Why do i bother?

[anweRU]

GB & UP went to war with each other???

The first lesson is: diversify, diversify, diversify. Build many many trade ports & get many trade agreements (Ottomans, Marathas & Mughals rock - which ever of the last two survives) and go fight some wars to capture more taxable land...

The second (and probably more important) lesson is: the AI is too stupid to defend itself.

[joe4iz]

You should try stationing an army in a fort at your border with Poland. If they declare war, they still have to get past the fort. A stack of troops would be nice. They can even be cheap infantry of some sort. I have found that fighting fort battles are a great way to wittle other armies down. Keep the fort wooden as they are easier to defend.

Most of the time the armies next to your borders are militia anyway. In my English campaign, the Spanish had 8 stacks around Gilbralter. 5 of the 8 were almost all militia. The only arty he ever had consisted of Demis that were placed too far away to be any problem.

As others have stated, even if you have to pay to trade, I set up as many trading partners as I could handle on the first and second turn. Some of the AI require money along with the trade agreement.

I found it odd that UP goes to war with GB. Probably what happened is they declared war on the Thirteen Colonies. That happened to me twice playing as GB. As GB, the first thing (the second game) I did was cancel my alliance with them. They remind me of Milan in MTW2....already at war with two major powers and then decide; "Let's see who else we can attack!".

[Miracle]

the AI is too stupid to defend itself.

And in some ways, too stupid to attack intelligently.

In one game the Cherokee were at war with Spain for decades. They had a stack and a half in Georgia next to a completely undefended Spanish Florida. Yet, they did not attack. I declared war on the Cherokee and brought in GB and Louisiana as allies. GB had a completely undefended Charleston next to Georgia. Yet, they did not attack GB either.

Instead, the Georgia stack went all the way to a decently defended New Orleans and took it, robbing me of 50% of my Louisiana mission prize. Worst, they destroyed all improvements including a Royal Palace. AI stupidity and spite at its finest.

[Obadiah]

I've had similar things happen, where one AI nation blockades my trade with another AI nation *FOR 20 YEARS* and the situation just sits their statically, with the victim making zero effort to free itself. Incredibly frustrating.

Frankly, I'd call the AI's failure to resolve AI-vs-AI wars (I'm including all on-going seiges, ally still at war with my now-ex enemy, etc.) in SOME fashion within SOME period of time to be the single most annoying strategic map level problem in the game (after CTD's, of course). I don't even care about "realistic results"- just roll the frickin dice and give me the outcome! Can C.A. put in some code so that each year, the odd's of a resolution to an AI-AI war increase by 10%, so that by year 10 we KNOW one side or t'other will have won, and we can get back to the game???

I don't post a lot, and I don't gripe in general- kinda love the game- but OP hit my sore spot...

[Beskar]

They should make it so trade with that area ceases but the trade goes to your other traders so you don't lose overall.

As for raids on the trade route against the enemy should only affect the enemy.

Would make the game better.

[Khorak]

What would be better is that stopping trade with that nation also hits your diplomatic relations with whoever they're trading with. Historically the British Empire had to make a pre-emptive strike against Denmark in 1801, in order to ensure the League of Armed Neutrality didn't manage to get its fleet together to forcibly break the Royal Navy blockade on France that was messing with their trade to France.

You shouldn't just be able to hack off all trade at the balls without annoying everyone else who was making money from it.