New foreign trade system (user suggestion)

[Orlorin]

Not to go further offtopic, but when I said merchants I didn't mean agents, I mean't theoretical traders who are choosing the route stop.

[HanSomPa]

Not to go further offtopic, but when I said merchants I didn't mean agents, I mean't theoretical traders who are choosing the route stop.

Yeah, that's better. Agents means micro managements, and micro managing 20 agents every turn isn't fun. It gets extremely tedious.

[HusKatten]

Hello again! I've been to a job in Amsterdam and i'm back again. theoretical traders is an idea that i fully support due to the fact that HanSomPa brought up with the micromanagement being too tedious. And if they enter the game they'll go well together with the idea.

No replies yet from CA about this idea. And we probably won't get an answer either. All we can do is to wait. I know this reply is very low on content, but it was only meant as a last bump if anyone else has some comment to add to this feature (go to page 1)

[BENDELIANI]

This is a very good idea and I would love to see it implemented!

[myself]

It's an awesome idea. I think that it fits perfectly with CA's idea of making Provinces with different regions. If CA can see this idea in time, they can probably include the idea in their concept of Province/Region.

[Ichon]

This was entered in the best idea contest or whatever it was right?

[HusKatten]

Thank you guys, the more you guys comment and support this idea the more likely it is to be implemented! So be generous, we all want the best Total War ever! <3

Yes Ichon, it was. I referred to this forum as well in that same post. In a last act of desperation I've started to message CA staff on this forum in hope of getting verified that they've at least read this thread. I see them read other threads with less interesting topics, so i guess they have been reading this one too, but still no verification.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think there should basically be 4 kinds of trade that you should deal with.

Internal Trade (Land) within Provinces.
External Trade (Land and Sea) between Adjacent Provinces.
External Trade (Land and Sea) between Provincial Groupings.
External Trade (Land and Sea) between Provincial Theaters.

So for example there'd be trade between your Sub Provincial Regional Towns/Cities and the Provincial Capital.
Then there'd be overland trade between adjacent Provincial Capitals and Naval trade between Adjacent Ports.
Then you can have your Provincial Groupings with the most developed Port (Sea) and Capital (Land) in each region being the Emporium or Hub and these primarily are used to connect regions. They channel trade through them. Then finally you can connect Provincial Groupings together into Theaters. For example the Mediterranean routes are a Trade Theater and the Atlantic Routes are a Trade Theater, the Baltic Sea is a Trade Theater, and the Arabian Sea Routes are a Trade Theater, etc.

Roma/Ostia would historically become the primary Mediterranean Theater Hub (I think you alluded to the idea of a Mediterranean Super Hub) and as such would be drawing upon trade from inside the province, from neighboring provinces from provincial groups, and from other provincial trade theaters. "Mille viae ducunt homines per saecula Romam."

So lets say the hypothetical province is Lazio (based on the hypothetical map (I know it's not Roman Era and that the terms province and region are inversed in RL) contains 5 regions: Viterbo, Rieti, Rome, Latina, and Frosinone of which Rome is the capital. So there would be commerce between those sites.)



You'd also have Adjacent provinces: Toscana, Umbria, Marche, Abruzzo, Molise, and Campania. (Unusually high number of adjacent provinces for Italy) with which inter-provincial commerce takes place.



You'd also have Regional Trade for the Tyrrhenian Sea of Liguria, Toscana, Lazio, Campania, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. In my mind trade regions should overlap rather than border. Provinces might be in several different regions.

Then you'd have the theatrical trade of the entire Mediterranean Region (these would purely be connections of regional Hub Cities) So Rome would be linked to the handful of regional hubs in it's theater as well as the handful of other theater hubs.

Basically if you get your city to a high enough level it's going to be incredibly important. Rome became a fully developed Theater hub with a million plus people and the ability to get shipments of goods from everywhere in the known world in bulk. Alexandria is a good example of a fully developed Regional hub with several hundred thousand people and a crap ton of influence.

In Lazio Province say you notice that the region of Rieti is rebellious due to taxes. As such there is no trade from that region to the province. So that's going to impact how much money is generated at Rome from internal sources. Your taxes are derived from both agricultural productivity and trade. So that's going to hurt your revenue. It's also going to disrupt trade to the adjacent province of Marche. So unless you also control Marche you will no longer get any tax revenue from that region (you can normally collect tariffs on foreign trade.) Note that trade does not contribute to the treasury unless you tax it, but it does contribute to the growth and development of the province regardless.

