a few infrastructure/trade suggestions

[unmerged(267)]

i have few more suggestions.
i want a more elaborate type infrastructure and trade.
here's an infrastructure suggestion.
1. building roads- building roads will increase tax income since the use of roads will be taxed and trade income will improve in the provinces with roads because it will be easier and safer for merchants to transport goods.
2. how about adding grainaries to the game. grain (or other products) will be placed into the grainaries during harvest and it will used up during winter. let's say I play as Russia and i produce a lot of grain. let's say that during the past few years, i produced a large surplus of grain, and let's say that Sweden either had a bad harvest or they don't produce enough food to feed their population. i think that Russia (or any country) should be able to sell Grain (or any reasource) to Sweden (or any other country) for Gold or other products.
here's a trade suggestion.
my trade suggestion deals with the grainary suggestion.
- in the game I noticed that nations which produce the most of a certain resource don't get any privilages, all they get is a few victory points. how about this, a nation which produces that most of a certain resource get to set the price of the resource on the market.

 

[Rex Francorum]

The agrarian problem is a key factor it should be implemented, not as a random event but a possibility during the game.

You could improve agriculture status.

by building granaries, investing in stability who would not become only related to DOwing without CB a country but specific policies to help your people (help to agriculture, health). So if you would invest not enough, there would me more famine, epidemic.

In term of game play, the stability slider should remain but with the precision that it has more consequences than a potential rebellion in your country. Your people could really suffer from a lack of investment. Population in city would decrease. Cities having a granary would have less problems.

 

[unmerged(3236)]

I talked about a similar trade idea:

Having certain resourses is needed to build certain things. If you nation doesnt produce something you can buy it from another nation.

 

[unmerged(945)]

Having granaries would propably help with attrition in wintertimes too.. at least in the provinces that have the granaries.

 

[Steph]

I like the idea to invest in a road system to increase trade. It should also amplify the effects of attrition / revolt (as new ideas, defeat news, etc. may spread faster)

 

[State Machine]

These are all things that I think Infrastructure tech investment is for. However, Rex's point about agrarian vs non-agrarian (for lack of a better term) is very interesting.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Why just not let granaries and roads be implemented through the infrastructure system?

It would be interesting too see a few more random events linked to this, though...

E g "Famine strikes throughout the Baltics. Peasants are rioting" or "The harvest was bad this year. Dissent is rising in the realms. Stability -2"

These events would have a lesser chance of occuring if you have a high level of infrastructure. Another nice side effect of this is that investing in infrastructure becomes more attractive. (Most people tend to ignore this integral part of an empires wellbeing in EUI)

 

[unmerged(267)]

these new improvements will teach us some responsibility and good judgement.for example, just because i had a good harvest one year, doesn't mean that i should sell the entire surplus because I don't know what kind of harvest i'll get next year.

p.s. where are the new screenshots.

 

[Rex Francorum]

Originally posted by von Clausewitz
Why just not let granaries and roads be implemented through the infrastructure system?

<---yep.

It would be interesting too see a few more random events linked to this, though...

E g "Famine strikes throughout the Baltics. Peasants are rioting" or "The harvest was bad this year. Dissent is rising in the realms. Stability -2"

<---Not random. Bad policy (related to stability slider) could lead to famine (e.g. Governement doesn't support enoush agriculture and health) Agriculture and Health status must not be random by a consequence of your action. So, a country who invest a lot in the military and almost nothing in stability will have greater possibilities to have famine, epidemic then rebellion.)

These events would have a lesser chance of occuring if you have a high level of infrastructure. Another nice side effect of this is that investing in infrastructure becomes more attractive.

<--- Yes. A higher degree of infrastructure would mean, larger granaries, better method and tools for agriculture. The difference with stability is investment in stability mean to maintain these infrastructure or to spread new method, new medecine, etc.

 

[unmerged(212)]

I'm 100% supportive of any changes that make infrastructure a more important part of the game. I particularly like the idea of modeling agriculture development. Frankly though - don't talk about granaries - its too much of a blatant Civ rip-off.

I'm no agriculture historian but I do understand that the soils in Northern Europe were much heavier (and therefore more difficult to work) than the soil in the South, so populations tended to be smaller. It was the introduction of the iron plow that changed this. The Imperialism games had some great color on historical agricultural development if anyones interested in learning something while having fun.

