New foreign trade system (user suggestion)

[HusKatten]

There shouldn't be any resources required to build something. This isn't WWII with rare strategic goods. Almost everything needed could be produced locally, it was more about cost and demand- did Romans need fancy ceramics? Not really when local ceramics would be fine but people wanted something nicer and were willing to pay. I can't think of any strategic level goods in Roman era so making a certain good required to produce something is absurd. Better would be simply income and happiness/diplomacy. More trade routes you control the happier your people offsetting some of the penalties of controlling a large Empire while also giving income and making other factions less likely to antagonize you as they also benefit from the trade income, just to a lesser amount. The closest to strategic level goods I can think of were slaves and knowledge of engineering. Slaves can be taken anywhere but some Empires built on slavery like Rome require an immense amount and eventually the number of wars to get more slaves would impose heavy costs but without slaves the entire economy of the Rome would have to change imposing massive happiness/unrest penalties while knowledge really can't be made a trade good in any realistic way.

Good you are pointing that out. Ofcourse these resources along these trade routes are not neccessary to build something. But they will provide income bonus and other bonuses as you also point out. By trading with factions that have a Trade Route Stop you gain access to that goods, and that access only means that your trading with that faction will have higher income values than a trade agreement with a faction that lacks a Trade Route Stop.

[Mithridates II the Great]

very interesting dude , I think trade was boring in Rome I - Shogun and other total war games and CA should rethink about this .creating markets in the cities or around the cities , merchants trying to make deal , auction and etc can make the trade more interesting and can help the gamers spend more time on trade .

If they don't wanna make like that at least try to show them by some similar animations .

[Landil]

I agree that trade agreements are easier mechanics-wise, however, it is not realistic from a historical perspective, nor from a logical perspective really. The idea is that states do not acquire such resources through diplomatic relations (diplomatic 'trade' was really just trading gifts or one faction giving tribute to a superior faction, trade agreements are mostly a concept of the modern age) but rather use their own resources to get involved in the trade. Trade was mostly in the hands of independent merchants who either based themselves in cities where they bought up new deliveries to then sell to their customers or caravan masters who led the resources from one city to another to sell them to the aforementioned city-based merchant. Logically, this increases the price of the resource the further away it gets from the starting point of the trade route (just as an aside). The costumers of the city-based merchants were often merchants that worked for kings, nobles or other people who had interest in purchasing their goods. As you see, no faction is involved in the selling of these raw resources, factions did not sell to other factions, only bought to satisfy their own demand. The only products that were traded with other states were their own produce and products that they manufactured from the raw resources imported from the trade routes (like silk clothing that was made locally from raw silk).

It seems to me that the way to portray this kind of trade would be through something like an Agent, though there are alternatives. One of those might be that once you have discovered a Trade Route City belonging to a neutral or allied faction, you can select it and there will be an option called something like 'Invest in trade route. Cost: ???'. This would represent you funding a group of merchants to be sent forth to that city to buy up a small percentage of the stockpile. This would circumvent the need for an agent that you continually have to look after, while maintaining the risk that comes with investment: you might have wasted your money because something bad might befall the city the next turn. On the other hand, the city might also keep developing its economic value and you will prosper from it.

[Ichon]

I think trade agreements just represent a certain level of diplomacy between states. Neutrality or ceasefire maybe better description despite the different names used in past TW games. Basically where borders are open and there isn't many cross border raids/fighting. Germania in the later Empire era for example- the nearer tribes had trade pact with Rome which allowed both to prosper while the wars were often stirred up by tribes further away who did not have trade pacts. Picts in Britain despite being neighbors would not have a trade pact, Carthaginians and Romans in Hispania at first had to fight some of the Hispanic tribes nearly constantly while having trade pacts with other tribes. So basically neutral in game is where the borders are closed and there is suspicion, trade pact is open borders while alliance and open war are obvious.

Agents worked in MTW2 so well because of that games engine- Shogun 2 and ETW show what more sophisticated mechanics can do- the idea of trade routes for example is pretty good on its own- I am not sure what agents would improve upon? If you are a state and form trade pact with a state that controls trade routes then there is small diplomatic increase and income benefits to both sides. Without a trade pact but not in open war there is suspicion and no positive diplomacy but the chance for diplomatic incidents increases(longer time no trade pact exists makes more likely those factions is to seek pact and alliance with other states). Also it might give a better option in diplomacy between allies. In Shogun 2 if your ally was attacked you had 2 choices, war or loss of honor. That system doesn't make sense for RTW2 but addition of option to break off trade pact short of fully going to war against your allies enemy would be interesting and the concurrent war between your ally who remains allied doesn't drop your relations but does drop relations with their enemy whose attack led to the breaking of the trade pact. Eventually you might be forced into war anyway but at least it gives you a chance to prepare but costs you income and happiness of your population from less trade but still helps your ally in negotiations because while you didn't fully support your ally you also didn't totally abandon them and their enemy might be slightly more willing to negotiate.

[Landil]

I think trade agreements just represent a certain level of diplomacy between states. Neutrality or ceasefire maybe better description despite the different names used in past TW games. Basically where borders are open and there isn't many cross border raids/fighting. Germania in the later Empire era for example- the nearer tribes had trade pact with Rome which allowed both to prosper while the wars were often stirred up by tribes further away who did not have trade pacts. Picts in Britain despite being neighbors would not have a trade pact, Carthaginians and Romans in Hispania at first had to fight some of the Hispanic tribes nearly constantly while having trade pacts with other tribes. So basically neutral in game is where the borders are closed and there is suspicion, trade pact is open borders while alliance and open war are obvious.

