Trade

DeathsDayOff

Trade has a very large issue right now, and it's that it doesn't work if you don't border them, or have a port with them, but I think that that so long as the factions it has to go through like both of you, maybe limited to one or 2 factions, between you, but frankly with how much you make off trade compared to any other source of income I wouldn't be to worried about balancing it out, and certainly no worries about the AIs pocket book.

thebiglez

i wish there would be actual visible trade wagons on the map

42konyo

Nah it's fine, and it certainly isn't a "very large issue" considering it's never been allowed in any TW game.

PoorManatee6197#6481

Its not that it has to border you, its that it has to be conected to your capital. Ok the majority of time it wont be a problem but when it is its really annoying and you wonder why it is made this way. Also if your capital is sieged all your trade aggrements are broken, which makes no sense. CA really needs to change this in game 3.

DeathsDayOff

42konyo said:

Nah it's fine, and it certainly isn't a "very large issue" considering it's never been allowed in any TW game.

Just because not one total war game hasn't had it doesn't mean it's not a large issue with trade because, trade sucks, AI don't like to do it, and it doesn't get you any real money, a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more. And it doesn't make sense that someone who likes the 2 nations bordering them doesn't let them trade through them, as being a trade route makes large amounts of money.

DeathsDayOff

PoorManatee6197 said:

Its not that it has to border you, its that it has to be conected to your capital. Ok the majority of time it wont be a problem but when it is its really annoying and you wonder why it is made this way. Also if your capital is sieged all your trade aggrements are broken, which makes no sense. CA really needs to change this in game 3.

While yes the capital is what actually determines it, that's really semantics, as it doesn't matter using this system so long as they have a route to trade with you, and they want to, they will trade, just let people trade as they should be able to.

Ol_Nessie#9894

DeathsDayOff said:

42konyo said:

Nah it's fine, and it certainly isn't a "very large issue" considering it's never been allowed in any TW game.

Just because not one total war game hasn't had it doesn't mean it's not a large issue with trade because, trade sucks, AI don't like to do it, and it doesn't get you any real money, a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more. And it doesn't make sense that someone who likes the 2 nations bordering them doesn't let them trade through them, as being a trade route makes large amounts of money.

Trade doesn't get you any real money? Are you serious? What factions are you playing? I have a Dwarf campaign going right now and trade is literally the difference between positive and negative income.

DeathsDayOff

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

42konyo said:

Nah it's fine, and it certainly isn't a "very large issue" considering it's never been allowed in any TW game.

Just because not one total war game hasn't had it doesn't mean it's not a large issue with trade because, trade sucks, AI don't like to do it, and it doesn't get you any real money, a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more. And it doesn't make sense that someone who likes the 2 nations bordering them doesn't let them trade through them, as being a trade route makes large amounts of money.

Trade doesn't get you any real money? Are you serious? What factions are you playing? I have a Dwarf campaign going right now and trade is literally the difference between positive and negative income.

Then your just a broke, if your playing the dwarfs then by the time you get people to trade with, you should be making insane amounts of money, I've never had any problems with dwarf money, except the first time I played max difficulty because I didn't expect cheats that bad.

Ol_Nessie#9894

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

42konyo said:

Nah it's fine, and it certainly isn't a "very large issue" considering it's never been allowed in any TW game.

Just because not one total war game hasn't had it doesn't mean it's not a large issue with trade because, trade sucks, AI don't like to do it, and it doesn't get you any real money, a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more. And it doesn't make sense that someone who likes the 2 nations bordering them doesn't let them trade through them, as being a trade route makes large amounts of money.

Trade doesn't get you any real money? Are you serious? What factions are you playing? I have a Dwarf campaign going right now and trade is literally the difference between positive and negative income.

Then your just a broke, if your playing the dwarfs then by the time you get people to trade with, you should be making insane amounts of money, I've never had any problems with dwarf money, except the first time I played max difficulty because I didn't expect cheats that bad.

I'm not broke, I'm rolling in money. 20k per turn, 500k in my treasury, and I'm running 8 armies. But if I lost my trade network I'd instantly drop into negative income.

