Testing patch 1.06b in a long term game.

[unmerged(3158)]

Plagues.

Oh I do have to add another thing. Mr. Peter Ebbessen is a masochist and loves being punished. I do not. The changes done to the plague event is just annoying and in my most humble opinion... RETARDED.

Ok now that I got that off my chest. Adopting some of his crazy ideas to inflict self pain might make the game more challenging and gratifying to the soul for those that enjoy it. I am not in this category.

I will elaborate why I consider this event to be sick and unjustly cruel to an individual. In a span of 2 years I got nailed with not one but 2 plague events. These super plague events for those that haven't been yet blessed with experiencing them. Reduce populations in not one province but 3, and you also take a stab hit. But that is not the worst of it, you lose a manpower point in your capitol.

Now having been hit with a plague event twice as the Ottos and once as the Russians. With the Ottoman's, the plague events struck the 3 same provinces and reduced Thrace's manpower from 5 to 3. And this is with a barracks there. Same with the Russian plague event, it hit 3 provinces including the capitol with a manpower lose there. What I am finding out, is that there is no randomness to this plague event. It hits the same 3 provinces and your capitol has to take the manpower hit.

There are also other events that I do not like. Like the negative research event hits. As the Ottoman's I took a 2 600, 1 500, and 1 300 trade hits. Basically I never made it past trade tech 1 and we played all the way into the 1450's. It only takes 2000 trade research to get to trade 2, yet I never made it to trade 2 because I took in total 2200 lost trade research! I wasn't going forward, I went backwards in my research.

These Superpower Scaled events created by Peter Ebbessen is just overdone in my opinion. Not by a bit, but by alot. We don't need to deal with events that will add even more negative stab events. Its already a huge work to keep your stab up, but as the Ottoman Empire without the ability to annex nations to recover stab, I was literally stuck at 0 stab for most of the game because it was taking me 4 years to recover a stab point at full serfdom.

There are players that enjoy creating challenges for themselves, I perfer to have the players make the game challenging instead of creating game mechanics to screw a player over. I'm now rapidly going into the direction of asking to remove the Superpower Scaled events from the patch. Its becoming very evident that for many nations that need to stay stable to keep their government running smoothly, this patch instead does the opposite and punishes players that try to go Free Subjects and Innovative. Its more important to go Serfdom and Narrow Minded now because of the massive number of stab hits.

Remember I was at full Serfdom and it was taking me 4 years to recover a stab point. How would other nations be able to cope with BB now effecting stab and the slew of stab hitting events in the Superpower Scaled events.

Duma

Just one edit: My appologies to Peter Ebbessen if I came out too harsh, but frankly these events are pretty hardcore for many of us to take. Especially when you translate them into MP play. In SP a player can just load and ignore a bad event, but in MP we have to swallow all these events. And for nations that are multi-religion it really does alot of damage especially with the new BB rules in.

 

[JohnMK]

I'd certainly take out the -2's (these make it affect capitals mandatorally instead of randomly) and replace with with the more random -1's.

Keep in mind there are lots of agricultural revolution/establish contanment/new land claimed events too. More, in fact, -- taken together -- than plague. What you had was a string of bad luck. I've been having a string of good luck so far. As always YMMV. In any very long-term random test, you'll have way more manpower iincreasing events than decreasing. And I get plenlty of dispute settlement and cathedral/mosque +2 stab events. Far more than negative events. Yeah, you've just had rotten luck.

 

[JohnMK]

Positive manpower events for a 100 province Spain (typical full-extent size if just historical areas colonized):

event = {
id = 98044
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME38"
desc = "EVENTHIST38"
style = 0
trigger = {
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
}
}

#########################################################################
# New Land Claimed
#########################################################################
event = {
id = 94102 # Paradox 1057
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A15"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A15"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = population which = -1 value = 2000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 94103 # Paradox 1125
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A15"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A15"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = population which = -1 value = 2500 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 94104 # Paradox 1126
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A15"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A15"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = population which = -2 value = 2000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -2 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincetax which = -2 value = 1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 98105
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A16"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A16"
style = 0
trigger = {
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 98106
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A16"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A16"
style = 0
trigger = {
domestic = { type = land value = 6 }
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -1 value = 1 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -2 value = 1 }
}
}

Negative manpower events for a 100 province Spain (typical full-extent size if just historical areas colonized):

event = {
id = 98033
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME30"
desc = "EVENTHIST30"
style = 0
trigger = {
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -2 value = -2500 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -2 value = -1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 98034
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME30"
desc = "EVENTHIST30"
style = 0
trigger = {
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -3 value = -1 }
command = { type = population which = -2 value = -4000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = -2 value = -1 }
}

 

[unmerged(3158)]

I agree with you John. But these events add more negative stab events and not only that, with the new BB rules adding to the stab. Its even more harder to build stab. So for players that do want to go Free Subjects. It becomes that more harder to do since the incentive is not there.

