Steinhauzer
03-02-2018, 10:24 PM
I think that trade has lost a lot of its meaning in later Anno games, especially since 2070. Back in 1602, I recall trading manually with my ships frequently as one of the pillars of my economy. This was possible largely because the AI usually had a ton of money (probably from cheating), well-developed cities and lacking goods production. This created openings where if you quickly developed production of a valuable and essential product like liquor, tobacco or spices, and intentionally overproduced those goods, you could make a killing selling the surplus to your neighbours who had yet to start their own production, or whose production was insufficient.
Another thing that made such trade possible was how weak the NPC trading fleet was. Waiting to receive important goods from the free traders was really bad, as they traded infrequently and in small quantities. Because of this selling them your surplus was basically not an option.
Now, this is certainly not an ideal model, relying on weak AI creating trading opportunities in a rather forced manner. But compare it to what trade had become by 1404.
In Anno 1404, at least from my personal experience, trade between the players hardly ever happens, and when it does it's the AI buying from you in small quantities because you have a trade agreement and the code forces them to. This is because there is usually space enough for four players (AI or human) to produce all they need by themselves all the way into noblemen. And contrary to 1602, in 1404 the NPC traders buy a TON of goods, regardless of whether there is demand among other players for those products, presumably shipping all of it to the mainland. So it's okay to overproduce quite a lot without penalty, since NPC's gladly handle the surplus for you, and since you can easily produce everything yourself there is just little incentive to trade between players. So all you end up doing is auto-selling to the NPC fleet and buying nothing unless you desperately need tools in the early game. Seems to me like any nation would drool at the prospect of such a trade balance, and IMO it damages the immersion a bit.
I'd like to see at least the option to include the things that give rise to trade naturally in the game. So in other words, scarcity of space and resources, willingness from the AI to buy and sell large amounts of goods and thus create an actual balance of trade, and also the ability for the AI to cope with scarcity without spiraling into economic collapse or resorting to threats and war. Imagine if you would snatch an important island, and Giovanni di Mercante actually offered you a trade agreement as a way to access its resources? After he claims that island has been in his family for generations of course, penalising the player for their greed.
I don't know quite how it would be implemented in practice, no doubt it would demand a lot of coding and testing to properly balance, but I'm confident it would bring the game to another level.
Is this just me or can someone relate to all this? Does trade need to be improved, and if so how might it be done? Is the game already complex enough without piling on even more micromanagement? I would very much like to hear the community's opinion on this, as it has been on my mind for a long time.
Another thing that made such trade possible was how weak the NPC trading fleet was. Waiting to receive important goods from the free traders was really bad, as they traded infrequently and in small quantities. Because of this selling them your surplus was basically not an option.
Now, this is certainly not an ideal model, relying on weak AI creating trading opportunities in a rather forced manner. But compare it to what trade had become by 1404.
In Anno 1404, at least from my personal experience, trade between the players hardly ever happens, and when it does it's the AI buying from you in small quantities because you have a trade agreement and the code forces them to. This is because there is usually space enough for four players (AI or human) to produce all they need by themselves all the way into noblemen. And contrary to 1602, in 1404 the NPC traders buy a TON of goods, regardless of whether there is demand among other players for those products, presumably shipping all of it to the mainland. So it's okay to overproduce quite a lot without penalty, since NPC's gladly handle the surplus for you, and since you can easily produce everything yourself there is just little incentive to trade between players. So all you end up doing is auto-selling to the NPC fleet and buying nothing unless you desperately need tools in the early game. Seems to me like any nation would drool at the prospect of such a trade balance, and IMO it damages the immersion a bit.
I'd like to see at least the option to include the things that give rise to trade naturally in the game. So in other words, scarcity of space and resources, willingness from the AI to buy and sell large amounts of goods and thus create an actual balance of trade, and also the ability for the AI to cope with scarcity without spiraling into economic collapse or resorting to threats and war. Imagine if you would snatch an important island, and Giovanni di Mercante actually offered you a trade agreement as a way to access its resources? After he claims that island has been in his family for generations of course, penalising the player for their greed.
I don't know quite how it would be implemented in practice, no doubt it would demand a lot of coding and testing to properly balance, but I'm confident it would bring the game to another level.
Is this just me or can someone relate to all this? Does trade need to be improved, and if so how might it be done? Is the game already complex enough without piling on even more micromanagement? I would very much like to hear the community's opinion on this, as it has been on my mind for a long time.