|
karmicknight posted:So you are objecting to the underlying mechanic of dynamic treaty ports. do you think france had unfettered access to the british market in the 19th century
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
karmicknight posted:So you are objecting to the underlying mechanic of dynamic treaty ports. I think it's more that treaty ports are the only way to carve up states - so you couldn't have the Falklands/Heligoland/etc dynamically represented in-game without accidentally creating the Common Market ahead of schedule. There were a lot of flyspeck islands/exclaves in the time for coaling stations and naval bases, being able to take something like that should be separate to forcing open markets
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
treaty ports are not the only way to carve up states tho colonizing can do this also lots and lots of germany is little tiny specks
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:do you think france had unfettered access to the british market in the 19th century it is sort of goofy that the trading system doesnt really account for transportation costs except in an extremely abstract way
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
jsoh posted:treaty ports are not the only way to carve up states tho colonizing can do this also lots and lots of germany is little tiny specks True, but unless you micro each colony you don't get to chose where/how it grows (haven't done a lot of it, so may be wrong) and once split states are unified there's no way to re-split them
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:So you are objecting to the underlying mechanic of dynamic treaty ports. Dynamic treaty ports are fine. What is not fine is conquering territory that contains a treaty port, and then suddenly the person who owns that port gets unfettered access to your market. I think the power ranking thing works well for that - the idea that if you're a big fish you can tell other big fish to gently caress off without even fighting them, but if you're a smaller regional power, then you just have to accept that GB has access to your stuff unless you go to war over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:do you think france had unfettered access to the british market in the 19th century
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
Friendly tip: if you're trying to get the 'Bourbon for everyone' cheevo, do NOT form Iberia. Yes, the achievement is worded 'Starting as Spain...' but what it means is 'Playing as Spain...' 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
It does seem weird that it's a hardcoded thing, and not a province modifier. Relatedly, if Britain were to take Hong Kong, and then later take the rest of Guangdong, would they lose the treaty port market access?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 06:24
|
|
|
Eiba posted:The dynamic treaty port system that takes country rank into account does not give France unfettered access to the British market. People don't have a problem with treaty ports as a concept - there should be a mechanism to allow say, the UK to force opium onto the Chinese market via a ceded port like Hong Kong, as that historically happened. However, the current system has problems, for example Pondicherry and Gibraltar. In the current patch, Pondicherry gives France access to the UK's market, which is ahistorical and bad. The system being patched in on Monday will mitigate this - as long as the UK is of equal or greater status to France, Pondicherry will not allow France access to their market. However, it does mean the UK has a sort of time-bomb now, where if they ever become of lesser status to France, Pondicherry will immediately grant France access to their market. This is less ahistorical and bad than Pondicherry operating like this from day 1 of the game, but still ahistorical and bad. Gibraltar's bad in both versions of the game, granting the UK access to the Spanish market. It's unaffected by the patch as the UK is a Great Power and Spain is not. This is ahistorical and bad. So that's where I'm at - the patch on Monday mitigates the single worst problem with treaty ports (France having day 1 access to the UK market), but it only mitigates it, and there are other problems with treaty ports it doesn't touch. DJ_Mindboggler posted:It does seem weird that it's a hardcoded thing, and not a province modifier. I think that's how it works, yeah. Treaty ports need to be a single province in a region, and all single provinces in a region that have different ownership than the region are treaty ports. Gort fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Dec 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 11:29
|
|
|
Maybe treaty ports should be more restricted in which goods you can trade through them, making it so that they enable access to a limited set of goods depending on the target country or something like that. A larger set could cost authority maybe, to symbolize the great power imposing their will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
I'd say the ideal would be for a treaty port to have a target country plus a target good. So Hong Kong would target China and force them to accept opium imports into their market from the UK market. If Hong Kong ever ends up not bordering China (and how that works exactly given that China might have a revolution or other tag switch is a question for programmers) then the Treaty Port relationship should need to be reevaluated somehow - maybe the UK would get a different treaty port that does border China and Hong Kong is returned to China, or something. Maybe it'd be an event with different options where China could push to remove the relationship at the risk of the UK going to war with them for a new treaty port.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
Gibraltar is easy to fix, Oman has a treaty port that's not a treaty port on Persia so it's possible to have surrendered ports without them working as treaty ports