Agents worked in MTW2 so well because of that games engine- Shogun 2 and ETW show what more sophisticated mechanics can do- the idea of trade routes for example is pretty good on its own- I am not sure what agents would improve upon? If you are a state and form trade pact with a state that controls trade routes then there is small diplomatic increase and income benefits to both sides. Without a trade pact but not in open war there is suspicion and no positive diplomacy but the chance for diplomatic incidents increases(longer time no trade pact exists makes more likely those factions is to seek pact and alliance with other states). Also it might give a better option in diplomacy between allies. In Shogun 2 if your ally was attacked you had 2 choices, war or loss of honor. That system doesn't make sense for RTW2 but addition of option to break off trade pact short of fully going to war against your allies enemy would be interesting and the concurrent war between your ally who remains allied doesn't drop your relations but does drop relations with their enemy whose attack led to the breaking of the trade pact. Eventually you might be forced into war anyway but at least it gives you a chance to prepare but costs you income and happiness of your population from less trade but still helps your ally in negotiations because while you didn't fully support your ally you also didn't totally abandon them and their enemy might be slightly more willing to negotiate.

Just for clarity, I did not mean to imply that I think trade agreements should not be in the game, but rather that they should not represent the interest a faction has in trade that goes on in lands that are dozens of regions from that faction's borders. Neither am I saying that it has to be agents representing this type of trade. My main point is simply that trade in pre-modern times was mostly beyond the control of the state as I have explained in my previous post, this would be the case for a faction investing in far-off trade routes as well as a faction directly in control of a trade route city. The trade was in the hands of independent merchants who sold their wares to merchants of various factions, not caring about their allegiance but about their gold. These merchants went to place where it was safest to travel and where to economic and political climate was best to sell, and in this I agree completely with the mechanics proposed in the first post, for if any ill befell a trade emporium, the merchants would simply move to the next best city in the region. I simply propose we find a way to represent the interest that factions had in this trade, especially factions that are far removed from the trade route in question, as generally those states had to send their own merchants there to buy up the necessary amount of goods from the stockpiles controlled by the independent merchants. Rulers did not trade directly with one another, something they did through their merchants, but more often third parties were involved, and if rulers made a trade agreement, that only meant to say: 'I allow his merchants to trade with mine in my territory, as long as mine can safely trade in his territory.' The goods traded in the process secured by the trade agreement did not necessarily end up in the hand of the state itself, it was just a measure to secure general trade between the normal populace.

[Ichon]

Just for clarity, I did not mean to imply that I think trade agreements should not be in the game, but rather that they should not represent the interest a faction has in trade that goes on in lands that are dozens of regions from that faction's borders. Neither am I saying that it has to be agents representing this type of trade. My main point is simply that trade in pre-modern times was mostly beyond the control of the state as I have explained in my previous post, this would be the case for a faction investing in far-off trade routes as well as a faction directly in control of a trade route city. The trade was in the hands of independent merchants who sold their wares to merchants of various factions, not caring about their allegiance but about their gold. These merchants went to place where it was safest to travel and where to economic and political climate was best to sell, and in this I agree completely with the mechanics proposed in the first post, for if any ill befell a trade emporium, the merchants would simply move to the next best city in the region. I simply propose we find a way to represent the interest that factions had in this trade, especially factions that are far removed from the trade route in question, as generally those states had to send their own merchants there to buy up the necessary amount of goods from the stockpiles controlled by the independent merchants. Rulers did not trade directly with one another, something they did through their merchants, but more often third parties were involved, and if rulers made a trade agreement, that only meant to say: 'I allow his merchants to trade with mine in my territory, as long as mine can safely trade in his territory.' The goods traded in the process secured by the trade agreement did not necessarily end up in the hand of the state itself, it was just a measure to secure general trade between the normal populace.

That says nearly what I said. I guess the main question on implementing this idea is the flow of goods. For example incense flowing from Arabia ending up in Hispania- how would trade route cities replicate that? I have no problem with trade disruptions as those happened in history. For example if 1 trade route city surpasses another- initially income could go to half for a 2-3 turns in both cities as it takes a bit for merchants to respond to changing markets- that would also possible change the next connection in the route. As for incense from Arabia ending up in Hispania- does the route actually need to have the trade good arrive and be traced through each point on the route or is it enough to abstract it that the more trade connections a city has to the trade route city the more benefit without trying to make a distinction between incense, spices, grapes, olive oil, etc? Since all the goods have different values to different cultures and regions I can't see how tracing individual goods would work?

[Landil]

That says nearly what I said. I guess the main question on implementing this idea is the flow of goods. For example incense flowing from Arabia ending up in Hispania- how would trade route cities replicate that? I have no problem with trade disruptions as those happened in history. For example if 1 trade route city surpasses another- initially income could go to half for a 2-3 turns in both cities as it takes a bit for merchants to respond to changing markets- that would also possible change the next connection in the route. As for incense from Arabia ending up in Hispania- does the route actually need to have the trade good arrive and be traced through each point on the route or is it enough to abstract it that the more trade connections a city has to the trade route city the more benefit without trying to make a distinction between incense, spices, grapes, olive oil, etc? Since all the goods have different values to different cultures and regions I can't see how tracing individual goods would work?

I do not believe in the blatant copying of other people's words, I think you mean to say that I came to a conclusion similar to yours, which is something entirely different than 'saying nearly what I said', for those are words of an accusative nature. But enough about the ways of communication.

