New foreign trade system (user suggestion)

[mAIOR]

Well, that's the role of the strategic deposits. And ideally, if you denied everyone grain, you'd be fighting a multifront war against everyone else. And the lack of grain should be a valid reason to go to war. In order to quench the populace hunger.
well, we're arguing about the better system and in my opinion, resource diversification is the way to go. If it'll be implemented, probably not, but the current system needs a change. Just money would need a rework and local presence of resources needs a bigger impact. There are mods that script such information (Silk road in EB) but further engine user friendliness is desirable. I think these games fail more in the strategic sense. You should need supply lines, supply depots, etc... There are some mods who attempt to do this (for NTW) but further help from CA would be essential.

[Ichon]

Well, that's the role of the strategic deposits. And ideally, if you denied everyone grain, you'd be fighting a multifront war against everyone else. And the lack of grain should be a valid reason to go to war. In order to quench the populace hunger.
well, we're arguing about the better system and in my opinion, resource diversification is the way to go. If it'll be implemented, probably not, but the current system needs a change. Just money would need a rework and local presence of resources needs a bigger impact. There are mods that script such information (Silk road in EB) but further engine user friendliness is desirable. I think these games fail more in the strategic sense. You should need supply lines, supply depots, etc... There are some mods who attempt to do this (for NTW) but further help from CA would be essential.

I agree with the sentiment but practically I don't see how it can work within TW mechanics without a huge, huge departure from past TW style or making the economy such a large part of the game it overwhelms the rest.

Making logistic depot required for a march overland to attack an enemy represented by grain reserves or just an increased upkeep/reduced morale seems little different in effects but the grain reserves require whole aspects of game to be changed while money is relatively easy to institute. I'd rather see some logistical effects in the game and it seems more reasonable to expect the current system be adopted towards that then creating entire new system. For the battle mechanics to change its not as big a deal (though how AI handles it is another question for both economics and battle mechanics). The TW engine already represents alot of parts that can be used for improved battle mechanics, CA just minimizes the notice of that presence so far.

[clwsham]

i just made an account so i could say this. I am very interested in trade and i am obsessed with getting the 8000+ income cities in M2TW and FOTS, so this thread really grabbed my attention.

My point is that many people have been talking about laws and other such things, which you can use to change your whole factions society... what if this could impact these trade routes? Maybe a tech that could impact relations with the Chinese and their Jade, for example, meaning it is more likely to have a trade stop in your city. With laws, maybe you could lower taxes for the middle class which would encourage merchants to flourish, with the downside of having more squalor.

its 3A.M here, so if that was all gibberish, ask me to post again...

[HusKatten]

I'm very happy to hear that, clwsham! Welcome to the forums, i'm pretty new myself.

When i read your post something just struck me. What if TW won't let us build more than 4-5 buildings in each city/village/port? How would factions compete over the regional Trade Stop if everything comes down to owning the most developed city? What is a highly developed city if there are a bunch of cities within the same region that has the exact same buildings, and all building slots have been taken? Even though i'm 100% pro-Rome/Medieval city building mechanics where you could have unlimited amount of buildings, we still need a back-up plan if TW chooses to go for the 4-5 building scenario. And here's where your post plays a big role, thank you, Clwsham.

If we only have 4-5 building slots, then it's probably very hard to implement the idea of this trade route system IF its foundations lays in having the most well-built city. Instead its foundation could lay in influence with foreign markets - similiar to how the influence works in Shogun 2. Lets say that the dynamic trade route (The Mediterranean example) contains three different goods, each goods has a very defined origin - the origins must not be playable factions. Lets say these three goods are: Incense from Hadramut/Saba, Silk from China/Mauryan and Ivory from Saharan tribes. These are all examples, bear that in mind, I'm no historian. The important part is that these three goods are from different geographical positions. If you want to acquire the Route Stop of your region, then you simply have to outdo any other factions influence with the three goods exporters. The trick would be to balance your influence with the exporters so that you don't overspend on making your influence better, but still spend enough so that you are secure from other factions gaining higher influence than you, thus taking the Stop Hold from you.

