and there is an army randomly half way to at capture point.


      So what im saying is, inactive players should have their units change hands depending whos tiles the units are on after they are inactive for a period of time.

      It would be nice to have some captured units in my army.