It is indeed very difficult to determine how exactly you should simulate such an economy, simply because through our modern paradigm we understand so little of those who came before us.

First of all, I think that it would become too complicated if we 'trace the resource through each point of the trade route' and the same applies for the matter of representing coinage, for coinage was based on different metals and values of weight in every region, and it would be far too tedious a process to simulate the whole process of minting and inflation and what not. Instead, I opt to go for the way Total War games have done it in the past: set everything in the same category to use one single standard. All exotic trade goods would be represented by a monetary value, even if as often as not they were traded for things other than actual coin, and all different matters of coinage are represented by the one most commonly used to denote values, which would be the denarius I would think. This complies with both modern and historical ways, take for example the Domesday Book of 1086/7, in which the Pound (libra) was used as if it were an actual monetary unit to describe the value of the holdings of the king and his men and other such things, while the only coin actually used was the silver Penny. In this and many other records of old, money was used to denote the value of goods even when they were not always used to purchase these goods, and I think so it should be for Rome II.

For the wares traded in the cities along the trade routes, this would mean that in my opinion we would do well to represent them as monetary values, visible perhaps in the overview menu of each city on the trade route. The revenue gathered from this by the faction controlling the trading city would simply be determined by the tax-rate (and for this I would say bring individual tax-rates like before Empire back), as beyond taxing the merchants, the government had little control over the trade. It would make sense if the value generated by the trade route diminishes the further the city is removed from the starting point of the route, so the first city on the trade route generates the most value, the second less, the third even less etc. This would be because every time the trading caravans enter a city, part of the load is sold locally, while the rest is sold to merchants who then bring it to the next city. Both types of exchange are taxed, so they both generate revenue for the controlling faction, but the next city will have fewer goods to actually tax.

Going back to the little control governments had over trade, I did try to stress the point that they could 'invest' in trade goods, which I think would add both an element of choice as well as risk. If it would be so that the faction controlling the city on the trade route derives its revenue mainly from taxation of the merchants, then how would other factions gain from it? I would say investment: sending virtual merchants by some sort of option such as I exemplified as 'Invest in trade route. Cost: ???', perhaps most simply located on the screen you get when you select the city. This means that you take the risk of spending money on a mercantile mission, which if successful (as in: no disaster befalls the city, you do not get involved in a war with the faction controlling the city, etc.), will over time generate revenue based on a small percentage of the total value of the city's 'exotic' trade.

With this I do not at all wish to discard the idea of trade agreements and 'normal' trade routes, they serve the purpose of the trade of local produce with neighbours over short distances just fine, but I do not think they can represent long distance trade routes like the silk route that went far beyond the control of any government.

Also, I do not think that, at least in the case of luxury goods like silk, wages from things like travel distances truly matter to the value of the goods, as the merchants will simply sell them at a higher price then normal, as for such goods there would normally always be a demand no matter the price in regions where the supply of such wares are completely dependant on import from distant lands.

[Ichon]

For the wares traded in the cities along the trade routes, this would mean that in my opinion we would do well to represent them as monetary values, visible perhaps in the overview menu of each city on the trade route. The revenue gathered from this by the faction controlling the trading city would simply be determined by the tax-rate (and for this I would say bring individual tax-rates like before Empire back), as beyond taxing the merchants, the government had little control over the trade. It would make sense if the value generated by the trade route diminishes the further the city is removed from the starting point of the route, so the first city on the trade route generates the most value, the second less, the third even less etc. This would be because every time the trading caravans enter a city, part of the load is sold locally, while the rest is sold to merchants who then bring it to the next city. Both types of exchange are taxed, so they both generate revenue for the controlling faction, but the next city will have fewer goods to actually tax.

Also, I do not think that, at least in the case of luxury goods like silk, wages from things like travel distances truly matter to the value of the goods, as the merchants will simply sell them at a higher price then normal, as for such goods there would normally always be a demand no matter the price in regions where the supply of such wares are completely dependant on import from distant lands.

I think simply using a single value is how TW will have to operate. Even Paradox games which go much more into complex economics use a single value because doing otherwise makes it an economic simulation not a game.

That part I think you maybe did not account for is that at each stage of travel over trade route further from origin point while the trade goods are sold in each city along the way and there are less goods to travel further the value of those goods rises. Near the origin the value of silk is less than at the furthest point away, most of the time alot less which is how MTW2 resources function though a bit too extreme where the value was dependent on distance to nearest source. So taxing trade good the cities nearest the source gain revenue more by volume while those states furthest away gain tax income more on the value of the good.

The greatness of the idea proposed by OP is how defining geographical limits of trade routes automatically accounts for a large number of variables of worth with distance and tax values etc. For the Silk Road there could even easily be 2-3 separate geographical routes.

