New version's up, the first post is updated. The latest explanatory bit is here.
Last edited by silktrader; 18-08-2011 at 14:15.
it's interesting, but i think still the OOS, are suspicous and alone would suffice to discourage any further attempt to the hordes. Personally i think it's a great blast, for all the effort behind, but i praise the idea of having a human player horde. It would be tough, but i think that after some tests we did demonstrate that poland or lithuania + muscuvy or novgorod can succesfully defeat a GH player, emulating a starting position of Burgundy vs france. But i also believe that a good thing would be to have a fresh attitude to the multiplayer way of thinking. Indeed many player that start in the italian penisula feel entitled to have italy as private property, and feel bad if they do not succeed, pretty much as player starting as castill and france feeling that the whole respective region has to be conquered at all costs.
Probably this attitude is one of the most damaging things that can happen to multiplayer experience. But who knows, maybe i could be wrong, but i hope that this could be prevented in some way.
The "oos" alone does indeed discourage including horde players. Frankly, having to put up with a rehost every hour is irritating. I've compared savegames between client (horde) and host and I couldn't narrow down the source of the issue, which derives from the unmodified game.
At this point there may be three solutions:
a) wait for Besuchov or Doomdark to perform their magic and fix the horde OOS, in a future patchWhile it might be an additional solution, removing the "nomad = yes" tag would completely negate the hordes' peculiar features (such as army tradition while looting, increased income from looting, casualties dealt in own provinces, destruction of buildings while occupying …) — so I am not event considering that.
b) remove the "colonize_prov = yes" tag from "steppe hordes", redesigning how colonisation works and hope that was the source of the problem — unlikely
(there may be technical difficulties doing so, as with removing the last horde province, but it's feasible and almost as elegant as vanilla)
c) let the host play a horde nation
If it helps: Alll OOS caused around Hordes is usually in and around peacing/declaring war on them.
1. Bi Weekly Game I as Portugal (first IN MP game ever to finish)
2. Bi Weekly Game II as Netherlands (second IN MP game ever to finish)
Ok seriously, who reads these things anyway, I have played more games then your grandmother is old in years.
"Do not inflict every thinkable evil on your enemies, for they may be your allies at a later time."
i would like to remind that the campaign where the mod is tested is going on and some interesting suggestions have been made also there. Feel free for those who are interested to comment also there.
What means Trade worth in mercantilistic/free trade slider? And please explain why would someone want to be mercantilistic actually, I checked the saves provided with the mod, and there are huge free trade countries. And historically it was big powers that wanted to protect their trade that adopted mercantilism policies. Also full mercantilism means you get +75 compete chance only if you own ALL the provinces attached to the cot? Is this modifier proportional to owned trade provinces in a cot? Really why would someone want all this trouble - a hell lower trade income, and respectively - lower tech advance --> less ingame power projection because of older units units compared to free trade nations? Or this problem was remedied in practice somewhat? Thanks!
To answer your questions:
What should a nation that has choose the mercantilism path look like?
1) Every nation that is a Merchant Republic has huge advantage because they can expand their CoT in two manners. With trade league members, and trade agreements. By doing so their CoT can easy reach 2000 or 3000 worth if done correctly, meaning one can freely trade in their own cot and having stellar revenue.
2) A mercantilistic nation should be a military nation. As infamy will severely disrupt trade capabilities, thus giving the best advantage of expansion.
3) A mercantilistic nation should invest massively in trade buildings, because all the production worth of their goods is 10% higher if full mercantislistic compared to a full freetrade.
4) A mercantilisitc nation should be well aware of production goods and try to get the production leader bonus to maximize their income.
5) A mercantilistic nation can trough trade league pretty much expand their trade beyond borders.
What are the advantages?
1) Stability. Your income will never fluctuate.
2) Security. Your income is safe from spy actions like the -5% compete chances you can be target of.
3) Espionage. You have a whole set of mission that can massively hinder enemy nations.
4) Infamy. Your infamy has no importance to your income.
5) No competition. You do not suffer from competition of other players.
5) Few ducats cost to trade.
6) Monopoly. You can pretty much trade all the net worth of your CoT for yourself by continuing to send merchants, and expelling thus every other trader. You will maintain eventually only 1 foreign trader as the AI will continue to send. But mostly you will gain some 90-95% of the income worth of your CoT for yourself.
What are the disadvantages?
1) Fewer capabilities of enhance income compared to free trade.
Why is Freetrade bad in some cases?
If you got 4-7 Freetraders competition will start to be very high, and trade center will be contended, making it very difficult to establish trade, and costly. Also during war you are at risk of Embargo, gained infamy and so on. So being Freetrader means one has to compete with others, and cannot conquer land easily.
For examples during the last session of testing ground i experienced a drop in income of over 60 income compared to my original 190. Also GB that had about 140 income dropped by 140 after he was embargoed by Hansa and had difficoulties with high WE in sending merchants.
So i would not take as granted that free trade is always the best choice.
Large nation with large CoTs are the best suited for being mercantilistic, especially if they are bent on expansion.
Thank you for taking your time to answer these questions! You have convinced me this is a very fine mod! By the way how many people work on it?
Also, usually merchant republics disappear because other nations which were/could be in league split their own cots, does this mod make some changes to advantages of being a league member beside the 10% tax modifier that appears random in provinces?
You are welcome. Currently there is silktrader that is doing the most work, i am more responsable for organizing the game and getting the ideas together so that he can see what happens. Sadly i am not that good at writing the code lines, but this could change one day.
actually if you are a free trader, you want to be part of a trade league because you can trade in their cot and make a lot of wealth. Especially if you have CoT on your own. I made a deal with Hansa to let him trade all my cloth in his trade of center giving me a 66% production bonus on cloth (i produce cloth in 11 provinces out of 27). Meaning that i received something like a 20% production bonus. He gained some 450 trade value in his cot.