There needs to be balance and my appologies to Peter, but he loves having the world fall on him. Those events are taylor made for a player of Peter Ebbessen's caliber. But it should not be force fed to the rest of the community. Even Peter admits he does not play MP regularly as some of us do.

I myself perfer to play MP since the added incentive is the human element where players can challenge you. Instead of racing against the AI, you have to deal with a thinking player who will oppose you and challenge you to do better. I take far greater reward at building a strong and vibrant nation under that duress then under a SP game where you know the outcome already.

That should be the driving element of any MP game. It should be the players that drive the game and story, not game mechanics. These events are way overblown and do more to change the balance and makeup of a game that events should be allowed too. I am saying that these events should not have such a massive impact on a player's play. A player shouldn't be handcuffed by forcing him to go Serfdom and Narrow Minded.

If these events were at least moderated and not empire spanning in some cases. Then I can be happy with them in the game. But a few bad events can really shape a player's game for the long term. Remember this is MP play. Those events Peter created were for SP play. They were there to bring some element of challenge to a SP game that you knew that you were going to win. These events do not work in MP because player vs player play suffer with these events. Instead of the player moving the game along, events take a far bigger role then they should. And they shouldn't, it should be the player that pushes the game along not events that cripple a player and force them to do atypical actions they would not normally do to compensate.

Duma

 

[JohnMK]

If you're mostly naval, that's +9-8 manpower meaning on average, in a long game, you'll gain manpower slightly from these events taken together.

If you're mostly land, you have a net of 4 in your favor. (+12-8). You should gain lots in the long-term.

Further, about capitals, it's balanced. +2-2. I'd still like to see -2's taken out though. I don't like 'em.

 

[JohnMK]

I think you're exaggerating things a little bit Duma . . . . everybody else I've talked to likes these events. It's not killing multiplayer. On the contrary we had a really super fun 35-year session Sunday that was an absolute blast, with 1.06b2.

Just take it like a man. You got some nastiness. Like it or lump it, y'know?

 

[unmerged(3158)]

I guess you and me will have diverging opinions on Peter's Superpower Scaled events. Right now many in my play group are in the same grip as I am. Whether to like the new events or want them removed.

For me I am leaning heavily to removing them. Taking the example of my Ottoman game. When we ended it, it was in the late 1450's and I still yet haven't been able to research trade tech 2. If this was a long term game, I would of been forced to add more research into trade to compensate for the setbacks. Does this add more randomness to a game, sure it does and for you John, you would probably like that. But what about the rest of the player nations? What if they didn't go through what I went through and continued to gain trade. By 1492, I would still be struggling to get to trade 3. While everyone would be at trade 3 and for the lucky few trade 4.

So now we have an imbalance in trade techs but not by the fault of the player. But by events that crippled another player's ability to research properly. That is what I have a problem with. The fact that these new events have such a large impact on a player's abilty. And that is what concerns me. You see instead of letting a player's descision grow into something better, we now have events that can screw this all up and decide a player's fate. And that is what bugs me. I don't want a series of bad random events to decide the shape of a player's game. These events are too harsh and WILL effect the course of a game for a player.

We do not need to have player's fate's decided by random events. A player should have much more control of his destiny then to allow these uber masochist events smack a player around just because he was unlucky. That is the problem.

Duma

 

[JohnMK]

Well there are so many good, positive events too. I've generally gotten a good mixture, mostly good events though. At least, events that might cost me a few hundred ducats like the comissioning of a new cathedral/mosque, but the +2 stab on those is quite nice. And settling disputes is always a must. And I really dig the 1000 ducat state gift I got . . .

 

[unmerged(3158)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
I think you're exaggerating things a little bit Duma . . . . everybody else I've talked to likes these events. It's not killing multiplayer. On the contrary we had a really super fun 35-year session Sunday that was an absolute blast, with 1.06b2.

Just take it like a man. You got some nastiness. Like it or lump it, y'know?