Lets say we focus on the N. Africa Trade Region. Carthage has 100% influence with the Saharan Tribes, 75% influence with Saba, and 50% influence with China. Their bitter trade rivals are the Ptolemaic, they have 50% Influence with the Saharan Tribes, 25% with Saba and 25% with China. Carthage clearly has the higher influence of the two factions and therefore they own the regions Stop Hold. If, however, the Ptolemaic has got alot of gold (or improveda tech or made a political reform) they could improve relations with each of the three exporters and gain higher influence with them and acquire the Stop Hold.

This influence based system is however far from realistic. The exporters don't decide where their goods will end up, its the middle-hands that direct the goods. Therefore its not very important to have good influence or relations with the goods original exporter. A system like this would require a lot of extra coding, much more than the first proposal. What do you guys think? What if TW chooses to go with only 4-5 building slots, what happens with this idea then? Would it break the idea, or would it still work? Can a system like this be solved in other alternative ways?

And to continue on the subject that clwsham brought up: How could tech and politics affect the Trade Routes and the current Stop Holder? (This could be discussed for both the original idea where its foundations lays in having the most developed city, and in the influence based one.)

[Ichon]

If R2 goes again to only 4-5 building slots there will usually still be cities that start higher (Rome, Carthage, Athens, Alexandria, etc) initially and then population size, connecting markets sizes, and techs can make the difference. So Carthage might start with slightly larger population than Rome and more trade techs but Rome is connected by trade to more and larger markets(due to land trade connections within Italy compared to Carthage having fewer land connections). Carthage would still be the most developed but if Rome captured Sicily and closed gap in trade techs then Rome would behind only in population slightly while even in techs and ahead in trade connections.

So in this way diplomacy becomes important to retain the trade stop as too many wars disrupt trade connections and can help competitor who might not even focus on war directly but breaking trade connections of the other city/faction.

Also we could judge by overall province and not only the walled capitol city. So in that case its Carthage + other regions in that province vs Rome + other regions which for awhile even with limited buildings is unlikely to be exactly the same built up though eventually it would be which means techs and trade connections might still be important.

I really hope we don't see every faction in R2 having to build from the same set of 5 buildings. Military, economy, agriculture, navy, tech. Probably the buildings will affect those parts of the game but if different cultures had different types of buildings with slightly different effects that would be much more interesting.

[HusKatten]

In Shogun 2, trade agreements where hard to come by sometimes. Many (me amongst them) where pretty upset over this, since a trade agreement always benefit both parties. But if it works like you just described it Ichon, it would actually make sense that factions decline your trading proposals. Maybe you could create trading leagues with your factions allies and vassals, those who are in this league are destined to decline any trade agreement proposed to a faction which the league members are at war with (Some hierachy should probably be integrated in this league). The factions within the same league would have the benefit of having trade agreements with all of its memebers, and giving them a great opportunity for taking control of Trade Stops. That would be a pretty neat feature that would work well with the 4-5 buildings limitation.

The trade league could also be synonymous with a Union of some sort. So that all of the members within the same union are allies - not just in terms of trade, but political also. Just to make it a little simpler.

[Ichon]

In Shogun 2, trade agreements where hard to come by sometimes. Many (me amongst them) where pretty upset over this, since a trade agreement always benefit both parties. But if it works like you just described it Ichon, it would actually make sense that factions decline your trading proposals. Maybe you could create trading leagues with your factions allies and vassals, those who are in this league are destined to decline any trade agreement proposed to a faction which the league members are at war with (Some hierachy should probably be integrated in this league). The factions within the same league would have the benefit of having trade agreements with all of its memebers, and giving them a great opportunity for taking control of Trade Stops. That would be a pretty neat feature that would work well with the 4-5 buildings limitation.

