AUTO-MERGE. No thanks.

[lizardo]

Well, so far I haven't noticed the 'auto-merge' auto-merging. I still have to manually do fleet cat herding.

There's still plenty of realestate on the unit popup for an automerge on/off toggle, and certainly one could be placed in the trade popup.

More generally, the more options there are to customize unit behavior, the better. If realestate is a problem, have a popup expansion popup next to the unit popup so unit behavior can be refined.

For example, trading ships being pounced upon by prepositioned warships. Have options for fleet behavior that include 'Flee!', that way those fast ships will simply run away instead of engaging in hopeless combat.

 

[spinoza013]

Blah blah

.

Okay then :blush:

 

[clockworkBabbag]

How is it an exploit? Its really not.

Do you get trade power patrolling?

Because apparently saying this in a post immediately above these two wasn't enough, or it didn't get read:

You seem like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I doubt protecting trade is supposed to be the primary way of preventing pirate spawns when there's a button specifically for patrolling stretches of coast, but you're trying to use separate, staggered fleets doing protect trade to duplicate that effect on top of generating income.

You want to be able to patrol to prevent pirate spawns, but you also want to get trade power on top of that, and your complaints about the idea of auto-merge with regard to this really come off as whining about the ability to double-dip on the functions of light ships being taken away. Maybe you should address what you think is wrong about my statements about protecting trade being different from preventing pirate spawns instead of just repeating stuff that I've already responded to.

But until then, my stance is that if you want to increase trade power, use that. But if you want to patrol, then use the patrol button that already exists and is explicitly for that purpose. Taking away auto-merge does not take away your capability to patrol in any way. That is an entirely separate function from protecting trade.

 

[spinoza013]

If it benefits your game to merge your trade fleets you merge your trade fleets. If it doesn't benefit your game to merge trade fleets you don't merge your trade fleets.

Now can you see a problem in changing the above scenario to a situation where you have no choice? If you can't then it's pointless engaging with you further.

 

[Demonsul]

I wasn't aware pirates were even still in the game! I thought they got taken out when privateers came in instead.

 

[oblio-]

I wasn't aware pirates were even still in the game! I thought they got taken out when privateers came in instead.

No DLC.

 

[spinoza013]

The hostility towards having choice within a game based on arbitrary valuations on the worth of certain game situations is frankly baffling.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

If it benefits your game to merge your trade fleets you merge your trade fleets. If it doesn't benefit your game to merge trade fleets you don't merge your trade fleets.

Now can you see a problem in changing the above scenario to a situation where you have no choice? If you can't then it's pointless engaging with you further.

As I've already said in this thread, interface space is actually a serious consideration for including an option.

As I've already said in this thread, if the devs can find a way to squeeze a button in there without making it look awful, I'm perfectly fine with that. But saying there is literally no reason why this feature cannot be implemented as an obstacle is either you being obtuse or stubborn. The fleet screen is crowded enough as it is, pop-ups are incredibly annoying to deal with every time you make more ships, and an actual game option is pretty annoying to access and doesn't allow you as much control if you want, say, fleets to merge generally but want specific control over one area.

Maybe they could put a button in on the trade node screen, but that's not the most intuitive place to put it. Could be worse, though.

Please say something new, instead of things I've already addressed.

 

[spinoza013]

Sometimes you have to repeat yourself till the penny drops.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Sometimes you have to repeat yourself till the penny drops.

So, you seem to have no interest in actually defending your position anymore. Either you've realized you don't have a strong argument but are just throwing a tantrum rather than concede, or you're actually bad at arguing for things.

The latter seems like the more charitable interpretation (or at least reflects better on you as a person), so I'll point out some places you could start. The way I see it, you have two options for how to argue your point:

1) Arguing from a mechanics standpoint

Basically, show why keeping the ability to have un-merged trade fleets is essential. Either come up with a mechanics argument that hasn't been addressed yet, or stick with what you're trying to argue and explain why it is reasonable to treat protecting trade as if it were patrol + bonuses. If you try this, you're actually going to need to address the fact that the patrol button already exists (and pretty much exists explicitly for the purposes you said you like using un-merged trade fleets for) and would not be affected by an auto-merge feature.

Saying "But I want to get money from my patrols too!" is not a good argument for you to use here, it's just whining. Trade fleets really don't seem like they're intended to be able to double-dip with the patrol functionality as well. So do yourself and your argument a favor and don't even think about saying that.

2) Arguing from a player control standpoint

This seems to be the avenue you're going for at this point. But in order to do this, you're going to have to explain why screen real estate isn't an important consideration (either in general or specific to how the interface looks in 1.8) and/or come up with a good place to put a button.

Either of those would be good places to start for you to continue to make your case. I don't know why you're having trouble understanding that simply repeating points you've already made is simply not going to work. Other people have actually responded to what you've said, and you haven't provided adequate counter-responses. Simply ignoring things that you can't come up with an argument against is not going to work (and is in fact a red flag that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on), and it's not going to get your desired response from the devs.

