Hi, sorry to Brace in that massive but:

There will be noch "Trade Land / Trade City / Trade Unit" option.
It was tried on ancestor games (and maybe here as well [unsure]).
This feature will get brutally abused by Multis and or Coalitions to buff one Player.
Therefore it was disabled and sent to nevercomeback island.

Maybe it should be limited in use per time period, instead of continuous discontinuation

No it won't, it shouldn't and it will not. Even in Alliance games players actually did not want it.

Sorry. Not happening.

The liberation feature works well and is sufficient in the matter.

The only context where it would be interesting would be for RP, and it's too much of a nich to consider

But what if you could only say trade 5 pieces of land every in-game day or something

idk if that is the original idea or not BUT

shouldn't it be traded for set amounts of money with (~)-+20 precent silder and only for neighboring lands that are not annexed/homeland cities with:
something like 50% increase in base payment for provinces that produce something other than money and manpower
about 40%-70% increase in base payment for each building (depands on building)
and decreasing price increasing with each higher level of the building (except in healing buildings which always improve at the same rate)
and about -25%-30% price increase proportional to size?
(since size of the province affects the distance that can be traversed quicker than in a few smaller ones)
and of course rising of 15%/35%/50%/150% (100% +25% + 50% + 75% + 150%)of the base price per game stage or spread this amount for days
(since amounts of money gained through out the game normally increases over time)

if this is the original idea (without the numbers of course) and i'm repeating what was already been in the "Ancestor Games" than don't mind this post and scroll through

I have a suggestion for this.

Turn off land trading entirely for cities and non-city provinces that produce resources. One may only trade a non-resource-producing province for another one. You cannot trade homeland provinces. Limit of 5 provinces a day. This way, ugly borders can be corrected as cities do not affect borders much.

I do not see any way that this heavily reduced. Mods, please tell me if there is some way to abuse this (and please do not ignore this comment )

I agree with Hollow Light and OneRandomPlayer.
Cities and provinces with resource producing capabilities should be blocked from this function but anything else is up for trading.
I agree that 5 daily is a good number too.

one random player said this , I have a suggestion for this.

Turn off land trading entirely for cities and non-city provinces that produce resources. One may only trade a non-resource-producing province for another one. You cannot trade homeland provinces. Limit of 5 provinces a day. This way, ugly borders can be corrected as cities do not affect borders much.

I do not see any way that this heavily reduced. Mods, please tell me if there is some way to abuse this (and please do not ignore this comment

this wouldnt be a bad idea except it would be like opening pandoras box because some one else would come along and start pestering about why they cant trade cities

Then they can be slapped with the "it will be abused" excuse

EDIT: sorry Germanico if you found "excuse" insulting, I had written that at about 8 AM and was not thinking very long about what I was writing.

Excuse? My foot.

You can argue this case all you want for as long as you want but province trading is not coming back. I’ve said it before and will say it again.

Germanico you need to put a list of stuff up that game designer will not be doing to once and for all end these conversations so people will quit asking the same question its getting really ridiclous

You are indeed right. We should - will discuss with CMs tomorrow

I don't think this will stop anyone ^^.

Haha - probably not. "I want to believe..." is the motto here.

After all: we are the illuminati and do not want to enable trading of provinces because it would inadvertently uncover the lizard-king and start WW3.
Wait... that's already happening. Or is it only in the game?
Let me make sure my tin-foil-hat sits tightly.

germanico i just about fell out off my chair laughing on that one

I would agree with ross222 with creating a list of things that will not be added into the game, in addition to supplying the reason for it, as it is difficult to find these answers. It is not mentioned in the "New to the forum? Start here!" subsection, and because the search bar is limited in user-friendliness (clunky, cannot use Boolean operators, etc.), finding some of these answers is a bit of a witch hunt.

The thing is, I looked through the forums, and only after 45 minutes could I begin to find reasons as to why province trading was removed. Link here to the post, published on May 10, 2017: forum.conflictnations.com/inde…may/&postID=6415#post6415. Germanico seems very apologetic in disabling unit and resource trading, while describing how resource and unit trading was often abused by players, and how this is an experimental update.

Then I found this post by Opulon published in July 5, 2017 (yes, still 2017): forum.conflictnations.com/inde…c/&postID=12008#post12008. It says how the devs were working on revamping the system "they intend to make it come back through coalitions."

On October 22, 2017 (forum.conflictnations.com/inde…m/&postID=16304#post16304), it is announced (I do not know if it is for the first time) that trading will never be back, and a slight shift in tone as well.

I understand how there have been countless threads about this over the past two years (over 80% of the entire time this game has been open since December 13, 2016) complaining how this feature used to be in the game and that CoW has it and whatnot and how everyone is working on mobile development, but this feature was removed almost 2 years ago, and it may be a good topic to revisit, even if it will be promptly forgotten. But most of all, I would greatly appreciate such a thread that explains all of this due to the sheer volume of posts that one has to dig through to find an answer.

Thanks for listening.