New foreign trade system (user suggestion)

[Ichon]

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.

Imo, Shogun 2 trade agreement system was just silly

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

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.

Well if Rome invades Gaul for example this time we are likely to see at least some different factions not just 1 tribe, so Rome might fight a single tribe and still trade with the others. As for the leagues- they would halt trade agreements but as stated the lower level trade would continue except for outright war. We can't be perfect here but I think showing something and keeping it relatively simple is better.

Some locations are simply favored for trade as in Shogun 2 where southern regions were closer to trade nodes, it increased maybe a tiny bit southern faction becoming powerful but overall just as often funded long wars and some other faction rose to dominance.

Also keep in mind in this era there was not much difference between civilians and enemies- if warriors invading find a trade caravan they aren't often going to ask who it belong to before attacking. So some trade even in war zone might go on but its not like more modern eras where neutrality and flags are respected most of the time and for practical purposes while war is going on I think trade is okay to stop between the warring factions. Other trade will be sometimes impacted by blockades or loss of trading partner cities to other factions but usually low level trade and sometimes higher levels will continue even bordering war zones.

[HusKatten]

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.

1. Agreed. I think one should be able to cancel the trade entirely with a faction due to war. But the level 1 trade might still be in effect. This depends on how big the profit is from the level 1 trade.
2. Agreed. I think CA did well with making the trade agreements a bit more powerful. Factions that has a long term trade agreement with each other should be anxious to solve issues in a diplomatic level rather than through war.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.

Splenyi: I have not enough experience with EU3 to actually answer this question. But some here say it has some similarities, but I am not able to pin-point them. One similarity would be that a region has one city that is the main trading hub. Think we need a more qualified answer on this question.

But nontheless, as I said before, if as system like this is working for EU3, then a simpler version of it (which would be this feature) should be of interest for CA.

[Makrell]

nice suggestion

[CanOmer]

Nice suggestion
Did you know Europa Universalis III? It has similar trade system. (Not very similar, but similar in dynamic trade areas and trade centers are in.)

[MaceHead]

Thanks for the replies and I agree.
Maybe it would give an extra incentive to give the Trade Stops special military units/ships to recruit. Especially since you invested in economical buildings and not a military buildings to become the Trade Stop in the first place. This don´t have to be predominant, but can be small things like a slightly faster ship with slightly lower upkeep, to defend your Trade Stop, or a soldier that fight better on ships with slightly lower upkeep etc.

btw: It is not HusKatten but HuisKatten at least it is in my language

[Anna_Gein]

Maybe it would give an extra incentive to give the Trade Stops special military units/ships to recruit. Especially since you invested in economical buildings and not a military buildings to become the Trade Stop in the first place. This don´t have to be predominant, but can be small things like a slightly faster ship with slightly lower upkeep, to defend your Trade Stop, or a soldier that fight better on ships with slightly lower upkeep etc.

More money = more mercenaries available. If the mercenary system could somehow take into account the law of offer and demand so a region where mercenaries are highly asked for more are available as well as mercenaries from more distant country.

From a naval point of view I think important city should be able to build both commercial port and military port. No commercial power can exist on sea without the navy able to defend it. Athens and Carthage as iconic naval power in ancient time had both. That said I think naval recruitment need its own thread. I don't want to make it too much off-topic.

I agree with Ichon on river trade.

For one faction controlling multiple trade hub. I think the closer to the capital (or the capital itself) should be consider as the primary hub and would benefit of all its potential. The other trade hub under control would be consider as "subjugated" and would not achieve their highest potential. Instead the would suffer a small malus but remain strategical for the faction that hold it (and would be a target of choice for its enemy to capture). Depending on how internal trade and resource are handle the primary trade hub could become even more wealthy. This could simulate than the ruling class and the highest part of the merchant class would prefer to live in the capital.

[HusKatten]

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.

CanOmer: Yes it seems it has some similarities, which is good. If it works for Paradox then CA should be more anxious to adapt the simpler version of it. I didn't know about EU3 at all until some several weeks after I first presented this idea, so its foundations are actually a stand-alone idea. Now this idea has been influenced in all sorts of ways from many members here at TWC. Some of those have played a lot of EU3 and some have not. Some are historians and some are not. This idea has gone through all sorts of arguments and different points of view. I'd say that as a result from all this has led to a pretty solid legitimacy of this idea. And until recently people have started picking up this thread even more, and for that i'm very thankful. I believe that an advancement in the trade aspects are vital for the improvement of the overall gameplay. And special thanks to Ichon who has been very active in argumentation and improvements surrounding this idea.

