How to get the Irish to expand?

[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.