The important issue you've brought up is how the factions on the other end of the trade routes who are not in the geographic area benefit from access to the end of the trade route. I say that the benefit should be based purely on number and distance of the trade connections. Because done well every geographic region would have 1 or more trade routes. Incense, Silk, Gold, Amber, Slaves, Spices, Dye, etc. Probably less trade routes than in MTW2 but also more intense competition but the winning city simply derives the most benefit but if a city in Caucuses is competing against a city in the Levant for example (if they are within the same geographical trade region) then whichever city wins brings more and closer trade connections to all the regions nearby not only the winning city. Those other nearby cities might not benefit as much in income but get happiness/growth/culture benefits and also pass those on to the next geographic region nearby. So if a city in the Caucuses wins then all the Black Sea regions gain a slight benefit while also making a contest between a city in the Balkans or Greece in the next geographical trade region more likely to by won by the city in the Balkans because its closer to the city that won the in the Caucuses whereas if the Caucuses had lost to the Levant, Greece is more likely to have benefited. So naturally this gives some advantages based on geography but also allows those advantages to shift based on in game events. Carthage for example starts in a natural position to dominate N African trade routes but if Rome sacks Carthage than a city in Numidia or Sicily might gain that trade route further influencing the competition between cities in Hispania or Gaul for the tin/lead trade route from Britain/Ireland where if city in Numidia wins than Hispania is more likely to benefit but if Sicily wins then a city in Gaul... even with only 3-4 trade routes on the the entire map this would work as Silk Road or Incense route for example is just a very long route with several stops or has 2 competing geographic areas, north and south each with a few stops which don't necessarily interfere with each other.

I don't think travel costs matter either in most goods traded long distance since the value far exceeds that cost but I wasn't the one who brought up the 50 miles by wagon doubling thing.

- You can have several trade nodes without the need of an agent in the location. The distance to for example the silk rode is made for the other things that you can trade and still make some city in your territory important.

The idea of trade routes is that there are some goods that are more valuable, and the value would depend on how the middleman approaches the distance to profit ratio. The thing is you can control that by making your lands more secure, by establishing more trade posts and police posts in the road, like it was in the persian empire to speed communication, they had posts with fresh horses every few km so that the messages reached faster their intended destination. We could use this to make trade routes more valuable for your country, since you need to spend less on the protection of the caravan.

However the trade nodes can be made from less valuable materials, like fur, fabrics, and that can be made more valuable with your own produced goods, like the jewelry, pottery, grains, those were common trade goods in the less known internal trade routes that rome had, or that other people had. This can also include military equipment like the example in the meinz case.

The way I saw trade routes is that it doesn't replace local trade but simply represents that locations which were favorable to long distance trade because of market connections, population size, or population wealth also will draw even more localized trade since the markets are so large which draws more merchants which makes such a city even more tempting to the long distance trade routes. Of course local disruptions like war or later eras plagues or changes in the courses of rivers or the sea level/water supply can have big impact but for RTW2 purposes probably only war and maybe plague could have such a large impact unless they include random natural disasters.

So a city that gains trade route stop gets a relatively large bonus in both income and population growth/happiness enabling a larger more competitive city to be maintained and more likely to keep that trade stop. The regions near that trade stop gain lower income bonus and small happiness/growth bonus as well which further influences the next trade stop on either side of that geographic region making them slightly better candidates to get a trade stop than a competitor. However- even if the city with the trade stop is the largest in the world- events in the other geographic regions can still impact it. For example the region to the east has a large war where the nearest trade stop city is sacked so the trade stop shifts north and a slightly smaller city than the largest city in the world because its closer to the new trade stop and outside of the warring region gains that stop. Now since the largest city in the world lost its trade stop the region to the west has less connections losing a major trade partner and it was barely maintaining its trade stop status from several competitors one of who now gains the trade stop.

So the largest city in the world lost alot of income and also now without the growth/happiness bonuses its population begins to decline. It could go on a military campaign against the competing city in the north and blockade that cities port but if the war to the east is still going on that is not a guarantee it will get the trade stop back. It might have to intervene in the war to the east on the side of its former trading partner city to get the trade stop back. Ideally human player and AI would anticipate that the war in the east might disrupt the trade stop and the largest city in the world would intervene even before losing its trade stop to help its partner city out- either by capturing that city itself but not sacking it, or allying with that faction and providing some support. Alternatively the largest city in the world is also owned by the faction that the trade stop shifted too... in that case maybe nothing will be done other than a new city attains greatness and eventually becomes the largest in the world as the population/happiness bonuses allow it to overtake the former largest city whose population declined from the heights allowed by the trade stop bonus it once had.

[karamazovmm]

Actually trade agreements and cities that were hubs of these, have changed from the political will of an entity. Modern states are the ones considered after the french revolution for some, others far latter.

The problematic involved here would be how those hubs would change.

Historicity only concerns me at the start of the campaign and some units here and there for people that are fans of those. When you start a game you are shaping things your way. thus what happened here or there is irrelevant.

Back to the point.

The problem here is that we have a great idea from the stand point of far more interesting economics. With some trouble in the execution.

The main issue is how to make the change from one hub to another, it has been embraced by the OP that one of the causes could be war. And indeed that is extremely valid.

Trade agreements in that time period were mainly done in the high to mid level as we do today. Some came from the state being the one purchasing the goods, and the others from the middleman doing the job.

to this point you can take a look at some ancient treaties that have survived from this time, including some even before the time frame.

Thus the problematic would be how to implement a competition system that would entail a series of works, including buildings and those instant decisions that you have available in the warscape engine, including as well trade agreements between the nations.

In EU3 they made the merchant an important agent that you would send to the markets spread around the world to make your nation some profit there, in that game it was dependent on the techs and policies that your nation adopted, including war.

I think that is the most wise stance, we could away with the merchant and just go for the implementation of: policies, buildings, diplomatic stance and so forth.

The main problem here would be how to implement that in the campaign scenario. And how the AI would counteract your changes.

One example before the timeframe would be Kadesh, that was an important city in terms of trade, and disputed by the hitites and egypt. There was a trade agreement established after a series of campaigns.