Rome is a hub for trade across the provincial grouping "Tyrrhenian Sea". As such Rome will also be able to connect automatically to nonadjacent provinces in the trade region whether you control them or not, so long as you have neutral-friendly trade relations with their owners. So you might be trading with an independent but friendly Sicily and collecting tariffs on the trade. So the benefit of being the trade hub is that you now can collect tariffs from provinces you don't control by virtue of your regional domination of trade. It's not a perfect representation of trade, but it gives you the right sort of bonus. Then inter-hub trade would connect Rome's trade with Alexandria's Hub trade. Both hubs collect tariffs on each other because they're major trade entities. So that's an advantage for them. If you control both you'd still collect taxes from the trade equal to the tariffs.

Finally if you control Theater Hegemony like how Rome and Carthage dueled for controlled the Mare Nostrum you can link up to other Theater Hubs and get access to trade around the known world via their theater hubs. So Rome can connect trade with say Barigaza (Bharuch) in India assuming the trade routes between them are all neutral-friendly or under their control.

[Ichon]

Interesting take- not sure I like that there might be only a single theater trade hub- Alexandria should be a trade hub as large as Rome as population wise it was smaller but led shipping to many other cities. Also the competition factor seems mainly to be absent where every city can develop highly. My main interest in HusKatten's idea was it seemed relatively simple to institute into TW current trade system and inspired both competition and reflected that competitors often went to war to claim the leadership role. Geography would be more important with HusKatten's concept as well which seems important to me though maybe I did not understand well enough how you wanted geography to impact the provinces, regions, and theaters.

[HusKatten]

I think your idea is interesting, but if i understand you correct your idea is of a more micro-ish feature. Hopefully if we get a an easy version of this kind of trade and it shows to be successful, then CA might want to improve the trade aspect even more. If they go on with the trade nodes for Rome 2 also, then they will simply stop the trade developement in the TW games yet again. If i understand you correct your version is a deepend version of mine. You have the big trade hubs of each sea region and these are connected to other regional hubs. But how the cities become the regions trade hub is not entirely clear to me.

This sounds interesting: "In my mind trade regions should overlap rather than border. Provinces might be in several different regions." Would you care to further explain this? With pictures if you want to.
How does this overlapping affect competition between cities that seeks to claim a regional dominance? And how does the overlapping work over-all? One of my top priorities is that "regional trade hubs" are rare, but yet very possible to acquire. In other words, the trade hubs are strictly limited in numbers and will cause regional trade competition amongst the cities. But your idea of overlapping regional borders would probably affect this in some interesting ways.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

A great Idea my Friend.

[HusKatten]

Thanks man, i appreciate it. I keep wondering how people find this thread since its so far back, i guess Bodemloze's Thread Index does its job very well

Still no confirmation that CA has read this thread. I hope they have - for the sake of making the best TW game ever

[mAIOR]

Nice idea but not the most realistic approach. In theory, there should be important trade nodes and capacity linked to port size. Neither Carthage nor the Ptolemies ever stopped trading from their ports even though they're in the same region. What could happen is that access to the bigger port means more quantity of goods traded. Another poster here mentioned there were no "strategic" resources but that's not all that accurate. Grain was a major commodity and Rome needed grain from outside provinces (Egypt for one) in order to feed it's population. This should be the cause for invasions. Supplementing needs for certain goods. Not the some abstarct trade node. This would force a major rethinking of resource policy instead of everything being turned to gold. That would give you reasons for war. "Should I invade Egypt to supply my grain or do I try some economic dealing with them?" this would also mean that there could be economic wars instead of just wars of aggression. It could be cheaper to attack a province and force them to give you some resources such as grain and iron than to occupy it having to spend money on an army of occupation and dealing with local uprisings which should be more common in the early years.
EDIT: Just thought of the idea of trading monopolies. You could invade a nation and force them to trade goods with you at fixed prices lowering their cost to you.
This would also make cities generate more gold but requiring extra resources. It'd be a major advancement in the strategic sense of this game.
Anyway, just my 5c.

