Trade efficiancy nearly useless? Or just embargo everyone..

[Orko80]

Today i noticed that trade efficiency 'only' modifies collected ducats.

Only the end money you get at the nodes you collect. And Embargoing someone who is not your rival or is embargoing you 'only' reduces trade efficiency. It only affects the increase of the money you gain in the node you collect, nothing else.

Yes it's a nice boost to the collection. But Just embargo EVERYONE. And everyone in a node where you have power has reduced power. And i made more ducat's at the node where i collected. Since i pulled more in the desired direction I wanted. And the competitors pulled less in the wrong direction. Also everyone had less power in my home node. Which gives me more of the pie than the increase in income it gives. Even if my income would be lower. Decreasing everyone else's income is enough of an incentive.

Well it depends on the country you play. Or on how many nodes you are competing. So it's not something for every country. Often the bonus to income is better. Especial in the early game. But when the colonies and the Asian trade around the cape come in, it's quite nice to just embargo everyone.
This seems wrong. Trade efficiency should have more impact than being a bonus modifier to the collection amount.

I remember it affecting your trade power.

Well everyone will have a CB against you but the AI using trade dispute seems unlikely.

 

[RobRoy3]

I remember it affecting your trade power.

You recall correctly. It did effect Trade Power.

1.12 implemented a number of undocumented nerfs to trade mechanics. Not sure the game really needed them all, but having to discover them haphazardly gets a bit irritating.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

That is a really clever way to 'abuse' this nerf, good job! Also because maybe this might cause a bit of a rethink on what trade efficiency should do. Make it half as powerful as it used to be, maybe, but having it just affect income is silly. With the way it is now, there's two things doing the exact same thing, trade efficiency and trade income modifier. That can't be the most elegant solution.

 

[Stefanos_P]

I haven't been able to play since CS was released, however if this is the case I would love to know the reason for this change.
What does it achieve?

 

[hashinshin]

Were trade ideas really so OP they needed to be nerfed? I thought it was universally agreed that military > expansion > diplomacy > literally anything else > trade.

 

[Orko80]

It's especial weird since beeing ahead in diplo gives trade efficiency. Which seems very worthless now.

And having extra embargoes reduce efficiency made loads of sense when it did affect trade power. You hindering others trade reducing power mad loads of sense to me. But now it only reducing one modifier to total income seems wrong.

 

[Sandmann]

So this is partly why the Hansa trade power and income got slashed in 1.12, didn't know about this change!

 

[Wizzington]

We're trying to get away from the exponential increases in trade income that result in completely absurd late-game incomes. This was a big part of that.

 

[Sunspawn]

We're trying to get away from the exponential increases in trade income that result in completely absurd late-game incomes. This was a big part of that.

Will the modifier have something else added to it or merged with trade income modifier then? Because as is, it is redundant.

 

[Incompetent]

We're trying to get away from the exponential increases in trade income that result in completely absurd late-game incomes. This was a big part of that.

I don't understand this. Trade power is a zero-sum game, isn't it? So removing the trade power effect of trade efficiency (most of which comes from tech) just means that everyone has less trade power. That may affect the distribution of trade income, but I don't see how it automatically affects the total amount of trade ducats sloshing around. Or do you mean that countries specialised in trade got too much of an advantage over countries not specialised in trade?

 

[ChildeR]

IMO it would make more sense if trade efficiency *only* affected TP.

 

[Wizzington]

I also generally think it's a bad idea to have modifiers affecting multiple things like this. Trade Power modifiers should be what's affecting trade power, not efficiency.

Global Trade Income Modifier will be retired.

 

[Sunspawn]

I also generally think it's a bad idea to have modifiers affecting multiple things like this. Trade Power modifiers should be what's affecting trade power, not efficiency.

Global Trade Income Modifier will be retired.

What will replace it though? There are a ton of NIs that have that modifier.

 

[Wizzington]

Trade Efficiency where it makes sense, otherwise something appropriate for whatever it is.

 

[ChildeR]

Global Trade Income Modifier will be retired.

Wouldn't it make more sense to retire trade efficiency then, since "global trade income" actually tells you what it does?

 

[jockedahl]

Yea, I always thought trade efficiency and trade income modifier sounded like two different definitions of the same modifier. I think removing trade income modifier is a good choice. But I kind of feel there needs to be an idea/policie that modifies the trade power output of light ship fleets by 20% or more. Maybe put it in maritime or as a policy.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Yea, I always thought trade efficiency and trade income modifier sounded like two different definitions of the same modifier. I think removing trade income modifier is a good choice. But I kind of feel there needs to be an idea/policie that modifies the trade power output of light ship fleets by 20% or more. Maybe put it in maritime or as a policy.

I like that idea. Would make Maritime a more valuable idea to take (mostly useless nowadays).

 

[Incompetent]

Wouldn't it make more sense to retire trade efficiency then, since "global trade income" actually tells you what it does?

On a similar note, I hate the name 'production efficiency' as it is currently used. It's nothing of the sort - it has absolutely no effect on how efficiently your provinces crank out goods. The only effect it has is how efficiently you can earn money from producing goods, so it should be called 'production income modifier'.

 

[RobRoy3]

Wouldn't it make more sense to retire trade efficiency then, since "global trade income" actually tells you what it does?

Yeah, then you could also rename "mercantilism" to "trade efficiency", which would also be a more descriptive term for its effect. Odd that game encourages you to maximize a policy that is generally regarded as a bad idea.

 

[Autoclave]

Yeah, then you could also rename "mercantilism" to "trade efficiency", which would also be a more descriptive term for its effect. Odd that game encourages you to maximize a policy that is generally regarded as a bad idea.

Exactly, mercantilism does the exact opposite what it means. It should also be retired. We already have provincial trade power modifier.

Why have mercantilism, when all it does it increases the trade power by double of its amount.
It's time to bring common sense to these things that confuse newer players.