New foreign trade system (user suggestion)

[jamson]

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.

Paradox games will please you, CA wont add as much depth to Diplomacy or Trade as the community wishes.

[Rasic]

Paradox games will please you, CA wont add as much depth to Diplomacy or Trade as the community wishes.

It's understandable to an extent as they don't want to over complicate things. They're after the kind of people who prefer checkers over chess. I think it's just a matter of making chess more presentable to those checkers players and eliminating some of the frustrating aspects, but that takes great vision and there is a huge chance that it could backfire.


It's gotten better over the years though. It's just, like you said, diplomacy and trade that needs a major update. Not necessarily more complex but there needs to be more avenues of approach in terms of gameplay.

[Ichon]

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.

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.

Yes I totally agree there were more important trade routes than only Grain, Silk or Incense- tin and lead from Britain/Ireland is the most famous of the northern routes but salt, furs, iron weapons, horses, and slaves were also major commodities which traveled along the rivers of Europe.

Trade stops/nodes would simply be reflections of the more important trade centers and could shift through time as they did historically. Also having several stop along a trade route with a central location getting large bonus but also smaller bonus in a wider radius reflect how trade routes actually benefited more than single goods traded could ever show. Merchants or other agents or even investments in far off trade nodes skip all the middlemen that made being on a trade route so important. Its as if the trade goods are teleported from the origination to the final destination with only those 2 places benefiting whereas realistically everyone involved along the way got a piece of the action of goods/coins flowing either direction.

So Incense route starting in Horn of Africa would have the first stop somewhere in Arabia or along Red Sea most likely but all the cities in that geographical region could compete for it. Then a city in Egypt or the Levant would be the next stop, then N Anatolia, Balkans, Italy, or N Africa, final stop might be Gaul, Germania, or Hispania- as the trade route goes further away the number of regions which might compete for the final stop increases. Similarly a trade route of tin/lead from Britain might have first stop Gaul or Hispania, then N Africa or Italy, and finally Egypt, Levant, Anatolia, Greece, Arabia. A more northern version of such a route might start in Germania and then Italy, Dalmatia, and next steppes, Crimea, Persia... etc. There would only need to be probably 4 major routes- 2 east, 2 west and with several stops along the way and paths splitting and geographical areas than can compete for the trade stops following actual geographic features (rivers, seas, basins, etc).

I'd say probably we could make these routes;

West to East- Metals, Furs/Leather
East to West- Spices/Incense, Silk/Textiles/Dyes

Those would be the major routes, trade goods like horses, slaves, etc would be local.

I left out grain because that depends alot on how food is represented in the game.

[karamazovmm]

Yes I totally agree there were more important trade routes than only Grain, Silk or Incense- tin and lead from Britain/Ireland is the most famous of the northern routes but salt, furs, iron weapons, horses, and slaves were also major commodities which traveled along the rivers of Europe.

Trade stops/nodes would simply be reflections of the more important trade centers and could shift through time as they did historically. Also having several stop along a trade route with a central location getting large bonus but also smaller bonus in a wider radius reflect how trade routes actually benefited more than single goods traded could ever show. Merchants or other agents or even investments in far off trade nodes skip all the middlemen that made being on a trade route so important. Its as if the trade goods are teleported from the origination to the final destination with only those 2 places benefiting whereas realistically everyone involved along the way got a piece of the action of goods/coins flowing either direction.

So Incense route starting in Horn of Africa would have the first stop somewhere in Arabia or along Red Sea most likely but all the cities in that geographical region could compete for it. Then a city in Egypt or the Levant would be the next stop, then N Anatolia, Balkans, Italy, or N Africa, final stop might be Gaul, Germania, or Hispania- as the trade route goes further away the number of regions which might compete for the final stop increases. Similarly a trade route of tin/lead from Britain might have first stop Gaul or Hispania, then N Africa or Italy, and finally Egypt, Levant, Anatolia, Greece, Arabia. A more northern version of such a route might start in Germania and then Italy, Dalmatia, and next steppes, Crimea, Persia... etc. There would only need to be probably 4 major routes- 2 east, 2 west and with several stops along the way and paths splitting and geographical areas than can compete for the trade stops following actual geographic features (rivers, seas, basins, etc).

I'd say probably we could make these routes;

West to East- Metals, Furs/Leather
East to West- Spices/Incense, Silk/Textiles/Dyes

Those would be the major routes, trade goods like horses, slaves, etc would be local.

I left out grain because that depends alot on how food is represented in the game.

I agree with you, I do prefer the approach that given a certain number of territories there is a trade node. there should be around 10-15 trade nodes if the map extends as far as bactria. This way everyone gets a balance either way.

[HusKatten]

Yes I totally agree there were more important trade routes than only Grain, Silk or Incense- tin and lead from Britain/Ireland is the most famous of the northern routes but salt, furs, iron weapons, horses, and slaves were also major commodities which traveled along the rivers of Europe.

Trade stops/nodes would simply be reflections of the more important trade centers and could shift through time as they did historically. Also having several stop along a trade route with a central location getting large bonus but also smaller bonus in a wider radius reflect how trade routes actually benefited more than single goods traded could ever show. Merchants or other agents or even investments in far off trade nodes skip all the middlemen that made being on a trade route so important. Its as if the trade goods are teleported from the origination to the final destination with only those 2 places benefiting whereas realistically everyone involved along the way got a piece of the action of goods/coins flowing either direction.

