Best Trade Tactics

[Pippin]

I thought I'd open up another thread on game tactics since the last one seems to have got a lot of attention. So how about the trade issues? I know a few people claim it is bad for Britain to trade with others and that it only results in helping the other players, which then will end up competing against you for the win at the end. Im not so sure I agree with that, as you must HELP your allies sometimes, even though I know Im most likely going to fight them another day.

[Wellington12347]

The idea that Britain should not trade with any other powers (and therefore, presumably, should trade only with minor neutrals) is not valid.

For any given country, the money that country dervies from trade with GB will be at least as much, and usually higher, than that which GB dervies. On the whole, GB's ultimate goal is to make everyone else loose (as is every country's goal) and thus it might seem that, on the aggregate, GB's "enemies" are benefitted more than GB. However, over the discrete intervals in which trade occurs GB is aligned with and against certain countries. Some of those countries will be aligned against each other. The money GB dervies from trade wil be to her benefit (if used wisely). However, the money derived by other countries will not always (in fact, rarely) be used "against" GB but rather against other countries and often in pursuance of GB's objectives.

The key for GB is to use administer its trade policies wisely. GB must consider the ramifications for both the short and long term. However the long term view should not be perverted such that GB sees every country as an "enemy" and refuses to trade with them.

This is of course just a subset of the all-important, diplomatic nature of the game. Every country is every other country's long term enemy. Obviously however, all the countries do not just march their armies to the center of the map in the first few turns and duke it out in one huge battle. Over discrete intervals countries work together, hoping that in the bargain they derive more than their "enemy."

Jason

[YohanTM2]

trade is a tool of Diplomacy - end statement

[Le Tondu]

trade is a tool of Diplomacy - end statement

Doesn't a player want to trade with his allies and maybe not trade with his enemies?

[Wellington12347]

There are basically three types of trade in the Game.

1) Colonial Trade. This is essentially a $30 bonus GB receives every economic phase. It could be reduced to $15 if GB brings a war with the U.S. by interferring with the trade the U.S. conducts with other powers.

2) American Trade. GB is not involved in this since it is accounted for in Colonial Trade. Each power receives extra "trade" each economic phase based on its largest port. There is no reason for a power not to engage in this unless prohibited by a peace condition. GB can "take" the trade from a given power, but the more trade "taken," the greater the likelihood of a war with America.

3) The trade GB conducts with other powers. Both GB and the power(s) she trades with receive money, though typically the latter will receive more. Obviously however GB stands to receive more money in aggregate since she can trade will all countries (including minors), whereas each country can only trade with GB (and America as listed in #2). Countries cannot trade with each other. The issue fo reach country is whether they wish to trade with GB and she with them. And Yes, GB would trade with her allies and not her enemies. A country would only trade with GB if she were an allie. The question posed by the original post was whether, given that all countries are inevitably long-term "enemies" for victory purposes, why should GB trade with them at all. This was the point addresed by me in my earlier post.

Note also that an "allie" could be a formal allie as defined in the game (countries make alliances) or simply a country another country is alligned with, even if the formal alliance does not exist.

Jason

[Le Tondu]

.............Countries cannot trade with each other. The issue fo reach country is whether they wish to trade with GB and she with them.................

Jason

England is the only nation that can trade? What a joke. :rolleyes:

What happens if England's Navy gets defeated and some other nation(s) have undisputed control of the seas? From what I've read, this happens. Does nobody trade??

This looks to me like a compromise just to keep a boardgame from becoming too complicated to play. I would agree with it for a boardgame, but NOT for a computer game. Computers are supposed to be real good at keeping track of things. Its their forte.

I certainly hope that this gets fixed. Maybe it did with EiH and will show up with those upgrades?? Can anyone say? Bart? Many thanks.

[YohanTM2]

Doesn't a player want to trade with his allies and maybe not trade with his enemies?

What part of taht is not Diplomacy? I figure this for the "carrot" part with the fleets being the "stick"

[YohanTM2]

England is the only nation that can trade? What a joke. :rolleyes:

What happens if England's Navy gets defeated and some other nation(s) have undisputed control of the seas? From what I've read, this happens. Does nobody trade??

This looks to me like a compromise just to keep a boardgame from becoming too complicated to play. I would agree with it for a boardgame, but NOT for a computer game. Computers are supposed to be real good at keeping track of things. Its their forte.

I certainly hope that this gets fixed. Maybe it did with EiH and will show up with those upgrades?? Can anyone say? Bart? Many thanks.

Umm, silly me but perhaps you could suggest to me what other major power has the commerce capability to mount International trade efforts? Pretty straight forward...none.

So unless you want to build in an option where other majors can spend a big chunk of their economy to expand their merchant fleets beyond what is already assumed in the model it won't work. (boardgame or not)

[Wellington12347]

There are two things that must be considered with aspects of this game:

1) Realism. Is there something in the game because it reflects real life? As the previous poster noted, GB was the only major country at the time capable of carrying out massive oversees trade with other powers.

