Access to the sea

[unmerged(90368)]

There was a universally accessible world market in Victoria 1. You had access to it without penalties wherever your capital was (after the prestige rankings; Great powers had priorities etc.). I think trade should get a penalty without a port or a bonus with one. Railroad connections between the capital and the port should be important as well. My argument for this is the Austrian empire;
Napoleon took its coastal provinces to disallow trade. Their first railroad ran from Vienna directly to Trieste, their main port. Austrian delegates after WWI wished to keep access to Trieste through modern day Slovenia.
Does anyone agree?

 

[unmerged(138177)]

Yes, i think ports should influence trade greatly. Maybe the ammount of trade should be limited by number and size of ports and general infrastructure level (perhaps with some emphasis on border provinces?)

 

[curtis]

I was thinking about this last week while playing a game as Bolivia last week.

Landlocked countries should receive penalties when trading on the world market unless they are able to conclude deals with neighbors that have access to the sea.

 

[Cinéad IV]

I absolutely agree. Much of the strife caused between nations in the 19th and early 20th centuries concerned access to the sea. Russia's perennial hunt for a warm water port, Paraguay's disproportionate aggression, Bolivia's post-Chaco malaise all had their origins in the struggle for an outlet on the sea.

Perhaps embargoes should be more effective against landlocked nations, making it severely difficult for them to buy anything off the world market at all. This could be mitigated by treaties and alliances with surrounding, non-landlocked nations.

 

[Andrelvis]

Some sort of river navigation would be great, as it would allow for better modeling of, for example, Paraguay's situation - it's ships had to go through Brazilian and Argentinian territory, that is, through the rivers that passed these countries to the sea.

 

[unmerged(156161)]

I completely agree with the OP.Ports were very important in that period.

For example,Serbia was trying to get sea accesss during all 19th and 20th century,but Austria always managed to prevent that,because without a port,Serbia depended on imports from Austria.

 

[FOARP]

What about the richest country in the world AKA Switzerland (or Luxembourg if you like, either way it's land-locked)?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

What about the richest country in the world AKA Switzerland (or Luxembourg if you like, either way it's land-locked)?

They where hardly the richest countrys in the world at the victoria timeframe.Victorian economics are not realy comparable to modern ones.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

I like this idea. Severing trade should give some cause for war.

 

[CaptRobau]

I like this idea. Also Switzerland and Luxemburg were made rich by banking and only after the much more integrated market appearing after WWII this became possible.

 

[unmerged(77752)]

They should also make some ports less efficient that others. For example in WWI Russia's Baltic and Black Sea Ports were blockaded by Germany & Ottomans. Although other ports like Vladivostok and Arctic ports are still available, it should be less efficient due to the climate/distance issues involved.

 

[unmerged(180044)]

They should also make some ports less efficient that others.

If they do so, it would be nice to upgrade ports infrastructures (just like railroads).

 

[Delegate]

They should also make some ports less efficient that others. For example in WWI Russia's Baltic and Black Sea Ports were blockaded by Germany & Ottomans. Although other ports like Vladivostok and Arctic ports are still available, it should be less efficient due to the climate/distance issues involved.

absolutely. i also liked the idea someone had where if you are landlocked you need special trade treaties with neighbour/s in order to trade properly.

that would fit in perfectly with the idea of the game and add another dimension to it.

 

[Andrelvis]

There was a universally accessible world market in Victoria 1. You had access to it without penalties wherever your capital was (after the prestige rankings; Great powers had priorities etc.). I think trade should get a penalty without a port or a bonus with one. Railroad connections between the capital and the port should be important as well. My argument for this is the Austrian empire;
Napoleon took its coastal provinces to disallow trade. Their first railroad ran from Vienna directly to Trieste, their main port. Austrian delegates after WWI wished to keep access to Trieste through modern day Slovenia.
Does anyone agree?

He took the coastal provinces to disallow trade with Great Britain. It would be immensely weird, for example, for Switzerland to get penalties for being landlocked if it's imported goods actually come from Germany and France.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

Perhaps a port type/level/quality/something should be done, then? A direct free access to an ocean is worth much more than a port in the Mediterranean or in the Black Sea for example.

Of course... This is rather "secondary" IMHO due to other far more important aspects that should be done right and come firsthand. More sophisticated economic and diplomatic systems have to developed first so that these mechanics discussed here can reach their full potential.

 

[banal.evil]

I add my agreement to OP. Shouldn't ocean access / direct access to the metropole effect the ability to re-enforce your divisions as well?

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Of course... This is rather "secondary" IMHO due to other far more important aspects that should be done right and come firsthand. More sophisticated economic and diplomatic systems have to developed first so that these mechanics discussed here can reach their full potential.

I actually think improving the maritime aspect of the game should be a top priority, given how marginal it was in the original in importance.

 

[OHgamer]

Need to be careful here. The Rhine was opened to free navigation for nations bordering it as a result of the Mainz Convention of 1832, with a similar convention for the Danube signed at Paris in 1856 after the Crimean War.

Nations like Switzerland, or Austria, Hungary and Czech post WWI were not "Cut off from the sea" in the sense that they could ship their goods down and import goods up these main commercial arteries without paying any tariffs from countries further downstream.

And Switzerland was already well industrialized by the 1880s, so yes well within the Victoria timeframe Switzerland was an industrial power, taking advantage of its neutral status and its free access to the Rhine to develop its industrial potential.

Now, during wartime access to the sea is a vital question, and treaties such as the ones regulating the Danube and Rhine were not in effect if nations along their routes came into conflict, but during times of peace I don't think there should be any maluses regarding access to the world market for landlocked nations. Systems for ensuring access in peacetime were in place.

 

[Tormodius]

Now, during wartime access to the sea is a vital question, and treaties such as the ones regulating the Danube and Rhine were not in effect if nations along their routes came into conflict, but during times of peace I don't think there should be any maluses regarding access to the world market for landlocked nations. Systems for ensuring access in peacetime were in place.

Yes this is right and in a game such as this world market should be available to all unless embargoed. Just to make it simple. The real world complexity of trade and tariffs would be too much to implement in such a game, but to make embargoes during conflicts should be important to have in the game. If they choose a more complex trade system, there could be tariffs in which you could make trade agreements and maybe get a free off tariff if you didnt have a port, and if you owned a port you could earn tariffs. There are lots of cool possibilites in this area

 

[unmerged(77752)]

Now, during wartime access to the sea is a vital question, and treaties such as the ones regulating the Danube and Rhine were not in effect if nations along their routes came into conflict, but during times of peace I don't think there should be any maluses regarding access to the world market for landlocked nations. Systems for ensuring access in peacetime were in place.

That's exactly it. When war breaks out, there needs to be military warfare, but also economic warfare. I used the example of Russia, how both the Baltic and Black Seas were blockaded from trade with the West. There needs to be some type of a modifier in war, that accounts for how these blockades can economically hurt a country.

While Russia still theoretically trade along the Arctic of Vladivostok, they should have the goods either 1) unable to be traded or 2) traded a very inefficient rate, so that there economy really does suffer.

Another thing is what about countries that are natural enemies? Poland and Germany for example, if Poland is created and takes a huge amount of German National territory, shouldn't it be able to make life difficult for the Poles if they have no sea access(hypothetical)? Be able to charge transport tariffs and overall hurt the Polish economy.