Painfully arranged trades (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

Naomi -> Painfully arranged trades (7/15/2005 1:03:42 AM)

Those who dispense with your trade advisor and make trade proposals themselves (I am one of them) may find it a cumbersome job, especially when you are going to propose scores of trade routes or when you are going to add a couple to the existing scores of trades.
First, you have to scroll across all origin and destination cities the proposed trade is intended to take place between. (Why not categorise the cities under the countries, so you can choose the country before selecting the city?)
Second, you have to click (sometimes in tens' times) the arrows to choose the exact amounts of resources. (Is there any way to type in the exact quantity instead? So far, I haven't found it.)
Third, is it possible for a better system in place to keep me informed about a city's existing trade(s) so that I will worry about its insufficient stockpile for more trades. (Although the existing "Review Trade" function goes some way to it, it is not a convenient way of cross-checking, and the arranged trades will reset whenever you click to "review" the ongoing trades.)



jchastain -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (7/15/2005 2:36:48 AM)

With regards to trade, what are people's experiences with the Set Policy screen? I've never paid close attention, but it seems to me that I keep getting offers that are not in line with what I said I am interested in. If an offer doesn't have at least 50% of the content in line with my stated objectives in the Set Policy screen, then I'd prefer to not even see it. My impression is that I am getting a lot of offers that aren't even in the ballpark of what I said I wanted. Anyone else noticing the same thing? Anyway to put a check box on that screen to select auto-rejecting anything that's not even close?



Ralegh -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (7/15/2005 3:35:02 AM)

I agree with the suggested enhancements - the screen is a bit laborious.

I normally play with the trade adviser turned ON and limited set of instructions on the set policy screen - thats the stuff he should try to set up for me automatically. (you know - spend money and luxeries to get wine and textiles). Then I make lots of manual offers for trade routes.



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (7/15/2005 11:16:43 PM)

Just would like to add that, setting the map to show trade routes, you will encounter a great lag for scrolling. Anyone similarly tortured?



Malagant -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (7/15/2005 11:17:28 PM)

Yes, I have to scroll to where I want to check, then turn it on. The animation really kills the computer. [:(]



DS Kee -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/25/2005 3:43:53 AM)

I found this thread through the search engine, so please forgive me if I missed the answer elsewhere.

I've set my policy screen so that Exporting Money is turned off, and have been allowing my Trade Advisor to handle the mercantile trivia while I study the supply/forage and movement portion of the game. When I review my trades, it seems that I'm buying every available commodity in Europe. Money is flowing freely from my treasury to the rest of the continent.

Did I misread something? I'm playing Britain, Normal/Normal, if it makes any difference.

Thanks,
Terry



Diagoras -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/25/2005 3:51:49 AM)

Setting trade policy doesn't work for me, either. It doesn't matter if I trade manually or through the advisor proxy, I still end up with unwanted (sending textiles for money, etc) trades/offers.



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/25/2005 12:16:49 PM)

The trade advisor is as yet unreliable. Try and make your economy self-sufficient and self-reliant if the tortuous process of making deals is anathema to you.



cato13 -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/25/2005 8:18:23 PM)

its been officialy recognised as a bug. i reported it a while back as it really does slow the game to a crawl. it was supposed to have been fixed but its still broke!!



DS Kee -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 2:40:35 AM)

My trade advisor has been reassigned to duties more in line with his abilities. His new commander reports that he is doing a fine job of keeping the cavalry stalls clean and stocked :[:D]

Terry



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 11:32:32 AM)

We may seem to have missed on one thing - the trade advisor, or any of his colleagues, is just up to his "advisory" job and not sure to be qualified as a decision maker, so we can't hold him accountable for his ill-conceived deal-making decisions or insensible management of our trade affairs which should be a secretary's or a minister's duty. However, we have yet to form a cabinet.



PDiFolco -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 12:58:03 PM)

Well, I hate the trade screen...
Nations in the 1800s were not loosely organized provinces bartering with one another, but nations trading stuff for money [:'(] !

So I'd suggest to totally rethink the trade system( no less !), with some simple principles in mind :
* Trades should target nations resource pools, not stuff at individual provinces (ie you would trade with England, not Cornwall or whatever)
* All trades could be made either stuff vs stuff (located in one of your province) or stuff vs gold (nation pool) - currently you can't buy stuff for say 10 gold if you have no province producing alone more than 10 (after previous trades..), it's ridiculous.
* Routes for trades involving pool should start/end in the capitol (so keeping/taking them will be even more important).