The trade league could also be synonymous with a Union of some sort. So that all of the members within the same union are allies - not just in terms of trade, but political also. Just to make it a little simpler.

Yes- I proposed something like that in earlier thread about levels of alliances in diplomacy. That would be a trade alliance, but I was thinking without trade stop but you are right with leagues and that combined with other diplomatic intrigues things could become very interesting with relatively simple mechanics(which is the best design I think). The only hard part is having AI behave somewhat predictably. Though perhaps with naval invasion AI doing better and more chance for emergent factions in civil wars, etc there will be enough chaos for CA to allow some better diplomacy. I always figured the weird AI diplomacy was a bit of a design decision so that players couldn't rely on predictable behavior and leave their borders undefended.

[HusKatten]

But still, if CA can achieve their goal of having less but more decisive battles, then trade and politics could be more chaotic to fill up the peace time. Simple and Undecisive are the keywords when you implement new features like this. It should be simple enough for everyone to understand, and it should be undecisive to such an extent that you don't HAVE TO take it into account. These two words are the words that keeps me from wanting to play too much paradox games. Its not simple enough to understand everything in even 30 campaigns. And pretty much every aspect of it are decisive - and therefore I don't enjoy those games too much. If CA are afraid of being innovative, then they should consider those words.

[Ichon]

But still, if CA can achieve their goal of having less but more decisive battles, then trade and politics could be more chaotic to fill up the peace time. Simple and Undecisive are the keywords when you implement new features like this. It should be simple enough for everyone to understand, and it should be undecisive to such an extent that you don't HAVE TO take it into account. These two words are the words that keeps me from wanting to play too much paradox games. Its not simple enough to understand everything in even 30 campaigns. And pretty much every aspect of it are decisive - and therefore I don't enjoy those games too much. If CA are afraid of being innovative, then they should consider those words.

Not sure if I agree there... perhaps any single action is not decisive but the key to Paradox games is not in single actions but the cumulative effects of better option taken at each potential decision point. IE- playing at maximum efficiency is actually making a huge difference over 50 turns. Since I can't see TW design coming close to that I have less issue with gaining something like a trade stop from being relatively powerful, worth at least 2 extra city income or more. In Shogun 2 a long term trade agreement has decent but not incredible income while the trade nodes actually provide huge income for the costs- where AI rarely challenges a well defended trade node.

Having competitive trade stops where AI even not intending to can challenge the players gain seems better result than trade nodes for high income and if player makes it a point to keep the trade stop it will probably cost in diplomacy and wars, something which trade nodes ruled by navies did not really experience. Then the trade agreements would be relatively about the same strength as in Shogun 2 but also benefit from who holds the trade stop influencing diplomacy even more than the honor system of Shogun 2.

[MaceHead]

I think it´s a great idea and would like to see it implemented!

a few questions, sorry if they are asked before.

Alexandria and Carthage or Rhodes, Athens or a Ionian city in Asia Minor did both have big trade hubs at the same time, according to this concept only one city can be the absolute winner with the income bonus. Maybe it is more historical accurate to have a number one and a number two in the same region. For example Alexandria is number one with 70% bonus and Carthage is number two with a 30% bonus. When Alexandria blocks the port or sacks Carthage, Alexandria gets the 100% bonus for a number of turns until a new number two emerges.

How does war influence this Dynamic Trade Routes concept? If you finally have a trade hub, what happens when you are at war with the other 5 trade hubs and can´t trade, does this mean you don´t get the bonus? Or is the 600 gold unconditionally whatever your political/trade agreements with the other big 5?

I´m also curious what the consequences are for your concept, with the new idea in Rome2. Where they want to group regions into larger provinces where they want to make one region/city more important in that province, so you don’t have to manage each individual region, and you have less sieges.

(Edit: Your idea is very good, you should go to ca headquarters and go on hunger strike until they adapted your Dynamic Trade concept.)

