Jump to content

why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard


scolar visari

Recommended Posts

People can sell for whatever they want to sell for.  

 

But if you can't figure out a way to make money with 6/100 deals, you're doing something very, very, very wrong.  

I agree.

But if you can't figure out a way to make more money with 9/100 deals, you're doing something very, very, very wrong.

Edited by Dajobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NpO tech deal policy will see them sky rocket in ns after this war is over and help with quickly rebuilding,


Soft NS based on infra, though. NS that will be shaved away in the first couple weeks on any meaningful nuclear war.

and since war is fought primarily in the mid and lower tier they now have experienced fighters that will have decent warchests when they have to fight again.


Name one single recent war that was won by a coalition possessing only low-and-mid-tier strength. The closest would be Equilibrium, probably, where you had the world versus 10 alliances (and where the upper tier fighting was intense).

not switching to the 9/100 deal will put your alliance at a disadvantage to those that do.


Politics will put your alliance at a disadvantage, certainly not the kind of techdeals you're doing.
  

You're ignoring the fact that mid tier nations can't afford 9/100 while still building an adequate warchest. Terrible thread.

 
And buying wonders as well, let's not forget that. When 4999 or 5999 infra tech buyers have to pay 9/100s AND buy wonders every 30 days AND build a warchest, well...
 

I respect the capabilities and warrior spirit of Doom Squad, but it would not win a war against a depressed Polar on its own.

 
We don't see 1 vs 1 wars very often, though.
 

I'd rather we all acknowledged different alliances have different needs and therefor different prices and methods will be appropriate.


So much this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one single recent war that was won by a coalition possessing only low-and-mid-tier strength. The closest would be Equilibrium, probably, where you had the world versus 10 alliances (and where the upper tier fighting was intense).

No coalition has ever been built of only mid/low tier nations, so giving you an answer would be impossible.

I can tell you that the only reason the peace between Umb/TLR/Deinos and Fark in our little sideshow of the Dave War was worded the way it was (including the most awesome clause in any peace treaty every (wars may continue until they expire)) was because we are a mid/low tier alliance and they weren't equipped to force anything else on us without having to call in more of C&G.

As for the 9/100 price... It's not something I would choose for myself as a buyer or seller, but if they're all happy with it I have no reason to tell them to do it differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No coalition has ever been built of only mid/low tier nations, so giving you an answer would be impossible.

I can tell you that the only reason the peace between Umb/TLR/Deinos and Fark in our little sideshow of the Dave War was worded the way it was (including the most awesome clause in any peace treaty every (wars may continue until they expire)) was because we are a mid/low tier alliance and they weren't equipped to force anything else on us without having to call in more of C&G.


Yet we still lost that war.

I do believe a victory by mid-tier dominance is theoretically possible, I don't discount that: just not in the present world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet we still lost that war.

I do believe a victory by mid-tier dominance is theoretically possible, I don't discount that: just not in the present world.


I think it can lead to stalemates or frustrating situations where things can slow down alot. A decent mid tier is essential for any coalition IMO. In this war, we had weird tier brackets where we were outnumbered 3-1, and our guys were under a lot of pressure on our fronts. But relief at top and bottom allowed us to keep pumping tech and money to mid. Had our opponents not come out piece meal, it would have been a huge problem with all tech heavy zero infra 10k+ tech guys having a field day. A poor strategy of our opponents gave us the breathing room in mid tier and have some semblance of limited control. Only Sparta seemed to take the main most advantage of the situation. There's guys easily went to pm, restock come back and many times, there simply wasn't anyone in range to stagger them, mi6 did that to extent.

The opposition in this war failed to capitalise on potential opportunity in mid by making two huge strategic blunders:
1. AAs joining in a few weeks intervals 2. Top tiers joining in on similar slow intervals and going down slower. Therefore missing out on an opportunity to have a critical mass in mid tiers and really frustrating the efforts. At later stages, some lo top tier guys were now able to down declare and relief the guys in mid holding the line.

Whoever contributed to above decisions should not be running the show for the sake of their own alliance and allies, whatever sides the future maybe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think engaging everything at once would frustrate no-one but ourselves. Piling everything in at once only makes sense as part of a credible blitkreig, we did not have the military assets necessary to execute such a strategy with overwhelming force. Your advice is like taking a heavy bolder and throwing it in for a big splash, impressive looking perhaps but drowning very quickly after.

Of course, Polar doesn't fight wars for "fun," we fight to neutralize the enemy as a threat, so the way we fight may seem kind of foreign.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read enough. Anything is worth what a buyer is willing to pay and what a seller is willing to accept. For efficiency's sake why with an FAC and DRA is the rate not $9mil/150tech? As a small nation you can receive $27mil incoming and outgoing send back 450tech. The cost of each slot of 150tech would be about $3.2mil or $9.6mil total. That is still about $17.4mil profit every 10 days. A seller can move 10,800 per year using 3 slots every 10 days and sending only 100tech/slot. Using the same 3 slots to move 150tech every 10 days for a year, a seller could move 16425 tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read enough. Anything is worth what a buyer is willing to pay and what a seller is willing to accept. For efficiency's sake why with an FAC and DRA is the rate not $9mil/150tech? As a small nation you can receive $27mil incoming and outgoing send back 450tech. The cost of each slot of 150tech would be about $3.2mil or $9.6mil total. That is still about $17.4mil profit every 10 days. A seller can move 10,800 per year using 3 slots every 10 days and sending only 100tech/slot. Using the same 3 slots to move 150tech every 10 days for a year, a seller could move 16425 tech.