 

[unmerged(5336)]

as a leader you can't control wheter you save food or not, really. isn't that the job for farmers to figure out? also how could this be integrated into the current model? it isn't based on resource gathering so it would be imposible(almost) to do. what would this add to the game imho, nothing but micromanagement of some farm in kreblakestan transporting to the granery. not really necesary. although atrition should be less in russia (and others) during winter because they knew how to cope with it.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Originally posted by Rex Francorum
<---Not random. Bad policy (related to stability slider) could lead to famine (e.g. Governement doesn't support enoush agriculture and health) Agriculture and Health status must not be random by a consequence of your action. So, a country who invest a lot in the military and almost nothing in stability will have greater possibilities to have famine, epidemic then rebellion.)

Random a n d related to stability levels... You wouldn´t want to be too certain of those crops (nasty little buggers, them crops)

 

[Sidney]

I don't want to have to build roads per se but rather see the improvments in infrastructure reflect an improving transportation network. As your infra levels go up your movement rate in the provinces should increase- so should your enemy's of course. Again, building raods and grainaries would be a level of micromanagement within the infrastructure system that appears to be redundant.

 

[sunzoner]

Is railroads in the timeframe??? If yes, is it included?

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Originally posted by sunzoner
Is railroads in the timeframe??? If yes, is it included?

1. Should be.

2. At least abstractly by high infrastructure. Remember that the railroads weren´t a major economcal and military factor until late 19th century.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by sunzoner
Is railroads in the timeframe??? If yes, is it included?

Nope, railroads were a few years away. In Empires Universalis they will play an important role.

 

[unmerged(3892)]

Granary stocks are a very great idea, but why not a stock by product.
For example during revolution or napoleon wars, some statues or bells were used to build canons. So an iron or copper stocks are very important, and some provinces take a great value.
A state without iron or copper is very dependant of others state. So we can imaginate commercial agreements between states.
Road upgrade is also very important and all over a reality...

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Originally posted by Sonny


Nope, railroads were a few years away. In Empires Universalis they will play an important role.

I think you´re wrong here. Please take a few moments and regard this timeline

1804: Matthew Murray of Leeds, England invents a steam locomotive which runs on timber rails. This is probably the FIRST RAILROAD ENGINE. Seen by Richard Trevithick before he builds his loco.

1804: Richard Trevithick of Cornwall builds 40 psi steam locomotive for the Welsh Penydarran Railroad.

1808: Trevithick builds a circular railway in London's Torrington Square. Steam carriage Catch Me Who Can weighes 10 tons and makes 15 mph.

1812: The first commercially successful steam locomotives, using the Blenkinsop rack and pinion drive, commenced operation on the Middleton Railway. This was the world's first regular revenue-earning use of steam traction, as distinct from experimental operation.

1812: American Colonel John Stevens publishes a pamphlet containing:
"Documents tending to prove the superior advantages of Railways and Steam Carriages over Canal Navigation." He also states, "I can see nothing to hinder a steam carriage moving on its ways with a velocity of 100 miles an hour."

1813: Englishman William Hedley builds and patents 50 psi railroad loco which could haul 10 coal wagons at 5 mph, equal to 10 horses.

1814: Englishman George Stephenson builds Blucher, his first railway engine. Pulls 30 tons at 4 mph, but is not efficient.

1815: Stephenson's second engine: 6 wheels and a multitubular boiler.

You are probably refering to the legendary Rocket, designed and built by George Stephenson of the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1829. The Rocket was the winner in the Rainhill trials—a competition sponsored by the railway to obtain a locomotive for carrying both
passengers and freight. This is generally considered to be the start of the railway era.

(if anyone is still reading) It seems only logical to include a few items of a slightly later date than the nominal 1820 for those who are performing a little better than historically.

 

[unmerged(485)]

I stand corrected. I knew (very little) about the 1829 (actually didn't know the exact year) railroad, but didn't consider anything previous to that as being useful - just experimental/developmental.

I learn so much here at the forum.

 

[unmerged(3247)]

Railways, ahhhh. Can´t do anything but love them...