[HusKatten]

Not sure if I agree there... perhaps any single action is not decisive but the key to Paradox games is not in single actions but the cumulative effects of better option taken at each potential decision point. IE- playing at maximum efficiency is actually making a huge difference over 50 turns. Since I can't see TW design coming close to that I have less issue with gaining something like a trade stop from being relatively powerful, worth at least 2 extra city income or more. In Shogun 2 a long term trade agreement has decent but not incredible income while the trade nodes actually provide huge income for the costs- where AI rarely challenges a well defended trade node.

I agree, but my main point was that in order to gain the cumulative effect in the Paradox games, I myself, thinks that the individual actions are too hard to understand to achieve that cumulative effect. Therefore i think that if you want a game to be successful for the majority of the mass. It's components should be many, but simple and undecisive. You should find more layers as you proceed the game, this is something that paradox does well, TW also to some extent. But the new layers you discover in paradox are too hard to get a hang of. And the layers are simple, but too few in recent TW games. But this is a matter of taste. So we might just "agree to disagree" on this one

[Ichon]

I agree, but my main point was that in order to gain the cumulative effect in the Paradox games, I myself, thinks that the individual actions are too hard to understand to achieve that cumulative effect. Therefore i think that if you want a game to be successful for the majority of the mass. It's components should be many, but simple and undecisive. You should find more layers as you proceed the game, this is something that paradox does well, TW also to some extent. But the new layers you discover in paradox are too hard to get a hang of. And the layers are simple, but too few in recent TW games. But this is a matter of taste. So we might just "agree to disagree" on this one

Based on Shogun 2 economy what do you think a trade stop city income bonus might be then? What I meant about Paradox vs TW design is that Paradox games offer far more opportunities to make the "maximizing efficiency choice" where how build provinces, techs, taxes, government type, etc interact so that unless you understand very well the mechanics its quite hard to know the best choice. TW doesn't come close to that in repeating potential choices which will impact players 100 turns down a campaign other than in winning or losing battles. But if there are going to be less battles than there should be more options in campaign, diplomacy, to keep interest up. In Shogun 2 I can set my economy going in the first 2-3 minutes of every turn. Compared to battles which if average 1 per turn is 15 minutes and managing agents is another 3 minutes of total turn length around 22 minutes- turns in early game go much faster while turns in later game go much slower (which CA probably has data on from Steam and I might be way off but for me at least that would be averages). So if battles are reduced to about 12 minutes per turn, 20% reduction, then adding in another 2 minutes for more campaign/diplomacy would still be speeding game up but making it much richer playing experience. Personally I would also hope CA reduces the agents role alot in R2 because by mid game in Shogun 2 I was simply tired of moving 10+ agents every turn. Actually in a late game (4 turns after Realm Divide) of my current campaign I count my faction having 18 agents(not using all the ninja I could) and enemy agents I can see on map are over 25. That seems a bit much.

Anyway back to how much money using Shogun 2 economy a trade stop bonus should add. I think starting point should be 50-100% bonus. So my average trade node has between 600-1000 income depending on the goods and trade partners and how many ships required to defend is - from income. That is added to production of other resources in for a long term trade agreement around 1,500 per clan and usually manage to have at least 2, sometimes up to 5 such agreements. So if we figure 3 trade agreements +50% bonus that is 2,250 extra income due to holding trade stop. Perhaps the ministers and government, and techs could make up the other 50% so the highest skill minister, best government type, and all trade techs researched could max bonus at 100% or 4,500 extra. Since trade infrastructure and ministers would affect trade income even without trade stop they don't count (ministers might have traits/ancillaries that act only if trade stop is held otherwise having no effect).

[Ichon]

I think there would probably be only 1 winner to the idea to work best- since the 2nd city would still be gaining all their normal trade income and if they are in 2nd that would be a decent amount still. They would simply lose out on the bonus. The 1 circumstance when bonus would be shared is when challenger arises- it takes awhile for trade routes to shift which the extra bonus is abstractly portraying so there is a few turn delay when the bonus is shared, both cities then have a few turns to exert extra diplomacy or go to war to try and suppress their rival.

