Privateers Require CB to Attack... WTF?

[ShoGuL]

How childish. It's not my fault you fail to see the equivalency of trade missions and privateer missions in this game.

Trade is an exchange of goods and/or services. When you increase your trade power in this game, you're not exchanging goods, you're making yourself richer and if anyone else is affected, it's to be made poorer.

Exactly as the person above me said, you should see trading in this game as something that happens behind the scenes. You are not actually in control of the merchants, they do their things regardless outside of state supervision. What you are in control of, is making it a lot harder for enemy (other nations) merchants and a lot easier for your own until you are able to tax all the trade going through a region and the other nations cannot. That is what 'trading' represents.

It is a pure pvp system about, indeed, stealing all the taxes generated from trade from your rivals.

 

[DerOstkonig]

Wilbry, thanks for responding.

I understand that the game concepts are abstracted.

However, the real issue here is that to clear up trade routes from privateers, there has to be a war between countries that will be waged on sea and land.

This is nonsensical, no matter how the trading mechanics are abstracted.

There must be a way to resolve piracy in a nation's sea lanes without going to war with the nation that has enlisted the privateers.

 

[Beagá]

Privateers are sponsored by the state so it´s not like destroying them wouldn´t piss off their patron nation.

That said there should be other ways of dealing with it other than DOWs. Maybe privateering should rely on rival system? Or damage relations with other countries if the country privateered isn´t rival?

 

[hauptman]

Perhaps a better system would be to add another AI nation, called the Privateers. And you simply gift this nation your ships for a cut in that nations total income. The larger the percantage of this nations ships you donate, increase your cut. Now you may at any time, if you have not yourself donated ships, DoW the Privateers, and thus remove the need to fight a land war to clear the sea lanes.

 

[Beagá]

Uh... that´s essentially asking for pirates again, and in a worse way. Too convoluted.

 

[DerOstkonig]

Privateers are sponsored by the state so it´s not like destroying the wouldn´t piss off their patron nation.

That said there should be other ways of dealing with it other than DOWs. Maybe privateering should rely on rival system?

Destroying the privateers could give the sponsor nation a relationship malus with the attacker, and a CB - they should definitely not be free to destroy.

But- since privateers are committing illegal actions when they violate multiple nation's legal management (protection, extortion, whatever - it's legal in the eyes of nations since it doesn't give CB) of trade where they have influence, they should not be protected from attacks without a full-scale war.

Also, not sure the rival system should tie into this besides providing bonuses for privateers raiding their rivals - this is because anyone who has a stake in the node, rival or otherwise, is affected by the privateers.

Perhaps a better system would be to add another AI nation, called the Privateers. And you simply gift this nation your ships for a cut in that nations total income. The larger the percantage of this nations ships you donate, increase your cut. Now you may at any time, if you have not yourself donated ships, DoW the Privateers, and thus remove the need to fight a land war to clear the sea lanes.

Well, this is what is already happening ingame, except the pirate nation cannot conduct diplomacy. My proposed solution in the original post was that you open them up for a war declaration, and allow the nation who gave the ships a causus belli if they wish to retaliate for the destruction of their ships.

 

[Eldorian]

Exactly as the person above me said, you should see trading in this game as something that happens behind the scenes. You are not actually in control of the merchants, they do their things regardless outside of state supervision. What you are in control of, is making it a lot harder for enemy (other nations) merchants and a lot easier for your own until you are able to tax all the trade going through a region and the other nations cannot. That is what 'trading' represents.

It is a pure pvp system about, indeed, stealing all the taxes generated from trade from your rivals.

There is no trade in this game. There is no way for two nations to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges of goods. You can make mutually beneficial military alliances, but cannot trade, let alone make trade agreements. Also, these thefts are hard coded, meaning the Antwerpen trade node is superior at theft to the London trade node. I'm not the first to make this argument. What Wealth of Nations should have provided this game is two way trade paths where goods increase in value when they're moved.

 

[Wilbry]

DerOstkonig,

I get what you are saying - but I dont think its as easy as declaring war on piracy and having a couple of fleet battles.
I like that privateers are a pain in the bum that I have to use diplomacy(war) to get them recalled. The self spawning pirates of old where always more of a mouse-click pain than a game-factor. PDS is trying to make everything a game choice - if its not a choice, and you should always do a certain action, then they remove the option and make it automatic or remove the mechinic.

I like that I have to consider the rammifications of making the sponsoring state recall them - although that needs to be a diplo-option added to the current options (enforce privteers recall or something). Dont forget that a Trade War can be won through 80% win in naval battles. If his army can reach you then, well...he is allowed to pirate you because that is world politics.

 

[hauptman]

There is no trade in this game. There is no way for two nations to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges of goods. You can make mutually beneficial military alliances, but cannot trade, let alone make trade agreements. Also, these thefts are hard coded, meaning the Antwerpen trade node is superior at theft to the London trade node. I'm not the first to make this argument. What Wealth of Nations should have provided this game is two way trade paths where goods increase in value when they're moved.

