COT:s - just a little too good

[unmerged(3247)]

When the first COT appears in far east (usually owned by a player or Portugal), it rapidly becomes the dominant one in the area. With a few trading posts it can easily net a total value of 2000+. If you get it yourself, you´ll probably face no problems in acquiring the monopoly for an easy 1000D+ a year. If Portugal gets it, you´ll just wage a war against them and rob it from them.

Hey, wait a minute. That kind of income is way more than what you would get off three major European COT:s. In addition, competition in those COT:s are much fiercer, due to the fact that many smaller European countries won´t even know where your far east COT is. You get way more money and you get it easier too.

Not only is this ahistorical. The COT:s of London, Tago, Paris, etc, were much more powerful and generated much more income than the colonial ones. It unbalances the game as well. Once you get hold of one of those mega-COT:s you´re virtually unstoppable. This must be changed in EUII.

 

[unmerged(2349)]

When I play there are always at least 4 COT:s in east asia, one in delhi, one in china owned by china, one in Japan owned by japan and one in indonesia often owned by the portugese, none of these go over 1000 when I play there, and both the chinese and indians are quite happy to throw my traders out when they´ve got a monopoly. It´s very hard and moneyconsuming to keep the monopolies in those four COT:s especially the portugese one.

I don´t think it´s such a huge problem, and I don´t get any unfair advantages, plus it takes quite a lot to invade East Asia if you are a west european nation. Don´t you think?

 

[unmerged(4283)]

That's true.

I played as Dutch , and made 3 times the money from that trade center in Indonisia the with my country !
But after a time new Cot's appera and that one keeps loosing, specially it's really expensive to send merchants into it , but still it's not correct.
Either some european cot's should be strengthend or the asia ones reduced, or be added with more competitors.

 

[unmerged(5380)]

Too good, indeed

One of my first GC's, I played Portugal. This was before I had the latest patches installed, so the game went funny on me at about 1600, and I had to quit. By that time though, I owned Mysore and it's CoT, and I had high level trade posts in the whole of southern India. After I took out the second nation in India (not the Moghuls, the other one), nobody ever challenged me in that COT, and it's value was something like 1600, and still rising. Though Portugal's military is on the weak side, that money still allowed me to cause a lot of trouble in Europe.

How about this suggestion : whenever a nation somehow acquires a second CoT, half of the value of that CoT is directed towards it's first CoT. That would mean my Mysore income would end up in Tago, where anybody could compete for it.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Originally posted by Shark
When I play there are always at least 4 COT:s in east asia, one in delhi, one in china owned by china, one in Japan owned by japan and one in indonesia often owned by the portugese, none of these go over 1000 when I play there, and both the chinese and indians are quite happy to throw my traders out when they´ve got a monopoly. It´s very hard and moneyconsuming to keep the monopolies in those four COT:s especially the portugese one.

I don´t think it´s such a huge problem, and I don´t get any unfair advantages, plus it takes quite a lot to invade East Asia if you are a west european nation. Don´t you think?

1. Usually, almost all trade from the Indian, Chinese and Japanese COT shifts over to a European owned far east COT when it emerges, making a huge COT.

2. Usually, the Portuguese or Dutch COT that emerges are a undefended lvl 1-6 colony. Just land a siege force in tago and a 1k army in the COT and you´ll face no problems whatsoever...

 

[BiB]

The income is too good inderdeed. There is a IGC+ with economic changes which makes a COT with over 1000ducats worth of value a huge COT, quite the exception. Which I have been using since ages. The original game is very easy with these huge Far EAst COTs the AI can't really handle.

 

[unmerged(1934)]

Heh, if the European COTs are beefed up and the colonial ones downgraded, I´ll simply change my strategy and go after the European ones instead of the colonial COTs. So if you want to curb rampant profit, the best way would be to limit trade income from COTs alltogether.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Originally posted by Legbiter
Heh, if the European COTs are beefed up and the colonial ones downgraded, I´ll simply change my strategy and go after the European ones instead of the colonial COTs. So if you want to curb rampant profit, the best way would be to limit trade income from COTs alltogether.

On the other hand, most of the Europen COT:s are capitals and can´t be captured that easy. Further, competition in European COT:s are much more fierce. You could of course still pursue your strategy, but it would be much less profitable. And IMHO more realistic.

 

[unmerged(5560)]

Diverting sounds good

I'm all for the idea of diverting half of the trade from your second (and subsequent) CoT's to the one that is closest to your capitol (presumably the first one you had).
And I agree with Clausewitz that it's much tougher to retain your monopoly in Venice than keeping your monopoly in Formosa.
I also think that getting +1 merchant for control of a CoT is too much... as Denmark I managed to get hold of no less than 6, and with a potential 16 merchants a year (maxed out at 12), I heaped not only huge profits, but also countless Economy VP's.

So. To sum up what I'm trying to say:
Divert half trade from new CoT's to original one, and remove the +1 merchant bonus for owning a CoT.

Claus

 

[unmerged(703)]

Agree....

Going for the Far away CoT:s of the AI actually makes the AI really weak.... Maybe there should be a good CoT in each capital ?

 

[sunzoner]

Re: Agree....

Originally posted by bmolsson
Going for the Far away CoT:s of the AI actually makes the AI really weak.... Maybe there should be a good CoT in each capital ?