2) Play Balance. All these rules and aspects are like a taspetry. If you begin changing rules or creating options because you feel that is more "realistic," you risk upsetting the balance of the game. You'd need some "multi-variable" play-testing technique to determine what effect all these changes would have on the play of the game.

If that makes the game staid or some stodgy old board game then I for one can live with it.

[pfnognoff]

England is the only nation that can trade? What a joke. :rolleyes:

What happens if England's Navy gets defeated and some other nation(s) have undisputed control of the seas? From what I've read, this happens. Does nobody trade??

This looks to me like a compromise just to keep a boardgame from becoming too complicated to play. I would agree with it for a boardgame, but NOT for a computer game. Computers are supposed to be real good at keeping track of things. Its their forte.

I certainly hope that this gets fixed. Maybe it did with EiH and will show up with those upgrades?? Can anyone say? Bart? Many thanks.

There isn't anything that needs fixing here.

Everybody trades, housewives go to the market in all of the seven countries represented in the game.
The thing reffered to as Trade in the game is just an approximation of the struggle between France and England for dominance over the seas.
It's sometimes a tool in diplomacy, other times its money England is investing in French downfall...
Trade in EiA isn't trade in real life it's just a piece of the puzzle that makes the great game work.

[Le Tondu]

Umm, silly me but perhaps you could suggest to me what other major power has the commerce capability to mount International trade efforts? Pretty straight forward...none.

So unless you want to build in an option where other majors can spend a big chunk of their economy to expand their merchant fleets beyond what is already assumed in the model it won't work. (boardgame or not)

Was this game designed by an anglophile or what?

For one Yohan, France certainly made serious efforts to begin in that realm, but was stopped by the English Navy. If The United States of America wasn't such a threat, then why did it's merchantmen have such attention paid to them? My point is that without the English Navy, any seafaring nation can develope this ability on the sea -if it chose to. We've already seen evidence here on this board that the English Navy can be defeated in this game. It must model this eventuality, should it happen.

What it all amounts to is a perfect analogy:

Consider some childish bully on some hypothetical street who doesn't let anyone mow their lawn because he is the only one with a lawn mower and he wants to hoard all the lawn mowing business for himself. The sticker here is that he will beat to a pulp anyone who tries to buy a lawn mower and then take their lawn mower away.

Now you tell me Yohan, who is going to go and buy a lawn mower on that hypothetical street??

This bully has a complete tyrannical advantage over everyone! (Just like England had back then, I might add.)

Consider what would happen when everyone on that hypothetical street banned together, took charge and rangs this bully's bell - thereby eliminating his control??? Folks will start buying lawn mowers and free enterprise will thrive. That is what will happen.

It will be the same in this game if all nations were allowed to trade.

BTW, it doesn't matter which nation in this game is the bully.

On another point, do you guys mean to tell me that France didn't trade with it's continental neighbors and vice-a-versa?? That is ludicrous in the extreme. The oceans were not the only place where trade was developed and maintained -and it is a BIG mistake to only model merchant fleets when considering trade. Counters don't even need to be made to model land trade, just tracked internally with the results displayed in the right place. Wars will interrupt and slow it for sure.

It is NOT a mistake for the boardgame to have an incomplete trade model. There can be just too much to keep track of. It IS however, a mistake for the computer game to not model complete trade irregardless of it's impact on the game. Imagine that, trade wars to an extent can take place instead of real war. Wait a minute here, that did happen back then.

A straight port of EiA is a total mistake if that is where the game ends up, IMO. With computers, we can achieve what no boardgame can - a reasonable semblence of reality.

I have said all along that I didn't care how long it took for this game to come out just as long as it was done right. I can accept having the game come out before it is entirely finished. Updates and patches can accomplish much. Greatness is what the potential is.

Everyone, I am sure can agree that realism is important. The lack of it in any area hurts the game, IMHO.

[Le Tondu]

There isn't anything that needs fixing here.

Everybody trades, housewives go to the market in all of the seven countries represented in the game.
The thing reffered to as Trade in the game is just an approximation of the struggle between France and England for dominance over the seas.
It's sometimes a tool in diplomacy, other times its money England is investing in French downfall...
Trade in EiA isn't trade in real life it's just a piece of the puzzle that makes the great game work.

Thanks pfnognoff,
The crux of this game is that it isn't really about just France and England and their struggle. Heck, Spain or the Ottoman Empire can win the game. I'm for making the game less limited than the original because of the computer's inherent abilities. I bet all would find the game far more interesting and fun.

[pfnognoff]

Thanks pfnognoff,
The crux of this game is that it isn't really about just France and England and their struggle. Heck, Spain or the Ottoman Empire can win the game. I'm for making the game less limited than the original because of the computer's inherent abilities. I bet all would find the game far more interesting and fun.

It sure isn't just about England and France (my favourites are Austria and Ottoman), what I said is to explain the idea behind original trade concept.

There is in EiH an option called Continental trade, that simulates French efforts to counter English dominance. I'm not sure if it will make into the Matrix version. Bart?

[Wellington12347]

The internal trade between powers that did not occur on the high seas is abstracted in the game. Insofar as a wars could disrupt that, I'm sure a computer could make up for a boardgame's inability to properly model it. This I assume would make the game more realistic. The game could even be "better" if playtested to insure that these changes didn't impact play balance.

