Trade Agreement - yet competition continues

[unmerged(10637)]

Hi all,

Question - If I have a trade agreement with a nation, then I should not compete their merchants away, nor lose mine to them - correct?

So, if I have a trade agreement with, England, for example, I would not expect to see 'We have competed for trade in Anglia and England has lost a merchant', correct?

And yet, I do. Repeatedly. And not just in Anglia, but in other CoTs as well. Ditto with France. And Venice.


This is in a grand campaign - as Novogrod - now Russia. Year is around 1610, I've had these trade agreements forever.

Any ideas on why I'm still kicking them out (and presumably being kicked out by them, given how often I need to send merchants back to places around the world.

 

[Warden]

This is normally caused by you having trade agreements with everybody in the COT (And you have to kick out someone to make room for your merchants now don't you. )

 

[Castellon]

TA's are buggy.

 

[unmerged(10637)]

Thanks! - That sort of makes sense. I have trade agreement with as much of the world as I've seen. Except those idiots in Spain, who keep refusing. Ah, well.

 

[Mad King James]

pfft trade agreements? embargo the bastards

 

[unmerged(6729)]

Same things happends to me but they dpnt kick me out, I think.

 

[Shai]

We're never told just who kicked us out, only whom we've kicked out.

If you've ever lost the monopoly in your COT to one you have a trade agreement with, and you still have 5 merchants in that COT, you'll see that you're not allowed to place additional merchants in that COT until someone else kicks that country out of the monopoly seat. Thus, the trade agreement works, to a degree. I think it's never been completely de-bugged and that is why you sometimes kick out those with whom you have agreements.

 

[unmerged(8022)]

That´s happened me many times so now I never sign a trade agreement, but I often refuse the bastards to trade in MINE CoT

 

[Castellon]

A lot of people consider mass TA's as an exploit!

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Castellon
A lot of people consider mass TA's as an exploit!

On the other hand I'm beginning to lean towards considering mass embargoes an exploit as well, seeing the $$$ I'm raking in in my current (WC) game.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


On the other hand I'm beginning to lean towards considering mass embargoes an exploit as well, seeing the $$$ I'm raking in in my current (WC) game.

Just "beginning" to.

 

[Cat Lord]

I don't think mass-TA nor mass-TE are an exploit. Especially when you know that breaking trade agreement afterward cost you stab. And TE gives CB.

It is the natural pace of the game.
In the beginning: TA RoTW;
When you are powerfull enough: TE in your CoT

Switching from one to the other means wars, CB and losses of stab...

What is kind of "Exploit"-ive (but is more a bug in a sense) is that you could TA with nations w/ relationship -200 (even with lot of BB points and a bad monarch, mine was DIP 2 ).

This is not consistent.
Whether they hate you and shouldn't sign a TA.
Or if they sign a TA, your relations should improve w/ time.

EDIT: OTOH, mass-TA are win-win contracts. Sure you don't spend money anymore to send merchants in CoT when you reach 5 or 6, but neither does the AI. So I don't see why it is an exploit.

Cat

 

[Castellon]

Hmm! think about why you do it then.
Is it historical at all.
A DP switch takes 10 years and a stability hit to make a minor change.
Yet you start off nuetral then go to the extreme of having a trade agreement with every nation then the other extreme of refusing trade with everyone.

The TA and embargo were not designed to be used en mass.

I am not saying not to use them if you like, just don't lie to yourself and say it is not an exploit.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Castellon


Just "beginning" to.

I'm not allowed to do exploits as per my WC assignment by Prof. Ebbesen, so I won't see it as an exploit until jan 1820 in current game

 

[unmerged(10355)]

There's the old attitude of, "If it works, it's an exploit. You're supposed to try to lose when you play."

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Quizzical
There's the old attitude of, "If it works, it's an exploit. You're supposed to try to lose when you play."

Or you could see it as, if it works really good, and the AI is to stupid to use it, you are getting advantages over it, a.k.a. handicap (in golf).

Once you are more skilled you will get a lower handicap -> you should stop using things the AI is too stupid to do, one at a time.

When you hit the professional level you should start doing things a bit silly, in a funny way, like not expanding to provinces without your culture(s) or CB-shields, while encouraging major nations to form historically.


This all assumed that you play for a challenge. If you play for relaxation you will likely want to crush the world rather convicingly, in which case you can use any method you find funny.

Just be aware that the other style of play exists, and that it has a following, some of which are more explicit than others.

I prefer the challenge type game, or else I have to restart after about 150 years because I have achieved domination and (near) invicibility. But I accept that my cup of tea needn't suit your taste in coffee, even though we boil our water in the same pot

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Nikolai II




I'm not allowed to do exploits as per my WC assignment by Prof. Ebbesen, so I won't see it as an exploit until jan 1820 in current game

Oh! okay
In that case Me no see, me no hear, and me no go running to Prof. E.

 

[Cat Lord]

Originally posted by Castellon
Hmm! think about why you do it then.
Is it historical at all.

No, but neither is my AAR, it's "hysterical".

A DP switch takes 10 years and a stability hit to make a minor change.
Yet you start off nuetral then go to the extreme of having a trade agreement with every nation then the other extreme of refusing trade with everyone.

The TA and embargo were not designed to be used en mass.

Are you suggesting that the game was lacking more beta test ? Sign me in for CK immediately then !

I am not saying not to use them if you like, just don't lie to yourself and say it is not an exploit.

You miss my point. The big difference with mass-TA is that the AI benefits of it as well. If you don't spend a lot of money to keep your merchants in a CoT, neither does the AI. It is a win-win deal, for you and the AI. So it is why I don't consider it an exploit.

After all, that's the just WTO a few centuries in advance. Now, we could argue that WTO is just a big "capitalist game-style" exploit, but I think this thread will become OT very very quickly, so I won't do it...

Cat

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Cat Lord
The big difference with mass-TA is that the AI benefits of it as well. If you don't spend a lot of money to keep your merchants in a CoT, neither does the AI. It is a win-win deal, for you and the AI. So it is why I don't consider it an exploit.

But you are the only one with a TA with everyone. The AI does not, So they are still competing

 

[Cat Lord]

Originally posted by Castellon
But you are the only one with a TA with everyone. The AI does not, So they are still competing

Is it not something that could be set in the AI file ?

I was under the impression that some AI try to TA with every country they know (Malacca for example), while some other systematically refuse (Spain).

In this case, it is just a difference between play style.

The main difference between a human and the AI, is that the AI scripts and play style are rigid, while the human adapt his own to the situation.

You are just about to say that being human is an exploit. In this case, I think you are right: Being the only human in a simulation run by AI is the biggest exploit of all...

Cat