Another thing that is also problematic and that I fear we may endure is the economic historians. Those have always been extremely poor, and are still. They have never learned about the anal school of thought, and sincerely, from the economists that I know, its still a long work. The shoehorning of our way of thought in their economic system is going to be a poor fit, no matter the angle that you look at.

Thus we can only base on what the trade agreements that survived to this day, still a poor way to approach the matter, but its still something.

[saber]

I want to know why every trade agreement produces a net profit for both parties. Augustus (Octavian) tried to limit the purchase of silk since so much gold and silver was flowing out of the Roman Empire. Moreover, he limited wine production to only the Italian peninsula and prohibited other provinces from producing wine so than Roman wine makers could maintain a monopoly. I would like to see a more complex trading system so that you can institute protectionist policies, set trade tariffs to start trade wars, etc.

[Ichon]

I want to know why every trade agreement produces a net profit for both parties. Augustus (Octavian) tried to limit the purchase of silk since so much gold and silver was flowing out of the Roman Empire. Moreover, he limited wine production to only the Italian peninsula and prohibited other provinces from producing wine so than Roman wine makers could maintain a monopoly. I would like to see a more complex trading system so that you can institute protectionist policies, set trade tariffs to start trade wars, etc.

That would be nice to have complex enough economy to set protectionist policies and show there are not always 2 clear winners in trade but that would require very subtle and complex models which I just can't see in a TW game.

Coin flowing out of Europe was a long term issue and I am not sure how to represent it in the game but that is a very interesting point that not all trades create equal winners. I could see that being addressed and really that would be the only reason to keep track of the individuals goods on the trade route system proposed. So that trade route locations with more trade connections to destination points for goods that are far removed by distance make more money while the merchants/customers on the other end make much less money. There is very rarely a loss in trade to a participant or the trade would halt unless there are political implications and the trade is not subject to market forces but how to shot differing gains for trade participants in trade route system or even trade node system used in past TW games is an interesting question.

[saber]

That would be nice to have complex enough economy to set protectionist policies and show there are not always 2 clear winners in trade but that would require very subtle and complex models which I just can't see in a TW game.

Coin flowing out of Europe was a long term issue and I am not sure how to represent it in the game but that is a very interesting point that not all trades create equal winners. I could see that being addressed and really that would be the only reason to keep track of the individuals goods on the trade route system proposed. So that trade route locations with more trade connections to destination points for goods that are far removed by distance make more money while the merchants/customers on the other end make much less money. There is very rarely a loss in trade to a participant or the trade would halt unless there are political implications and the trade is not subject to market forces but how to shot differing gains for trade participants in trade route system or even trade node system used in past TW games is an interesting question.

Well, you could factor in coin flowing out by factoring in inflation (another feature that future TW games need along with deflation, coin debasement, etc). The more coins flowing out, the fewer silver and gold coins there are so merchants could increase the cost of their goods to compensate.

I should also add that in the ancient world, travel distance has a cost. Historians know (from Diocletian's Edict on Maximum Prices) that the cost of transportation by wagon doubled every 50 miles. Therefore, it is unreasonable to have long distance trade produce more money than short distance trade (unless the product was of high value). Also, if you want to check out the costs of transportation and how long it took to travel, historians have been able to make a handy little map that factors in monetary and time costs. See http://orbis.stanford.edu/ for more

[Ichon]

Well there was also continuous mining going on in those eras so more gold was found, not always enough to replace the amount that moved east but few states found it necessary to issue bronze coinage and I would be suspicious to make only the shift of coinage east without determining how the supply changed which would be based on either game factors(lead to bugged economy) or deterministically based on estimated historical flows by price changes which is hard to track precisely.

In the ancient world most goods traveling a really long way did much of that travel by ship and wagons were for very local transport in most cases due to lack of good roads. Caravans were made of pack animals and the cost estimates are not doubling every 50 miles due to slave labor and the difference of wages in different regions. Also the percentage of transportation costs in the final cost of a good could be high or tiny depending on the value of the good. Incense which had a very high value to weight and spices would make sense to transport very far and transportation purely on cost of movement is proportionally very low, losses to storms, thieves, accidents, etc would be a larger cost I'd guess.

Diocletian's Edict on Maximum Prices was made based not on coinage leaving the Empire (300 something as well so not really relevant to RTW2 era) but the Emperors mint debasing the coinage due to slowing Roman economy due to many different factors and Roman Emperors couldn't simply go into debt like modern states so they debased the coinage then issued laws ordering prices to remain stable. As always such measures failed but it wasn't due to too much gold and silver going east, it was Empire's tax revenues not able to keep up with expenses.

[HusKatten]

****If you want to discuss this feature without having to read through this whole post please scroll down to the last part of this post, there you will find a list of the current solutions debated for making this feature real.

Looking back at other TW-games the economy works pretty well, even if its depth varies alot from title to title. But i don't see how this Trade Route System, if implemented, would be more complicated to what it already is. Think about the feature in-game now.

Finally, after many turns you finally got your hands on that Trade Route Stop, it's all yours, congrats. Now you gain income bonus and many soldiers has lost their lives for it. You now need to build up a decent navy that can defend your port so that other factions cant take control of the Trade Route Stop. This process here is a process of the Trade Route Stop in itself, and it will cost money. When you finally are fine again on the military side you need to keep on developing your Trade Route Stop-City to be able to continue to be the regions most attractive city. If a rival city is more attractive than yours you might get a message that the Trade Route will be redirected to that city in a matter of turns (Because its both realistic and gameplay-friendly that it will take time before the merchants opens their eyes for new trade routes that they will profit more from). When this message appears you'll need to build up your city fast, which also costs money. So by owning a Trade Route Stop you are not only getting increased income, but probably also increased expenses if you want to keep the Trade Route Stop in your city.

