Cool new beta patch!

[EUnderhill]

Did a little hands-off (to 1688) and here is what I saw:

Cuzco died out quickly as only Inca and Chimu knew about it and were stagnant at 5 each. Trade went to Ganges and Malacca. Zacatecas would have met the same fate had not the NA tribes sent their merchants there with about a year to spare. Muscat died off and was replaced by Tiracambu, which never saw another merchant and withered away. Zanzibar fell next, replaced by Rufiji, which then replaced itself. Ivoiria was replaced by Adwaghost, which replaced itself later. Barahona (England) was created at no expense to another CoT, had not died by CTD. I expect that these results are not likely to vary without human player interference

 

[EUnderhill]

Originally posted by SJG
It's the wrong way round, though, isn't it? In reality a COT would close because an a more attractive alternative COT became available. That means a new COT should pop up and cause the old one to close.

This change has the effect that the old COT will close and cause a new one to pop up. This is kind of like having the cart pull the horse.

It remains to be seen whether the change is an improvement but it certainly isn't a good realistic model.

It should be noted that I was testing with the fantasia scenario. All CoTs fell the same day, and most nations eventually got them back, only to die 33 years later.

 

[Freebot]

It would be alright if private CoTs merely shrunk until they are only drawing trade from its owner's provinces. However, under this new patch private CoTs will disappear entirely (see the CoT lifetime thread). Wasn't a large chunk of the game's timeframe dominated by mercantilism?

 

[unmerged(18314)]

Originally posted by Stonewall
Think of it like this. You are a weaver and make cloth for a living. You go to market to sell your cloth. The only person who is there to buy your cloth is person X. Person X has all the cards. Since you need to sell your cloth to make a living, you will sell it to person X for whatever he offers. This represents a CoT with only one or two countries trading in it. If this were the facts of your situation, what would you do? You would go to a different market where you could get a fairer price for your cloth...represented by a province switching from a stagnant CoT to one in which there are more buyers.

I humbly have to disagree. Price depends on the amount of demand in contrast to scarcity. A perfect example of this can be found in the goods "value" menu where one item of the same price as another will have a higher market value because there are simply less of it.

Let's take your example, and I'm the weaver--the only weaver in the world! And my goods are all controlled by me. Therefore I can create a limit on the goods that are out there in the market. Okay, lets say you want to buy an article of clothing from me. And I let you have it for 50 ducats at the CoT. But then another guy comes up to me and offers 70 for the same article that you want because I'm only planning to sell one today. What would I do except take the price at 70? But, if I'm evil, and I could tell that you must have it, I could gradually push the price up to either the limit of your pocket-book, or patience.

That's monopoly. It could be applied to anything that could be sold; especially something that is not only rare but in high demand--such as food: if I have 2 pieces of pies and you're hungry as hell, you're gonna give me whatever it takes for me to hand you these pies.

Reversely, if there happens to be another guy who also tempts you with pies, and whom is in competition with me, than you're gonna ask for the better price of the two, thus invariably forcing down the price to a point whereupon me and the other guy can silently agree--unless, of course, we are in cahoots to make some easy money.

 

[Duuk]

Playing under the new patch, my humble French empire lost the CoT in Ile de France. All my my trade now routes through Flanders and Genoa. I'm careful to have 2 trade agreements, so I don't lose another CoT.

I support CoTs dying, but it seems that provinces owned by the owner of the CoT should still use their own CoTs.

So in my case, losing Ile de France wasn't a bad thing, since it made sense. But if I did not own Genoa and Flanders, losing Ile de France would make absolutely no sense. After all, my French colonial empire isn't going to route all of their trade through England just because I'm a little protectionist.

Perhaps have the CoT owner's mercantilism define how far the CoT expands and contracts?

 

[Stonewall]

Originally posted by Cassius
I humbly have to disagree. Price depends on the amount of demand in contrast to scarcity. A perfect example of this can be found in the goods "value" menu where one item of the same price as another will have a higher market value because there are simply less of it.