I agree that euIVs trade system is not trade. But it's a good system (not unlike but better than the euIII system). Far more engaging and entertaining than say, the Total War system, which is actually trade. But their system is boring, actually makes wars over trade, actually the apposite of beneficial, and really is just plain boring. In euIV as in IRL, there is a reason to goto war over trade. I like it.

Privateers add nothing new to the mix. Other than giving someone a way to harass a more powerful trade nation, that previously required the aquirment of land. Now I can send privateers to the carribean, instead of stealing land.

 

[Searry]

Yeah it is quite ridiculous. You can mess with people how you want but wars are a risky business, especially in multiplayer. It should be fixed ASAP.

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

 

[hauptman]

Yeah it is quite ridiculous. You can mess with people how you want but wars are a risky business, especially in multiplayer. It should be fixed ASAP.

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

There is nothing to fix, as nothing is broken.

 

[Eldorian]

I agree that euIVs trade system is not trade. But it's a good system (not unlike but better than the euIII system). Far more engaging and entertaining than say, the Total War system, which is actually trade. But their system is boring, actually makes wars over trade, actually the apposite of beneficial, and really is just plain boring. In euIV as in IRL, there is a reason to goto war over trade. I like it.

I never said it wasn't any fun =P I have fun playing with the "trade" in this game, in fact, all my long running games have taken the trade ideas. But it's not trade; it's exploiting your colonial nations and and robbing your neighbors.

Privateers add nothing new to the mix. Other than giving someone a way to harass a more powerful trade nation, that previously required the aquirment of land. Now I can send privateers to the carribean, instead of stealing land.

I disagree. Privateers are actually an interesting addition, one that lets you exploit trade nodes downstream of your control, both for profit and for malicious intent. And you won't want to send privateers to the Caribbean unless you're not able to steer trade from the Caribbean to your lands. Oddly, the Caribbean being a trade zone with a ton of paths out with merchants usually steering and paths in only from colonial regions means that piracy is generally a bad idea there. It's a much better idea to engage in piracy downstream or distant from your own trade node. The Western European trade node for example is a great place to pirate if you're not able to collect in London, Antwerpen, Bordeaux or Seville.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

Sticking with Aragon in the following example there is a possible other catch.

Playing as Naples which is under a personal union under Aragon at the start date, I am also able to send a privateer fleet to trade nodes, to Castille for example. Now would that give Castille a CB against me or Aragon? (I know they have one already against Aragon).

Because the thought of vassals or pu's sending privateers, without permission, to trade nodes which would upset a large country, is not appeasing in the least.
It could be a nice way to get rid of a overlord though? Just piss off major countries at your overlord that you have good diplomatic relations with? Come kick my overlord's butt, here is a reason. He can't stop me anyway.

Basically if you have 3 vassals, you could find yourself the subject of a major (coalition) war, while not being able to do anything to prevent it? That would be fun times...

Should you be allowed then under a PU to send privateer fleets? I would tend to say no, under the present circumstances. So, that is another possible issue with the current CB system for privateers.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

Well, this is interesting as well:

Started a game as Ming (first time), send a privateer fleet to Japan. Korea is my ally (as well as a royal marriage). In Japan Ouchi gets a trade CB on Ming, and Korea gets a trade CB on Ming as well. The other Japanese states don't. Although some, who are the enemy of Ouchi, are now improving relations with me (however I don't know if that is related to Ouchi not liking me), while they are losing trade income to the privateers as well.

Both Ouchi and Korea have centers of trade, so it would appear that a CB is possibly related to that. The other states trade in the same node, but don't have a CB.

Mind you the privateer fleet is 53 ships big, so I don't see how only Ouchi could attack that, even without the CB mechanic. I was just curious if all countries in the trade node (and Japan) would gain a CB. The privateers are taking income from the entire trade node, so not sure what is going on there as to the CB system.
The entire trade node value is 5,0 and the privateers are taking something in the order of 0,63. Which isn't much, but still a considerable amount relatively speaking.
It doesn't weigh up against the cost of the fleet, but otherwise the fleet would just sit their idle anyway.

Also one can turn and turn off the privateer function for a fleet repeatedly similar to the protect trade functionality. Maybe it would make it a more difficult choice if once you choose a fleet to be privateers, one can't just return them to normal service, without some kind of conversion cost.

 

[Sophotrates]

You only get a trade CB when you have 20% or more value in the trade node. Ouchi and Korea probably have, while the other Japanese states don't.

 

[PeterCorless]

I've posted the solution repeatedly, and have found this "feature" to be one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Paradox. (Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings over yonder. I am a really big fan and supporter. I just find this system indefensible historically or simulation-wise...)

Anyway, the solution:

1. Privateers should be given a "Letter of Marque" -- a pop-up window which allows you to designate which nation(s)' trade they are going to be hampering. It should not be for "everyone in the node" -- unless you want to actually do that. Privateers were targeted towards specific nations. Say, France, or the Netherlands, or Spain. Or a short list, like "Spain and France." Not sent out to attack all-and-sundry. But hey, if you think you can deny trade to everyone, go do it! Flag against everyone else in the node. Just expect this to lead to conflict.