War basically has the normal consequences we've seen in Shogun 2- trade is halted directly between the warring parties while trade routes with other partners might be raided or ports embargoed affecting trade further away. If your faction hold the trade stop and main port is blockaded then the next rival city would begin sharing the trade bonus though of course the bonus is based on % of trade- I think the 600 proposal was earlier in concept to try and explain it- so if trade port is blocked then there is no bonus % on trade there- however if the blockade can be broken then the challenging city probably won't be able to compete and the premier city retains the trade stop. So for example if Rome was trying to challenge Carthage it might not need to war with Carthage directly- it could war with Carthage trade partners reducing the trade income to Carthage and perhaps bribe another faction to war directly with Carthage- Syracuse might raid Carthage port for 1 turn and be beaten on the 2nd turn but the combination of that and Roman raids on Hispania and Gaul trade routes would then suppress Carthage's trade long enough (and lower its income to afford its own military/diplomatic response) for Rome to become the premier city. Especially if Rome managed to make vassals of some of Carthage trade partners and steer that trade to Rome permanently. As a prelude to attacking Carthage directly to weaken their income ahead of time or in the context of a current war... where before attacking Carthage homeland directly Rome makes war on Carthage's trade partners to make the final assault easier.

The geographic grouping would be the most difficult part- especially in northern Europe where trade routes certainly existed but not such large urban centers as in the Mediterranean. % bonus of existing trade would still work and either factions living in those regions would have slightly cheaper troops(more free levies for defense or cheaper but hard to replace mercenaries) so even lower income would still make a substantial difference.

[HusKatten]

Hi MaceHead, I'm really happy you like the idea. And yes, I'd love to go on a hunger strike.

Ichon has already answered your questions, but i'll just add some stuff in. (We should probably do a re-make of this feature with a more in-depth explanation with pictures soon)

Q1: (I love your colour coding <3)
First things first. In Shogun 2 you had 3-4 (if i remember) trade nodes. Now only ONE faction could trade with these nodes. This is also very historical inaccurate. I don't think that China and Korea only chose to trade with one faction only in reality - But this is a game and one has to see to it that everything remains interesting gameplay-wise.

One of the corner stones with this idea is that the Trade Stops are suppost to be rare and wanted. We could make 14 regions instead of 7, and that would make everything more historical but also less rare and interesting. If we split the region of N. Africa into a Carthage region and a Ptolemaic region, then that would not make thing interesting at all. There will be no competition what so ever and the ONLY way to grab the other regions Trade Stop would be through war. This is because Carthage will probably always be the most developed city in its region, and Alexandria would then also probably be the most developed port in its region - always.

Ichon has already said that owning the Trade Stop doesn't mean you have the only city which can trade. It only tells you that you have the most dominant trade city in the region and more shippings will come to you than to the regions other cities, thus giving you bonuses. I chose the regions due to how the seas are located geographically and where the big trading cities are located. I also want, as you just pointed out, cities that historically where great trade hubs to be in the same region. For example you got Syracuse and Rome in one region, Alexandria and Carthage in one, Sidon and Side in one. Making these Trade Stops more rare and under high competetive pressure will make things more interesting. But if we keep the regions as they are, and instead create a hierarchy of the Trade Stop based on percentage like you proposed. Then that would be the better alternative rather than splitting up the regions into smaller ones. But in order to make it desirable to acquire the Trade Stop one has to profit from it. And to break down the profit you gain from a Trade Stop with percentage would create a pretty lousy profit - Since the difference in percentage of the 1st Trade Stop and the 2nd Trade Stop within the same region would be only 10-15% (It's very probable that i.e Carthage has 55% of the market, and Alexandria 45% of the market. Carthage is the main Trade Stop, but its profits are nearly identical to that of the 2nd Trade Stop. This will render the Trade Stops both very common and not very much of an achievement to own), and that erases the will to have the 1st Trade Stop, since it doesn't matter too much profit-wise. I do however agree to a certain extent that a region could consist of a Trade Stop and then a Rival City, which is the second larger city that threatens to lay it hands on the Trade Stop. A Rival City would then have bonuses of some sort as well - maybe a smaller amount if percentage multiplier than the Trade Stop has.