[HusKatten]

Nice idea but not the most realistic approach. In theory, there should be important trade nodes and capacity linked to port size. Neither Carthage nor the Ptolemies ever stopped trading from their ports even though they're in the same region. What could happen is that access to the bigger port means more quantity of goods traded. Another poster here mentioned there were no "strategic" resources but that's not all that accurate. Grain was a major commodity and Rome needed grain from outside provinces (Egypt for one) in order to feed it's population. This should be the cause for invasions. Supplementing needs for certain goods. Not the some abstarct trade node. This would force a major rethinking of resource policy instead of everything being turned to gold. That would give you reasons for war. "Should I invade Egypt to supply my grain or do I try some economic dealing with them?" this would also mean that there could be economic wars instead of just wars of aggression. It could be cheaper to attack a province and force them to give you some resources such as grain and iron than to occupy it having to spend money on an army of occupation and dealing with local uprisings which should be more common in the early years.
EDIT: Just thought of the idea of trading monopolies. You could invade a nation and force them to trade goods with you at fixed prices lowering their cost to you.
This would also make cities generate more gold but requiring extra resources. It'd be a major advancement in the strategic sense of this game.
Anyway, just my 5c.

Just because a city is the major trade hub of its region doesn't mean other cities in that region stops trading. It just makes the bigger trade hub more lucrative. One could however argue that Alexandria and Carthage where big trade hubs simultaneously - and the way i arranged the regions that's is not possible, but my regions are just examples and if CA is going for this idea they're probably going to depict this more accurately. I hope this eliminates your thoughts about the historical authenticity of this feature.

We have been discussing about the pros and cons of owning a big trade hub (or route stop). I don't totally disagree with having the dynamic route giving a strategic resource income. The pros and cons is a matter of balancing.

Don't consider this feature finished, there is still lots of these things to talk about.

[Ichon]

It is interesting how food/grain will be shown in the game but keep in mind Rome did not grow to a huge size and then suddenly need to start importing grain. Food reserves were important part of all large cities and there is plenty of records of earlier Greek cities having famine and requiring grain imports, people weren't actually rioting either though it might have ended there eventually if city was unable to secure grain but I've never come across where a single city or even state went through a famine due to disruption of a single region of grain imports. Rome grew large as it conquered more areas but the really huge size of Rome was first enabled by Sicilian, then N African grain, and finally when Egypt was conquered the grain there was cheaper than anywhere else and made Egypt the main source of grain for Rome at that point. But even if Rome completely lost access to Egypt it wouldn't necessarily begin to starve as it could simply pay more and import grain from other areas. So in that sense there is no strategic resources. Gold/silver mines come the closest as that is direct wealth for a state but even without an actual gold 'mine' gold was able to be panned from rivers or traded for with other resources. The main difference is the cost to gain the gold for the state. I don't expect CA to depict anything close to a real economy but hopefully simply that possessing region with very productive agriculture gives some small pop growth bonuses or lowers cost of units slightly(as there is less competition from civilians and much greater supply of grain). So in that sense owning Egypt gives a strategic bonus but owning Sicily + Africa might give the same bonus or owning other fertile agricultural areas.

[mAIOR]

It is interesting how food/grain will be shown in the game but keep in mind Rome did not grow to a huge size and then suddenly need to start importing grain. Food reserves were important part of all large cities and there is plenty of records of earlier Greek cities having famine and requiring grain imports, people weren't actually rioting either though it might have ended there eventually if city was unable to secure grain but I've never come across where a single city or even state went through a famine due to disruption of a single region of grain imports. Rome grew large as it conquered more areas but the really huge size of Rome was first enabled by Sicilian, then N African grain, and finally when Egypt was conquered the grain there was cheaper than anywhere else and made Egypt the main source of grain for Rome at that point. But even if Rome completely lost access to Egypt it wouldn't necessarily begin to starve as it could simply pay more and import grain from other areas. So in that sense there is no strategic resources. Gold/silver mines come the closest as that is direct wealth for a state but even without an actual gold 'mine' gold was able to be panned from rivers or traded for with other resources. The main difference is the cost to gain the gold for the state. I don't expect CA to depict anything close to a real economy but hopefully simply that possessing region with very productive agriculture gives some small pop growth bonuses or lowers cost of units slightly(as there is less competition from civilians and much greater supply of grain). So in that sense owning Egypt gives a strategic bonus but owning Sicily + Africa might give the same bonus or owning other fertile agricultural areas.