Let's take your example, and I'm the weaver--the only weaver in the world! And my goods are all controlled by me. Therefore I can create a limit on the goods that are out there in the market. Okay, lets say you want to buy an article of clothing from me. And I let you have it for 50 ducats at the CoT. But then another guy comes up to me and offers 70 for the same article that you want because I'm only planning to sell one today. What would I do except take the price at 70? But, if I'm evil, and I could tell that you must have it, I could gradually push the price up to either the limit of your pocket-book, or patience.

That's monopoly. It could be applied to anything that could be sold; especially something that is not only rare but in high demand--such as food: if I have 2 pieces of pies and you're hungry as hell, you're gonna give me whatever it takes for me to hand you these pies.

Reversely, if there happens to be another guy who also tempts you with pies, and whom is in competition with me, than you're gonna ask for the better price of the two, thus invariably forcing down the price to a point whereupon me and the other guy can silently agree--unless, of course, we are in cahoots to make some easy money.

Your example makes sense assuming that you are the only seller. This dymanic doesn't exist in EU2, there are lots of provinces with the same goods. What I was arguing is that a COT doesn't represent sellers, it represents buyers. the sellers are already represented by the provinces and the goods that they produce. The buyers are the merchants that trade in any given COT.

A COT with only one or two countries sending buyers (merchants) can artificially control the price they will pay for goods, which forces the sellers of goods to either (1) stay at that COT and take whatever price is offered, or (2) take their business elsewhere (represented by provinces changing COT's. In effect its a reverse monopoly. Traditionally monopolies are viewed as one entity controlling the production of a certain good. That entity can then charge whatever it wants for the good, especially if the good is a necesity of life. This creates artificially high prices and forces people to try and find alternate means of acquiring that product. In EU2, the monopolized COT represents the exact opposite of this traditional monopoly. A monopoly in a COT (complete control by one or two countries) means that the market for any given good is monopolized, meaning the price is controlled on the demand side, rather than on the supply side. This has the effect of lowering the price of goods. It also has the effect of the producer of a good to try and find a new market with more competition...hence the province COT switch.

I hope this makes sense. I don't want to turn this into an economics debate. The game is only loosely based on economic theory and I would support any change if it improved the game. If this COT stagnation change turns out to be a bad idea, thats ok, it should then be removed. However, if it turns out to be something that improves the game, as I think it ultimately will, I am all for its continued inclusion.

 

[wryun]

A simple fix for this CoT stagnation problem might be to simply delete the smallest trade value CoT every so often, hoping thereby to get a nicer distribution.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by wryun
A simple fix for this CoT stagnation problem might be to simply delete the smallest trade value CoT every so often, hoping thereby to get a nicer distribution.

No, because I think the idea is to encourage/improve competition in CoTs.

I agree with the other posters that suggested your own provinces should still trade in your own CoTs even if you have a total monopoly in them.

 

[Duuk]

Probably the best way to make it would be:

My CoT, my provinces will stick with it if I am mercantalist.

My CoT, my provinces will defect to other CoTs if I am free trade AND I am stagnating trade.

Other people's provinces will defect away from My CoT if I stagnate it, regardless free trade/mercantilism.

If a CoT gets below 50, it should close. I noticed earlier that my Ile de France didn't close until it was below 5. It served no purpose at that point. Have CoTs below 50 die.

In this manner, a mercantilist country can still dominate their own CoTs, which is historically correct, but they won't get any trade from provinces they don't own, which will then stimulate the other nations' to form CoTs, which is also historically accurate.

This will also prevent the pagan CoTs from closing down too early in the game. Have pagans be fully free trade, so that they will "defect" as soon as they have contact with Europeans. After all, the pagans didn't exactly regulate their trade industries.

 

[M@ni@c]

This rule is already in place...kind of. The Mercantilism slider affects how your provinces are distributed in CoT's. IIRC, the more mercantilistic you are the more likely that trade will go through your own CoT's.

That's only postponing the inevitable for a few years.

Your example makes sense assuming that you are the only seller. This dymanic...