Q2:
Ichon explained how war could affect the Trade Stop. But to answer your question "If you finally have a trade hub, what happens when you are at war with the other 5 trade hubs and can´t trade, does this mean you don´t get the bonus?". If you own a Trade Stop and is at war with the factions that owns the other 6 Trade Stops, that doesn't mean you won't get your bonus. Don't look at the Trade Route as a chain that must not be broken. The Trade Route symbolizes private merchants that has no political interests at all and they don't care who you are at war with, they just want money. A war with the factions that owns the other Trade Stops could however lead to your loss of the Trade Stop since they'll blockade your port and cripple your economy, thus making your great city less lucrative and a rival city can claim the Trade Stop. To make a long story short. The bonuses you get from owning a Trade Stop is unconditional whatever your status is with the other 6 Trade Stops.

Q3:
As Ichon says, the most difficult part would be to arrange and balance the regions. As far as we know a province will be made up of a capital city and smaller villages and ports. These ports could then compete over the Trade Stops. But if we have Carthage that will probably be the capital city of its province AND a port. Then that might cause some unfair advantages for Carthage. CA might decide that the Capital cities of a province will be able to build more buildings than the villages and ports. This means that Carthage may be able to build 6 buildings and other ports only 3. Which means that Carthage will probably always have an upper hand in the competitive trading scene compared to small ports that doesn't allow you to develop them as much as a capital city.

But we still don't know how their province system will work. So we can only guesstimate and then adapt when the info is released.

[Argon Viper]

I love the direction this thread is taking. The regional power idea seems to be a good one, and will keep the player engaged in the trade game instead of ignoring it for the most part. The mechanics I'm seeing are also good, very well detailed, but I think the regions ought to be a little bit more dynamic than I've seen discussed. For example, if I conquer the southern coast of France as the Gauls, and I'm at war with the Romans in Italy with whom I share the region, they (with the more advanced cities) would blockade me and I wouldn't get the benefits of the region. However, if my economy is powerful enough, it would make sense for merchants also to set up a regional stop in my ports, even if they aren't the most advanced. No one wants to miss a good opportunity for trade.

[Ichon]

If you get a port that would happen but otherwise controlling region in the hinterlands without a good river access it would be difficult for much trade especially near warzone. Hopefully though we can see bigger amount of trade down rivers though in that example I don't know of any river that conducted trade much in southern France, Rhone was navigable parts of the year but fast currents and shallow areas made it have less traffic than some other rivers but once Lugdunum was well established as a Roman colony significant river trade reached there.

With how common wars are and the newer power of navies I wouldn't be surprised that trade stops can be very dynamic around Mediterranean and most other places as well.

Keep in mind though that as Gauls you would still get normal income and trade from the regions you controlled in southern France, just most likely they wouldn't be developed enough to become a trade stop- though you might get some influence against Rome by simultaneously trading with Carthage reducing Rome chances to claim trade stop and war with Rome also further reducing its trade income from resources and routes through the Alps.

Conceivably though if Rome sacked Carthage and then your Gauls sacked Rome, Massila might develop enough to capture the trade stop with the reduction of its rivals.

[Argon Viper]

Certainly the Nile can support a lot of river trade, as can the Rhine (at the proper level of development) and the Danube. You're right that there are a sparcity of major navigable rivers that empty into the mediterrenean, but it'd still be a cool feature to see.

[mAIOR]

Certainly the Nile can support a lot of river trade, as can the Rhine (at the proper level of development) and the Danube. You're right that there are a sparcity of major navigable rivers that empty into the mediterrenean, but it'd still be a cool feature to see.

