How to get the Irish to expand?

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The STW style trading system or traders that are based on the local trade values of trade goods would be both simpler and superior IMHO.

Simpler, yes; superior not really. Every port rakes in the same amount of money regardless of location and time of operation?

It would have been far better for the amount ports make to be say a function of the time they have been in operation as well as the status with neighbouring clans (peace=monies, war=nil).

However the thing that i disliked most about ports in STW was the ability to teleport stacks - i mean from home port to home port (not the raiding thing). It really killed the logistical aspect of the mid-late game; moving lots of troops around huge distances should cost either time or money. I think that what they were after was to kill the "chore" of the late game, although imo they ended up making it bigger - remaining clans would put up more of a fight to a unifier that has to spend lots of time or money to reach their part of Japan.

Ports in STW were better off to be unique buildings imo.

[caravel]

Simpler, yes; superior not really. Every port rakes in the same amount of money regardless of location and time of operation?

It would have been far better for the amount ports make to be say a function of the time they have been in operation as well as the status with neighbouring clans (peace=monies, war=nil).

Too complex, and not really what the game was all about. The campaign map served as a means to string the battles together into something meaningful. I don't really see the issue of flat rate incomes from ports? If it wasn't a port, i.e. if we called it something else, and that produced an income no one would have a problem with it producing a flat rate.

MTW allows for variable incomes, not from the port but from the traders using trading goods as the variable. The missing factor is the state of war/peace, but I don't really see that as a big deal. In STW the port income represented fishing etc. The trade income represented foreign trade, not trade within Japan. Either way it's none issue IMHO.

However the thing that i disliked most about ports in STW was the ability to teleport stacks

I also disliked that, but the AI does not often do it and I avoid doing it myself.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
There is also the fact that a faction's AI personality changes during the course of a campaign, so the hungarians you are seeing may have changed AI in the first few turns of the campaign.

I dont think that this happens in MTW at all - it certainly happens in STW/MI though and in theory in 1-1.12, but not in MTW as far as i can tell. A small piece of evidence for this is that the reference in STW is to Daimyos and in MTW to factions. A larger one is that an EXPANSIONIST faction is always behaving as such in MTW, and the same with the others it seems to me.

Ships are not so numerous because the unit choices values for ships and agents are much, much lower than for units. The AI starts spamming ships once it has the available funds with which to do so.

Well in many cases yes - in that one as i mentioned (and others similar to it) no. The rate of production stopped once naval dominance was established and reprised once losses occured as i mentioned - it seems the AI had a "cap" and that was much smaller than other AI personalities had. Also the amount used per sea area was 1-2 ships (very occasionally 3), so relatively well proportioned, i'd say.

Too complex, and not really what the game was all about.

Doesn't TW have a logistics/economics side to it? If the answer is yes there is no reason why a more representative model of trade would be included assuming the AI would be relatively competent to use it and the player could not blatantly exploit it, of course.

I don't really see the issue of flat rate incomes from ports?

The issue is that the representation and the represented are well off; respresenting agricultural income with a linear relationship between land held and income is fine, but trade doesn't function like that - rather it gives profits out of all proportion in specific areas that are vitally located or are blessed with certain goods and gives none when there is a state of war and no-one to trade with. It also needs time to develop and doesn't remain static - it fluctuates upon the conditions it is based on.

In that respect, trade should be like an economic wildcard; high yield but fragile and risky. In STW is anything but since its directly proportional to land held essentially.

MTW has imo a good trade model, the shortcoming is that the AI isn't really adept at using it.

If it wasn't a port, i.e. if we called it something else, and that produced an income no one would have a problem with it producing a flat rate.

Sure - like local crasftsmen etc - however this is not national/international trade - MTW represents regional economy better with local goods and the trading posts. I agree though with you that in terms of actual economic mechanic/gameplay there is little actual difference.

The trade income represented foreign trade, not trade within Japan.

This is indeed so - yet inter-regional/national trade was neither uncommon nor negligible.

The missing factor is the state of war/peace, but I don't really see that as a big deal.

Well in a Sengoku Jidai scenario it sort of half makes sense - raiding of populace in the same manner that was conducted in Medieval Europe was unknown. Even in SJ however, periods of peace meant more trade and development of middle class regional economy.

