Interesting Discovery on Land Trade

Thought I should share.

Sometime last month I decided to start a game in which my goal would be to establish trade with every single nation in the game. Of course, the first thing I did was to plan out the trade routes, taking into consideration the known facts about trade.
( These are: )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's a given that land trade routes only form over roads, right ?
And by roads, I mean upgradable infrastructure, the web of hypothetical lines on the map that can be paved to allow faster transport. Land trade is based on this system in such a grade that leads it to occur even in regions where there are no roads, on the precise lines that the roads would follow if built.

Where am I getting at ? Well, this means that regions who are not directly linked by upgradable infrastructure can't have a trade route cross their common borderline.
On regional scale it's no big deal, but try to look at the bigger picture. Trade also occurs only between the contractors' capitals and only through regions belonging to either one. As a result, if there's a lot of blocked regional borders or third-nation provinces in the space separating the capitals, the number of possible trade routes is bound to suffer, many times becoming zero and thus making trade between the participants impossible.

After examining the Europe campaign map, I realised that the regional borders incapable of letting trade flow through them, posed a much more serious hindrance than expected. Though individually insignificant, they pile up to form long trade barriers that will block off trade access to most land regions.

These "trade barriers" (roadless borderlines or harbourless shorelines) are pictured here : (Warning: Big Pic)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Use your imagination to see how this affects land trade.
Think about how easily the various "third-party" nations can get stuck between two barriers and block the way.
For example, you'll realise that even though the land distance between the Adriatic and the Baltic is over 900 km long, there's slim chance that you'll ever be able to trade through it !
( ... unless of course you own all the northern provinces ).


What I realised, is that there's no way I could trade with more than half a dozen nations by land without performing massive relocations.

How about allying with the nations that blockade your trade? What will ahppen then?

Nothing will happen. Trade carts will only traverse on land owned by either you or the nation you're trading with.

Wow I never realized East Europe is so severely shut off.
What's a "secondary trade barrier"?

+Rep, good work on the analysis.

Good find. +rep
The major trade barriers are mostly impassable mountains as far as I'm concerned (Alps, Carpathians..etc), but the trade barriers in Russia, Germany, and Poland are quite weird.

@Daniu : Well, secondary barriers only have one region at either side, while the primary ones are longer, hence more troublesome. They're both the same at blocking trade, but I saw fit to make a distinction.

@Prince : Trade barriers are, quite simply, borders not crossed by roads.
While this may have geomorphological reasons, in some individual cases it's there to accommodate the campaign map design (for purposes of say, simplifying the infrastructure network or not running roads through forestlands).

Thanks for the rep.

sounds tough

Good one.

A serious problem is, what you allready have mentioned, that you need direct border-contact to the nation ye wanna trade with. What in my opinion absolute makes no sense, as the trade- and duty-politics were at that time a significant part of economical reasoning...

What most disturbs me is the fact that you cannot even trade with nations you are only seperated to by its or your protectorate. Mind this: protectorates count as your provinces in terms of winning conditions. I take it that a nation ye're at war with breaks your trade-connections in its own interest. But a nation ye're at terms with (no matter as an ally, just at peace or as a protectorate) should be able not only to establish trade with, but also to sell duty-licenses to use its roads to trade with a neighbouring nation.

I wonder if this would be possible to integrate in a mod. I'm far from being a modder... maybe some more versed lad could contribute to this thought.

+Rep, very interesting.

+Rep

Terrific post. Sort of thing I'd like to see much more often. Excellent idea as well for another game mode-"Commercial empire".

Usually my games are one of two types

Run away, really easy, have so much money and tech that it's like I'm a fantasy kingdom, so great is the gap, so have to set myself artificial limits on myself that just feel cheesy
Defensive, heroic, always besieged-More fun but can grind you down after a while. Alternatively you "break out" and then scenario A occurs anyway.

This third option though requires planning, requires military stuff, and will allow you to swtich from conquest to building to defensive to conquest in a way which seems natural and logical, and the challenge should be somewhat more consistent than the other two, in which the challenge either lessens quickly or alternatively ramps up to an obscene and boring level. Great idea, thanks for sharing.

Does anybody else have any of these sort of ideas? I started a sort of Enlightened Civilization challenge with Spain, in Darth Mod Empire, where the goal was to create an opulent and enlightened empire, full of cities of culture, wealth and so forth. But without anyone trying to stop me it became boring pretty quickly and I'd achieved it in about 20 years, Prestige was thousands ahead, I was stupidly rich, there was literally no challenge. I may try it in Shogun 2, would probably be harder

Yeah, some of us do have crazy ideas on how to play.

For instance, I once tried to play as VH Britain and keep the nation out of conflict, but it was not long before all the peaceful management got to my head.
For reference, check out the Ridiculous.Ways.to.play.NTW thread.

Russia isn't much a trader anyway.

So, this would argue against ever making a province a protectorate?

Well... yes and no.
One more nation on the map both hinders trade by blocking trade routes off and supports it by being a potential trade partner.

Well from what it sounds like, you have a very interesting curiosity about the things no one seems to think about Ulysses. If I could give rep I sure would give you one.

As for this finding.. it's very understandable that this is true. In reality say for instance you're France and you have just entered hostilities with Germany but you were trading with Poland before, but only over land...you have to get through Germany to trade with them, and there's NO WAY Germany is going to allow you to get goods to use against them pass through their land. Same thing with mountains except it doesn't matter how you feel towards it, it's a mountain... it doesn't care. :

Keep up the good work.

Thanks.

No matter your diplomatic status towards a third-party nation, trade routes won't be drawn through its provinces.
France can even be best pals with Germany, but that doesn't change anything.
Trade that doesn't benefit Nation X doesn't flow through Nation X. Period.

If this spot of the game was given more attention, a third party country should be able to tax foreign trade goods in exchange for letting them traverse through its land.