Ol_Nessie#9894

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

DeathsDayOff

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

Ol_Nessie#9894

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

That's not the Badlands, it's the Southlands. I just got dragged into 2 separate wars with Tlaqua and Lybaras so it's not like this is some kind of persistent ongoing war with Greenskins. They've been dead since long before the Chaos Invasion.

I'm completely teched up and my armies are kind of a mix between early and late units. Usually 2 warriors, 3 LBs, 2 IBs, 1 Hammerer, 2 thunderers, 1 Quarreler, 1 Bugman's Rangers, 3 war machines, 1 Slayer, 1 Gyro, 1 Lord, and 2 Heroes. Season to taste.

I don't play like you do, min/maxing everything and squeezing every bit of cost-effectiveness out of everything, but I don't really struggle that much either.

DeathsDayOff

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

That's not the Badlands, it's the Southlands. I just got dragged into 2 separate wars with Tlaqua and Lybaras so it's not like this is some kind of persistent ongoing war with Greenskins. They've been dead since long before the Chaos Invasion.

I'm completely teched up and my armies are kind of a mix between early and late units. Usually 2 warriors, 3 LBs, 2 IBs, 1 Hammerer, 2 thunderers, 1 Quarreler, 1 Bugman's Rangers, 3 war machines, 1 Slayer, 1 Gyro, 1 Lord, and 2 Heroes. Season to taste.

I don't play like you do, min/maxing everything and squeezing every bit of cost-effectiveness out of everything, but I don't really struggle that much either.

It's not squeezing out cost effectiveness, it's using what you need, and in pretty much any matchup a gyrocopter will do less good for you then an extra unit of quallerrers, sure they can chase units, but a grudge thrower or a cannon you should have already in the army will chase about as well as you need to take out most of the rest of the army, hammers are in general not that effective when you look at the fact the job of infantry is to not die, sure some extra damage is nice, but they take damage worse then dwarf warriors, not to mention to get use from the AP you have to put them up against the enemy elites, that deal more damage and are prime targets for your artillery, I'd never recommend them simple because there role is one that the dwarves aren't wanting in, slayers are useful, but I find there role better filled with ranged options, iron drakes are a great pick as though they are a bit pricey, the firepower they have will make anything trying to flank reconsider, while the armor they have is more then enough to hold the line while a unit of thundereres fires a few volleys into whatever managed to not rout while charging them, the iron drakes are then used to collapse the lines, while missile units increase fire on units susceptible to range, and that will beat pretty any enemy that doesnt out artillery you.

42konyo

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

That's not the Badlands, it's the Southlands. I just got dragged into 2 separate wars with Tlaqua and Lybaras so it's not like this is some kind of persistent ongoing war with Greenskins. They've been dead since long before the Chaos Invasion.

I'm completely teched up and my armies are kind of a mix between early and late units. Usually 2 warriors, 3 LBs, 2 IBs, 1 Hammerer, 2 thunderers, 1 Quarreler, 1 Bugman's Rangers, 3 war machines, 1 Slayer, 1 Gyro, 1 Lord, and 2 Heroes. Season to taste.

I don't play like you do, min/maxing everything and squeezing every bit of cost-effectiveness out of everything, but I don't really struggle that much either.

It's not squeezing out cost effectiveness, it's using what you need, and in pretty much any matchup a gyrocopter will do less good for you then an extra unit of quallerrers, sure they can chase units, but a grudge thrower or a cannon you should have already in the army will chase about as well as you need to take out most of the rest of the army, hammers are in general not that effective when you look at the fact the job of infantry is to not die, sure some extra damage is nice, but they take damage worse then dwarf warriors, not to mention to get use from the AP you have to put them up against the enemy elites, that deal more damage and are prime targets for your artillery, I'd never recommend them simple because there role is one that the dwarves aren't wanting in, slayers are useful, but I find there role better filled with ranged options, iron drakes are a great pick as though they are a bit pricey, the firepower they have will make anything trying to flank reconsider, while the armor they have is more then enough to hold the line while a unit of thundereres fires a few volleys into whatever managed to not rout while charging them, the iron drakes are then used to collapse the lines, while missile units increase fire on units susceptible to range, and that will beat pretty any enemy that doesnt out artillery you.