[caravel]

I dont think that this happens in MTW at all - it certainly happens in STW/MI though and in theory in 1-1.12, but not in MTW as far as i can tell. A small piece of evidence for this is that the reference in STW is to Daimyos and in MTW to factions. A larger one is that an EXPANSIONIST faction is always behaving as such in MTW, and the same with the others it seems to me.

Well I've certainly noticed changes to AI behaviour? Also remember that the startpos only starts factions off using one of a handful of AI types.

No factions start the campaign using any of the following AI personalities:

POVERTY_STRICKEN
DESPERATE_DEFENCE
CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT

To me this indicates that starting AI types do change in the course of a campaign as units are coded to change AI type based on certain events/factors.

Well in many cases yes - in that one as i mentioned (and others similar to it) no. The rate of production stopped once naval dominance was established and reprised once losses occured as i mentioned - it seems the AI had a "cap" and that was much smaller than other AI personalities had. Also the amount used per sea area was 1-2 ships (very occasionally 3), so relatively well proportioned, i'd say.

Do you play using 'ian' mode? If so it's a good idea to switch to the AI faction and examine their treasury. Factions that stop building/training might have simply run out of florins.

Doesn't TW have a logistics/economics side to it? If the answer is yes there is no reason why a more representative model of trade would be included assuming the AI would be relatively competent to use it and the player could not blatantly exploit it, of course.

Of course, but we don't really have a very representative side of any of the various facets of the army logistics train.

The issue is that the representation and the represented are well off; respresenting agricultural income with a linear relationship between land held and income is fine, but trade doesn't function like that - rather it gives profits out of all proportion in specific areas that are vitally located or are blessed with certain goods and gives none when there is a state of war and no-one to trade with. It also needs time to develop and doesn't remain static - it fluctuates upon the conditions it is based on.

I disagree with regards to agricultural income. It is not really a static fixed income, but an unpredictable one. Harvests could be poor, blights, disease and weather were a huge factor. Warfare would also massively disrupt agricultural output. The game does not really represent this apart from in "improved farmland" upgrades.

In that respect, trade should be like an economic wildcard; high yield but fragile and risky. In STW is anything but since its directly proportional to land held essentially.

MTW has imo a good trade model, the shortcoming is that the AI isn't really adept at using it.

Trade does work like that, it's high yield and it's fragile and risky - but the AI cannot use it effectively - the player can make a killing.

Having trade at least partially proportional to land held makes some sense if you think about it. If you have more land and more people you have more available goods to sell. STW simply abstracted trade, without all the nitpicky fuss and micro-management heavy ships. STW's system was no where near perfect, but MTW's was simply broken.

Sure - like local crasftsmen etc - however this is not national/international trade - MTW represents regional economy better with local goods and the trading posts. I agree though with you that in terms of actual economic mechanic/gameplay there is little actual difference.

MTW's represenation of trading attempts to recreate the style of pan european maritime trade which actually wasn't happening on a large scale in the time frame of the game. Ships were not buzzing to and fro in huge numbers from Denmark to Palestine back in the 1200's. Most of the crusades took the land route also so the massive troop movements are also quite silly.

There's also the fact that those landlocked provinces with trade goods see no benefit anyway - yet the AI will still spend 1000s building the trading posts. IMHO it was a half hearted plaything inserted into the game by the developers as a bit of a toy. In the latest title shipping has served the same purpose in another way. Knowing that the AI was still the same and that there would be few other improvements besides those cosmetic ones, the CA used the new 3D naval battles as a bait - and people took it in droves.

This is indeed so - yet inter-regional/national trade was neither uncommon nor negligible.

I agree and it is represented in the system of ports with their fixed incomes. Not ideal but it works and the AI can use it. When CA can actually design a decent AI, they can then start introducing a decent naval/trade system - until then...

Well in a Sengoku Jidai scenario it sort of half makes sense - raiding of populace in the same manner that was conducted in Medieval Europe was unknown. Even in SJ however, periods of peace meant more trade and development of middle class regional economy.