So Incense route starting in Horn of Africa would have the first stop somewhere in Arabia or along Red Sea most likely but all the cities in that geographical region could compete for it. Then a city in Egypt or the Levant would be the next stop, then N Anatolia, Balkans, Italy, or N Africa, final stop might be Gaul, Germania, or Hispania- as the trade route goes further away the number of regions which might compete for the final stop increases. Similarly a trade route of tin/lead from Britain might have first stop Gaul or Hispania, then N Africa or Italy, and finally Egypt, Levant, Anatolia, Greece, Arabia. A more northern version of such a route might start in Germania and then Italy, Dalmatia, and next steppes, Crimea, Persia... etc. There would only need to be probably 4 major routes- 2 east, 2 west and with several stops along the way and paths splitting and geographical areas than can compete for the trade stops following actual geographic features (rivers, seas, basins, etc).

I'd say probably we could make these routes;

West to East- Metals, Furs/Leather
East to West- Spices/Incense, Silk/Textiles/Dyes

Those would be the major routes, trade goods like horses, slaves, etc would be local.

I left out grain because that depends alot on how food is represented in the game.

Precisely. And onwning a whole region or a whole trading route will add even more bonuses. This small feature (i must say it is) is so dynamic that it just seems big because there is so many things you can do with it.

[jamson]

Great idea, but too complicated for CA's target audience.

[Shaggy1973]

paradox and CA have merged!



lo, it would be close to the perfect game if they did.

[HusKatten]

This is not a complicated feature at all. It all goes down to having the most developed city in a region if you so wish. You don't even have to care about the Trade Route at all if you are not interested in economy. You can do just fine the old school way by just declaring war on everyone. This just adds another dimension for those who are into trading and I dare to say that it will greatly improve the replay-value. R2 has announced that they will base the game upon regions, and this feature is all about regions so it should't be too much work to implement this. The Secondary Trade Route which i presented in the second preview is not a new feature at all. Secondary Trade Route works just like Local Trading, and nothing else than that. It's also historical accurate enough for everyone to be happy, both the historians and the gamers.

[Rorarii]

I like your feature although I dont see how it is massively better over trade routes ?

Please explain to me how this might work for grain imports from Sicily and Egypt ,considering med pirates.

R

[HusKatten]

I like your feature although I dont see how it is massively better over trade routes ?

Please explain to me how this might work for grain imports from Sicily and Egypt ,considering med pirates.

R

The local trade routes between factions are still there, just like it has always been. But this feature aims to depict bigger trade routes like The Silk Road and The Incense Road. Those are two big trading chains that transported very valuable goods. Its those BIG trade routes that applies to this feature.

I don't know really what you want me to explain for you. The grain trade wasn't part of a great Trading Chain just like silk and incense was. Grain was a deal between two factions. If you lack grain in your nation you should like you've always done open a trade agreement with a nation that has alot of grain and a local trade route will be set.

This feature is only for foreign trade, or longer trading chains. Local trading routes are NOT replaced and still in the game.

[HusKatten]

Just to clearfy this once again. This Feature is ONLY replacing the Trade Nodes that have been used in E:TW, N:TW and S:TW.

[HusKatten]

How Do we get CA's attetion with all this? Should we put all the correct things in a Big pdf or somerhing and send it to them?

[Ichon]

How Do we get CA's attetion with all this? Should we put all the correct things in a Big pdf or somerhing and send it to them?

I have no idea- honestly I'd be amazed if anyone from CA would bother to read it and honestly it is probably too late for inclusion into RTW2 but if they did MTW3 next or something and used it that would be great.

Depending on modding tools made available the best way would be to create this type of trade route as near as possible in a popular RTW2 mod and then maybe CA might notice.

Be nice to think it could be included in RTW2 but...

[Rorarii]

How Do we get CA's attetion with all this? Should we put all the correct things in a Big pdf or somerhing and send it to them?

Your presentation is excellent so i would put it together, with many pictures, as PDF and send it CA via Email.

But don't get your hopes up, if the past is any guide, players have given great ideas that have not been used. Game designers seem to have their own ideas and are limited by time constraints etc For example, few people wanted a tech tree yet we got it.

R

[Xerrop]

How Do we get CA's attetion with all this? Should we put all the correct things in a Big pdf or somerhing and send it to them?

How about registering on their official forum and present your idea there?
They have even created a thread for new ideas. Just try to make your idea as simple as possible so it can add to the gameplay but will not discourage or scare the casual players.

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...r-(competition)


edit: and then you could post your idea once again in the normal Rome2-forum, to get even more attention.
It is a great idea that can make the game more complex for players interested in it, but when someone not wants to care about it (cause he earns enough money otherwise) he has not to bother with it.
http://forums.totalwar.com/forumdisp...al-War-Rome-II

[MagicCuboid]

Yeah, I see these brainstorming sessions as pre-pre-pre-Alpha mod planning, mostly. The ideas don't have to go to waste just because CA might not read them/take action on them.

[HusKatten]

I'm thinking of printing an A1 and send it to CAs' Office. im really optimistic about this. I think the approach with regions they are making Will be able to handle this.

[snarst]

I'm thinking of printing an A1 and send it to CAs' Office.

Do it, for the love of god do it.

[Punic Hoplite]

Do it, for the love of god do it.

This. I really want to say this is the most universally accepted/praised/supported idea proposed in a while dealing with the economic part of the game.

[karamazovmm]

Sincerely in terms of coding this shouldnt be hard to implement, and since that you are still going to try to build everything you can in certain cities, for the player this is kind of an easy grasp, build more things = more money. The problem would be the AI to go for it, however due to the AI going for the trade nodes, they could apply parts of the code to that.

I want to crumble my enemies economy!