any difficulty added by trade is just frustration, not difficulty in figuring the system out. and no one wants it automatic because it's too difficult, they want it automated because it's annoying and takes all of the fun out of the game
- 5
- 2
Sorry devs, but trade should be automatic
- Thread starter Merovingio
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That would be random. People are already complaining that there’s no way to change or influence AI attitudes in diplomacy so imagine this.
- 3
- 1
If you are importing that much from a country, presumably they are making goods you are dependent on, so no it would not be random.
- 2
- 1
- 1
That's how I play, but it means you can only ever play a petrostate and you have to colonize Africa for rubber. United States is capable of being self sufficient. Mexico as well if you can hold Texas and the west. But I think other than that maybe Iran/Persia is about all you can be self sufficient with. I did a France and I just ended up dying on lack of ability to get advance PMs because of lack of oil, and there also wasn't even any available to trade for.
- 1
- 1
Player should still have control. But not FULL control.
I shouldn't have to micromanage how 700+ different factories and 2000+ plantations across my giant global empire, building and expanding and reducing their levels when they become unprofitable - AI should do that. I should still be able to manually build things from the investment pool where I want (or full government budget in centralized economies), while the AI takes care of the micromanagement.
Same goes for trading. Let AI trade where needed (and go for profitable trade routes), but player should be able to create trade routes manually as usual.
Or it should at least SUGGEST to the player what has to be done, whether a factory would be profitable somewhere, or a building needs to be reduced in level somewhere, and so on.
(and no, the current auto-expand button doesn't count)
This way, player agency is not hindered in any way, while the tedious nonsense of playing large empires at least becomes manageable in late game.
In fact that is the idea devs have shown positive reception towards and maybe plan to add.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
It is possible to pause the game, just saying.
Every time I read someone ask for this, it just reads as "make the game play itself". Sure, handling trade can take a lot of time in some situations, but that's just an indication of how important a part of the game it can be. Automating it would essentially mean removing or at least considerably simplifying a big part of the game.
In addition, one should not forget that trade also has a Bureaucracy cost, and automation can thoroughly mess with your plans for that.
- 3
- 3
- 3
USA don't have opium; Persia don't have rubber. But yes, mostly self sufficients both.
Specialization doesn’t really make too much sense in single player games because the AI is incapable of doing likewise - multiplayer though is incredible… until the game inevitably crashes under the sheer weight of bugs and processing issues…
- 1
Yes but the AI is too dumb to factor this in. Don't know how many times I've had the AI back a diplomatic play and watch it lose all its opium, oil, dye, etc. because I am the world's largest producer.
The game just doesn't work right now. I'm playing an East Indies game and it's 1906. Every single major power hates every other major power. Many are embargoing at least 2 of the others. No alliances, no "blocs" based on economics or ideology. Nobody honors an alliance. Massive worldwide shortages until I start producing it. Maybe when they fix the game we can actually rely on trading partners but for now you have to produce almost everything for yourself.
- 2
- 1
To be fair, it was a common belief going into the 20th century that deepening trade ties made a general European war unfeasible because nothing that could be gained would be worth the cost.
They were right in the sense that it wasn't. They were very wrong in assuming that meant it couldn't happen.
(That being said, while the AI should be able to side against a major trading partner, they should at least be reluctant to do so if it will cause an immediate collapse of their industry or especially warmaking potential with no real way to fix this. But that doesn't mean they won't ever do it, because they could be expecting you to back down rather than fight to the death over wanting to conquer some state in Africa somewhere, especially since losing those exports will likely hurt your economy a lot too. Making someone dependent on you economically should help keep them on side unless you cross their red lines.)
- 3
- 1
Yeh it really goes against the design philosophy of the game.
- 1
Unless you are min-maxing, you really shouldn't have to be looking at the trade screen all that often. If your goods are cheap enough, the AI will trade with you as needed.
Not to mention you are hampering yourself if you are trading heavily. Autarky 4 lyfe.
Not to mention you are hampering yourself if you are trading heavily. Autarky 4 lyfe.
- 2
- 2
Automatic trade route creation per good basis could be handy, with option of excluding rivals. If I have already decided that my desert empire needs to export its extra meat and oil, I don't care that much who gets it, but I do care that the trade was disrupted by war or something and the game has very weak ways to inform that to player. Same with imports of course.