The above are facts. Those things are sure to happen. Now we can ask ourselves, as a Trade Route Stop Holder do we want to put more effort in this? Probably no. It wouldn't be cost-effective. This idea here is simple and yet a great improvement. But then we come to the factions that doesnt own a Trade Route Stop, how will these benefit from the Trade Route at all? That's the question you are debating about now.

And please remember that this is a game, its not about rebuilding the whole historical economy of the classical ages. It's suppost to be easy for everyone to understand, yet challenging to master. A person who is not that interested in the history of economy should still find sense in how it all works.

I'll now take my time to comment on your proposals on this features only gameplay-wise since i do see that you got the historical parts just right. I hope my answers will sort things out and create some sort of categories so that others can join the debate as well that wasn't here from the beginning or doesn't have the time to read all the replies. I will both pick out the obvious questions I see and the vague ones, quote them and maybe shake things around so that its easy and fast to read. Pardon me if i accidently mess some of your statements up.

The quotes are in Bold letters and are followed by my comments which is in Normal letters:

Landil: I agree that trade agreements are easier mechanics-wise, however, it is not realistic from a historical perspective, nor from a logical perspective really. (...) Trade was mostly in the hands of independent merchants who either based themselves in cities where they bought up new deliveries to then sell to their customers or caravan masters who led the resources from one city to another to sell them to the aforementioned city-based merchant. (The full reply can be found at: Page 2, #21)

This is an argument of having agents instead of automatic trade routes for the factions that doesn't own a Trade Route Stop but still wants to take part in the Trade Routes. I think Agents maybe can be used if they have other meanings aswell than just favouring the bigger Trade Routes. Think if you mass out these merchants, or if you only need one?, and send this little fellow to a Trade Route Stop to gain some profit from the trade. If you then manage to capture your own Trade Route Stop and gain both the goods and income bonus, will that render your merchant worthless? or will he still be able to gain profit from being stationed in the same trade route chain, one of which stops you've managed to conquer? How will this look on the campaign map? Imagine when the Stop is redirected to another city, will all those 50 merchants (all belonging to different factions) rush to the new city? Feels like they could mess up the Campaign map pretty much.

By replacing these agents with automatic trade routes of some sort that can represent the accual merchants that are sent out. no one has ever claimed the the wagons or ships running along the trade routes are supported by the government or if they are individual gold-seekers, those are just a symbol for all-out-trade. But the problem with automatic trade routes between a faction that lacks a Stop and a faction that owns a Stop, is that if a faction who lacks a Stop is to far away from the faction which owns the Stop, he wont be able to participate in that trade route, due to that the automatic routes doesn't stretch that far. In this problematic scene i can see how to argue for having some sort of agent that can go far away from its home region to distant lands.

Landil: though there are alternatives. One of those might be that once you have discovered a Trade Route City belonging to a neutral or allied faction, you can select it and there will be an option called something like 'Invest in trade route. Cost: ???' (The full reply can be found at: Page 2, #21)

I can see this happening in a multiplaying Campaign, not in a singleplayer however. Constructing the AI to invest in these cities must be pretty hard. I have little more to say about this. Though i really like the idea of investing, but i think the AI will have another oppinion.

Ichon: I think trade agreements just represent a certain level of diplomacy between states. Neutrality or ceasefire maybe better description despite the different names used in past TW games. (The full reply can be found at: Page 2, #22)

This isnt a feature that are proposed or anything, but i still want to take this part here just to clarify. Even thought Trade Agreements are only a diplomatic issue, i still feel that they function well in-game as just Trade Agreements, by the meaning that you allow trade between borders and seas. If trade is allowed then your merchants, wether they are supported by the king, republic or just a independent farmer trying his luck, will trade with other factions for profit. A profit that you as a faction will gain from.

Mr MM: I think that is the most wise stance, we could away with the merchant and just go for the implementation of: policies, buildings, diplomatic stance and so forth. (The full reply can be found at: Page 2, #25)

Maybe this is an addition if we go for the automatic trade routes. Make these routes stronger by chosing policies and develope techs. Still we have a problem for the factions who are to far away from the Routes to have any profit from establishing trade agreements. Maybe we need an agent just because of those? Or we can see to it that there will be more Dynamic Trade Routes than just the silk road. The arabian, iranian/indian and south-east african factions can fight over the incense trade for example. While the nothern will fight over the Trade Routes going through their home provinces?

If we do skip even the long-distance agent for the long distance trade then it would accually make sense to bring back a valid excuse for colonization. If you as an example play as an iberian faction. You might be out of reach to get part in the Dynamic Trade Routes. Then its probably a good idea to start colonize the east to gain that access. If, ofcourse, you are interested in that trading.

Saber: I want to know why every trade agreement produces a net profit for both parties. Augustus (Octavian) tried to limit the purchase of silk since so much gold and silver was flowing out of the Roman Empire. (The full reply can be found at: Page 2, #27)

I think that this is taking it to far. A person who isnt much into trade should not have to worry to much about his money spent on trade. This can lead to new players wondering why the heck their money is dissappearing. Even if i like the idea of that trade treaties shouldn't always profit both factions, i still think its too complicated in a game with so many aspects as the Total War series.