MaceHead: I'm Swedish, and here its spelled HusKatten Where are you from? Couldn't figure out using the Google translate.
I like that idea. But i think those units should be tied to techs rather than the Trade Stop. We don't want empires that gains monopoly over a region, thus acquiring the Trade Stop, that have a military-oriented tech to get those special units also, since they own a Trade Stop. It would be much better balance-wise if you got the special units from a trading technology rather than from the Trade Stop itself. If you focus on trade techs then you'll get those units and also have an upper hand on the seas. Or the Navy and Trade tech trees could maybe be integrated, which results in you getting a better navy and a better chance at getting a Trade Stop.

[Argon Viper]

It does make sense that a large commercial port, able to build commercial vessels, would also be able to build bigger military ships. That would be a nice bonus for building the economic buildings to get to that point.

[Biggus Splenus]

Didn't have much time so I had a quick flick through the OP, but is this similar to the Centre of Trade system in Europa Universalis?

[Ichon]

Didn't have much time so I had a quick flick through the OP, but is this similar to the Centre of Trade system in Europa Universalis?

I have no idea, I do play some Paradox games but never got into EU. HoI, CK, Victoria are the ones I've played. I'll look it up now though since you're the third person mentioned it.

EDIT- Going from EU wiki there seem some similarities but merchants, monopolies, and how dynamic trade stop is different compared to EU trade centers. EU one is quite complex compared to HusKatten and player has alot more control. Some of the advantages of controlling a trade stop are things we have discussed that also seem similar to EU. Major difference is that in EU you can create your own trade center for a price once trade levels reach certain value.

In HusKatten idea there is only 1 trade stop per geographic region which must be competed to earn and hold. Basically it is the premier trading stop in the area where the most merchants go because the widest supply of buyers and sellers. There can be other places competing and still making money but usually 1 place has an advantage at a given time in history. Modern financial capitols might be close or London in early 20th century and before that Amsterdam, before that probably Florence or Venice, Constantinople, Cordoba, Baghdad, etc back through time. There were other centers of trade around in those eras but those places had their currency accepted nearly everywhere and merchants went there to sign contracts to feel the flow of market and see how value of goods was such busy places had better information even if not selling directly to that city. How to divide the regions geographically is the most difficult to describe without knowing how CA has the R2 map.

The main negatives I can see from holding a trade stop are increased chance of plagues and drawing competition and having to fight to defend the trade with good navy, good diplomacy, etc. Some places like Egypt would be more natural spot for a trade stop and have a geographic advantage but perhaps Aden or Jerusalem or even city higher on the Nile could still compete vs Alexandria.

Also using this system places on map edge that normally have an advantage would be a bit less likely to have as many trading partners as factions surrounded and so help to even out the campaign a bit.

1. Agreed. I think one should be able to cancel the trade entirely with a faction due to war. But the level 1 trade might still be in effect. This depends on how big the profit is from the level 1 trade.

Level 1 trade could probably be the most complex type of trade or not depending on how its done. Most TW games have made taxes basically like income taxes which really in history were not often done or quite low value of state income. Use/trade taxes were the most common. Rome for example similar to later Venice derived much revenue initially from salt works as salt is a commodity necessary for human life and especially in those eras it was also the main preservative for food. Then taxes on sale of anything registered at the public offices and fees to use public land were the next largest parts of revenue. Other states like Athens and Carthage depended more on tax on trade or for awhile both had access to silver mines.

So if CA makes taxes relatively simple as in the past(my guess is they will) then level 1 trade would be quite small- less than 30% of overall regional income, starting at maybe 10% depending on nearby size of regions and infrastructure going up to 30% with better infrastructure and pop growth as campaign goes on. So basic taxes might be 60% level 1 trade 30% and governor/minister influence 10% at the local level. IE when you click on region and view its income. Plagues, natural disasters, infrastructure, and changes in nearby regions would affect values while the basic tax income is mostly coming from farms, tax buildings, and tax levels.

Trade agreement and Trade Leagues are figured on faction wide basis and only part local region play is how many ports and the infrastructure of the ports for available trade routes. More similar to Shogun 2 the levels of roads, etc wouldn't necessarily figure into these values and its based on trade resources so mines, timber, spices, silk, incense, amber, furs, etc. Longer duration and more valuable the resources traded the more income. Trade leagues are similar just give a slightly higher bonus and becoming a member means not trading with other league partners enemies. Vassals are automatically considered in a league with their overlord but get the lower trade agreement value instead of the higher bonus of voluntary league membership. Finally the trade stop is only 1 per relatively large region and based on size of the city/infrastructure, level of trade techs, # of trade agreements. So if faction similar to some in Shogun 2 get bonus to diplomatic relations or negotiations they might have slightly easier time maintaining high number, as well as factions centrally located with more potential trade partners. As a faction expands and conquers neighbors it might shrink its number of trade partners and this is where keeping vassals similarly to Shogun 2 matters. Also this is where trade leagues are important- keep your trade partners from trading with rivals and tied to your city.