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Gibraltar is easy to fix, Oman has a treaty port that's not a treaty port on Persia so it's possible to have surrendered ports without them working as treaty ports Omani Laristan isn't a treaty port, it's a split state. It doesn't function as a treaty port for the same reasons as like, Ottoman Adana doesn't function as a treaty port on Egypt. I vaguely remember someone from Paradox saying they didn't want to model Gibraltar as a split state but I don't remember why. Oh yeah, here's the craziness I saw regarding treaty ports: quote:any unincorporated state that is the only port province of the state region and is in a foreign market automatically defaults to being a treaty-port. Goa and Ceuta are other ports affected. Gort fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Dec 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
its weird that there is no simulation at all of the global market. all the markets are cordoned off from eachother and only interact discretely and on purpose id also like more organic or emergent stuff where populations or IGs have their own agency but thats really not how the game is designed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:
I think if something has gone wrong enough for the UK to lose its great power rank, and yet still somehow controls India, things have gone really off the rails for them and it's hard to say what would make sense. Keep in mind "rank" in this case means great power, major power, etc. If France is number one and the UK is number two, that's not going to let France bully the UK. If the UK is considered to not be a great power, but still controls India, honestly it makes some sense to let France get in on some economic imperialism leveraging Pondicherry. Bit weird that they can use it to suck industrial goods out of London, but that's just a consequence of the useful abstraction of national markets. And this will only happen in the UK craters hard, so I'd imagine France would be taking advantage of their floundering neighbor in any case. More realistically what this system will allow is for France to automatically have a foot in the door with a newly independent India. I think that's a good and plausible dynamic system. Agreed that Gibraltar is a bit weird though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Eiba posted:More realistically what this system will allow is for France to automatically have a foot in the door with a newly independent India. I think that's a good and plausible dynamic system. That doesn't seem right to me at all. Why would France get to be economically dominant over independent India? I'm not an expert in the history of Pondicherry, but I don't think it was ever a treaty port in the same way Hong Kong allowed the UK to flood China with opium against the wishes of the Chinese state, it was just a trade hub.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
P sure Goa was just conquered, and Pondichery was yoinked off the danes. They weren't ever 19th century treaty ports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:id also like more organic or emergent stuff where populations or IGs have their own agency but thats really not how the game is designed. It feels weird when you’ve passed all the laws you wanted and basically have no reason to open up the politics screen again. It doesn’t matter if the people vote in the fascists or whatever when you’re the only one who can ever propose new laws in first place. (Well, political movements can “pass” a law by winning a civil war against you, but that’s more about turmoil management and has its own issues in any case.) Sure, that’s how reforms were in Vicky 2, but at least political parties back then actually had some meaningful diegetic effects on gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Eiba posted:
Why? karmicknight posted:So you are objecting to the underlying mechanic of dynamic treaty ports. IMHO treaty ports should not be dynamic. They should be created by treaties
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
feller posted:Why? Yeah the extreme focus on the "port" aspect is really bizarre. Sure Hong Kong was valuable because it was a good port location but the relationship between China and the UK is equally important. The rights associated with a treaty port shouldn't automatically transfer like this. And random 1-province ports shouldn't spontaneously become treaty ports either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Treaty ports are bizarre. If I conquer the state a treaty port is in why do I suddenly have to uphold it? So dumbVostokProgram posted:Yeah the extreme focus on the "port" aspect is really bizarre. Sure Hong Kong was valuable because it was a good port location but the relationship between China and the UK is equally important. The rights associated with a treaty port shouldn't automatically transfer like this. And random 1-province ports shouldn't spontaneously become treaty ports either. Pretty much this. It should be a diplomatic relation, not some magical inherent property of land you happen to own
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
As we know, the United Kingdom maintained total and unfettered access to Chinese markets until 1997 when China made a diplomatic play to recover Hong Kong and the UK backed down, and their current economic problems are in part because they were never really able to rebalance their economy to account for the loss of that market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
feller posted:Why? Yes it's just a trading center and not a Hong Kong kind of forced deal. But it's a French trading center in India. It makes sense for that to give France some advantage in controlling trade with India. Otherwise why would they bother maintaining it? The market system and treaty port mechanics are all abstractions anyway. This is an interesting game mechanic that has some vague logic and precedent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