I've been trying, but no one will take me up on my offer of 9/150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read enough. Anything is worth what a buyer is willing to pay and what a seller is willing to accept. For efficiency's sake why with an FAC and DRA is the rate not $9mil/150tech? As a small nation you can receive $27mil incoming and outgoing send back 450tech. The cost of each slot of 150tech would be about $3.2mil or $9.6mil total. That is still about $17.4mil profit every 10 days. A seller can move 10,800 per year using 3 slots every 10 days and sending only 100tech/slot. Using the same 3 slots to move 150tech every 10 days for a year, a seller could move 16425 tech.


IMO it's a wast of aid slot if it's not full deal. Either 6/100 or 9/200. It's pretty generous at 9/100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

especially when warchests are so huge these days, a decent sized nations makes well over 9 mil a day. sending 9 mil every 10 days isn't going to break the bank, considering what it would cost to buy that tech yourself it's a jackpot.

 

i will no longer do 6/100 deals. i hope more tech sellers do the same so we can put pressure on the tech market to increase the price to a more reasonable lvl. we sellers are a scare resource. what happens when a commodity is scarce, it becomes more valuable. we need to use our power to help ourselves!

 

Jeez, why is everyone crying over tech deals that are already very generous for the seller? I remember back in the day, I used to sell 50 tech for no more than 1.2 or 1.3 million (the going rate at the time) and still made a nice profit. 9 million for just 100 tech is extortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So $9mil/150tech is a no? My bad. I do not think it is really a matter of keeping a small nation down by offering them a less profitable rate. I see it as a way they can prove themselves. Do they understand what a tech deal is? How and when it needs to be repayed? Are they credit worthy? If so, then you can offer them better rates? Someone should come up with a CNFICO Score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need keep in mind that buying 100 tech is more expensive than buying two lots of 50 so comparing to the old ways isn't totally fair.



From an embassy where I railed against moving to 6/100s when they changed the aid limits. I'm by no means an expert on the math around here, but this was my best understanding at the time:

With a 3/100 50 tech increment deal, there's somewhere between 26.6k-50k profit for the seller per slot-day.

[table]
[tr] [td]Cash[/td] [td]Tech[/td] [td]Days to complete[/td] [td]Profit per slot-day[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]6[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]6[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]12[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]12[/td] [td]300[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]104446.5-145220.99[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]12[/td] [td]400[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]12[/td] [td]500[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]10055.36-58596.42[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]18[/td] [td]300[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]18[/td] [td]400[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]128044.29-166877.14[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]18[/td] [td]500[/td] [td]80[/td] [td]83798.44-126271.87[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]18[/td] [td]600[/td] [td]90[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr]
[/table]

Assuming I'm not missing anything, it seems a 6/200 with 100 tech increments is significantly more profitable than a 3/100 ever was when you compare slot-day profits. Meaning a seller using all 5 (assuming no DRA) slots for 6/200s will make 7,407,750-14,203,495 every 30 days where they would've previously been making 4,000,000-7,500,000 every 30 days with 3/100s.

Edit: apparently the table tags don't work here. Pretend that's a pretty table that's easy to read. Edited by EViL0nE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

especially when warchests are so huge these days, a decent sized nations makes well over 9 mil a day. sending 9 mil every 10 days isn't going to break the bank, considering what it would cost to buy that tech yourself it's a jackpot.

 

i will no longer do 6/100 deals. i hope more tech sellers do the same so we can put pressure on the tech market to increase the price to a more reasonable lvl. we sellers are a scare resource. what happens when a commodity is scarce, it becomes more valuable. we need to use our power to help ourselves!

When I was a tech seller, oh, 18 months ago or so, I was able to get 9M/100 from some buyers.  I was met with a lot of skepticism, but when I sold them on "Hey, I'm very reliable, and 9M/100 that you just get without needing to send reminders is worth more then 6M/200 if you never get the tech and have to go talk to someone's IA guy to sort out problems", they usually coughed it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jeez, why is everyone crying over tech deals that are already very generous for the seller? I remember back in the day, I used to sell 50 tech for no more than 1.2 or 1.3 million (the going rate at the time) and still made a nice profit. 9 million for just 100 tech is extortion.

Too generous for the sellers?

 

How about too generous for the buyers? Considering the price it would cost you to buy 100 tech, who is really winning in profit margins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's slot usage that's the issue, as Sigrun has said, if I send you a cash slot I expect two of your tech slots. That's all. I don't care what the money cost is, whatever you can take I will fill it, but a one for one slot exchange is bad for growth in the mid to upper tier.

 

 

Standard deals should be 6 million for 100 tech. Long term partners should be 9 million for 100 tech.

 

The only time I see 6 million for 200 tech being feasible is between a protectorate and a protector- as the protector gains back some benefit of taking the time to let their protectorate grow in peace.

 

But it all fairness- let the dealings happen between both partners. If a bigger nation can squeeze more tech out of a smaller nation and stunt their growth- then they should. But when that tech sellers finds a better rate, than the dealer can't complain that he/she isn't getting any reliable tech deals

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too generous for the sellers?

 

How about too generous for the buyers? Considering the price it would cost you to buy 100 tech, who is really winning in profit margins?

 

So, you're saying, that when 1.2 M is more than enough to buy 50 tech, you actually need 9 M to be able to buy 100 and have profit? Don't know where you learned your math, but I would file a complaint at your school if I were you.

 

Oh, and please don't start about the prices I would have to pay for tech, because that's the whole point of doing a tech deal, isn't it?

Edited by ramon666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...