The issue of limited resources notwithstanding (even if Matrix dedicated its entire staff to this project for the next decade I doubt all the changes could be made), where does this quest for realism stop? Are we going to model the housewives trading? Will every citizen and resource of every nation be modeled? Will every nation have to have a host of players, one respresenting the ruler, another the foreign minister, etc.?

Part of the reason for abstracting things in a game (computer or board) is to make it playable. A full ten year stretch of EiA takes quite an amount of time. I assume EiH must take even longer. How long is a game going to take if there are twice as many things going on and that many more things for a player to keep track of?

Jason

[Le Tondu]

.............where does this quest for realism stop? Are we going to model the housewives trading? Will every citizen and resource of every nation be modeled? Will every nation have to have a host of players, one respresenting the ruler, another the foreign minister, etc.?

Part of the reason for abstracting things in a game (computer or board) is to make it playable. A full ten year stretch of EiA takes quite an amount of time. I assume EiH must take even longer. How long is a game going to take if there are twice as many things going on and that many more things for a player to keep track of?
Jason

Well my dear Jason, that is simply ridiculous. True, we can drown in detail, but that isn't necessary.

I ask again, what happens if England is defeated by the other nations in this game? According to the original designers of this game, trade stops. I say that land trade can be abstracted as well which would make the game just as playable. The game right now causes all nations to eat out of the hand of England. It didn't happen that way back then and it shouldn't be modelled in computer EiA as well.

[John Umber]

I think land trade is considered in the income of the provinces...

I would like to see this game soon. Could we try to leave these aspects of trade to a patch if possible?
I agree with the general term that realism should be working here. But we are talking about 15 years. There is no possible way anyone can build the trade fleet we are talking about here. Defeat GB in two-three years and then put ALL your mony into merchants ships? Consider the price for a ship of the line. To trade you must negotiate with the other side, while the brittish merchants are doing their best trying to stop you. I think the time frame of this game eliminates this option entirely. You would need to build hundreds of ships every year...

Also I don't know how this trade was exactly modelled in the game. Considering land trade during times of war...

More questions in realism would be the setup of corps?
Why should it not be possible to create "french" corps by the spanish? Some technology development and here we go!
That could be within the game's time frame.

Thank you for your time.

[Roads]

I say that land trade can be abstracted as well which would make the game just as playable. The game right now causes all nations to eat out of the hand of England.

I could just as well argue it's the other way around - the game forces Britain to go cap in hand to ensure that he can get trade. He's always at the mercy of the other players for a large chunk of his income - this it true of no other country.

Everyone talks about how Britain has lots of cash. But without the income from trade Britain is not so much cash-rich as manpower-poor. Now in most games he'll be able to trade with most countrys and as a result his income will be very good. But it is always vulnerable if people decide to gang up.

For Britain this is unlikely, and therefor the vulnerability is more theoretical than real. Try to model land trade, which would put France in the same boat of having to ensure the ability to trade with the other countries and it's a whole different story. Neutrals will have a nice way to really hurt France, and France will be extremely vulnerable. (Ulike Britain, he cannot win the game without winning lots of wars and as a result everyone will be afraid of France).

Maybe this land trade thing appeals to those who think France is overpowered. I think that French diplomacy is already hard enough, and giving everyone else a big stick with which to beat France is a bad idea.

[Wellington12347]

Take a country, say Prussia. Subtract the minimal amount of her national income attributable to trade (remember, this is not the amount Prussia dervies from trade but rather the amount of tax-on-trade she allocates to her military). Make this "land trade" amount subject to external factors such as decreasing the fraction she receives from France when at war w/ France. Now increase her national income by a small fraction to reflect increased military production during time of war. Have the computer model all this. Consider that these are all rough estimates based on poor data from the early 19th century. I would imagine that the NET effects of wars and trade decisions on the actual resources available for military purposes, would be negligible. These negligible effects are far less than the overall error from having to estimate all these things.

But I'm sure everyone would be happier because the effects would be realistically modeled.

Jason

[shane]

Could it be that Tondu's point is being missed?

If trade through Britain is reasonably interrupted, because they've lost Dominance, etc, then it would be nice to have a game system that could adapt to this changed/unusual circumstance by allowing other players/countries to fill the void. Another seafaring nation might replace John Bull if he becomes a disabled King Rat. The comuter should model these various opportunities (not merely the trade issue).
The biggest objection as far as I can see is that the game's frame is only 10 years, which means that even if Britain's knocked out in 1805, by 1815 the process would be just beginning to swing. Another point: if the America's were included somewhere down the line, this whole idea would be a whole lot deeper...

[Chiteng]

In the time before railroads, the ability to move material was severely limited.
What you are calling 'land trade' simply isnt comparable with the volume of the sea trade.

My own opinion is that ANYTHING that hurts England is good, no matter how much it hurts you also.

You may find the 'contemptible little army' very hard to deal with, should
they decide to land anywhere near you. Dont help him.