With MTW's system a trade route can be entirely severed by a single hostile vessel interposing anywhere on the route. This is not very representative. Shipping at the time always had to deal with piracy and enemy vessels. Having a trade route blocked off entirely for one year simply because an enemy ship appears is nonsense.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
Well I've certainly noticed changes to AI behaviour? Also remember that the startpos only starts factions off using one of a handful of AI types.

No factions start the campaign using any of the following AI personalities:

POVERTY_STRICKEN
DESPERATE_DEFENCE
CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT

To me this indicates that starting AI types do change in the course of a campaign as units are coded to change AI type based on certain events/factors.

Perhaps; it can also indicate though, that they are modes for all AI factions when these conditions are encountered rather than a personality in it self.

Iirc these are not listed in the faction/AIpersonality list as possible "personalities" but as eventualities within every AI personality parameter profile. I may be wrong though as i haven't checked the files for a while.

My observation is that AI factions beyond these extreme conditions follow the (AI personality) pattern set in the campaign txt files without fail.

Do you play using 'ian' mode? If so it's a good idea to switch to the AI faction and examine their treasury. Factions that stop building/training might have simply run out of florins.

Yes i do - and in many cases i came to observe through this that an AI with a healthy economy was often making a relatively reasonable use of boats and boat production rates when set on DEFENSIVE either catholic, muslim or orthodox (or their equivalent).

Of course, but we don't really have a very representative side of any of the various facets of the army logistics train.

We do actually, and this relates to the level of infrastructure in a kingdom as a whole as well as the location of that infrastructure relative to the where the troops are needed to be (frontline). This defines the amount of troops that can be maed within any time interval as well as the amount of time it takes to get them to the frontline or other places they are needed.

I disagree with regards to agricultural income. It is not really a static fixed income, but an unpredictable one. Harvests could be poor, blights, disease and weather were a huge factor. Warfare would also massively disrupt agricultural output. The game does not really represent this apart from in "improved farmland" upgrades.

Its unpredictability has boundaries and these boundaries are determined on a direct proportinality to land held. One can use statistical averages to make a calculation on projections more precise, but that is not really necessary.

The bounded area is: (Sum of average province agr income)+ or- up to 50%

This gives you the boundaries within which unpredictability happens. The statistical average is much closer to the average value of the provinces (with any upgrades) because the more extreme the fluctuation is (ie the 50%) the more unlikely it is.

Similarly MTW has an equal unpredictability in the accumen of governors and the King that can +or- the agricultural income. However again the whole is directly proportional to the land held - you are just receiving an average value within the boundaries defined by the highest and loewst possible incomes over time.

MTW's represenation of trading attempts to recreate the style of pan european maritime trade which actually wasn't happening on a large scale in the time frame of the game.

Trade does work like that, it's high yield and it's fragile and risky - but the AI cannot use it effectively - the player can make a killing.

Maritime trading between nations was happening during the medieval era - the 4th crusade diverged to Constantinople instead of Egypt because the Venetians were making really good profits trading with the Muslim Egyptians. Catholic Europe existed in a state of cultural, ecclesiastical and economic union - and this can be witnessed in the variety of places medieval scholars lived during their lifetimes. There are many other examples that i am sure you are aware of.

The problem in game terms is that the trading goods have too high values assigned to them and so the mechanic can be exploited by the player - if you half the values of goods, trade functions much better. I have modded the game along these lines and trade happens without being the huge exploit it is in vanilla - again it is a matter of optimisation and i believe that it can partly be solved with the means the game has currently available. In these terms i think thet the model is good and the implementation half good - but not terrible

Having trade at least partially proportional to land held makes some sense if you think about it. If you have more land and more people you have more available goods to sell. STW simply abstracted trade, without all the nitpicky fuss and micro-management heavy ships. STW's system was no where near perfect, but MTW's was simply broken.

Not really - trade goods need processing and this happens in urban centres where small factories and specialist skills exist - the most succesful traders of the Middle Ages were city states, that had very little land in the usual feudal sense.

STW trade representation works within the game, however that does not mean that it is good as it is and there was no room for improvement. For me MTW's was the right model although of course the AI should have been improved in handling it and the margins of trade profit should have been optimised.

