@Fisherking
As prepatch I focused primarily on the Ottomans, Russia, and Prussia, I wouldn't know how much they nerfed the tradeing.
However I did start a French GC H/N the day before patch and was chugging along almost unstoppable. I had 4/5 Sugar trade spots, 9/10 Ivory tradespots, and 2/5 Spice tradespots.
I restarted post patch and was only able to capture 3/5 sugar tradespots, 3/10 Ivory tradespots, and 3/5 Spice tradespots employing the same strategy (so the AI is better at grabbing them). Granted in neither case did I employ a "balls to the wall" East Indiamen produced everywhere strategy, nor did I use existing naval units to "hold" tradespots. I merely built 3 every other turn and sent them out. I did noticed very quickly the decline in trade and think it serves the nations I played pre-patch as trade is so little of what they do. My French campaign post-patch is continueing just fine with 22k income around 1750.
Prussia in particular was a monster pre-patch and will continue to be one post patch.
I support you in the effort to make all nations (e.g. Spain) viable with a multitude of strategies, but ask that we stop short of trying to "balance" all the starting positions as this seems a bit goofy in a single player strategy game.
As England was unable to be invaded pre-patch, and I'd wager highly unlikely to be so post patch; I take most comments about the uber achievements players have made with this nation with a grain of salt.
In particular I feel the Colonial "missions" in North America are a bit goofy to begin with. And France and Spain seemed to have drawn the short straw on this.
Also I didn't notice that the AI doesn't trade territories anymore until you mentioned it, but my French game has not seen a single offer.
Cheers,
Naf
Bookmarks