Sparcity? Well, even small rivers such as the Douro river which goes through Spain and Portugal had a lot of trade. In Portugal, the traditional rich provinces in the north used the Douro river as a means of communication to deliver goods to the big commercial hubs. The most famous of which is Porto (well, Gaia to be accurate) with the famous Port wine. Other goods were traded first especially meat and fruit. Trás-os-Montes was an incredibly rich region with three different kinds of cow in a very small region. And the river was a boost to the prosperity of the entire region. It's a worthy trip driving along the Douro river and see the small towns that sprung up over the years as trade posts. Worth from an historical point of view and a perfect example of the usage of rivers as major trade hubs.

Anyway, there should be loads of navigable rivers and a trade boost in neighbouring regions due to the presence of these.

[Ichon]

Sparcity? Well, even small rivers such as the Douro river which goes through Spain and Portugal had a lot of trade. In Portugal, the traditional rich provinces in the north used the Douro river as a means of communication to deliver goods to the big commercial hubs. The most famous of which is Porto (well, Gaia to be accurate) with the famous Port wine. Other goods were traded first especially meat and fruit. Trás-os-Montes was an incredibly rich region with three different kinds of cow in a very small region. And the river was a boost to the prosperity of the entire region. It's a worthy trip driving along the Douro river and see the small towns that sprung up over the years as trade posts. Worth from an historical point of view and a perfect example of the usage of rivers as major trade hubs.

Anyway, there should be loads of navigable rivers and a trade boost in neighbouring regions due to the presence of these.

Probably why rivers haven't been included so far is that especially in early eras many of the smaller rivers were dangerous at some times of the year or navigable only part of their length. Maybe CA can simply make larger and smaller rivers with a different bonus while some investigation should show which rivers were navigable their full length and which weren't.

Honestly it would be simply a huge step if at least the major rivers are included as transportation and trade roads. http://www.bible-history.com/maps/ro...ber-River.html

If we let the Trade Stop bonus present itself in percentage, don't you think there is a pretty big room for imbalance? Lets say Rome has grown to the extent that they have monopoly on the Thyrrhenian Region. They are probably a pretty rich empire by now, they may have a lot of allies and vassals (but may also have a lot of enemies since they are such warmongers). If lets say the city of Rome is the owner of the Trade Stop, and the city itself has a major tax income and due to all the allies and vassals they also have a formidable trade income. If we count the bonuses in percent, then the risk is either the profit will be too small, or in this case, too big. This brings me to another topic - What does this feature need in order to work in terms of external effects. A small trading faction like Bithynia and Syracuse has to be able to have a profit from their Trade Stops that is similar to the profit that a bigger empire accumulate out of their Trade Stop. The external effects for this to work must have its focus on how well-integrated the empire is. A big empire like Carthage has to spend more money on keeping its empire together (i.e culture, revolts and campaign attrition) whilst a non-expansionist faction like Syracuse don't have these kind of spendings. Then that should balance the profit gain from the Trade Stops since Carthage (who probably will have more local trading than Syracuse) will make more money out of their Trade Stop, but they have additional spendings, that Syracuse doesn't have. That keeps the Trade Stop from being unbalanced in the favor of the big empires. And as you suggest, Ichon, you could max the % bonus with ministers and techs. Smaller empires might seek too acquire ministers and techs that are more trade oriented, while bigger empires that has to hold their borders will have to invest in ministers and techs that are more war-oriented. This will also be an important factor in terms of balancing the profit gain from owning a Trade Stop. So i must say i agree with what you said there Ichon.

The other problem which you've brought up in terms of balancing is "will the trade stops actually be dynamic?". Apart from what you just said i came to think about a feature that existed in both Rome and M2. The popup that told you which faction had the biggest army or what faction was most lucrative. Those popups where pretty frequent as i remember. Which means that the scores was very dynamic during the whole game. This is not much of an argument, but it does give me hope of that the Trade Stops will be pretty dynamic. I guess that you have to be a bit more aggressive for a start if you are playing as the Gauls or Germanics in order to get yourself into the big trading action.