There's also the fact that those landlocked provinces with trade goods see no benefit anyway - yet the AI will still spend 1000s building the trading posts.

Landlocked provinces do benefit but with a much smaller profit. As for the AI building up traders in land provinces is again a matter of optimising the game - it can be easily solved (via modding) by linking the traders beyond level1 to ports. It is not related with how good the trade model is.

In the latest title shipping has served the same purpose in another way. Knowing that the AI was still the same and that there would be few other improvements besides those cosmetic ones, the CA used the new 3D naval battles as a bait.

I certainly know where you are coming from but this is beside the point - we are discussing MTW and its trade model.

I agree and it is represented in the system of ports with their fixed incomes. Not ideal but it works and the AI can use it. When CA can actually design a decent AI, they can then start introducing a decent naval/trade system - until then...

The suggestions i give above to improve the MTW trade system could be small hardcoded scripts and not major AI undertakings, and lots could be solved with such simple means imo; i think that there was realistic room for improvement in the trade system and that MTW's offering is good although it does lack on fore/afterthought and optimisation from the developer.

With MTW's system a trade route can be entirely severed by a single hostile vessel interposing anywhere on the route. This is not very representative. Shipping at the time always had to deal with piracy and enemy vessels. Having a trade route blocked off entirely for one year simply because an enemy ship appears is nonsense.

This is a matter of representation and abstraction and not of whether it sounds realistically believable or not - under the same light its strange that one should accept that a port in Dewa (a backwater historically) and one in Hakata/Nagasaki (great centres of commerce historically due to their proximity to the mainland) can make the same money because they represent the local economy, since there was no comparison between what the local economy and port accessibility and importance was in the one and what in the other.

Its simply an abstraction - as you would say. Similarly what you mention for the MTW trade routes are means to represent the model and its wrong to judge and scrutinise their "believability".

A trade route is open when friendly ships occupy it and when there is no enemy ship in it - a much better representation than one that is open all the time from all places and yields the same profit, dont you think?

[Jxrc]

Perhaps it's a silly suggestion but could'nt the problem be, at least partially, solved by increasing the income generated by imported goods so that it's equal to what the exporter gets ? That way the cash differrence between player and AI would be reduced (to some extent since the whatever the player gets would be spread among several importing AI factions). Perhaps not totally unreaslistic since cities like Venice did not really export their own goods but essentially imported stuff from the middle east. No idea if that is easy to implement.

Regarding the replacement of fleet by landbridges, it does not seem that inaccurate to me since in that time period (i) long distance sea invasion were not really possible on a large scale since it seems that the maximum distance that could be travelled before having the stop was rather short (Scotland/Palestine is one go was just not possible) (ii) there was no way , at least before XIIIth century, that a fleet could intercep an invading. There a few example of long-distance invasions such as the conquest of Sicily by Normans and Norwegian crusade but the former does not involve a large army (IIRC a few Normans took control and were reinforced only after the "good news" had spread home) while the latter made many stops on the way. I personaly know of no fleet intercepting another that did not want to fight but I could be wrong.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Jxrc
Perhaps it's a silly suggestion but could'nt the problem be, at least partially, solved by increasing the income generated by imported goods so that it's equal to what the exporter gets ? That way the cash differrence between player and AI would be reduced (to some extent since the whatever the player gets would be spread among several importing AI factions). Perhaps not totally unreaslistic since cities like Venice did not really export their own goods but essentially imported stuff from the middle east. No idea if that is easy to implement.

Its a good idea in theory and both Asai and myself have tried it in our modding efforts, i believe.

The problem with it is that both parties get the increase imprt tax. My experiment with it ended in failure - it felt like actually the disparity was somewhat enhanced in practice, and the player was doing even better than usual.

Imho you'll get much better results if you lower the goods values - but no more than half; otherwise trade is not really worth the expense, especially for provinces that havelow value goods. You'll get even better results if you reduce the disparity between agr. incomes in provinces and reduce the overall agr. money floating about in the game, because then trade becomes imperative in allowing you to have enough infrastructure and armies to carry out extensive conquests - ie funds for player aggression are limited and this leads to more challenging campaigns both in attack and defense in my experience.