Are you content with current trade mechanics?

[Maq]

What the hell is trade steering? Sitting in Seville and collecting money for products which were made on another shore of the ocean? I just don't get it.
I believe that if a country wants to generate profit from trading products made in India, her merchants and ships must be present in India. Otherwise the country in question would be only a customer, and as we all know, customer makes no profit, customer pays cash for goods he/she needs.
Current system of fixed trade nodes and fixed flow of trade profit bring equally fixed and otherwise undeserved advantages to the owners of some provinces, advantages which other countries cannot get in any way. This is unjust, unrealistic.
I don't like that and want to know what other people think about it.

 

[t6.28]

Trade steering is sending more of your merchants to the trade node (threw subsidies or laws) and have them secure trade deals. Collecting money from trade probably means taxing.

That said, I still don't like the trade system.

Here is my suggestion:

Maintain the trade node system, but have trade flow from every node to every other (in both directions) instead of fixed nodes. The amount of trade that flows from one node to another one is mainly based on the goods that are in each node. If e.g. the Venice trade node has a lot of wine and Constantinople has none, a lot of trade will flow from the first to the second. Some province modifiers/buildings or other factors could increase the demand for some goods, increasing the trade flow of those goods towards that node. Trade steering would only work in a very limited way, but you could steer trade by increasing production in provinces producing certain goods. You could then also have the price of goods be based on the difference in amount in your trade node and the foreign one. Collecting from trade should be removed, you would, how ever, get two sliders in all trade nodes you have influence in, to set import and export tariffs. They would directly give you income, but also decrease the trade flow. You could also have the trade flow by itself give you some bonuses, like decreased development/building costs, as well as slightly increased base tax

 

[Maq]

Trade steering is sending more of your merchants to the trade node (threw subsidies or laws) and have them secure trade deals. Collecting money from trade probably means taxing.

That said, I still don't like the trade system.

Here is my suggestion:

Maintain the trade node system, but have trade flow from every node to every other (in both directions) instead of fixed nodes. The amount of trade that flows from one node to another one is mainly based on the goods that are in each node. If e.g. the Venice trade node has a lot of wine and Constantinople has none, a lot of trade will flow from the first to the second. Some province modifiers/buildings or other factors could increase the demand for some goods, increasing the trade flow of those goods towards that node. Trade steering would only work in a very limited way, but you could steer trade by increasing production in provinces producing certain goods. You could then also have the price of goods be based on the difference in amount in your trade node and the foreign one. Collecting from trade should be removed, you would, how ever, get two sliders in all trade nodes you have influence in, to set import and export tariffs. They would directly give you income, but also decrease the trade flow. You could also have the trade flow by itself give you some bonuses, like decreased development/building costs, as well as slightly increased base tax

This is just one of many possible ways how to make trade mechanics much better.
But the game as it is now does not allow for both-way steering. That would be a competition, at the very least. But now, as it is, Egypt and Constantinople can just watch as the profit flows to Venice, and cannot respond in similar way.

 

[Danfish77]

I really like the EUIV system; it's not perfect but it does a much better job of modelling the "flow" of trade goods. Is it more fun than the EU2 or EU3 systems? I think so, if only because it's also less work to manage.

The flow of trade to Europe almost makes sense, historically. The problem is that it is hard-coded and deterministic. Rather than trade flowing to Europe because it was a large market for imported goods with a lack of exports, it flows because the nodes work that way. I would like more alternate links so that trade could flow in multiple directions, but like the Mexico->Japan route, would not be active by default (I'm assuming that's how that route works). It would be great if trade flow could even be reversed if, say, all merchants transferring trade in a node could choose both a route and a direction and whichever direction had a majority would dictate the direction, possibly with a boost to the default.

The system model is a little weird, but if you think about it, the money a nation receives by collecting in a trade node are taxes and tariffs and whatnot on the profits that merchants of that nation make by trading and selling the goods that enter the marketplace there. By having more control over a trade node, a larger share of the goods available for trade go to that nation's merchants, who then have more control and can dictate better prices for sale and for purchase, thus increasing revenues for the merchant and the harbormaster/tax collector/what-have-you. Ming gets money for producing and selling off the silk it produces with production income.
The state is not totalitarian, we don't see the true amount of money changing hands between lords and burghers, only an abstraction of what the state is skimming off the top; in many cases during the time period, increasing tax revenue was as much about making new taxes and actual enrichment of the citizenry as it was about doing a better job of enforcing and collecting. Bureaucracies were not commonplace and these things were often done in an irregular and piecemeal fashion.