What are you saying? Take it like a man? Is that it? John, why do you play EU? Is it because you enjoy the game? Then what about the game do you enjoy. Is it because of the player interaction? You see that would be my response. And to further elaborate on that, I would also say, that what makes EU great is the players deciding the course of a game and moving it along. With proactive players, you have a game you can write about.

But what do I know, maybe I am weak willed and I can't take it like a man. But let me say this. If you think I play this game so the game mechanics can punish me and reduce all the work I have done building my nation up. Then I DO have a problem with EU. EU is about player interaction, but it is also about nation building. And to have your whole work be setback or destroyed by the ficklness of these beefed up random events. I have alot of problems with that. These random events NEED to be toned down since they dramatically effect a player. Because they effect a player so dramatically is all the reason THEY should be toned down. It should not be events that should dictate the course of a game, but the players themselves. By taking that out of a player's control, you end up with a game that is more based on luck and God forbid hoping that you go by unscathed. That to me is very silly.

Duma

 

[Johan]

So basically we need to rebalance the extended events before the final release of 1.06b?
However, I'm of the opinion that stability at 0 is normal, while +3 is superb calm boom times.


Which events are the most significant ones which needs to be tweaked down?

 

[Mowers]

Hi Duma,

I cant say that I have extensively tested the super scaled events but in principle I am pretty keen on them.

I am not convinced that nations of the time really had that much chance to influence what happened. Whilst I understand that you dont want your plans wrecked, I truely believe that this is what it would have been like for rulers at the time. They had remarkably little influence over their countries and destinies, the levers of power that were available to them were limited and crude.

History is full, chocker block indeed, with a rulers work being destroyed by random events. In a massive and dramatic manner as well!

Even leaders today do not have the power over events that you talk of. I think that the best analogy of rulership is that its like driving a car by only using the rear mirror and a map. You can see where you have been but you have only a vague idea to where you are headed.

I think that 'luck' was a big part. The player position in EU is not meant to be God but a ruler.

Your Ottoman example actually proves that the game is working exactly as it should. U should be at level 3 by 1500. (see FAQ technology tables) Your example convinces me that these changes are for the better. There is no imbalance in trade techs.

These events should throw players of course, otherwise the MP game taht you describe becomes a massive maths competition which Peter E will win hands down every time. These events can save as well as wreck empires. History is absolutely full of events of nations getting smacked down when they were already at their lowest. The word repeatedly fell on down the heads of a number of countries.

I am not going to say take it like a man, I am going to say that 'take it like a historical ruler'. I can see where you are coming from but I do think that the game you are describing doesnt resemble the problems of being a historical ruler. Massive unforeseen events threw many a plan and investment and we must deal with those too.

I do agree that a nation shouldnt be handcuffed into going serfdom and narrow minded. But perhaps the alternatives need to be upgraded? Perhaps you could suggest ways to make them more attractive in the current context?

Ben

 

[boehm]

regarding the plague events....I think they should either be removed or toned drastically down after mid 1500ish...since by then AFAIK no more real masskiller-plagues came although ofcause plague kept on being a problem right up until the 18th century....I believe that either be removing the plague events entirely after 1550-1600ish or by atleast removing the stability effect one would also get the benefit that the historical drift towards freedom & innovativeness after this time would be rational in game terms.

Speaking of Innovativeness & Stability: I wonder why an uncoorporate philosopher should be GOOD!?!

#########################################################################
# Uncooperative Philosopher
#########################################################################
event = {
id = 94120 # Paradox 1067
trigger = {
NOT = {
year = 1650
domestic = { type = innovative value = 10 }
}
domestic = { type = innovative value = 1 }
}
random = yes
name = "EVENTNAME_A25"
desc = "EVENTHIST_A25"
style = 0
action_a = {
name = "EVENT_A25_A"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "EVENT_A25_B"
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 }
}
}

I would like to see this event tied to BB and then give a negative stab hit....

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Re: Plagues.

Originally posted by Duma
Oh I do have to add another thing. Mr. Peter Ebbessen is a masochist and loves being punished. I do not. The changes done to the plague event is just annoying and in my most humble opinion... RETARDED.

Ok now that I got that off my chest. Adopting some of his crazy ideas to inflict self pain might make the game more challenging and gratifying to the soul for those that enjoy it. I am not in this category.

I will elaborate why I consider this event to be sick and unjustly cruel to an individual. In a span of 2 years I got nailed with not one but 2 plague events. These super plague events for those that haven't been yet blessed with experiencing them. Reduce populations in not one province but 3, and you also take a stab hit. But that is not the worst of it, you lose a manpower point in your capitol.

