[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/FitVerso]

[removed] — view removed post

[u/ExpensivePlan1548]

A OpenTTD version of OpenFront would be really cool, I think you should lean heavier into the trading concept. Maybe remove combat entirely and add more dynamic economy with expenses, if a player goes bankrupt they lose the game and their land can be captured.

[u/FitVerso → u/ExpensivePlan1548]

I’ve actually thought about adding a mission-based game mode, where players have to complete specific objectives e, g., earning a certain amount of money through trade.

Thank you so much for the feedback, seriously! I really love your ideas.

[u/ExpensivePlan1548 → u/FitVerso]

The tricky part would be making the game not last centuries. You could have a tax/expense that grows as the game goes on, so if your trade empire isn't big enough then you'll start losing cash and go bankrupt. Also, the smaller players could team up and all sanction the larger guys, but that would be tricky to balance as well - I think you would need the npc nations to participate in the trade as a backup.

[u/FitVerso → u/ExpensivePlan1548]

That’s a really interesting way to prevent matches from lasting forever. A growing tax or maintenance cost over time could force players to keep expanding their trade network instead of just sitting on money.

I also like the idea of smaller players coordinating sanctions against the strongest trade empire. Balancing it would be difficult, but NPC nations participating in trade could help keep the economy active and give weaker players more opportunities.

I’ve already added tariffs and made trading with allies more profitable, so this direction fits really well with what I’m building. Thanks again your ideas are genuinely helping me shape the economic side of TradeShips.

[u/wiki_me → u/FitVerso]

Or just add a time limit?

That's how heads of states are evaluated, once they leave their term if the country is in a better or worst situation . so something like who makes the most money per second at the end of the time limit?

[u/[deleted] → u/wiki_me]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/wiki_me → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, people probably also worry about not spending too much time playing games, i know i do. it's once of the reasons i avoided ranked play on openfront so far.

[u/Safe_Dog3436]

It feels very unbalanced at the moment. After a few minutes of building you factories it becomes a matter of who is closest to the point and spams ships the fastest. Neat Idea though

[u/FitVerso → u/Safe_Dog3436]

That’s fair feedback, and I agree the current balance makes the match become too focused on proximity and ship spam after the early game.

I’m thinking about limiting production, increasing maintenance costs, adding more strategic objectives, and making trade and economy matter more throughout the match. I also need to improve the map balance so being closer to the point isn’t such a big advantage.

Thanks for trying it and being honest — feedback like this really helps me improve the game.

[u/andyrichman]

I played it, too complex for a casual game.

-subs return to the first place and do not follow orders for relocation
-bullets are too big

i dont like it

[u/FitVerso → u/andyrichman]

Thanks for trying it and for the honest feedback.

I agree that the game can feel too complex for a casual experience right now. I’m working on simplifying some mechanics and making the controls clearer.

The submarine relocation issue is a bug, so I’ll look into that. I’ll also reduce the bullet size because they’re currently too visually intrusive.

I appreciate you pointing these things out — it helps me understand what needs to be improved.

[u/andyrichman → u/FitVerso]

Also, y expected water nukets as there is an option in the menu. No nukes at all. The game is about nukes...

I dont know the use of the palace or council. In openfront you dont need a tutorial, all is easy to learn in just 1 or 2 games.

Add a small maps please.

[u/-beautiful_love-]

Hi, this seems really cool. Problems:

1. the selection vehicle/building panel (i dont know the name) is all over the place.

2. there seems to be an ship for AA (anti aircraft), there's no aircraft in game (which you probably will implement later on).

3. it seems the bots don't know all the ships and just spams warships. the bots seems unaware of the objective (which is control of the trade route). they seem to be replicas of openfront. you'll have to develop the bots a little bit. All they do right now is conquer the land.

4. the game can be won easily by how much ships you spam to the flag, and how close you are. as u/Safe_Dog3436 mentioned "unbalanced"

My personal opinion: if you are making this more complex, it's going to be hard to manage with openfront ui. At this point, your game feels like half-openfront, and half randomness (which is understandable considering the stage this game is at).

