GOOD idea for diplomatic option

[King of Men]

Well, I don't know if it's a GREAT idea, so I won't be claiming that. But I think it moderately interesting. It seems that the COT system is going to be more-or-less unchanged; this being so, can we have unilateral trade agreements? That is, trade agreements that work only one way. So, for example, as Norway I beat Sweden soundly in a war, and demand 'Trade Privileges' as part of the treaty. Then Sweden cannot compete out my merchants, as before for a TA; but I am able to compete out theirs.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

While you're at it, if you beat them soundly enough, how about a unilateral ceasefire? So your troops can shoot at them but they can't shoot at you.

IMHO either you have a peace treaty or you don't. I don't agree with the one-sided terms you propose. Further, any trade restriction you force on your enemy would be valid only in COTs controlled by you or they. Third party COTs could not possibly be included in such a bargain.

 

[Wämö]

I like your idea, King of Men, but I also agree with jwolf that it would only work in CoT:s under your or the other country's control.

 

[King of Men]

I don't understand your objection, jwolf. You would presumably not object to a unilateral vassalisation, where Nation A becomes the vassal of Nation B, but - shock, horror - B does not become the vassal of A. I mean, you beat them, you get advantages, that's what a peace treaty does.

I also think that third-party COTs should be included, since they are included in ordinary trade agreements. It is a rule that applies to merchants, not COTs.

 

[unmerged(49112)]

Too easy to exploit if all cots are added to this. Imagen the fallowing. Big AI alliance, you declare war on them, capture a couple of provinces from each and demand "trade privilages" from each one of them. what will this lead to? no competition, all ai merchants will be throwed out of the cot in no time as they will compete with each other and you againts them,but they can't compete against you. So human player will have simple silly wars just to demand this option and make more money out of the cot.

However if you make this option cost about 70 war score, or make it work somewhat like vickys war indemnity option, then sure. Also should be limited to cots controlled by you or the enemy you just made peace with. It should also damage relations alot.

 

[JakopDalunde]

I support the idea

 

[King of Men]

So human player will have simple silly wars just to demand this option and make more money out of the cot.

Which is eminently realistic; consider all those wars where England's war aim was to get their merchants in on the slave trade in South America. Consider also the Hanse wars. There were quite a few wars over who had the right to trade where, and on what terms; EU should reflect that.

Now, the bit about exploits is a point, to be sure. Still, there's usually a lot of AI nations around. It would be difficult to TP (yay, I just invented a new acronym to confuse newbies!) all of them. Also, the AI would presumably try to break any TPs as soon as it could.

 

[unmerged(57577)]

Obtaining Trading Privileges as part of Peace Treaties (after a very successful war!) is historically accurate. It would be a nice addition to the game.