 

[Maq]

modelling the "flow" of trade goods

Trade is an exchange, not a flow of trade goods from one place to another for the exclusive benefit of the recipient.
Europeans increased their income (either direct or taxes extracted from it) because they operated not as customers, but traders. Merchants are those who make profit.
Did Venice get rich because all trade goods flowed to Venice? Of course not! Venetians were the brokers who brought goods from Levant to Italy and further to Germany. Buy-and-sale makes you rich, not buy-and-consume.
So what we can see 'flowing' is not trade goods, but trade profit.
And like you said, this scheme is deterministic. So if Venice conquers Egypt and lose her lands in Italy to, say, Hungary, then Venetian trading skills would vane in comparison with Hungarians. That's what I hate in this system most.

The arrows provide a completely false picture. Consider Peru. Peru exported silver to Spain - so let's make trade 'flow' from Peru to Spain.
All right. China sold her goods for silver and gold. So let's make the arrows follow silver again. But wait! This time the game creators chose the other way round and the trade 'flows' against buillon. So where's the logic, what is the rule?
There's only one rule: railroading. Europe simply must profit from world trade no matter what. All those 'trade flows' are just pictures. The same could be achieved with simple extra income bonus to Western tech group.

 

[BrokenSky]

Trade steering is sending more of your merchants to the trade node (threw subsidies or laws) and have them secure trade deals. Collecting money from trade probably means taxing.

That said, I still don't like the trade system.

Here is my suggestion:

Maintain the trade node system, but have trade flow from every node to every other (in both directions) instead of fixed nodes. The amount of trade that flows from one node to another one is mainly based on the goods that are in each node. If e.g. the Venice trade node has a lot of wine and Constantinople has none, a lot of trade will flow from the first to the second. Some province modifiers/buildings or other factors could increase the demand for some goods, increasing the trade flow of those goods towards that node. Trade steering would only work in a very limited way, but you could steer trade by increasing production in provinces producing certain goods. You could then also have the price of goods be based on the difference in amount in your trade node and the foreign one. Collecting from trade should be removed, you would, how ever, get two sliders in all trade nodes you have influence in, to set import and export tariffs. They would directly give you income, but also decrease the trade flow. You could also have the trade flow by itself give you some bonuses, like decreased development/building costs, as well as slightly increased base tax

I considered this once, but the problem is that you'd end up with something like having a hilly road - a ball won't get from one valley into another deeper once unless it has the energy to get up the sides. In the same way having a highly developed node adjacent to two poorly developed ones will basically be isolated (no trade will reach it through the poor nodes) and this is unrealistic and bad for gameplay. It would be nice if there were ways to change the direction of nodes or something, but I don't think that this is the way to do it; a total overhaul would be necessary, possibly beyond what could be done in a mod or expansion.

Nevertheless I'm going to suggest this anyway, fully aware that it may work better in some respects as a suggestion for EUV as for EUIV.
Replace the trade routes system with every node having theoretical trade with every other node. The value of a node is based on the Sum of its values with respect to trading partners. Further away partners have reduced benefit, while each node has a demand for certain goods, based on the production in that node. A node which produces lots of cloth might value wool more highly than a node which produces lots of wool. The Value for trade between the two nodes, if a viable route is possible is based on the value difference between all the demands in each node, multiplied by some factor based on the distance. Viable routes are any chain of consecutive trade nodes which link the two nodes, which have been discovered by any nation within either node. Nations which have discovered a viable route receive a trade power bonus. Nations automatically collect income in every node where they have trade power from provinces. Merchants in a node can either broker trade agreements, increasing the value from of trade in their home node from the node they're in, or steer trade, which pulls some of the trade value in the node into an adjacent node, similar to the current system, based on the trade power in the node. This forgoes the ability to collect trade. Every node has a base level of piracy, which steals some % of the value, which is based on the value in the node. Valuable nodes have a greater % of wealth lost to pirates, unless anti-piracy measures are taken.
Goods which are neither created in any provinces in a node, nor any adjacent node are considered Exotics in than node. They receive a bonus in value.

