View Full Version : Trade Embargos


FriskyBuddha
Apr 30, 2007, 07:44 AM
Shouldn't we be able to charge nations if they go through us to trade?

It would make putting cities in strategic locations more important

Alsark
Apr 30, 2007, 09:08 AM
I guess that would be a possibility, although that would just mean that people would trade within their nation more often, which would mean an increase in mercantilism. Mercantilism, in turn, would probably place an embargo on everybody (since there are no foreign trade routes), and, as a result, nobody could get through anybody to trade and you'd be forced only to trade amongst your own cities for the whole game. Basically a huge problem would be is that if you need to trade past Tokugawa... you basically can't, because he always has mercantilism, which would likely mean, by your new system, that your merchants wouldn't be able to go through his lands at all (or for a very high fee).

Besides, it would just give another way for the AI to have more negative modifiers with you without having the same negative modifiers for the other AI. "We demand you stop allowing Montezuma's merchants to travel through your land!," and if you say no, you get a negative modifier with the AI who asked, and if you say yes, you'll have a negative modifier with Montezuma. Not to mention, placing an embargo would also likely decrease relationships, and the AI probably wouldn't place embargos on other AI - just you. Why? Because that is how the game works. The game only has AI demand tribute from you - not from other AI, so it would likely work the same way here.

FriskyBuddha
Apr 30, 2007, 03:53 PM
maybe it would be better if the AI were more demanding on each other

Ceritoglu
Apr 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
Wouldn't this involve introducing a fairly complex duties system, in exchange for minimal/no improvement to gameplay?

I think this is probably why the game has an extremely simplistic approach to taxation, in general. Indeed, taxation was the driving force behind the development of democratic systems across Europe. If the player has to justify his decisions to an AI Parliament or have aspects of his game controlled by them, he's bound to get angry (as many monarchs did) and unhappy with having to actually carry out the balancing act many monarchs were burdened with.

Generally, such things are interesting and historically relevant - but undesirable gameplay-wise.

Alsark
Apr 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
Yep, it would be... not to mention more fair. I don't know why the AI doesn't make such demands from each other, but they really should add that...

bardolph
Apr 30, 2007, 07:08 PM
You can demand a per-turn fee in exchange for an open borders agreement. There's no guarantee that they will accept your offer, though...

Alsark
Apr 30, 2007, 09:14 PM
You can demand a per-turn fee in exchange for an open borders agreement. There's no guarantee that they will accept your offer, though...


Good point. I actually have never gotten an AI to accept an open border agreement where they give money in addition to the agreement - the same with a defensive pact. It seems that the AI feels that the deal is in every way "even", and, as a result, the AI feels that they don't need to add anything else to the deal, and will thus refuse when you try. I haven't tried a whole lot, but whenever I do ask for money in addition to the treaty (even a little), it never seems to work.