Because that's what your goal should be here: not to "win" an internet argument, but for the outcome to be a better game.

 

[spinoza013]

Because that's what your goal should be here: not to "win" an internet argument, but for the outcome to be a better game.

Ha, you couldn't make it up. sheeesh

good luck winning the internet.

 

[henzington]

I don't get the complaint when I make new light ships I would love to not have to select the trade fleet and have to move them together and merge them is just busy work.

 

[spinoza013]

I don't get the complaint when I make new light ships I would love to not have to select the trade fleet and have to move them together and merge them is just busy work.

The complaint is that it should be optional. Some people can't grasp this.

 

[henzington]

why exactly would you want 2 separate trade fleets in the same node?

 

[spinoza013]

why exactly would you want 2 separate trade fleets in the same node?

You on the wind up?

 

[henzington]

You on the wind up?

what?

 

[spinoza013]

what?

Thought you were trying to be funny since there's been 5 pages of discussion about why.

To sum up

My argument was that sometimes to avoid getting your entire trade fleet wiped by, for example, Ottoman galleys in the mediterranean it's sometimes better to split your trade fleet so that some may survive as even checking the go home at war can't protect you.

The counter argument was that I should be protecting them with heavy ships, completely ignoring their effectiveness against galleys, their cost to build and maintain in the first place which was then followed by ridicule that losing 120 gold worth of light ships is just tough and shouldn't be a concern as basically who cares about OPM countries etc.

Then someone pointed out that you can get good coverage of enemy lands with more trade fleets lifting the fog of war but that was scoffed at because apparently you should be using patrols to do that. When it was pointed out patrols don't generate trade power and therefore income that to was derided .

 

[henzington]

You could just split and then mothball part of trade fleet so it won't auto merge but I would say it is silly to risk your trade fleet if you are fighting a superior naval power anyway.

 

[Tacticus101]

The counter argument was that I should be protecting them with heavy ships, completely ignoring their effectiveness against galleys, their cost to build and maintain in the first place which was then followed by ridicule that losing 120 gold worth of light ships is just tough and shouldn't be a concern as basically who cares about OPM countries etc.

The counter argument included the suggestion that If trading in the Mediterranean you add galleys to your trade fleet rather than heavy ships, the suggestion to add heavy ships was mainly for trading outside of inland seas. Also, people pointed out that splitting your fleet does not make it any less vulnerable than having it in one group unless you are really good at micro, in many cases it makes it more vulnerable.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Ha, you couldn't make it up. sheeesh

good luck winning the internet.

Because apparently me saying "this isn't about winning a dumb internet argument" means I'm trying to... win a dumb internet argument.

I guess I'm in agreement here that you couldn't make this up, because wow.

The complaint is that it should be optional. Some people can't grasp this.

And some people can't grasp, despite the fact that it's been explained multiple times, that "it should be optional" is not something that you can always do every time. It's not free, and sometimes it's literally not worth the screen space. I know the devs have talked about screen real estate with regards to other aspects of the game, and this is really not a different concept. If you want to put an option in the game, you need space in the game. Do you know anything about basic principles of design at all? The concept of not displaying information in a dense, cluttered fashion is something you learn by making something as simple as a Powerpoint presentation. This shouldn't be difficult.

I already told you exactly what you need to do in order to actually make an argument here: either say why there's space on the fleet screen to add yet another button without making it a cluttered mess (and it already looks awful enough after the new features in 1.8), or provide a good, alternate location to put that option. Now stop insulting me and actually make a case for your position.

Thought you were trying to be funny since there's been 5 pages of discussion about why.

To sum up

My argument was that sometimes to avoid getting your entire trade fleet wiped by, for example, Ottoman galleys in the mediterranean it's sometimes better to split your trade fleet so that some may survive as even checking the go home at war can't protect you.

The counter argument was that I should be protecting them with heavy ships, completely ignoring their effectiveness against galleys, their cost to build and maintain in the first place which was then followed by ridicule that losing 120 gold worth of light ships is just tough and shouldn't be a concern as basically who cares about OPM countries etc.

Then someone pointed out that you can get good coverage of enemy lands with more trade fleets lifting the fog of war but that was scoffed at because apparently you should be using patrols to do that. When it was pointed out patrols don't generate trade power and therefore income that to was derided .

Do you know how long it takes to rebuild a fleet of 6 ships, even as an OPM?

Not long at all. Try it. It's not like you were going to be making use of them in the war they got wiped out in had they survived getting back to port anyway, and if you lose the war as an OPM you're getting annexed anyway. Take some ducats for war reparations (and/or drop your military maintenance after the war), build a couple ships, and then you have more than enough income to rebuild your entire fleet in a few years.

Losing 6 ships is not a significant problem. It's not going to cripple you like losing hundreds of ships in the later game would do. But at that point in the game, you have actual options for defending your fleet.