Well, not a rebellion per se but, a very fine casus belli. That was my main point. I didn't say that what you said was flat out wrong. I said it was not that accurate. There weren't resources with the importance of oil in WWII for once but, the price of cereal and other commodities (like good grade iron) was something to take into account. Also, one can argue that in the end, what finally led to Caeser Augustus to attack Mark Anthony was the control of the grain routes. I suppose it's too much to ask of CA to give us a strategic insight a la paradox games... But representing two or three different resources and have you deal with those commodities would be an extra boon to the campaign. As I said, you could actually wage wars not of simple aggression but due to other factors as well. Including making prohibitively expensive for a player to conquer a main province and keep it. The indie game Hegemon achieves something with food that puts TW in it's place (in that game, you can't feed a large city, let alone an army, just with the adjacent fields. You need roads and such to import those commodities from other provinces). Something like that would be very interesting in a TW game.

So, what I want out of Rome II:
A good strategic oversight; We've had this basic economical system for long enough imho. Time to move on. What was good in RTW is not good by ETW time and certainly not for a RTW II.

Good battlefield mechanics. Having battles morale based instead of damage based. Give us real options for christ sake. I want to be forced to do strategic choices such as a withdrawal as part of my legion covers the retreat of the other battered element or, an all out attack risking even bigger losses or a victory. For this, reserves have to be required. No more thin line of men but several layers of them to plug gaps and such.

Not much to ask imho...



EDIT:
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/...theGracchi.pdf

Interesting article I found today. Deals a bit with these issues.

[Ichon]

There weren't resources with the importance of oil in WWII for once but, the price of cereal and other commodities (like good grade iron) was something to take into account. Also, one can argue that in the end, what finally led to Caeser Augustus to attack Mark Anthony was the control of the grain routes.

So, what I want out of Rome II:
A good strategic oversight; We've had this basic economical system for long enough imho. Time to move on. What was good in RTW is not good by ETW time and certainly not for a RTW II.

Good battlefield mechanics. Having battles morale based instead of damage based. Give us real options for christ sake. I want to be forced to do strategic choices such as a withdrawal as part of my legion covers the retreat of the other battered element or, an all out attack risking even bigger losses or a victory. For this, reserves have to be required. No more thin line of men but several layers of them to plug gaps and such.

Not much to ask imho...

EDIT:
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/...theGracchi.pdf

Interesting article I found today. Deals a bit with these issues.

Casus Belli for rebellion you mean? I don't really agree... the higher levels of society were the ones trained and equipped for war and those would be the last to starve. Every rebellion in Rome was suppressed until Caesar succeeded and Octavian attacked Antony first and foremost because of political reasons though economy of Egypt was a nice reward. Of course the mob in Rome became so strong because it was numerous due to the vote buying and free bread which allowed a ghost of the Republic's institutions to pretend to function while Octavian continued the free bread begun earlier to placate the people of Rome and discourage any remaining rivals who might attempt to use the mob the undermine Octavians authority. Maybe special cases for mobs in Capitol cities? I don't see how it could work realistically though- a button to activate bread dole and circuses which keeps public order high at a cost? When rebellions elsewhere in the Empire threaten or there are strong political rivalries/intrigues then the mob might riot even with the dole and circuses active?

My point is that having just 2 or 3 resources creates a situation like Shogun 2 which on economy scale of Rome 2 is not feasible. Alternatives were available just at a higher price which meant for iron sources that armor and weapons would cost more. For grain that nearly everything would cost more as grain figures into cost at some point. Naturally so does transportation of grain or iron etc to the markets. Past TW games gave bonus trade for ports and roads- basically instead of lowering costs due to greater supply and allowing metropolis to exist it gave more money creating the same result in reverse. I don't want to see some faction unable to build armor upgrades due to not controlling iron resource. In abstracted way having resources simply give money bonus and armor upgrades adding to upkeep of military is more realistic. If a faction lacks control over iron sources but owns other wealthy resources it should still be able to equip its armies with good armor. Or even a poor faction might choose good armor but simply afford a smaller military.

