Trade Agreement - yet competition continues

[Castellon]

TA's are buggy.

 

[Castellon]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Castellon]

Like I said I am not telling you not to do it. Just that I consider it an exploit. If you do not, and want to try and justify it to yourself go ahead and do that as well. I will not change your mind for you!
I am not sitting on a high horse declaring you cannot use exploits, I use them myself when I consider it more fun to do so. But I am honest with myself.
Most of the time.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Daniel A


Castellon!

The "historical argument" is is one of the least attractive theoretical foundations for claiming something is an exploit. This game is full of antihistorical dimensions. If you claim that anything not historical is an exploit I believe the concept of exploit looses its meaning.

You know where there is land - to send explorers/conquistadors to those place where you know they will find something worthful is clearly unhistorical.

To invest in infra to get Steampower in the 17th century is unhistorical.

To have armies of 100.000 in the 16th century, or even in the 17th century (don't think they existed before the War of the Spanish Succession) is not historical.

I could keep on giving 100's of examples, as could you.

I also believe there are exploits in this game but do not prefer to base them on the theoretical foundation that they are unhistorical. Were I not allowed to play unhistorically I would have to play exactly as my country behaved in reality and that would indeed be a dull game! The main criterion I have found reasonable so far is

1. It is an exploit if you intentionally use a current bug which works in your favour and which you conveniently could avoid

I think I would make a distinction between Historical rules/tactics/general principles, and Historical outcomes.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Eddie Teach
I think it is a bit exploitive to TA everybody if that allows you a quarter of the world's trade without effort. I tend to just TA COT owners and depend on having a better trade rating to keep my merchants. Before someone claims this is also an exploit, let me point out that some AI countries pursue this strategy too(notably Novgorod). One shouldn't be able to control 1/4 of the known world's trade unless he's either enormous or has really clever traders.

No exploit as far as I am concerned, sounds like a reasonable approach.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Eddie Teach
That's a good idea. Mercantilist nations can be allowed to embargo more, and free trade nations to make more agreements.

Yes this sounds like a good solution to the problem.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Cat Lord
I did not find them in the list of known bug on the bug forum...

Cat

I assume Bugzilla has a few more than the public bug list.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Eddie Teach
This is a much more conservative definition of an exploit than Bib normally uses, but I digress.

It was not BiB's Definition, BiB was using Daniel A's Definition.

I don't know that Trade Agreements are bugged, or if so, how they are bugged and whether that benefits the player. I don't believe they are always a win/win situation.

If you simply TA Novgorod and France the three of you can easily sit and take up all the available slots and fight off the little guys, providing benefits to both parties.

If you TA everybody and their dog, that is not the case. Many countries will not have any trade presence at all, and the ones that do are still competing against each other. This makes it easier for the human player, but doesn't affect the AI players much.

We are discussing the second part though!

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Eddie Teach
What do you mean by 2d part? There were several statements there that had two or more parts, and there was not a single thesis for my thread.

There was an argument earlier that trade agreements were a win/win situation. I figure that that is still apropos in a discussion of whether the tactic is an exploit, even if it does not deal directly with the issue of the bug in game mechanics.

What we were discussing was about TAs with every nation. Not just a few TAs.

 

[Castellon]

Unfortuanately once again you misunderstand what I am saying.

It would be very unhappy if it became a general attitude that anything unhistorical (except the outcome) would be to exploit the game; for the simple reason that it would remove much of the joy in the game

As for this part why do you care!
Just because I think something is an exploit it does not stop you from using it and thinking what ever you like about wether it is an exploit. For that matter it does not stop me using it even if I consider it an exploit.

 

[Castellon]

I don't speak for BiB, So I will just give you my reasons why I consider mass TA's an exploit.
The AI does not do it and is not capable of doing it. Why because the game designers never anticipated anyone TAing every nation. Players being what they are this was a serious oversite. This game design flaw can be overcome in serveral ways and should be fixed, the best way IMO would be to instruct the AI not to accept or offer TA's to any nation that had more than 5 or 6.
I think this situation is very simmilar to the loan sharking that happened before they fixed it somewhat. But if you think Mass TAs are not an expolit you probably think Loan sharking is not either. So I would say TAs are bugged because there is no limit to the number you can have and there should be for game balance issues. Before you say game balance is not a bug, let me tell you it has it's own catagory in bugzilla!

I really do not understand why this is such a big deal to you Daniel. Why do you care if someone else thinks it is an expolit or not. That only becomes an issue if you are going to play MP with them and are agreeing on house rules. I think it is an exploit, This is not one I use, but I do use some things I consider exploits, like all calvery armies. I do not care that anyone thinks it is an exploit, hell I agree with them, it still does not stop me from using it.