You story only makes sense in a fantasy world where everyone has access to everywhere and where there is no protectionism or mercantilism at all. In reality however, sellers can't just move to another buyer if they don't like the current price, either because of geographic location (I doubt Inca weavers would go to Malacca as in EUnderhill's example...) or of political reasons (eg the English North-American colonies will be attacked if they dare trade with anyone else but English traders in an English CoT). Truly, the current CoT system only makes sense in a utopian free trade world, which is only encountered in economics courses for beginners. I hope they won't use this system in Victoria. Who knows they might, as probably a few of the things in the EU2 beta-patches are for testing possible additions to VIC.

 

[Mowers]

Whether you agree or disagree please run tests! Thats what the beta is all about.

Run as many tests as possible and then you can all stop talking hypothetically and can start to back up what you are saying.

Mowers

 

[Swuul]

A lot of people seem to have missed the economy and history lessons?

First of all, the economy (before the end of 19th century) went in real life like this:
-a person produces things, which a local trader buys
-the local trader sells some of the production locally, and sells the rest to a bigger trader
-the big trader collects a ship full of the production, and sails to where he gets the best price

Now, EU is a grand scale game. The goods rolling in from an area represents a conglomeration of these big traders. It's these big traders that make the money. The producer gets so little for his effort it is ridiculous and sad.

So I think this new model represents very well the markets prior to late 19th century.

American hereditaty dictionary on "Protectionism": The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services.

Ie export was never imposed, *import* was. Traders were even *encouraged* to sell their goods abroad (as it was vieved that the wealth of the world is a constant (until that thought was abandoned finally in the late 19th century, as is was understood that the wealth of the world is a variable that depends on available resources (and most of all work))). Heavy tariffs were put on importing stuff, still the rich could by what they wanted. And the rich have the money. If there is somebody willing to buy, then there is somebody willing to sell, not the other way around

History knows just one incident where the authorities tried to hinder export (on a major scale), the British authorities attempted that in the 18th centurey. It lead to USA independence. That system hasn't been tried after that, and I think nobody should wonder "WHY?"...

 

[dralizaar]

unsure if this is confirmed yet or not..in my games the events that contained badboy minusing effects keep saying unknown string wanted...now its possible with having agc etc and changes back and forth that my game is corrupted itself and not the patch...soon as get chance ill try fresh install ground up and see what happens...wouldnt mind if someone else could try it and see as well..in agc the event number to use is 94026

 

[unmerged(18314)]

Originally posted by Stonewall
Your example makes sense assuming that you are the only seller. This dymanic doesn't exist in EU2, there are lots of provinces with the same goods. What I was arguing is that a COT doesn't represent sellers, it represents buyers. the sellers are already represented by the provinces and the goods that they produce. The buyers are the merchants that trade in any given COT.

A COT with only one or two countries sending buyers (merchants) can artificially control the price they will pay for goods, which forces the sellers of goods to either (1) stay at that COT and take whatever price is offered, or (2) take their business elsewhere (represented by provinces changing COT's. In effect its a reverse monopoly. Traditionally monopolies are viewed as one entity controlling the production of a certain good. That entity can then charge whatever it wants for the good, especially if the good is a necesity of life. This creates artificially high prices and forces people to try and find alternate means of acquiring that product. In EU2, the monopolized COT represents the exact opposite of this traditional monopoly.

Okay, an imbalance that tilts toward the buyer's advange. My example before was way off because I was thinking you said that competition promotes value of goods when, in normal instances, demand out-weights surplus.

I see what you're saying now.

So, a merchant is someone who makes money by buying an item at a lower than standard price and then somehow makes money off of that which he has bought, correct?

Originally posted by Stonewall
A monopoly in a COT (complete control by one or two countries) means that the market for any given good is monopolized, meaning the price is controlled on the demand side, rather than on the supply side. This has the effect of lowering the price of goods. It also has the effect of the producer of a good to try and find a new market with more competition...hence the province COT switch.

But if the seller of goods are from my own trading posts and the buyers from my own country, and (most likely) CoT is mine too, why shouldn't I make money by buying the sold goods there at an extremely low price since I'm buying from myself?

And since I don't seem to be getting any money from trading posts either way as they are by themselves or sent to a CoT in which I have no merchant, why shouldn't they benefit me buy routing their goods to my secret CoT to sell to my own buyers?