And as for the minting and inflation-discussion, i think thats also about stretching it too far. Also someone suggested that the trade profit will wear off from the start to the end of the Trade Route. I think this approach can be hard to balance out with everyones economy. I mean Seleucid will have great income from the Silk Trade at the start, but if you also make every region worth a different amount of money, then it may not be profitable to comepete over these Stops, espeically to later stops in the mediterranean where it otherwise could prove much exciting to have a great competition over the Stops.

I think i've got all of the arguments answered. If i don't, then just say so. And again, my quotes are not exactly correct. I don't mean to point you out or anything, just to get this debate about the feature going fluid.

So basically what we are discussing at the moment is how factions who wants to gain profit from a bigger Trade Route but doesn't own a Trade Route Stop or is too far away from one can get involved.
The suggestions are as follows:

• Making use of agents which can occupy the Trade Route or a Trade Route Stop to accumulate wealth.
• Same as above, but the Agents only works well in trading with very distant lands.
• Let players and AI invest if Trade Routes or Trade Route Stops by a simple click.
• Let the tradings be automatic (just as normal trade routes) and have them limited to geographical regions, thus increasing the validness of having to colonize.

[karamazovmm]

I dont see the problem:

- You can have several trade nodes without the need of an agent in the location. The distance to for example the silk rode is made for the other things that you can trade and still make some city in your territory important.

For example:

Im the lusones, turiasso is my capital and its my most developed city. While my city would profit less from entering the amber road or the silk road, I can still make good profit with some other goods like leather and other resources that I have available and can produce, like pottery, jewelry, grains... I can make a hub there focusing the regional trade in this city to distribute the goods that I can buy from the quart hasdat.

The idea of trade routes is that there are some goods that are more valuable, and the value would depend on how the middleman approaches the distance to profit ratio. The thing is you can control that by making your lands more secure, by establishing more trade posts and police posts in the road, like it was in the persian empire to speed communication, they had posts with fresh horses every few km so that the messages reached faster their intended destination. We could use this to make trade routes more valuable for your country, since you need to spend less on the protection of the caravan.

However the trade nodes can be made from less valuable materials, like fur, fabrics, and that can be made more valuable with your own produced goods, like the jewelry, pottery, grains, those were common trade goods in the less known internal trade routes that rome had, or that other people had. This can also include military equipment like the example in the meinz case.

We have to be aware that after the game starts history is basically re written by you player, thus to develop a more interesting metallurgy and you would be selling some la tene swords to the romans.

The idea of coin evasion, is one that worried the europeans, however this is too far complex or too far simple. The problem here is that while you are making yourself richer, you are also exporting your gold, and in the end we can endure periods of inflation and deflation (and this is something that irks me, this is based on modern concepts of economy, not the concepts prevalent at the time). And that would affect differently at each point in the trade chain you were, for example, Im rome and while I still sell, insense and silk for a higher price than I bought, thus I can have a period of inflation, Im selling those to the sweboz, and they are in a deflation scenario due to the lack of coins available. This is just too complex for this game, and sincerely not fun. Most common scenario would be to restrain the consumption of the goods that are making my country out of money, trade agreements to make our products sell more (see wine and fabrics trade agreement between portugal and england), which wont always work, and to make more products for people to sell, which needs several more factors. This is just too complex or too simple.

[HusKatten]

This is another preview of the feature with many pictures and easy to understand. Hope this will bring more attention to the thread. If we want a feature like this, we should really start doing something to make it happen. The earlier the better. Let's get this started

Dynamic Trade Routes
A Dynamic Trade Route is a feature that depicts important trade routes and making them dynamic - or changeable.

The way it all works is that first of all we need to form a region. A region is an area made up out of several provinces. The above map shows us 6 regions, these regions are given a colour in order to separate them. The regions shown on this map are:
1 Thyrrhenian Sea
2 Adriatic Sea
3 Aegean Sea
4 Dark Sea
5 Southern Anatolia and Syrian Coastline
6 North Africa

So what happens when you choose to put a trade route in this map?


Aha! The black paths are symbols for the Trade Route, and the black circles are the important stops that the Trade Route makes. The black circles are therefore called Trade Route Stops. The Trade Route Stops marks a City that is the current holder of the Trade Route Stop - Obviously. As you can see, there is only one Trade Route Stop for each region. The Cities that are the current holders of these Stops get a great income bonus along with other benefits.


Oh damn, looks like the Trade Route has gone Dynamic! This is the heart of the feature. This is the Dynamic Trade Route - which means that the route can change and be redirected to new Trade Route Stops. The Trade Route chooses its Stops depending on what City in the Region is the most developed. So by develop a City to be the more dominant in a Region can redirect the Trade Route to itself and acquire its benefits - Or if you are a warrior-kind-of-guy, why not just take over the current Stop Holder City and bake the cake that way?


But what if you are in a bad position and not even near a region that offers the Trade Route you want to lay your hands on? Well then you have a few choices to make. Lets say you own the province marked with pink on the above map. You can then launch a campaign to a province that is part of the Trade Route Region and take over that city - Then its just to keep on competing over that Trade Route Stop in that region.


You can also do according to the above picture. By colonize a plot that has closeness to a Trading Region, but is not in it can still get a decent income bonus by getting a Trade Agreement with the faction that holds the current Trade Route Stop. This action will create a secondary trade route (shown in Lime Green). The secondary Trade Route lets you gain the bonuses of the goods that the Primary Trade Route (shown in black) is offering, but you cant however distribute these goods yourself.