True. As all (and I mean all) nations have the ability to colonise, they will send their goods to their capital to trade. Why should I allow my trade goods to go to other COTs to trade?

 

[State Machine]

I should imagine having most of the world populated with countries now will eliminate having "new" CoT's spring up. In other words most CoT's should already be there. There is a challange in making sure SE Asian countries arn't overwhelmingly rich, though.

As BiB says, IGC+ for EU I (see the scenario forum) aligns European CoT sizes and the rest of the world CoT's pretty nicely.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Historically, new COT:s did emerge, however. And if they don´t in EUII, it will be a major drawback, since the development of the colonial sphere and the shift in power between Europen nations is one of the nicests parts in EU. (Although it doesn´t work as well as it should/could.)

As for every MP to have a COT in it´s capital, I have to disagree. Many of the so called MP:s (e g Sweden) didn´t have means nor power to maintain a COT in the 15th and 16th century. However, I think that they should appear as the MP grows more powerful, much in the way that England gets its COT in Anglia around 1520.

 

[unmerged(3787)]

I think that...

...COT merchants should be treated the same as Shipyard Colonists are.

I.e. You get +1 merchant no matter how many COT's you control. That should be a fair compromise.

As human players we have the foresight to target COT's as a large part of our emire building, there is little wonder as to why a P-L or Russian player always seeks to own Novgorod, Courland & Danzig. The AI simply can't match our methodical strategy in this area.

As for fixing the amount of trade they generate - I am all in favor of that as well; I just don't know how.

There was one suggestion that each capital have a COT and that colonial COT's send a lot of their production to the capital's COT. I can't see that. Perhaps each country should have a favored COT (the one that it is cheapest for them to send merchants too) and that COT is the one that gains the extra trade. Workable?

I don't know.

YKOil

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Re: I think that...

Originally posted by YKOil
...COT merchants should be treated the same as Shipyard Colonists are.

I.e. You get +1 merchant no matter how many COT's you control. That should be a fair compromise.

As human players we have the foresight to target COT's as a large part of our emire building, there is little wonder as to why a P-L or Russian player always seeks to own Novgorod, Courland & Danzig. The AI simply can't match our methodical strategy in this area.

As for fixing the amount of trade they generate - I am all in favor of that as well; I just don't know how.

There was one suggestion that each capital have a COT and that colonial COT's send a lot of their production to the capital's COT. I can't see that. Perhaps each country should have a favored COT (the one that it is cheapest for them to send merchants too) and that COT is the one that gains the extra trade. Workable?

I don't know.

YKOil

Well, there is that already, with each country having a favoured CoT(like France and Ile De France, Russia and Novgorod, etc

 

[unmerged(4238)]

I must admit, the way cots work currently is a little bit out of whack. Not enuff trade in europe; too much outside of it. Part of the problem is that there are too few of them, which I'm sure is deliberate to simplify this aspect for gameplay. Another part of the problem seems to be the overabundance of spice & chinaware in the far east. Yes there should be some, but there should be some more rice (wheat/grain), fish, pottery (a lower grade of chinaware perhaps), timber, tin, silk, tea, etc. producing provinces as well to average out the mix a bit.

Probably the best way to fix it is to increase the complexity of the trade/economy model. Which ain't gonna happen at this stage of the game - or perhaps already has, I hope, I hope! - so I won't really go any further here.

John J

 

[State Machine]

Originally posted by randomjgj
I must admit, the way cots work currently is a little bit out of whack. Not enuff trade in europe; too much outside of it. Part of the problem is that there are too few of them, which I'm sure is deliberate to simplify this aspect for gameplay. Another part of the problem seems to be the overabundance of spice & chinaware in the far east. Yes there should be some, but there should be some more rice (wheat/grain), fish, pottery (a lower grade of chinaware perhaps), timber, tin, silk, tea, etc. producing provinces as well to average out the mix a bit.

Probably the best way to fix it is to increase the complexity of the trade/economy model. Which ain't gonna happen at this stage of the game - or perhaps already has, I hope, I hope! - so I won't really go any further here.

John J

I agree. Fortunately, of the three or four players deeply interested in this subject, a couple are part of the EU II beta (not me, alas). There are several other interested parties, like BiB, who due to moderator status is also involved in the beta. This should result in excellent feedback to Paradox. On the other hand, the economic system isn't likely to change much, as you suggest.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

I agree with randomjgj, etc.

 

[unmerged(5560)]

As shipyards... good idea

YKOil, I'll agree with your idea.
CoT's giving +1 merchant no matter how many sounds ok...
But why shouldn't a nation's "favoured" trade center be the first one it owns (i.e. has control over the province with the CoT)?
That way, it should be easy, and only large empires (e.g. Portugal) will have the 2+ CoT problem. But it would mean, that trade would be centered a lot more in Europe and therefore competetion would be harsher.

Claus

 

[Sidney]

You have another problem with the CoT's in Europe in particular- some aren't worth a damn. Here I give you the Hanse, Danzig and Courland and Sjaeland if you play the IGC. Their tiny values apparently do not discourage the AI from fighting brutally for them in what has to be a long-term cash loser for anyone who is not the national holder of the provinces.