So the way to go is to make many deals offering trade rights, and enhancing CoT's.
as a trade league member you could receive this way production bonus, tax bonus, and a safe haven where to trade. Actually i think that merchant republics are much more powerful than administrative republic or constitutional republic if you only compare income. Also the diplomacy plays a huge role. Take for example Burgundy and Hansa, if me giving him trade rights grants me some 10 income out of 190, i am not willing to sacrifice it for some stupid reasons, meaning that merchant republics can gain a lot in diplomatic stability.
Also have you thought about adding some advantages to decentralization? - everyone is keen on centralizing because it's full on advantages while decentralization is full on disadvantages.
- low stability costs
- more events with construction of buildings
- lower revolt risk
- low tax income
- high production
- high stability cost
- high income
- high revoltrisk
- low production
Anyway this is a small post but sure more modifiers could be added both to centralization and decentralization.
Other than this, keep up the good work it's a great mod so far.
EU3 single-player, multi-player, modder, failed AAR writer
EU:Rome single-player, multi-player, modder
HOI3 single-player, multi-player
Crusader Kings single-player
Tax is gained on a monthly basis and yearly, while production income is only monthly. So I think at least on the long term it is impossible to boost a big COT value as a merchant republic only through league diplomacy. Eventually everyone would want their own COT and take the tax benefit. So in mid-late game merchant republics disappear (historically they diminished in wealth too, but because of colonial goods boosted by mercantilistic colonial nations).
It could be worth for some nations deriving their income mainly from tax to join the league for the local league provincial tax modifier, but the league leader becomes less and less relevant without actual holdings(lost manpower because of diminished COT value, tax, forcelimits and so on). And its not easy for a minor nation like Hansa, Venice, Genoa to have powerful military capabilities, perhaps that is why these nations eventually switch to other form of government, to be able to centralize and actually rip those tax benefits gained through blood however small they be.
I think the game models, though a bit roughly, the fact that merchant republics diminished in power later on, though more powerful in the beginning.
actually the -25% worth is 15% and it's appling to my cot, while the mercantilistic nation haboring my product give a +10% boost of worth. Plus trading in your own cot as a Freetrader is more difficoult than trading in a other cot.
If you take the last savegame of the campaign. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...days-19-30-CET You can see that canceling and adding trade right actually hurts the income of burgundy. Plus if you have a lot of goods of the same kind it can be well worth it, especially if they are high price goods.
Here are some numbers, but they refere to the save of 1484. Anyway there is something wrong in the math. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...-30-CET/page16
Last edited by Francech; 06-09-2011 at 16:53.
Thanks, it's nice to hear that the mod is appreciated, and it would also be nice to have more players next campaign, or a whole new campaign parallel to the campaign that is still up.
Last edited by Francech; 06-09-2011 at 16:55.
Production efficiency is not part of Trade Value equation. Maybe it could be worth to have this 66% modifier later but this depends on some factors that could be out of the player hands:Trade Value = Population Units * ( 100% + Modifiers ) * Unit Price
And consider these bonuses vs 66% prod bonus:Monthly Production Income = [Population Units * ( 100% + Modifiers )/12] * Unit Price * Production Efficiency
Added tax value
depending on COT level.
for the worth you have: -5% as free trader and +5 as mercantilist. So in the end it's a 10% difference between the two nations.
For the income you have to calculate
Which splits for the deal in:
Tax income given by the CoT
Production income given by the enhanced production efficiency of the trade rights that numbers 66%
Trade Value that has a drop in price added to the revenue you get from trading your own goods in his CoT
these three things added should cover the expenses you are pointing at and give a net income increase. If you are mercantilistic there is no reason to make trade rights deals, but as freetrader it's pretty much interesting.
I'll have a look later in all this, maybe this could be worth for the tech investment, but the yearly net gain is lower at this point without minting. In DW trade rights give +66% to local production and -25% to local trade worth. The -25% to local trade worth was revised or not?
Also I'd like to propose something regarding Venice. Venice had an exclusive monopoly on spices until the Portuguese found an alternate way to India, maybe it could be created a triggered modifier that until someone discovers a way to India, or gets port there, these merchant republics would have some kind of trade advantage(maybe trade efficiency, trade investment, global trade income). Venice even financed the Mamluks to build a fleet and fight the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Diu_(1509).
As a suggestion: playing Papal State, I start with Blasphemy Law religious decision enacted, but that means I get -15% stab cost (useless, low stab cost anyway) and -1 Cultural Trad, that is rather bad.
It would be better if I could choose whether to enact it or not instead of starting with it.
"Scissor is overpowered, Rock is fine" - Paper
"With great power comes great satisfaction" - from 'A more realistic analysis of SpiderMan...'
"God save the Stats" - Checco, playing Primus Under Pares II
The land/naval slider could maybe have plus 0.1 land tradition per move towards land and likewise plus 0.1 naval per move to naval, also maybe a bonus to tradition can be added to some of the less attractive land and naval national ideas as at the moment its so hard to get cultural tradition this could be a way of compensation and also a to add more diversity to the mix of advisers going around as im sick of seeing loads of the same shitty advisers in the job centre
i think manufactories should be matched up to more resources so that there can be more dynamics to your manufactories for example add the 12 bonus to fish as well as naval supplies etc.
why has the gold been removed from austria and why is there now gold in thuringa and erz austria is not amused.
i think the centralization/ decentralization slider needs more work atm the bonuses compared to penalties near enough cancel each other out maybe add monthly war exhaustion reduction to one of the 2 and add a bonus of some sort to the other.
I will be killed till i die from it.