Something like that maybe?

 

[Shadowstrike]

I posted a potential trade model a few months back based on having goods being differently priced (based on supply and demand), and with trade being the ability to profit from that price difference: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/yet-another-revamped-trade-model.854130/

That said, as unrealistic as it is, the EU4 trade system is still a big improvement over the merchant spamming to get the most merchants in a trade node that we had before - there's some strategy to how to steer, and an impetus to control vital trading locations.

 

[Grand Historian]

I'm fine with trade as it stands. Sure, there's always room from improvement, but it's a decent, complete and relatively good system as it stands. It's complex enough that it provides depth, but transparent enough that you can understand it, and rooted in enough history that it makes both sense, provides some historical accuracy, while still allowing for some alt-wiggle room. Do I think there can still be improvements? Absolutely, but Trade as it stands now is a pretty complete system, and I would rather see stuff like rulers/generals/dynasties/espionage/naval/religions get much needed expansions first before 'fixing' something that isn't all that broken. Really, it just comes down to a matter of priority.

 

[lolada]

I'd like to see more interaction with trade system and more effects from trade goods. Current system is pretty but there's very little interaction. We can only place merchants and protect trade to influence trade and thats it.

- some kind of mechanism to influence trade goods value and maybe even their type, in order to make trade goods more interesting.

- implement that each country benefits from X number of trade goods (increase with tech or ideas): For example, my country produces 10 different trade goods and two most abundant are Grain and Cloth. I receive at my level of development/tech two bonuses: 10% increased force limit for Grain and -10% to unit maintenance from Cloth bonus. Later on for example i could receive third bonus from some other good (ie. Iron for example) for +10% infantry combat ability. This should be active always, current system with 20% global trade is not good enough.

Player could try to get bonuses he wants, manufactories and workshops can double the production of some goods and we could selectively conquer provinces..

 

[Danfish77]

So what we can see 'flowing' is not trade goods, but trade profit.

The in-game flowing mechanic models the fact that Europeans brokered and bartered for goods to come into Europe, and that goods didn't generally flow OUT of Europe. The trade was generally unidirectional. You're looking at the abstraction and treating it like it's literal. The determinism needs to go, but the abstraction is fine.

 

[Maq]

The trade was generally unidirectional

Wrong.
All govenments of all countries more or less do their best to strenghten their countries' exporting abilities. Why? Because trade, unlike robbery, is never unidirectional. So if you want foreign goods, you have to produce something that attracts foreigners, too.
Even more so if you follow mercantilist policy, typical for the times of EUIV. What did mercantilists suggest? Export as much as you can and keep gold. This, they believed, is the source of prosperity.
And you say that Netherlands and England prospered thanks to import, and had nothing to offer in exchange? Or was it Dutch enormous gold mines that made them rich?
What they provided to the others - their commodity - were services. Yes, they made the trade move, they created the world trade system. Of that, the stupid arrows show nothing.
The Englishmen and the Dutch had to sail the seas and be present in all centers of trade, be smarter, quicker in negotiations, sell for better prices and buy for better prices than others. Not in London, not in Amsterdam, but there where the goods could be bought from primary producers, and sold to final customers. Do you know that VOC realized over 90 per cent of her turnover in Asia alone? 90 per cent of traded goods never arrived to Europe!
Arrows and 'steering' are nonsense. You must be present where the market is and compete there. Not to sit at home and wait till the profit flows to you out of nothing, because you're an importer.

 

[VileRose]

No I am not. I sincerely hope that Paradox addresses this in the next expansion, which I also hope is non-eurocentric. I don't care how they do it, but trade flow needs to be adaptive to what the player (or AI) does in a given game.

 

[luxfelix]

@Maq

Would the situation be mitigated somewhat if there were less of a penalty for collecting from trade in foreign nodes and a reduction in the effectiveness of steering (such as your VOC example)?

In addition, perhaps include a "trade maintenance" modifier based on distance from home node that is collected from a portion of trade company profits and distributed (by trade power in node) to all nations with that node as their home trade node (to model the payment of local nations for "trading rights" etc. while trade nodes in China would incur extra expensive "trade maintenance" to model their almost exclusive acceptance of precious metals)?