Agree that there are many areas where R2 economy could be improved, I prefer to keep it abstracted more often as going only halfway into complexities results in worse outcomes than keeping things abstract. Huskatten's trade routes are a good example- basically it takes something AI and players already do- building up cities- and divides the map geographically where cities that are the most developed function as the market centers in their area and gain a trade bonus which their neighbors also partly benefit from if they have trade agreements. Wars, natural disasters, etc that already occur in the game thus also impact which city has the largest market while giving strategic gameplay considerations interesting impact- if Carthage has the market center for central Mediterranean and Rome has a trade agreement with them, Rome is gaining larger income than it otherwise would so canceling trade agreement will have a higher cost but if Rome wants to go to war it might eventually gain the market center for itself and reap a greater reward. Now Numidia is Carthage closest and longer trade partner so it has a tough choice- side with Carthage to protect that income while knowing its chances of catching up with Carthage without a war are nearly nothing so siding with Rome is a good opportunity and it might hope to expand its lands when Carthage loses and still able to trade with Rome, potential win but also large risk. Of course if Numidia does go to war with Carthage and Rome loses or is invaded by Gauls and has to settle with peace to Carthage, suddenly Numidia is fighting on its own against a close and powerful neighbor. Of course even without trade bonus of the largest market center Rome would still have a large trade income, just not as large as it might be. In this scenario resources on the map would simply represent income- controlling vineyards or copper mines would simply give slightly different amounts of income and have available bonuses related to different parts of tech tree and government type.

Now comes the question of government roles in R2. Historically Rome exploited divisions in the monarchy of Numidia and supported a civil war by a prince against the ruler who was supported by Carthage. In the end the victories on the field by Scipio Africanus owed in large part to the division Rome had caused within Numidia.

Discussion on battle mechanics is a good one but for other threads where it sounds we are mostly in agreement.

Yes, given the larger budget and the huge potential in R2 it would be incredibly disappointing if CA only makes some prettier graphics and a few small changes to scale of battles but economy, campaign map, diplomacy, etc remains similar to past titles with no improvements. I think most people agree on that- where CA has a challenge is knowing what is an improvement and what isn't because as we see here it is easy to disagree.

As for the Grachii article- it should be interesting I hope to most people but also indicates how difficult it might be to show true functioning of economy in TW. All the elements of success in war in this era, loot, slaves, cheaper imports, etc contributed to the demise of the average Roman citizen economically. Since Roman citizenship rights were based largely on wealth this restricted power into hands of fewer men and created chaos within the state. Caesar was hailed as a hero by large parts of people of Rome because he challenged the Senate which had come to be seen as an evil oligarchy by most of the poorer classes who suffered due to the Senate's conservative adherence to the traditions of Rome which suited their own interests conveniently enough as well. Also Caesar's legions were drawn mainly from the classes which had seen their status decline and having won wealth and status under Caesar saw his challenge to the Senate as protecting their own interests as well.

Hopefully at least CA will show some of the problems of ruling a large Empire as a Republic and also as an Empire, Monarchy, etc. How CA can do that is more difficult question. In past games it was mostly shown only by 2 mechanics- corruption and taxes. That is really simplistic and also means that richer Empires are always the most successful in TW games because they can afford to put taxes on low and endure high corruption more easily. In real history richer Empire often had the most problems dealing with social problems because the richer classes saw no reason to compromise and as many Roman writers reported- morals and honor declined. Most writers belonged to the richer classes themselves and while complaining of expensive vices also tried to lay most of the blame at the feet of the poor classes saying basically, "why can't they act more like us, properly." Which ignored the fact the poorer classes wealth hadn't disappeared, it ended up in the hands of the wealthy who wanted to poor to continue respecting the institutions which allowed that wealth transfer.

[HusKatten]

What would i do without my fellow historians? I love you guys.

CA said on their presentation that was recently put up here that they where going to "Change the way you build and defend trade routes". Hopefully they've got some inspiration from this thread.

[mAIOR]

Nice post man but you misunderstood me. The casus belli was to declare war against other nation not to rebellion. It'd be awesome to be able to leverage a unfair resource price in trade to mobilize a population for war. Like having a dissent hit for declared wars unless you have a casus belli... One can dream.