2. Privateering should indeed give a "Trade War" CB for anyone targeted by it. Such deprivations were not a "Mission Impossible" secret, where the secretary would disavow any knowledge of your actions.

3. Privateers should NOT come out of the standing navy, but should come from a sort of "mercenaries of the sea" stockpile similar to land mercenaries. This would represent the number of merchant marine captains who would be willing to undertake the hazards of being a privateer. The standing navies of these nations did not "reflag" themselves to become buccaneers.

4. Privateers would need to pay for themselves through the losses they take out of a trade node. If they cannot sustain themselves, then they should "die off" (go back to other commercial ventures) over time.

5. All targeted nation's ships should be able to attack the privateers (or be attacked by the privateers) without directly going to war with the sponsoring nation. After all, they are "hostiles" operating in your territorial waters.

This is what I have been arguing from the beginning. It is far more historical. It is far more competitive. It is far more understandable than the current "state-sponsored pirates with a Klingon cloaking device" that we currently have now.

 

[FredricBastiat]

While you could destroy ships raiding your commerce if you caught them, it was far harder to do than it would be in this game. Letting a national navy fight privateers would simply mean they aren't a factor as they would have to go toe-to-toe with all your ships of line. Unless there is some way of letting them raid effectively I think this is the best solution in-game.

 

[yahiko]

Instead of turning light ships into Privateers, we should be able to build specific privateer ships with their own stats designed to be faster than regular light ships.

Those privateer ships should not be taken into account in the naval force limit.

Those advantages could help the privateer ships to have some usefulness against a nation which want to hunt piracy (of course, without any CB).

 

[jackalope81]

Destroying the privateers could give the sponsor nation a relationship malus with the attacker, and a CB - they should definitely not be free to destroy.

But- since privateers are committing illegal actions when they violate multiple nation's legal management (protection, extortion, whatever - it's legal in the eyes of nations since it doesn't give CB) of trade where they have influence, they should not be protected from attacks without a full-scale war.

Also, not sure the rival system should tie into this besides providing bonuses for privateers raiding their rivals - this is because anyone who has a stake in the node, rival or otherwise, is affected by the privateers.



Well, this is what is already happening ingame, except the pirate nation cannot conduct diplomacy. My proposed solution in the original post was that you open them up for a war declaration, and allow the nation who gave the ships a causus belli if they wish to retaliate for the destruction of their ships.

Privateers were not illegal during the entire time period of the game. There was not an international treaty against them until the 1850s. The reality of the time period is that nation's could without declaring war drastically inhibit the commerce of one or more other nations using privateers. If anything is flawed about the mechanic currently it's that a war declaration would do anything to make it better. Thousands of merchant vessels were captured by competing sides operating privateers dwarfing losses and forces in flagged navies. Yes, countries did actually declare war and physically invade or try to invade a country for sending privateers against them. In fact a successful invasion was about the only thing that would make it stop. Given the size and speed of privateer forces and the small size of navies combat elimination was impossible.

 

[DerOstkonig]

I've posted the solution repeatedly, and have found this "feature" to be one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Paradox. (Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings over yonder. I am a really big fan and supporter. I just find this system indefensible historically or simulation-wise...)

Anyway, the solution:

1. Privateers should be given a "Letter of Marque" -- a pop-up window which allows you to designate which nation(s)' trade they are going to be hampering. It should not be for "everyone in the node" -- unless you want to actually do that. Privateers were targeted towards specific nations. Say, France, or the Netherlands, or Spain. Or a short list, like "Spain and France." Not sent out to attack all-and-sundry. But hey, if you think you can deny trade to everyone, go do it! Flag against everyone else in the node. Just expect this to lead to conflict.

2. Privateering should indeed give a "Trade War" CB for anyone targeted by it. Such deprivations were not a "Mission Impossible" secret, where the secretary would disavow any knowledge of your actions.

3. Privateers should NOT come out of the standing navy, but should come from a sort of "mercenaries of the sea" stockpile similar to land mercenaries. This would represent the number of merchant marine captains who would be willing to undertake the hazards of being a privateer. The standing navies of these nations did not "reflag" themselves to become buccaneers.

4. Privateers would need to pay for themselves through the losses they take out of a trade node. If they cannot sustain themselves, then they should "die off" (go back to other commercial ventures) over time.

5. All targeted nation's ships should be able to attack the privateers (or be attacked by the privateers) without directly going to war with the sponsoring nation. After all, they are "hostiles" operating in your territorial waters.

This is what I have been arguing from the beginning. It is far more historical. It is far more competitive. It is far more understandable than the current "state-sponsored pirates with a Klingon cloaking device" that we currently have now.

Someone understands exactly how I feel.

Thank you.

Hear our cries Paradox!

Yes, countries did actually declare war and physically invade or try to invade a country for sending privateers against them. In fact a successful invasion was about the only thing that would make it stop. Given the size and speed of privateer forces and the small size of navies combat elimination was impossible.

Sources or it didn't happen.