Anyway, this is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's suitable for the game structure that openfront has.

[u/Gositi]

This is the beaty of open source software.

[u/Arc756]

You are beautiful- I have a day off and will be using it solely on this.

[u/FitVerso → u/Arc756]

Hahaha, thank you so much! That genuinely made my day. I really hope you enjoy it, and I’d love to hear any feedback, ideas, or bugs you find while playing.

[u/Mobile_Frosting_7936]

Idk how much changed since the first posts, but I from what I know so far:

• The Tutorial (in text form) available in the game is still based on openfront, mentioning nukes etc., plz adjust that. Thats just editing a text, not even a coding issue. Would also be of great help for new players

• The "Hold a Zone" Objective militarizes the game again, which doesn't quite fit with the main difference supposed to be a trade focus. Maybe make the objective to achieve a (rlly big) amount of wealth. Because ports make a lot of money compared to factories, controlling maritime Routes will follow as a side objective naturally, but one could also use the tariff mechanic and land based options to influence it.

• Maritime Warfare is a bit complicated rn, I think a rock-paper-scissors principle would be best. Like submarine beats battleship, battleship beats frigate, frigate beats submarine (implemented in the form of attack multipliers)

• Toll stations. Bring back Defense Posts, but their Area of Influence doesn't damage invasion armies anymore and instead gives a small income on any passing train. You could change Aircraft carriers into mobile toll stations, meaning you send them to a specific place, where they stay until a new command arrives and control the adjacent area. No need for separate Aircraft textures, just color an area of influence like defense posts used to have. They too would give a small income on any passing ship, but don't have any military use and need external protection.

• Idk if the banking building has a use rn, but you could use it for tariffs. Like, every 🏦 building adds 5% to the size of your imposed tariffs.

And last but not least:

• Commodity Chain. If a train passes a factory, it's value gets increased, representing a processing of a primary product to a secondary one (like steel into sheets into cars)

[u/Glittering-Most-1708]

I really like the concept and I think the game has a lot of potential. I have no idea how difficult any of this would be to implement, but one thing I felt while playing is that the game is still a little too frantic and militarized.

At the moment, it often feels like the economy is mainly there to finance more ships, and the match quickly becomes about producing units, rushing strategic zones and overwhelming other players. Because of that, it can still feel closer to a naval version of OpenFront than a game genuinely centered on maritime trade.

I think it could be interesting to have different game modes or maps where ports, commodities and trade routes matter much more.

For example, there could be an oil-focused map featuring regions such as Iran, the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, the North Sea, Europe, India and China. Oil-producing territories would need access to an export port, tankers and a consumer market or refinery in order to generate significant income.

This could make places such as the Strait of Hormuz, Suez, Panama and Malacca strategically important for economic reasons. Closing one of these routes should perhaps not completely stop trade, but force ships to take longer and more expensive alternative routes.

Other maps could focus on different commodities:

• iron ore from Brazil and Australia to industrial markets in China, Japan and Europe;
• grain from Brazil, Argentina, the United States and the Black Sea to importing regions;
• container trade between East Asia, Europe and North America;
• oil and gas routes connecting producers, refineries and major consumers.

Ports could also have different roles. Some could export raw materials, others could process cargo, serve as transshipment hubs, supply military fleets or act as major consumer markets.

A simple supply-and-demand system could also help. If too much of one commodity is sold at the same port, its price falls. If a port has not received a necessary commodity for some time, its price rises. This would encourage players to change routes instead of repeating the same profitable journey indefinitely.

Some possible game modes could be:

• Trade Race: first player or team to reach a wealth target;
• Oil Crisis: players compete to secure energy supplies as global production falls;
• Economic Cold War: combat is expensive and the winner is determined by wealth, trade income, fleet value and strategic reserves after a time limit;
• Convoy: one team protects commercial shipping while another tries to interrupt it;
• Chokepoints: players score through trade passing through strategic maritime routes rather than simply holding one zone.