To explain the Primary and Secondary Trade Routes a little further i'll use this picture. This picture shows that the city of Chersonesos owns the Trade Route Stop for the Dark Sea Region. This City has the bonuses that comes along with the goods that is transported by the Primary Trade Route. Being the Trade Route Stop the city also has the ability to distribute these goods to bordering provinces on land or over sea to non-adjacent provinces. These provinces however gets the goods-bonus but can't distribute the goods on their own, just like in the picture before this. The provinces in dark green are the provinces that has access to the goods provided by the Primary Trade Route. And only the Province with the city that holds the current Trade Route Stop can distribute the goods onwards.

By owning a whole region you get an additional bonus called Monopoly. If you for example owns the whole Dark Sea Region then you have acquired Monopoly, since there are no other factions in that region that can compete with you over the Trade Route Stop.

You can also get the Mediterranean Conquerer bonus by owning all of the available regions, thus being the owner of all the Mediterranean Sea!

[Ichon]

Do you think we really need secondary routes? I think normal local trade with a benefit by proximity makes more sense and is less to keep track of. Proximity should also matter a bit in the selection of trade stop. If 2 cities are equally developed the city closer to the trade stop in the nearest geographic region will win. Even if 1 city is more developed than all others but extremely far from the nearest trade stops in the closest geographic regions it would need to go to war or somehow change dynamics to bring the trade stop to itself. Sort of like Rome going to war with Carthage in 1st Punic War was able to get trade stop between Hispania and Italy while Carthage retained N African trade stop. (which brings up the point I think a few regions on geographic borders might be in 2-3 geographic regions and able to get 2-3 trade stops, Rome, Constantinople, Carthage, Alexandria, etc) 2nd Punic War was Carthage trying to regain Hispania trade stop while the 3rd Punic War was Rome taking the N African trade stop.

[HusKatten]

Do you think we really need secondary routes? I think normal local trade with a benefit by proximity makes more sense and is less to keep track of. Proximity should also matter a bit in the selection of trade stop. If 2 cities are equally developed the city closer to the trade stop in the nearest geographic region will win. Even if 1 city is more developed than all others but extremely far from the nearest trade stops in the closest geographic regions it would need to go to war or somehow change dynamics to bring the trade stop to itself. Sort of like Rome going to war with Carthage in 1st Punic War was able to get trade stop between Hispania and Italy while Carthage retained N African trade stop. (which brings up the point I think a few regions on geographic borders might be in 2-3 geographic regions and able to get 2-3 trade stops, Rome, Constantinople, Carthage, Alexandria, etc) 2nd Punic War was Carthage trying to regain Hispania trade stop while the 3rd Punic War was Rome taking the N African trade stop.

The secondary routes are not a feature but just as you say, works exactly like local Trading
and maybe the distance Can matter, and maybe not. You Can offcourse blockade the Stop Holders port to redirect the route to the next most developed city - which may be yours. This Can add up well since the ships seems to be able to siege ports/cities and destroy buildings.

[karamazovmm]

What I meant was that, there are several trade routes in the ancient world, if you take a look at the roman empire internal trade routes, there were localized hubs that concentrated the flow of goods.

Thus while the amber and the silk road are the most well known, in the gaul area there were also trade routes. Thus, there are ''localized'' trade routes.

One thing that we should try is that there is a certain amount of regions and we have a trade node. If that trade node is connected or not to another main trade route, for example amber road, its a non issue.

Thats why I used such a far regions from those main roads that we are aware of.

Another thing, Im not saying that the trade node substitutes the local trade from the roads that lead, for example, athenai to corinthos. Just that these nodes have a major importance in the commerce in the region, and are a part of a larger system.

Sincerely given the importance that the AI gives to making more money already, I clearly remember the AI in Empire putting a lot of unbalanced provinces, one filled with pleasure palaces and the other filled with manufactories, we can be sure that the AI can be competitive. But its still one thing that I hope to see improved, I dont remember that much how it worked on S2tw. And I never played NTW in depth.

How the trade node change:

- Forms of distribution - roads, ports, and the quality of those
- Security - Improve security on your roads and inevitably have more caravans roaming around
- Distance to the first hub - since this usually determines the price of the goods, this determines who and how much is going to be bought (terrible Im using modern economics again)
- Wealth of the people - this is usually determined by land and by trade, the more productive farms you make the more money you have, the larger the port, the market, the mines, the manufactories (pottery, jewelry, art...) the more wealth you have,
- Resources - Tin, pottery, jewelry, iron, silver, gold, timber, furs, wool, horses, swords, spears, shields, armor, obsidian, slaves....
- Diplomacy - War, trade agreements...

Basically the combination of all that makes you a trade node, the higher the level of your productivity the higher the level of the trade node. New products may be inserted in the middle of a trade route.

[Rasic]

Some interesting thoughts on this, I hope someone from CA catches this thread. I think the biggest thing is to keep it simple and intuitive to the average gamer but still accurately portray the scenario of how/why trade would change from one city to the next. That seems to be a more daunting task than it sounds.

This is an area CA seems to rarely touch, and if they do its only in the most basic form, but economics are a lot of the time more or equally as important as the battles when determining the outcome of war. Especially if it is prolonged over several years.

I'd just like to add I hope we see the food system of shogun 2 come into play in Rome 2. Balancing food production to profitable goods (grain to wine) with a limited number of slots in each region could work well I believe with an easy to use but more dynamic overall trade system. Allowing you to make certain provinces cash cows, but at the same time making those provinces dependent on other ones for food production.

On top of that, just the idea of beating down an enemy through economic manipulation sounds really enjoyable to me.