I don’t really care about the realism aspect so treaty ports being treaty ports is fine. But none of them should be in in game start, it should be an explicit act of imperialism you do when you want a market to sell poo poo in or buy poo poo from. Not sure goa or pondicherry should even be in the game at the abstraction the game goes for but I know it makes people happy
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It's an abstraction for a particular kind of relationship. It gives them a free interest and a naval base in the region. That's not enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
feller posted:It gives them a free interest and a naval base in the region. That's not enough? There are only so many ways countries can interact in the scope of a game like this. There's a nifty system for treaty ports that represent economic advantages of European control of trade. We could strip out all but the purest versions of what that system represents, or you could keep in some edge cases for the sake of flavor. I'm personally on the side of not homogenizing everything and letting historical and geographical factors affect gameplay, even when the system isn't a perfect simulation. It's an abstraction and an interesting gameplay system. Might as well use it. It makes enough sense to me that asymmetric trade issues would result from having a trading city carved out of another country that you see as lesser than yours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It makes enough sense to me that asymmetric trade issues would result from having a trading city carved out of another country that you see as lesser than yours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The people on the other end don't see themselves as lesser than you though, and you only get "the economic advantages of control of trade" if you can actually actually control trade. Portugal and France weren't dominating India after the British left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Sure? That's not really the issue. You asked why france would bother maintaining a port in India besides getting unlimited access to India's market. I gave you two reasons. If making Pondicherry not a treaty port is homogenizing the game then lol, and appealing to historicity is just wrong and weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Gibraltar isn't a treaty port it's just a split state. Unless it starts that way and then there's some decision or event that deactivates it (which is entirely possible because I'm not great at reading every event that comes through the feed) Also I'm the #1 producer of ironclads, woo!...  ...and there is no #2 Every AI in the game, friend and foe alike is 100% dependent on me for ship hulls. Even my rival Italy. The AI should be terrified of being in this position because they're completely crippled if they're ever in a war against me, yet the AI allows itself to be compromised for strategic goods all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
On the subject of India and for the next content patch - the East India company needs some events to turn it into India or something if it becomes a Council Republic at the least. A Company that has broken free of India but retains a thin oligarchic British strata of leadership makes sense but as soon as it moves to Landed Voting, or a Monarchy or Council Republic that should be a tag switch or something so that the Leader of the Council Republic of British India being an English guy under Landed Voting. In general Council Republics and Landed/Wealth voting should be incompatible Laws. It's a weird setup right now where Revolutions only change a few laws so you end up with Landed Voting Council Republics formed by the Rural Folk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
See also the phenomenon of New Africa revolts in the southern US that have legacy slavery and racial discrimination
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
feller posted:You asked why france would bother maintaining a port in India besides getting unlimited access to India's market. I gave you two reasons. My position is that it's a nifty gameplay system and a close-enough historical case so, all else being equal, they should keep it like it is (with the rank thing reworked), for the sake of a more interesting economic/geopolitical landscape. If it resulted in really silly weirdness (like it currently does) it should be changed. And they went ahead and changed it so that's cool. And in any case it's such an edge case that it'd even be relevant that I'm not sure why this discussion has gone on for so long besides my pedantic need to keep clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
Is it just me or is every loving leader a bandit? There has to be something going on with the way that traits are assigned. I took a look at the code, and it looks like the only universal traits are Bandit and Explorer, which is, uh, terrible. For whatever reason, explorer is a lot less common, but bandit just shows up everywhere. At this point I'm just going to mod out the negatives from the trait because something is hosed with the way that they're selected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Friendly tip: if you're trying to get the 'Bourbon for everyone' cheevo, do NOT form Iberia. Yes, the achievement is worded 'Starting as Spain...' but what it means is 'Playing as Spain...' Same thing for Sikh Empire, btw. You have to remain the Sikh Empire to pull it off. Form India after you've gotten the achievement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
dicktoria 3
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:See also the phenomenon of New Africa revolts in the southern US that have legacy slavery and racial discrimination 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
See now this is the wacky alt history path I want in the USA dlc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:07
|
|