Makrell: Thank you. Don't hesitate to appreciate what we are trying to do here guys. And bumps are always welcome.

A hard cap doesn't make as much sense either using current mechanics. Having % bonus makes player still have to work for treaties, trade etc to maximize the trade stop. Also- not sure how CA will balance the economy of the heavily urban areas vs the more spread out populations of Gaul and other regions. Depending on that and geographic dispersion of trade stops having trade stop as a % would make sense. If some regions have simply much weaker economies then % probably still works better than a hard # as that lower economy is less unbalanced by using a %.

For extra bonus other than money for trade stop I thought maybe simply a higher ability to recruit mercenaries- both land and naval. Since mercenaries would be drawn to the larger markets as well.

Additionally a small research bonus as large markets tend to draw people and ideas. So perhaps while holding trade stop a 10% research speed increase?

Other thing is should all trade treaties be equal? What I mean is right now trade agreement is exactly equal depending on the goods available and the duration of the agreement, if there are additional levels of diplomatic alliance such that trade exists on 4 levels-

1. local trade between neighboring regions which exist even without a trade agreement and just gives small boost to economy based on pop/infrastructure size and resources. Only war between factions stop this.

2. trade agreements as in Shogun 2 where duration of agreement and available trade ports/infrastructure and resource make the value.

3. trade leagues/alliances where there is a slightly higher value to trade but factions in the alliance can't trade with enemies of any faction more than basic level 1 trade.

4. trade stop, dynamic stop that changes based on development of city, pop size, and number of trade connections- so some cities might geographically be slightly favored due to location having more trade connections but other cities can surpass it by developing more(techs, infrastructure, ministers) and population size is the 3rd part to provide some balance and if a city is sacked it might not only lose a bit of infrastructure but also some population and trade agreements which would take a bit to recover from and enter into rivalry again. So trade stop would give a bonus to 4 levels of trade with decreasing amounts and of course if Carthage is not in any trading league it wouldn't benefit from the extra % on top of the extra from being in a league.

So perhaps the highest would be factions within a league voluntarily, while vassals would be co-opted into a league as part of vassalage but due to tribute agreements and tensions of being inferior party to any agreement it slightly reduces the bonus to simply a normal trade agreement.

[Love Mountain]

[QUOTE=Ichon;12173335]

1. local trade between neighboring regions which exist even without a trade agreement and just gives small boost to economy based on pop/infrastructure size and resources. Only war between factions stop this.
[quote]

Only total war stops trade, and even then it doesn't completely. Neighboring settlements will always trade with each other despite what their nations say. Black market trade, non-official trade, human trafficking, contraband, etc are all modern real life examples of this. There will always be third parties who see that there is profit to gain.

So... I guess I agree with you and take it one step further.

2. trade agreements as in Shogun 2 where duration of agreement and available trade ports/infrastructure and resource make the value.

Imo, Shogun 2 trade agreement system was just silly

3. trade leagues/alliances where there is a slightly higher value to trade but factions in the alliance can't trade with enemies of any faction more than basic level 1 trade.

Like I said before, you can never really stop trade.

4. trade stop, dynamic stop that changes based on development of city, pop size, and number of trade connections- so some cities might geographically be slightly favored due to location having more trade connections but other cities can surpass it by developing more(techs, infrastructure, ministers) and population size is the 3rd part to provide some balance and if a city is sacked it might not only lose a bit of infrastructure but also some population and trade agreements which would take a bit to recover from and enter into rivalry again. So trade stop would give a bonus to 4 levels of trade with decreasing amounts and of course if Carthage is not in any trading league it wouldn't benefit from the extra % on top of the extra from being in a league.

You're right, some areas are just far more suited and favored by many different factors for trade. They will simply always be a trade hub unless something catastrophic happens and even then, they'll recover. Carthage for example.