You know people play for fun right?
Not every campaign has to be with the most cost efficient builds, I don't even want to think of the immense boredom using the same best builds for over a thousand hours, using gyro's might not be the best choice but it sure as hell is something fresh and different from the same old defensive geometry builds especially with a faction with so little build variety as the dwarfs.

I also like how you completely deflected the point he was making with those screencaps proving that your argument wasn't valid and that trade is fine as it is but instead you chose to criticize him on his supposedly ineffective playstyle.

DeathsDayOff

42konyo said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

That's not the Badlands, it's the Southlands. I just got dragged into 2 separate wars with Tlaqua and Lybaras so it's not like this is some kind of persistent ongoing war with Greenskins. They've been dead since long before the Chaos Invasion.

I'm completely teched up and my armies are kind of a mix between early and late units. Usually 2 warriors, 3 LBs, 2 IBs, 1 Hammerer, 2 thunderers, 1 Quarreler, 1 Bugman's Rangers, 3 war machines, 1 Slayer, 1 Gyro, 1 Lord, and 2 Heroes. Season to taste.

I don't play like you do, min/maxing everything and squeezing every bit of cost-effectiveness out of everything, but I don't really struggle that much either.

It's not squeezing out cost effectiveness, it's using what you need, and in pretty much any matchup a gyrocopter will do less good for you then an extra unit of quallerrers, sure they can chase units, but a grudge thrower or a cannon you should have already in the army will chase about as well as you need to take out most of the rest of the army, hammers are in general not that effective when you look at the fact the job of infantry is to not die, sure some extra damage is nice, but they take damage worse then dwarf warriors, not to mention to get use from the AP you have to put them up against the enemy elites, that deal more damage and are prime targets for your artillery, I'd never recommend them simple because there role is one that the dwarves aren't wanting in, slayers are useful, but I find there role better filled with ranged options, iron drakes are a great pick as though they are a bit pricey, the firepower they have will make anything trying to flank reconsider, while the armor they have is more then enough to hold the line while a unit of thundereres fires a few volleys into whatever managed to not rout while charging them, the iron drakes are then used to collapse the lines, while missile units increase fire on units susceptible to range, and that will beat pretty any enemy that doesnt out artillery you.

You know people play for fun right?
Not every campaign has to be with the most cost efficient builds, I don't even want to think of the immense boredom using the same best builds for over a thousand hours, using gyro's might not be the best choice but it sure as hell is something fresh and different from the same old defensive geometry builds especially with a faction with so little build variety as the dwarfs.

I also like how you completely deflected the point he was making with those screencaps proving that your argument wasn't valid and that trade is fine as it is but instead you chose to criticize him on his supposedly ineffective playstyle.

I criticized his style as his point is that trade was saving him like he had no other option but to trade or die, if you are wasting a lot of money on units that are not even really anymore fun, and arguing that trade as is is fine because his inefficient no more fun version of the dwarfs needs it, and that's while he has almost every resource in the game, and apparently none of his partners have almost any, which would make that an artificial high at best, if you have any problems with gold with the dwarfs, then you are playing in a way that is meant to put you at a disadvantage and if you put yourself at a disadvantage you will be in one, it's not difficult to explain to someone

42konyo

DeathsDayOff said:

42konyo said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

DeathsDayOff said:

Ol_Nessie said:

@DeathsDayOff Just in case you don't believe me.

How are you turn 175 and still fighting in the badlands like that, passed that, what's your tec tre and army comp/ number, because all you really need to get through the game is long beards, and your missile units, with enough artillery to force the enemy to you, and maybe an organ gun, and worst case you can always fight in the under way which is just a free win when compared to any other battleground.

That's not the Badlands, it's the Southlands. I just got dragged into 2 separate wars with Tlaqua and Lybaras so it's not like this is some kind of persistent ongoing war with Greenskins. They've been dead since long before the Chaos Invasion.

I'm completely teched up and my armies are kind of a mix between early and late units. Usually 2 warriors, 3 LBs, 2 IBs, 1 Hammerer, 2 thunderers, 1 Quarreler, 1 Bugman's Rangers, 3 war machines, 1 Slayer, 1 Gyro, 1 Lord, and 2 Heroes. Season to taste.