Now having been hit with a plague event twice as the Ottos and once as the Russians. With the Ottoman's, the plague events struck the 3 same provinces and reduced Thrace's manpower from 5 to 3. And this is with a barracks there. Same with the Russian plague event, it hit 3 provinces including the capitol with a manpower lose there. What I am finding out, is that there is no randomness to this plague event. It hits the same 3 provinces and your capitol has to take the manpower hit.

So, you had a decent countrysize and got nailed by two plagues, and, even worse, were unfortunate enough that the same provinces got targeted. Bad luck.

On the other hand, I think I will mention that there are more manpower gaining events than there are events decreasing them (no matter what your dp setting), including some that specifically target your capital.

I strictly speaking fail to see how this is unfair or a huge change from earlier random events files. Sometimes in MP one player would suffer two -3 stab events within two years while another had two excellent years, without it being grossly unfair. These things happen.

There are also other events that I do not like. Like the negative research event hits. As the Ottoman's I took a 2 600, 1 500, and 1 300 trade hits. Basically I never made it past trade tech 1 and we played all the way into the 1450's. It only takes 2000 trade research to get to trade 2, yet I never made it to trade 2 because I took in total 2200 lost trade research! I wasn't going forward, I went backwards in my research.

Admittedly, you were very unlucky.

EDIT: Or of the mercantilist persuasion. It is amazing how much the merchants will complain if you are running a high mercantilism score.

These Superpower Scaled events created by Peter Ebbessen is just overdone in my opinion. Not by a bit, but by alot. We don't need to deal with events that will add even more negative stab events.

I do not think I added stability hits to anything except the plague, that was not there before if you discount the 35BB+ extra copy of "Political Crisis"? However, I do not have the event files on hand to confirm, so please list these extra events that have been granted stab hits?

Just one edit: My appologies to Peter Ebbessen if I came out too harsh, but frankly these events are pretty hardcore for many of us to take. Especially when you translate them into MP play. In SP a player can just load and ignore a bad event, but in MP we have to swallow all these events. And for nations that are multi-religion it really does alot of damage especially with the new BB rules in.

Hey, be harsh! That which does not kill me, makes me stronger

And as for loading in SP when you receive a bad event, that is of course out of the question.

But, honestly (hardcore that I am), it sounds as if you grew beyond 30+ provinces (thus just entering the 30-79 province category) and were very unlucky. Since every category spans a minimum to a maximum countrysize, they hit harder when you have just reached the minimum of a range than when you are near the top. The same goes for the postive events, of course.

By the way, I did not make the basic scaled set specifically to be used mainly in SP or to present a challenge for the big (or the small), but to make random events (other than stab hits or inflation reduction) have relevance once you grew beyond some ten or fifteen provinces All the sick empire-wrecking stuff is in the full SSREM, which is not included. However, you are right that extended periods of bad luck with the scaled events are much worse for large nations than they used to be. With the standard set, unless your bad luck consisted of continual stab hits, they were basically irrelevant. (The same for most good events: Woohoo another +250d naval research... Only 18,633d research to go))

It must be said, however, that for obvious reasons this basic set was not created with the 1.06b BB changes to stability in mind. So if you can find a number of events with stability hits that you really feel deserve not to have them, please post. Control has officially passed to Paradox, so I have no say whatsoever in what is done to that file now, and if many feel, like you, that some of the events are too severe, I am sure that something can be done about - one of the advantages of public betas.

(To be perfectly honest, I do not think the plagues should be restricted. There are a total of two plague events out of a set of which you are eligible to receive about 100-120, many of which are manpower increasing events - some also targeted directly at your capital. And since the balance of good to bad events has not changed significantly, on average you will still receive more beneficial events)

With scaled random events, more random events are relevant to game play than before. I tend to find this a good thing - you may not. It certainly makes it harder to appreciate the "long view" when you are hit by a large number of bad events in a row and are (for once) forced by circumstances to focus on the present.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by boehm
Speaking of Innovativeness & Stability: I wonder why an uncoorporate philosopher should be GOOD!?!

Getting rid of internal dissenters/rabble rousers/philosophers by imprisonment and/or execution is a time honoured way of maintaining stability. It is usually only when you let them have their way, disturbing the peace with bright new ideas, that stability suffers. There is no way imprisoning a dissenter should, in general, affect stability negatively or add to the BB. Sure, you can find a few named philosophers were that was actually the case, but on balance, silencing them worked much better

 

[unmerged(6788)]

Originally posted by Johan

However, I'm of the opinion that stability at 0 is normal, while +3 is superb calm boom times.

