Matrix Games Forums

The manual states that being at war with a power in control of Egypt will reduce colonial income to 1/2 of full value.

Its actually reducing it to 1/3 of full value.

Is this an undocumented rule change or not working correctly?

Wow. 1/3????
 
I wonder why, since the Suez canal wasn't even in existance then.

Don't mess with the Ottomans-they've got juice.

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Wow. 1/3????

I wonder why, since the Suez canal wasn't even in existance then.

[:D][:D][:D]

Good point.

Maybe they meant being at war with the US because of the Panama Canal. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Surely there were major trade routes converging on Egypt before the canal was dug. Never really looked into this, but perhaps transshipments was a big business in Egypt.

Maestro, I agree with that statement and had been thinking about it. But 1/3? Anyway, I am not too worried about it. Apparently, the French were doing incredibly profitable trade business with the Levant. But in the game unfortunately, Britain is the only place to really send your ships to make any money (other than the Adriatic perhaps). Seems that the coast of Palestine/Syria/Egypt should be worth a little more (a lot more?). Perhaps 50% of what coastal regions of Britain are worth? But I don't know. These numbers are pure speculation.

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
Seems that the coast of Palestine/Syria/Egypt should be worth a little more (a lot more?). Perhaps 50% of what coastal regions of Britain are worth? But I don't know. These numbers are pure speculation.

As one who is a repeat Turkey player, I have wondered about that particular situation. It seems that if the eastern Mediterranean was so important for trade, that there would be some added value in the shipping lanes in that area. Its odd that the reverse is the case.

It is possible to rationalize this in some way-I suppose. I suppose an area could be heavily used traffic wise, but leaves little in the way of income for the area. Reaching....[;)] Perhaps it was a method of balancing the game. The Turkish Navy would have a hard time in dealing with the hords of pirates that would descend on the area.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Surely there were major trade routes converging on Egypt before the canal was dug. Never really looked into this, but perhaps transshipments was a big business in Egypt.

It was. Did a little bit of research into it.

Still the actual effect is different than whats stated in the rules, from what I can tell. Would like some clarification on the actual rule as opposed to what the manual says.

It may be because the "trade" and "merchant" models are not really very realistic. In CoG:EE, merchants don't really buy things in foreign ports, bring them home and sell them at a profit, and they don't have to find shipping companies which compete based on costs. In CoG:EE, nations don't haggle over trading rights or tolls to pass through areas (Denmark used to charge tolls for merchants passing through the sound in the days they controlled both sides of it...interestingly, they charged ships flying different flags vastly different amounts depending on international relations and treaties of course).

Basically, you buy a merchant, and he sits in one sea zone ... and doesn't move. Somehow generating income.

With this the case, if the designers of CoG:EE had made these eastern Mediterranean regions richer, the game might have made the Ottomans stronger than they were historically, because perhaps it was too easy for the Ottomans to build a merchant (or merchants), set them off their shore, and make trade money. However, Britain does this too.

Mind you, I have no problem with this, but I am hoping that as the system evolves, this system can be replaced with something more satisfying to many players perhaps--a kind of "advanced trade" model. Where perhaps you choose an established "trade" and compete for the business to get the goods from point A to point B with any one of a handful of methods and routes. In the 1600s, for instance, the Dutch dominated sea borne trade. After Danish tolls were raised on English ships, the ratio of Dutch ships in the Baltic to English ships was FIFTY TO ONE!!!!

Here is an interesting quote from page 7 of "Command of the Ocean"

"English ship owners who had prospered during the troubled times of the Thirty Years War as neutral shippers with well armed ships, were half ruined by the civil wars, and altogether ruined by the return of general peace in 1648. Dutch ship owners were now free again to deploy their formidable advantages: unarmed, cheaply built ships with small, ill-paid and ill-fed crews which translated into low freight costs, backed by the most sophisticated economy in Europe, with developed banks, insurance and stock markets. Immediately they resumed their former dominance of the European carrying trades. A 1649 treaty gave Dutch ships a discount on the "Sound Tolls", which all shipping entering and leaving the Baltic paid to Denmark. In 1650 there had been 13 Dutch merchantmen in the Baltic for every one English; by the next year the ratio was 50 to 1. A treaty with Spain in 1650 gave the Dutch further advantages, and English ships were rapidly driven out of the Spanish and Mediterranean trades."

I know this is a totally different time period, but this is the kind of stuff CoG:EE lacks in my opinion.

I am not saying that the CoG:EE system needs a complete merchant/trade model which players need to mix themselves into. But, it could use a step or two in this direction.

Actually, I would prefer a hands off system, whereby a government could offer incentives with lower taxes in various industries and attract growth, or the like and get these industries and things to happen on their own. As it is, we manage our economies somewhat like communists.

Getting pretty far afield here,

The point of the thread is the actual effect of the "Egypt colony rule" is different than that stated in the manual and trying to find out if thats a mistake or intentional.

However, on the subject of merchants, I have always viewed the zone they sit in as an abstraction of the place they are bringing their goods to market, so it makes sense you would make better money in more populated/developed areas.

Yes. I was far afield. I don't know what the deal is with the 1/2 vs. 1/3.

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Basically, you buy a merchant, and he sits in one sea zone ... and doesn't move. Somehow generating income.

Come on B2, you gotta work with us here. [:D]

The sea zone is hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles in size. The merchant in that zone means that it is PRIMARILY operating in that zone, considering that all the ports adjacent to that zone are what generates the income for that merchant. To me it's a priority setting. When opportunities seem to be better somewhere else, I move the merchant for more lucrative income. In effect, I'm saying, "OK, now try the Baltic ports."

What you're saying is akin to "An army moves into a province that has an enemy army and somehow a battle begins." Well, not really, but kinda.

Merchants are a gross abstraction designed to add a little flavor to a strategic land warfare game. There are a lot of abstractions in COGEE: the size of the units, the unit costs, supply, maintainence, surrender treaties, trade, the provinces, leader values, the economies (advanced and simple), etcetera ad nauseum.

Sure it's not all that realistic, but for the scale and purpose of the game, it's ok with me.

Now, that said, since you and I apparently like very detailed games, lets model the US economy and make millions selling the product as educational software. Nah, ... the politicians would probably make it illegal. They don't want anybody to understand it, if THEY don't. And they don't. [8|]

BJ. I know CoG:EE merchants are an abstraction. I don't mind playing with them. It really doesn't bug me at all. Games need abstractions to be playable. But I was thinking through the issue about trade in the Levant being non-profitable and asking myself why this was. 
 
I do think that the merchant thing may be a little over abstract though. But that is just me. I would hardly say it is a matter of national importance. [:'(]