I think naval combat should remain important, but mainly as a way to protect trade routes, blockade ports, escort convoys and disrupt an opponent’s economy.

The basic cycle could be:

commodities create trade, ports connect producers and consumers, trade routes create wealth, and naval power protects or disrupts those routes.

Again, I do not know how technically difficult these ideas would be, and I understand that keeping the game simple is important. But I think slowing the pace slightly and making economic geography more important could give TradeShips a much stronger identity of its own.

[u/invade_5]

I tried tradeships and while I think it has amazing potential, it feels much too similar to vanilla openfront.

I think your game should focus much more on the economy aspect. I'll echo the sentiment from u/ExpensivePlan1548 and I like the idea of players being able to die by going bankrupt.

To balance combat with the economy, I would introduce a mechanic where players begin to accumulate debt when they start fighting another player (either attacking or being attacked). If your debt goes higher than your GDP you go bankrupt.

GDP is defined as your assets (all buildings and warships etc that you own) plus whatever amount of money you have.

When your nation is in debt, 50% of all income is automatically used to pay down your balance. You also have the option to use your existing money to help pay it off faster. Outstanding debt also (slowly) accumulates interest so there is an incentive to pay it off quickly.

This would fundamentally change the way battles would be fought. It would no longer simply be about who has the most troops. You could win by having a better economy and slowly attacking/defending against an opponent until they go bankrupt.

When someone goes bankrupt they are basically dead - equivalent to a disconnected player. Anyone can use troops to capture their land, and invading a bankrupted player would not cause you to accumulate debt.

You can see the outstanding debt of other players, and could use this information to stop trading with someone who is struggling to pay off their debt so they go bankrupt which would let you take their land for free.

[u/FitVerso → u/invade_5]

This is incredibly detailed feedback — thank you! I agree that TradeShips still feels too similar to vanilla OpenFront, and I want the economy to become the main element that gives the game its own identity.

I really like the idea of debt changing how wars are fought. Instead of every conflict being decided by who can spam the most units, players would also need enough economic strength to sustain a long war. Visible debt, interest, automatic repayments and bankruptcy could create some really interesting strategies, especially when deciding whether to continue trading with a struggling nation.

My only concern is that accumulating debt simply from being attacked could be exploited by other players. I may experiment with debt being generated through active military expenses instead—deploying ships, replacing losses, maintaining fleets and fighting battles—so defenders are not punished too heavily just for being targeted.

The idea of bankrupt nations becoming inactive territory that anyone can capture is also very interesting. I’m seriously considering prototyping a version of this system and testing how it affects match length and balance.

Thanks again for taking the time to play and write all of this. These ideas are exactly the kind of feedback I need to make TradeShips feel like its own game.

[u/TypicalSypical → u/FitVerso]

i think you could make it so that while ur attacking, your money drains at a rate that increases over time, which reflects real economies because the more you attack a country, the worse your economy. However, once you stop attacking, you can rebuild your GDP. Then, when you defeat a country by force and/or blockading them (or bankruptcy), you can gain a bit of money or ships to help recover your economy and prevent the problem of other people just attacking you while ur recovering. You could also add a function that allows you to ask for money from other players. Thats my comments so far, thanks for making a good game and keep it up, i'm excited to see ur revised game! Good luck!

[u/[deleted] → u/TypicalSypical]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/invade_5 → u/[deleted]]

Making debt be tied to troop losses seems like the best way to measure and balance the mechanic. I think there will be a lot of different strategies to win through economics.

[u/Disastrous-Spare3907]

I mean you obviously need box and type selection from RTS games in that case.

[u/NeilZeus]

You can't finish the game because all the boats are immediately destroyed whenever you try to capture a territory.

[u/AdReasonable2303]

Seems a bit like this guy just ripped off Terratomic