I don't play like you do, min/maxing everything and squeezing every bit of cost-effectiveness out of everything, but I don't really struggle that much either.

It's not squeezing out cost effectiveness, it's using what you need, and in pretty much any matchup a gyrocopter will do less good for you then an extra unit of quallerrers, sure they can chase units, but a grudge thrower or a cannon you should have already in the army will chase about as well as you need to take out most of the rest of the army, hammers are in general not that effective when you look at the fact the job of infantry is to not die, sure some extra damage is nice, but they take damage worse then dwarf warriors, not to mention to get use from the AP you have to put them up against the enemy elites, that deal more damage and are prime targets for your artillery, I'd never recommend them simple because there role is one that the dwarves aren't wanting in, slayers are useful, but I find there role better filled with ranged options, iron drakes are a great pick as though they are a bit pricey, the firepower they have will make anything trying to flank reconsider, while the armor they have is more then enough to hold the line while a unit of thundereres fires a few volleys into whatever managed to not rout while charging them, the iron drakes are then used to collapse the lines, while missile units increase fire on units susceptible to range, and that will beat pretty any enemy that doesnt out artillery you.

You know people play for fun right?
Not every campaign has to be with the most cost efficient builds, I don't even want to think of the immense boredom using the same best builds for over a thousand hours, using gyro's might not be the best choice but it sure as hell is something fresh and different from the same old defensive geometry builds especially with a faction with so little build variety as the dwarfs.

I also like how you completely deflected the point he was making with those screencaps proving that your argument wasn't valid and that trade is fine as it is but instead you chose to criticize him on his supposedly ineffective playstyle.

I criticized his style as his point is that trade was saving him like he had no other option but to trade or die, if you are wasting a lot of money on units that are not even really anymore fun, and arguing that trade as is is fine because his inefficient no more fun version of the dwarfs needs it, and that's while he has almost every resource in the game, and apparently none of his partners have almost any, which would make that an artificial high at best, if you have any problems with gold with the dwarfs, then you are playing in a way that is meant to put you at a disadvantage and if you put yourself at a disadvantage you will be in one, it's not difficult to explain to someone

That's could very well be the case, but he's not the one complaining about not enough trade, you are.

to quote: "trade sucks, AI don't like to do it, and it doesn't get you any real money, a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more."

That what you yourself said earlier.
He shows you that you are wrong, then you start claiming it is saving him, however all he said was that he was rolling in cash, which he is, he also shows you that the statement "a trade agreement may let you afford upkeep for 1 or 2 units, but not much more" is so wrong that you're either trolling, or don't have any knowledge of how to play since he literally showed you a screencap with 1 trade agreement netting him 4519 gold a turn.
He's not the one playing wrong, you are if you're not able to get trade agreements that good.
If the faction you're playing does not have the ability to make that much money from trade, then it's probably not intended to be it's main source of income.

Ol_Nessie#9894

DeathsDayOff said:

I criticized his style as his point is that trade was saving him like he had no other option but to trade or die, if you are wasting a lot of money on units that are not even really anymore fun, and arguing that trade as is is fine because his inefficient no more fun version of the dwarfs needs it, and that's while he has almost every resource in the game, and apparently none of his partners have almost any, which would make that an artificial high at best, if you have any problems with gold with the dwarfs, then you are playing in a way that is meant to put you at a disadvantage and if you put yourself at a disadvantage you will be in one, it's not difficult to explain to someone

Pal, my point was that trade can make you a ton of money. I mentioned the part about my trade income being higher than my net profit to emphasize that point and you're the one who decided to fixate on my play style and claim that I'm playing the game wrong. I'm not gonna play your way cause that sounds boring as hell.

Yea, I could tear down a bunch of buildings and build tool makers in every settlement if I wanted to and make back just as much money as I do from trade. But I clearly don't have problems with income because my trade economy is so good, which is what this thread is all about, no?

RikRiorik#9890

Trade is a bit wonky but it definitely nets you large amounts of gold once you’re trading in enough resources with enough partners. Not to mention it isn’t only the trade that mets you money but also the building itself.

There was no need to stop talking about everything else but the 27k trade income on that screenshot. 27k is by definition a lot of gold from trade.