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Jarkko Suvinen

Ie export was never imposed, *import* was. Traders were even *encouraged* to sell their goods abroad (as it was vieved that the wealth of the world is a constant (until that thought was abandoned finally in the late 19th century, as is was understood that the wealth of the world is a variable that depends on available resources (and most of all work))). Heavy tariffs were put on importing stuff, still the rich could by what they wanted. And the rich have the money. If there is somebody willing to buy, then there is somebody willing to sell, not the other way around

History knows just one incident where the authorities tried to hinder export (on a major scale), the British authorities attempted that in the 18th centurey. It lead to USA independence. That system hasn't been tried after that, and I think nobody should wonder "WHY?"...

This is just not true. One of the key tools deployed by mercantilists was export tariffs and bans. These were used against raw materials exports. England banned the export of unfinished cloth to the Netherlands. France had many export tariffs, grain being one of the chief ones.

A key goal of mercantilism was to establish a high balance of payments. The ideal would be to import raw materials and export finished goods. Export of raw materials was ALWAYS viewed as pernicious from a mercantilist point of view.

From Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The various ideas about economic policy that flourished in the early Modern period are often referred to as mercantilism. These ideas stemmed from bullionism, the long-since discredited theory that precious metals equated to wealth.

Ideas behind mercantilism:

1. that European countries are in direct competition
2. that whichever country has the most wealth wins that competition
3. that gold and silver bullion are synonymous with wealth.

The main corollary to these precepts, which would define international relations for centuries, was that the key for a country to gain more precious metals was for that country to have a favourable balance of trade. Each had to export more goods and services than it imported, unless of course it could just produce a lot of its own precious metals. For example, England established colonies in the western hemisphere partly in order to have an internal source of timber (important in ship-building, and thus in maintaining naval power, rather than depending on purchases from the Baltic area. Mercantilism fueled colonialism under the belief that a large empire was the key to wealth.

A key tenet of mercantilism was that exporting raw or unfinished materials disadvantaged a nation, as greater wealth would result by performing manufacturing work within that nation. Thus for instance England banned the export of unfinished cloth to the Netherlands.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Duuk

My CoT, my provinces will stick with it if I am mercantalist.

My CoT, my provinces will defect to other CoTs if I am free trade AND I am stagnating trade.

Other people's provinces will defect away from My CoT if I stagnate it, regardless free trade/mercantilism.

If a CoT gets below 50, it should close. I noticed earlier that my Ile de France didn't close until it was below 5. It served no purpose at that point. Have CoTs below 50 die.

This is exactly how it works right now, and how it should work. Province defection when the province trades at an owned COT is strongly affected by free trade/mercantilism - free trade COTs are more attractive to unowned provinces while mercantile COTs are more attractive to owned provinces. Perhaps the size of the effect should be ramped up, but it is already in the game.

I think mercantilism should make your provinces less likely to defect, but I don't see why it should outright prevent it.

Also the new COTs should be much more likely in free trade countries. As such the new COTs would be more likely to attract provinces, and therefore more robust. But this mechanism is already in the game too.

 

[Dustman]

To add bit to good Isaak's posts:

Muslim viewpoint on trade was bit different from European. Main goal for 'good' ruler, according to shariat law, was to maintain 'abundance' of goods on markets in country borders. This idea led to strong planned economy in Ottoman Empire, many countries in Magrib region and Arabia. Set prices, when merchants would get 20% profit max (us. 10%), encouraging import from foreign lands, limiting export, etc. India and Persia were bit different. They've encouraged trade, specifically caravan's based after Portugese conquests in Indian Ocean but mainly for increasing trade tariffs.

Some Eastern countries during timeframe (Tunisia and Korea, some others) were rahter 'free trade' turned but issued embargoes (mainly on export) anyway. Keep in mind that trade competion in this period was supported by military means as well. This is Muslim and Christian piracy in Meditterian and Eastern Atlantic, Dutch-French-English piracy in Carribean, Mongolian raids into China (just to get rights to trade), etc.