*It has been brought to my attention that this topic has been mentioned previously. Although I believe my post provides more detailed suggestions/justification.
Issues with Trading
1. Gameplay Problems;
From what I've read and understood, it would seem that players and devs are rightfully opposed to multi-account pushing. For this reason, it seems a little counter intuitive to allow unlimited trades between players without any delays or counters. This is particularly noticeable and obvious on maps like HHW, where isolated countries like Australia, remain active but passive, putting all resources into industry and showing no signs of expansion or confrontation. Instead diverting all their resources into the player's desired country.
This strategy of having neutral nations funnelling resources into one aggressive country, poses not only the expected problem of giving an unfair advantage for players involved in a direct confrontation (bear with me here), but also disrespects the developers by creating players who have a free excess of resources. Essentially gold spammers that didn't spend any of their oh-so-juicy money to support Bytro's game.
2. Historical Accuracy;
*Disclaimer* I'm not going to say the game has to be historically accurate to be fun, or that we should sacrifice fun for accuracy, instead if you can implement something that is more realistic and is more fun/interesting shouldn't you add it?
From my plebeian wikipedia surfing, I've understood that trade between allies and other neutral countries was a driving factor in WWII ie Lend-Lease and the swedish iron-ore industry. I also understood that trade wasn't instantly and securely transported into countries (Ie U boats sinking merchant ships). So you would think there would be at least some measures a player could take to either delay or prevent trades between players.
And no I'm not going to use this as an opportunity to criticise the stockmarket. I think it's a practical feature that has to exist for the sake of gameplay rather than accuracy. And is fair through a gameplay standpoint... it's accessibility (everyone can use the platform), relative penalty (percentage of money taken away from the player), player control (embargoing players denies purchase of your listed resources) and to an extent anonymity (not showing who's selling what).
My Counter Offer(s)
*Disclaimer* I am a dumbo and have no clue what it would take to implement certain features.
Now the questions is what should be implemented instead?
Well when I spent time thinking about all the options that come to mind I realised they stemmed from a repeating idea. Instead of having trades between players done as a request that is instantly received, it could be that trades get it's own unit similar to aircraft transport trucks or transport ships.
I feel like if the developers were able to use the system that a unit starts at Point A and then arrives Point B, and then the transaction is received, the possibilities for trading would be endless...
Just look at how complex and interesting
or simple and practical 
you could make it,
Original idea: Unit goes to point A to point B, trade is received
Possible Ideas (Skip this more 'detailed' discussion of possibilities if you are against the original idea):
Unit can be a transport convoy, naval ship or even an aircraft in end games that can be researched to improve speed. This unit can be automatically controlled and pathfinds from A to B in the quickest way possible or it could be micromanaged and moved by the player. It can be really slow or really fast. It's speed can depend on the amount of resources it carries or it can be consistent for all transport units. It can have sight in territories to allow for subtle spying or it could have no sight at all. You could send unlimited amounts of these units (probably crashing the game) or you can give each player a set amount of trade units that could be a fixed number or something the player can buy/research more of. Once the unit is destroyed you could receive all your resources back or you could lose everything. The enemy that destroys your unit could get all the goods or get nothing.
Point A can be the country's closest border, or closest core province or capital (making moving the capital even more useful). Once the country accepts your trade the unit can be sent, or you can send units whenever.
The route from point A to Point to B, could be set manually or done automatically. The route could have minimum requirements ie the unit being able to reach point B in 24hrs. The route could be allowed to pass through countries of right of way but not countries that have you embargoed. The route could be faster if infrastructure was built (including ports) or their could exist special trade routes like sea routes, or land routes for certain maps that are extra fast if you controlled certain provinces/islands (making islands useful). Provinces could also offer areas of control, ie islands controls a certain radius around it, preventing enemies from passing with trade units through this aoe.
Point B, once the unit arrives you could automatically receive resources from the delievree or person B would of decided if they actually wanted to send you the agreed supplies back.
Why use this trade systems over the stockmarket?
Stockmarket could be penalised further with greater money taxes
. Incentives could be given ie the amount of resources that arrives, or the resources received could be doubled for free. A daily reducing system where the first successful trade gives double and the second gives 1.5 and so on, could reset at day change, should prevent close geographic players from exponentially increasing their resources. Resources could be sent into AI nations to improve relations or AI may have a chance of sending a trade resources into your country if your relations are high enough.
So what?
Think of the potential;
-Blockades
-Wars of attrition not your time
-Useful AI
-More rewards for player co-operation
-More potential for more dramatic betrayals/conflicts
-Introduction of logistics
-Balancing
-Disguised espionage
-Additional uses for current features
-Complex economies
-Better resource management
-Extra Strategic points
-Role-play
Conclusion
The current trade system, in my humble opinion of playing call of war for 1 year, is quite limited and vulnerable to abuse. While I admit that I in no way know how the transfer of goods from a unit going to point A to point B should exactly be implemented stats and all, I still strongly believe it would be an incredible decision, as it will not only limit players who abuse the game but it adds a unique element that rewards players who take the time to understand and be involved in their game. To what extent that this is implemented should be gradually scrutinised and decided by the community. To those who may say it's a war game of stacking mighty armies against each other and we're better of without complex messy trade I leave you with this:
-"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity." Zoo Sun
Issues with Trading
1. Gameplay Problems;
From what I've read and understood, it would seem that players and devs are rightfully opposed to multi-account pushing. For this reason, it seems a little counter intuitive to allow unlimited trades between players without any delays or counters. This is particularly noticeable and obvious on maps like HHW, where isolated countries like Australia, remain active but passive, putting all resources into industry and showing no signs of expansion or confrontation. Instead diverting all their resources into the player's desired country.