I don't agree with the general abstraction on the economy. I think reducing all to money is absurd. I believe different resources should be represented especially grain. This way, as I said earlier, a large city such as rome would generate a lot of income but cost a lot of grain. Plus, mobilizing an army would cost food as well otherwise they'd rebel. Meaning that you need strategic reserves. Plus, this would make nation's embargoes much more effective. Economic warfare ftw. What I basically want is to be able to run the logistics of an empire. Not some abstract system where you build this building and that unit and that's pretty much it. As I said, the strategic implications of such a system would be huge forcing much more dynamic campaigns. Wars of economy not aggression. That nation without decent iron ore could forge a trade agreement to get some. As you said, the quality of the trade agreement would represent the toll on your treasure. Meaning if you loose Egypt as your source of grain, you'd have to procure it at a greater cost to your economy or risk rebellion. This could force you to war giving you a Casus Belli. This would be more realistic and not that impossible to do (paradox does it all the time).

I do like your abstraction though but I don't know if the implications would be so severe as you put them. In RTW trade agreements meant a nice boon to income but breaking them seldom had really dire effects. My view is that diplomacy should be really important and the implications of a trade agreement being cancelled or changed should have profund effects between major nations.

[Ichon]

Nice post man but you misunderstood me. The casus belli was to declare war against other nation not to rebellion. It'd be awesome to be able to leverage a unfair resource price in trade to mobilize a population for war. Like having a dissent hit for declared wars unless you have a casus belli... One can dream.

I don't agree with the general abstraction on the economy. I think reducing all to money is absurd. I believe different resources should be represented especially grain. This way, as I said earlier, a large city such as rome would generate a lot of income but cost a lot of grain. Plus, mobilizing an army would cost food as well otherwise they'd rebel. Meaning that you need strategic reserves. Plus, this would make nation's embargoes much more effective. Economic warfare ftw. What I basically want is to be able to run the logistics of an empire. Not some abstract system where you build this building and that unit and that's pretty much it. As I said, the strategic implications of such a system would be huge forcing much more dynamic campaigns. Wars of economy not aggression. That nation without decent iron ore could forge a trade agreement to get some. As you said, the quality of the trade agreement would represent the toll on your treasure. Meaning if you loose Egypt as your source of grain, you'd have to procure it at a greater cost to your economy or risk rebellion. This could force you to war giving you a Casus Belli. This would be more realistic and not that impossible to do (paradox does it all the time).

I do like your abstraction though but I don't know if the implications would be so severe as you put them. In RTW trade agreements meant a nice boon to income but breaking them seldom had really dire effects. My view is that diplomacy should be really important and the implications of a trade agreement being cancelled or changed should have profund effects between major nations.

So the Casus belli would be Carthage going to war on Hispania tribes to acquire the silver mines there as Carthage lacks silver mines? I guess- really though such Casus belli can exist over anything and I'm not in favor of a system like in Paradox games where there are very few and strict Casus belli.

Well economy is about choices and resources while money can represent both of those. For Rome the example might be if Rome had lost access to N Africa, Sicily, and Egypt simultaneously. Never happened and seems very implausible but then there would probably have been starvation... but of the slaves first, then the poor and finally the soldiers and richer classes very last so from game standpoint how do you want to represent that? Otherwise if Rome lost Egypt and then N Africa very soon after in history the land converted to grow grapes for wine or to olive trees could be plowed back to grain as it had earlier grown there as there is enough time for the economy to make the switch with Sicilian and some other sources of grain import.

I am not saying I don't like idea of resources playing a larger role but I can't see how Rome 2 can do that without become largely an economic simulation rather than a TW game. Paradox titles for instance despite being very complex economies compared to Rome 2 still have huge problem with the economy functioning. Resources have a max capacity and at the same time are required so if any one economy expands too much the entire game world, every faction suddenly starts to suffer as well. So if we use grain example... Rome conquers N Africa, Sicily, and Egypt and then refuses to trade with its enemies or expands to the point it uses all the grain... If grain was limited and strategic resource Rome would have just conquered the rest of the map or most of it as those economies could not function. In Shogun 2 even on the higher difficulties I would often find AI cities fully developed except for the farms. If grain was necessary to be traded etc then AI would have to do much better job.

Abstracting to money seems less than optimal but it is efficient and still can represent more accurately the economy without the huge complexity a significantly better representation would need. Especially if logistics and tech tree exist we can have cultural bonus, geographic resources, and a relatively complex economy with only money required and not specific resources.