Won't this (or something comparable, I don't claim to have the best ideas) be much more simple and satisfying ?

(edited for typos)



nachinus -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 3:45:25 PM)

Aaah, very wise suggestions, PDiFolco.

I'd also wish that the trades were managed at a 'State' level rather than at 'province level'.

Currently trade is, IMHO, one of the few lacking points (gameplay wise) of this otherwise great game.



TexHorns -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 4:35:42 PM)

As I stated in a post titled complaints about advisors, I don't think Napoleon, Wellington or other supreme comanders concerned themselves with their nations trade with other countries. That was left to a trade minister (read advisor for game purposes). What I would like to see is for advisors to have ratings (like diplomats do) and for advisors to be replaceable. Say for instance advisors are rated better as importers or exporters, or rated for organization, deal brokering, better at acquiring agriculture products vs acquiring manufactured goods, etc. Then have the ability to replace inefficiant advisors with an advisor that better suits your needs. I don't think micromanaging trade fits with the "playing as Napoleon" grand strategy view of the game.

BTW I agree with the idea of national trade vs provincial trade. I like tracing all trades from the capital to increase capital importance and thus the need to protect it all costs. AI should keep a home army to stay between the enemy and the capital. Should be more difficult to move through enemy territory. But that's another post.[;)]



PDiFolco -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/27/2005 7:19:37 PM)

Texhorns,
I agree with you on the "out-of-place" feeling with the current trading mm. But I'm wary with "advisors" (read : IA..) .. Surely Nappy didn't manage the trading himself, but he *was* concerned about having a proper income of the goods needed for his armies ...So my suggestions to have a simpler, more practical trade system focusing on needed goods and not the specifics of barteruing, where do the stuff come and go etc..

And the supply-line problems is a much bigger issue IMHO - see the other thread [;)]



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/28/2005 3:12:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

As I stated in a post titled complaints about advisors, I don't think Napoleon, Wellington or other supreme comanders concerned themselves with their nations trade with other countries. That was left to a trade minister (read advisor for game purposes). What I would like to see is for advisors to have ratings (like diplomats do) and for advisors to be replaceable. Say for instance advisors are rated better as importers or exporters, or rated for organization, deal brokering, better at acquiring agriculture products vs acquiring manufactured goods, etc. Then have the ability to replace inefficiant advisors with an advisor that better suits your needs. I don't think micromanaging trade fits with the "playing as Napoleon" grand strategy view of the game.


It smells of HOI2. [:'(]



TexHorns -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/28/2005 4:42:40 AM)

Actually Naomi I never got past HOI 1, but you are right. HOI did give ratings to advisors and allow you to replace them. HOI was flawed in many ways, but I liked that aspect. I have grown tired of the RTS games of micro managing. Give me advisors to supervise and can them if they fail to produce. Just my personal preference.

I think that COG will play too long without delegating to others the details. I am a delegator at heart. Let me stroke with the broad brush and leave the details to others.[:'(]



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/28/2005 4:53:38 AM)

EIA, too, is able to abstract such hassles for you. May I ask if a launch of it is being seriously scheduled? [sm=00000959.gif]



TexHorns -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/28/2005 5:08:12 AM)

I have EIA board game, but have never played vs an opponent. I have only set it up and run through some turns to learn the mechanics. Will be interested in seeing the computerized version.

The advantage of the COG development team is that they did not have as opinionated a core community whom they had to deal with. There are so many people who have played EIA for gobs of years that think their opinion of how the computerized game should be is the only way. Those guys developing that game don't stand a chance of producing a game that will be widely accepted. No matter what decisions they make there will be a large outcry from somewhere how they are ruining the original intent of the board game. It's too bad because the concept of computerizing that game is so appealing to so many.

It is why COG fits so nicely. Sure they had Napoleonic experts nit picking details. But the game mechanics themselves being mostly an original design, or at least not based on one of the most popular board war games ever, was not so much the target of the critics. And is COG filling the void at the moment or what?



Naomi -> RE: Painfully arranged trades (10/28/2005 5:16:44 AM)

I appreciate your spokesmanship. ^o^



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875