This strategy of having neutral nations funnelling resources into one aggressive country, poses not only the expected problem of giving an unfair advantage for players involved in a direct confrontation (bear with me here), but also disrespects the developers by creating players who have a free excess of resources. Essentially gold spammers that didn't spend any of their oh-so-juicy money to support Bytro's game.
2. Historical Accuracy;
*Disclaimer* I'm not going to say the game has to be historically accurate to be fun, or that we should sacrifice fun for accuracy, instead if you can implement something that is more realistic and is more fun/interesting shouldn't you add it?
From my plebeian wikipedia surfing, I've understood that trade between allies and other neutral countries was a driving factor in WWII ie Lend-Lease and the swedish iron-ore industry. I also understood that trade wasn't instantly and securely transported into countries (Ie U boats sinking merchant ships). So you would think there would be at least some measures a player could take to either delay or prevent trades between players.
And no I'm not going to use this as an opportunity to criticise the stockmarket. I think it's a practical feature that has to exist for the sake of gameplay rather than accuracy. And is fair through a gameplay standpoint... it's accessibility (everyone can use the platform), relative penalty (percentage of money taken away from the player), player control (embargoing players denies purchase of your listed resources) and to an extent anonymity (not showing who's selling what).
My Counter Offer(s)
*Disclaimer* I am a dumbo and have no clue what it would take to implement certain features.
Now the questions is what should be implemented instead?
Well when I spent time thinking about all the options that come to mind I realised they stemmed from a repeating idea. Instead of having trades between players done as a request that is instantly received, it could be that trades get it's own unit similar to aircraft transport trucks or transport ships.
I feel like if the developers were able to use the system that a unit starts at Point A and then arrives Point B, and then the transaction is received, the possibilities for trading would be endless...
Just look at how complex and interesting
or simple and practical you could make it,Original idea: Unit goes to point A to point B, trade is received
Possible Ideas (Skip this more 'detailed' discussion of possibilities if you are against the original idea):
Unit can be a transport convoy, naval ship or even an aircraft in end games that can be researched to improve speed. This unit can be automatically controlled and pathfinds from A to B in the quickest way possible or it could be micromanaged and moved by the player. It can be really slow or really fast. It's speed can depend on the amount of resources it carries or it can be consistent for all transport units. It can have sight in territories to allow for subtle spying or it could have no sight at all. You could send unlimited amounts of these units (probably crashing the game) or you can give each player a set amount of trade units that could be a fixed number or something the player can buy/research more of. Once the unit is destroyed you could receive all your resources back or you could lose everything. The enemy that destroys your unit could get all the goods or get nothing.
Point A can be the country's closest border, or closest core province or capital (making moving the capital even more useful). Once the country accepts your trade the unit can be sent, or you can send units whenever.
The route from point A to Point to B, could be set manually or done automatically. The route could have minimum requirements ie the unit being able to reach point B in 24hrs. The route could be allowed to pass through countries of right of way but not countries that have you embargoed. The route could be faster if infrastructure was built (including ports) or their could exist special trade routes like sea routes, or land routes for certain maps that are extra fast if you controlled certain provinces/islands (making islands useful). Provinces could also offer areas of control, ie islands controls a certain radius around it, preventing enemies from passing with trade units through this aoe.
Point B, once the unit arrives you could automatically receive resources from the delievree or person B would of decided if they actually wanted to send you the agreed supplies back.
Why use this trade systems over the stockmarket?
Stockmarket could be penalised further with greater money taxes
. Incentives could be given ie the amount of resources that arrives, or the resources received could be doubled for free. A daily reducing system where the first successful trade gives double and the second gives 1.5 and so on, could reset at day change, should prevent close geographic players from exponentially increasing their resources. Resources could be sent into AI nations to improve relations or AI may have a chance of sending a trade resources into your country if your relations are high enough.So what?
Think of the potential;
-Blockades
-Wars of attrition not your time
-Useful AI
-More rewards for player co-operation
-More potential for more dramatic betrayals/conflicts
-Introduction of logistics
-Balancing
-Disguised espionage
-Additional uses for current features
-Complex economies
-Better resource management
-Extra Strategic points
-Role-play
Conclusion
The current trade system, in my humble opinion of playing call of war for 1 year, is quite limited and vulnerable to abuse. While I admit that I in no way know how the transfer of goods from a unit going to point A to point B should exactly be implemented stats and all, I still strongly believe it would be an incredible decision, as it will not only limit players who abuse the game but it adds a unique element that rewards players who take the time to understand and be involved in their game. To what extent that this is implemented should be gradually scrutinised and decided by the community. To those who may say it's a war game of stacking mighty armies against each other and we're better of without complex messy trade I leave you with this:
-"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity." Zoo Sun
Make HWW all in, a staple gamemode 