Inland factions of course simply have to have a land connection to trade same as Shogun 2.

[Diglytron]

Very well writen and good proposed idea. I'm impressed. Like many others stated aswell, CA should defenitly have a look at this. +rep.

oh, and to make sure, I realy like this idea. I find trading waaay to unimportant in medieval 2 and rome. I wish to see trading becoming more deeper in the gameplay!

[HusKatten]

Diglytron: Thank you Digly! Make sure to spread some rep to Ichon as you're at it.

I think it's time to start working on a more in-depth preview of this feature since we've come a long way with the discussions now. Thank you everybody <3

[HusKatten]

Double post.

[Nathan Stark]

I am very impressed by this idea. Really like it. Just created the account to reply here.
Would love to support your idea however i can.

In the OP there is a download link which is dead for me. Could you please refresh it?

[HusKatten]

Nathan Stark: Thank you very much Nathan. It seems we recruit a lot of members with this idea, haha! I'll try to refresh it during the day. I can't promise this since i have to study for an exam this week.

If you wish to support the idea i'd love you to join in the the discussions surrounding it. Do you feel like we've left something out? Or something that we've not discussed enough?
If there are so many here who supports this idea, then maybe we should start a controlled spam session to Jacks and Wills inboxes

[HusKatten]

If we are able to find the similarities between the two trading systems of this idea and the one EU3 is using, then we might have a better understanding for what we've missed out on the discussion part and maybe we'll be able to identify additional improvements.

[CanOmer]

In Eu3, controlled areas of a trade center is determined by provinces' owner, religion, culture and of course range to the center. New centers of trade (CoT) are able to be built in other large CoT areas only. If a CoT area stays too small after it created it can be destroyed automaticly.

Actually, Europa Universalis 4 will be avaliable in 2013 and it has very different trade system than Eu3. We should look at Eu4's developer diary of trade system which will be explained in the next developer diary that will be avaliable in this friday.

That´s all for now, but you can rest assure that I´ll be back next week! Then I will take the opportunity to look into trade...

In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRWgQ2-0Iks they talked about trade system also.

[Timotheus]

I like the enthusiaism you've put into your work! But taking that depth of trading system may be like as merging Eu3 with Total war system?! Keeping it simplified would indeed make Rome 2 to a more challenging and better game in aspect of economy!

men apropå - swedish

deIllusions de grandeur? Tror inte CA skulle ta till sig ordentligt för ditt arbete, de vill ju inte vara sämre men sånt gillas iallafall

btw: It is not HusKatten but HuisKatten at least it is in my language

Well Huskatten means house cat in swedish!

[HusKatten]

Don't get me wrong now. I don't want the trade system to be complex at all. I do not want TW to take on approaches that EU are aiming for. This idea is simple, but even the simplest of ideas can have vast explanations considering its effects, balancing and such. The only reason EU is being discussed now is because people have seen similarities between the trade in that game and this idea. I think this is very important to point out. The ambition of this idea is simply to change the way trade works and put a little more effort in making it interesting. This does not necessarily mean that we are going for a complex and too in-depth trading system. The system we present in this thread is not more complex than the current trade nodes, but it is a lot more interesting.

P.S

I don't want to turn this thread into a EU vs TW thread, this threads' only purpose is to discuss this idea and possibly other ideas that can improve or change current trade system. So go lightly with putting up to much EU content in here.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again. By the time i came up with this idea and posted it on here i did not know of Paradox or EU at all. This idea is stand-alone and has absolutely nothing to do with Paradox, EU or any other games for that matter.

With the information we've gathered now regarding the trade system of Paradox games the only similarity we can find is that both this idea and EU has some kind of "Center of Trade" which is the main trading hub of its region. There is little to learn from EUs trade system regarding the idea presented in this thread.

I will EDIT this post or post another reply to answer some more questions later. Thanks again everyone for being so helpful and getting involved with this idea. I hope i didn't scare you guys now. I still want as many as possible to become a part of this discussion! I love everyone and don't hesitate to ask something in this thread. Even if it has been asked before and you haven't had the time checking through all the pages to see if it has, ask anyway. Me and Ichon are very tolerant persons Also, some repetition is always good. New ideas springs up from the most unlikely scenarios - I got this idea when i was at a summer job at a factory. The factory created carpets and floors and i was positioned in the first stages of the production. This meant that i had to mix raw materials that would later become the floor or carpet. The materials i was mixing had the same consistency as sand, mud or pebbles. Some of the sandy material had been spilled on the floor, and as i had nothing to do at the moment i started to draw the Mediterranean with the spilled material. And out of that this idea came about. And it showed to be quite successful.

[Diglytron]

Thing now is to get CA reading this, and actualy see them do something with it.