Finally a big true about stab !!!!
1 - How many times in history (EU time) countries where "superb calm"?
2 - And how many times a human player has his nation at +3 stab?

2 is much biiger than 1, IMHO.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Getting rid of internal dissenters/rabble rousers/philosophers by imprisonment and/or execution is a time honoured way of maintaining stability. It is usually only when you let them have their way, disturbing the peace with bright new ideas, that stability suffers. There is no way imprisoning a dissenter should, in general, affect stability negatively or add to the BB. Sure, you can find a few named philosophers were that was actually the case, but on balance, silencing them worked much better

absolutely but shouldnt that just mean a lesser stability hit rather than a stability boost....personally I would love to see the WE & effects of Innovation toned down and replaced with some RE with "intellectuals vs war", "peace is good, war is bad", "uncooporate philosophers", "intelligensia talks of universal human rights" etc. which should basically "force" an innovative nation to behave good "or else" ei. the triggers should be "high innovativess + either "At War=yes" or "high bb".....generally I am very much againth the idea that a free innovative society (ei. something approaching present democracy?) is unable to fight extended wars ....I just believe that such nations are unwilling to fight AGGRESSIVE wars....as long as the cause is seen as just ei. ww2 a democracy is pretty much as determined to slug it out as any nation!

 

[RedPhoenix]

I really like all the new events and all the new changes in 1.06b2, thanks

 

[N Katsyev]

Playing in that same game where Duma was the Ottomans, I was playing Maskva. While yes I have made trade tech 2, I made that only after taking two -300 trade hits for going more free trade in "Foreign Trade Competition Rises", now while this was new for me, I still choose what I did because I thought in the long run it was better for the Great Duchy of Moscow. Aside from that, I got very few events that really caused much pain to speak of. In the game previous playing with the first 1.06b, I got a bunch of pretty good events, and very few of any negative sense. And testing out the second 1.06b patch yesterday morning I got a lovely +1k ducat event. It really boils a lot down to luck, and while I understand what Duma says about events shouldn't dictate the outcome of the game. I also agree that without things like this, as was said, the game would become a game of math. I'm really liking the new events, they add more spice to things, and while it can hurt to get a negative event, its beatuiful to get a good one. Now whether that makes me a masochist or not is up to some medical health professional. Also, I think it would do someone well who is not liking what is going on here to read what Johan said above:

However, I'm of the opinion that stability at 0 is normal, while +3 is superb calm boom times.

Really something to take a thought on. I think in the past we were getting too powerful, too easily, I believe we're heading down the right path, its just taking some through a painful transition to get there. What once was given, now has to be worked for a bit more, hardly a negative change in my opinion. But then my opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one.

 

[unmerged(5206)]

However, I'm of the opinion that stability at 0 is normal, while +3 is superb calm boom times.

I would be of that opinion too, if provinces with unsupportable religions (Pagan, Hindu, Buddist, etc.) were not revolting at 0 stability. By the time a European power attacks India, most cities have tax collectors. So the usual revolt risk in Indian, Chinese, Pagan, Buddist etc. colonial holdings at 0 stab is 4 percent. (+1 religion, +2 cultural differences, +3 tax collector, -2 stability.)

Perhaps if the ability to demolish tax collectors was added, then more players would see 0 stability as usual. As it is now, European powers with 0 stability are going to have a ton of revolts in their true colonial holdings holdings.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Fate
I would be of that opinion too, if provinces with unsupportable religions (Pagan, Hindu, Buddist, etc.) were not revolting at 0 stability. By the time a European power attacks India, most cities have tax collectors. So the usual revolt risk in Indian, Chinese, Pagan, Buddist etc. colonial holdings at 0 stab is 4 percent. (+1 religion, +2 cultural differences, +3 tax collector, -2 stability.)

Perhaps if the ability to demolish tax collectors was added, then more players would see 0 stability as usual. As it is now, European powers with 0 stability are going to have a ton of revolts in their true colonial holdings holdings.

I would hardly have called England's Indian holdings incredibly stable. But yes, I do agree the option to remove tax collectors would be great. As far as Pagans go, if you get any, convert them, as soon as possible, otherwise don't conquer them in the first place. By the time European Powers should really be expanding at the cost of native nations, at the earliest (aside from obvious exceptions) is really around 1700. Before that it was trading posts, and later isolated colonies.