There goes that strategy

[stnylan]

It has to be just the CoT in question, and not a global effect. Otherwise there is no way I managed in my Venetian game to acquire this trading empire (NB - National Ideas were Merchant Venturers, Shrewd Commerce, and National Trade Policy):

 

[knul]

It has to be just the CoT in question, and not a global effect. Otherwise there is no way I managed in my Venetian game to acquire this trading empire (NB - National Ideas were Merchant Venturers, Shrewd Commerce, and National Trade Policy):

The penalty applies for owned CoTs, not for CoTs you have merchants in.

 

[Verenti]

But the heading is commentary, so that's not the difference. As the code is the same as for global merchant competitiveness changes (like for badboy or monarch), I assume the non-culture CoT is also global.

In the files there is no evidence that owning a non-culture CoT gives only a local penalty.

I agree that it's odd, I would rather have seen something like local_merchant_compete_chance.

That logic is flawed because there are a couple places where it uses the same command for two different things. Example: "relgion = protestant" is used in both the Papal States event AND the spread of Protestantism. Exactly the same command but the Papal States makes your country Protestant and Spread of Protestantism makes a province Protestant.

The enclosing bracket in EU3 scripting makes a big differience, It adds specificity.

So as BYZ = { capital = 151} Only effects Byzantium,
151 = { culture = greek } only effects PROV151 Thrace
non_culture_cot = {
merchant_compete_chance = 0.15 #Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15%
}
Only effects Non culture CoT

 

[Havard]

But the heading is commentary, so that's not the difference.

The heading is commentary, yes, but it means something. All the modifiers listed there are used on provinces.

 

[knul]

That logic is flawed because there are a couple places where it uses the same command for two different things. Example: "relgion = protestant" is used in both the Papal States event AND the spread of Protestantism. Exactly the same command but the Papal States makes your country Protestant and spread of Protestantism makes a province Protestant.

Of course a command can do different things in different contexts, but the context for the CoT penalty and for example badboy penalty on merchants competition is the same in the files. There is no code around those instances that differentiate one from the other.

Perhaps someone should experiment a bit to see wether the penalty is for a CoT only or empire wide.

 

[knul]

The heading is commentary, yes, but it means something. All the modifiers listed there are used on provinces.

I agree with you that the penalty probably is intended to be for one CoT only instead of all in the nation. Would make more sense, would be more balanced and better for gameplay. But as I said, I don't see it in the code.

 

[HawaiiFive-O]

I think it's the comment on the code that is the main cause of confusion.

Without it, there's no doubt in my mind that Havard's/Verenti's take on it is correct. But that comment doesn't read that way, to me at least. Admittedly, I just woke up and may not be thinking clearly.

 

[Golwar]

Did anyone check what bonus the ownership of CoTs bring ? I still wonder what the meaning of the reduced ability to compete is anyways.
If the bonus should also be 15% that would finally make sense. You just get no bonus till the culture of the CoT really is part of your nation, after the assimilation you gain full profit.

 

[SharpAlignment]

Did anyone else consider that the comment "#Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15%" actually means it reduces your chance of failure?

If you look at the comparison between Non_Culture_cot and the National Idea Shrewd Commerce you will notice that they both give a positive modifier. The National Idea Shrewd Commerce is a bonus that HELPS you compete. If this is the case, then any positive modifier will likely help you compete.

non_culture_cot = {
	merchant_compete_chance = 0.15		#Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15%
}

And now look at the National Idea Shrewd Commerce Practice:

shrewd_commerce_practise = {
	merchant_compete_chance = 0.1
}

In my opinion, this makes more sense. If you own CoTs from multiple cultures, you have more varied goods available to trade in all CoTs, and thus you receive a bonus to compete against other merchants in all CoTs.

 

[knul]

*slaps forehead for being stupid*

You know SharpAlignment, I completely overlooked that. I think you're right that non-culture CoTs actually give a bonus, as the number isn't negative. Wouldn't make sense either, however. I think they wanted to penalize conquest by limiting your trade, while this is an incentive to go Cot-hunting a la EU2.

 

[HawaiiFive-O]

Did anyone else consider that the comment "#Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15%" actually means it reduces your chance of failure?

If you look at the comparison between Non_Culture_cot and the National Idea Shrewd Commerce you will notice that they both give a positive modifier. The National Idea Shrewd Commerce is a bonus that HELPS you compete. If this is the case, then any positive modifier will likely help you compete.

non_culture_cot = {
	merchant_compete_chance = 0.15		#Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15%
}

And now look at the National Idea Shrewd Commerce Practice:

shrewd_commerce_practise = {
	merchant_compete_chance = 0.1
}

In my opinion, this makes more sense. If you own CoTs from multiple cultures, you have more varied goods available to trade in all CoTs, and thus you receive a bonus to compete against other merchants in all CoTs.

Dude, you're blowing my mind.

So a bonus, then? Then the comment on the code really doesn't make sense.

 

[Havard]

Then the comment on the code really doesn't make sense.

Actually, the comment is correct. It is the rest that is wrong.

Suffice to say, this is not how the code looks in my beta version...

 

[HawaiiFive-O]

Actually, the comment is correct. It is the rest that is wrong.

Suffice to say, this is not how the code looks in my beta version...

Heh. The plot thickens.

OK, since you have more access to information than I, I will go with 'It works (or will work as soon as it is patched) as Havard describes- penalty for that province only'.

 

[DVolk]

Its strange.

non_culture_cot = { merchant_compete_chance = 0.15 #Each non-culture CoT controlled reduces compete chance by 15% }

trade_efficiency = {
merchant_placement_chance = 0.5 #0.5 for each 1% of TE
merchant_compete_chance = 0.5 #0.5 for each 1% of TE

I think, trade efficiency will enlarge you compete chance, but not reduce it. So, becouse the non-culture CoT have same command, it will also enlarge chance. And this is just an error in comment (or developers just forgot write a minus sign... ).

 

[SharpAlignment]

Historically, it makes more sense to get a bonus. Each center of trade you control would strengthen your ability to trade with other CoTs as you would have a more diverse supply of goods and more markets to sell those goods in.

On the other hand, for a multi-player game you want to create an incentive to not take CoTs, I assume, because of balance. I would assume that CoTs would be hotly contested. I never played multi-player in any Paradox titles, so I am not sure why this is such a major issue that Paradox would consider making non-culture CoTs give trade negatives.