Land trade?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land trade?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Land trade?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land trade? - 10/9/2003 1:45:01 PM

John Umber

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Le Tondu)

Post #: 1

- 10/10/2003 12:46:17 AM

Roads

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Le Tondu] 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. [/QUOTE]

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.

(in reply to Le Tondu)

Post #: 2