That way, it would make sense, initially, to steer trade until there is enough trade power to where, by conquest or otherwise, focusing on collecting from the foreign trade node will reap higher dividends (while also providing a greater profit to remaining nations in the trade node, also making them a little harder to conquer).

(Maybe give a slight national unrest reduction and prestige boost to trading nations that bring exotic goods to their home nodes to make up for a decrease in trade steering?)

Also, there is piracy (I haven't seen the AI make much use of it though... ), but what about "highwaymen" and/or "marauders" (inland trade node version of piracy)...

 

[Maq]

@Maq

Would the situation be mitigated somewhat if there were less of a penalty for collecting from trade in foreign nodes and a reduction in the effectiveness of steering (such as your VOC example)?

In addition, perhaps include a "trade maintenance" modifier based on distance from home node that is collected from a portion of trade company profits and distributed (by trade power in node) to all nations with that node as their home trade node (to model the payment of local nations for "trading rights" etc. while trade nodes in China would incur extra expensive "trade maintenance" to model their almost exclusive acceptance of precious metals)?

That way, it would make sense, initially, to steer trade until there is enough trade power to where, by conquest or otherwise, focusing on collecting from the foreign trade node will reap higher dividends (while also providing a greater profit to remaining nations in the trade node, also making them a little harder to conquer).

(Maybe give a slight national unrest reduction and prestige boost to trading nations that bring exotic goods to their home nodes to make up for a decrease in trade steering?)

Also, there is piracy (I haven't seen the AI make much use of it though... ), but what about "highwaymen" and/or "marauders" (inland trade node version of piracy)...

You seem to possess amazing ideas in abundance. You are a very inspiring source.
What you suggest as a 'compromise' is a move in the right direction, sure. Actually I've been trying to mod the game in this way. I've removed the penalties for collecting in multiple nodes. But the AI behaviour seems to be hardcoded; AI countries still prefer steering.
Present trade system looks nice, that's what people like about it, but it's pretty artificial and complicated at that. I would prefer a much simpler scheme where no steering occurs - so that you definitely must be present within the node, either with territory, or access to ports, and with light ships, of course - and to that adding those circumstantial factors you've suggested. Diplomacy, pirate and marauder hunting, and other stuff.

 

[luxfelix]

@Maq

Ah! Thank you for the compliment! I have fun brainstorming and reading ideas from fans.

 

[Maq]

@rickrolle88 featured wonderful ideas on mercantilism in his/her thread https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-mercantilism-mechanics.874451/
And @Vistariel developed them further.
I like the idea of high mercantilism giving casus belli to other countries which prefer free trade. Very sound one.

 

[De Guise]

I'm fine with trade as it stands. Sure, there's always room from improvement, but it's a decent, complete and relatively good system as it stands. It's complex enough that it provides depth, but transparent enough that you can understand it, and rooted in enough history that it makes both sense, provides some historical accuracy, while still allowing for some alt-wiggle room. Do I think there can still be improvements? Absolutely, but Trade as it stands now is a pretty complete system, and I would rather see stuff like rulers/generals/dynasties/espionage/naval/religions get much needed expansions first before 'fixing' something that isn't all that broken. Really, it just comes down to a matter of priority.

I agree that the current trade system is pretty good (trade nodes, trade value vs trade power, steering vs collecting), but improving it remains very important since it is a major feature of this type of games, focusing on oversee exploration, colonisation, early globalization, etc.
I think its main weakness is the fixed trade routes. it makes the trading system very eurocentric (OK the game is called EUROPA universalis but still...). We need something more dynamic, perhaps inspired from Empire Total War. There are no pre-existing trade route. Once you send a merchant and/or a trade fleet in a trade node, a route is created toward your main port. The route follows the shortest way possible.The condition for this would be to have more merchant at the beginning of the game (maybe 4 ?)
I also was very fond of the price evolution of trade goods in Empire Total War. Insted of 2 or 3 events that change the value of a particular trade good, the prices were very instable and depend on supply and demand.

 

[De Guise]

This scheme is deterministic. So if Venice conquers Egypt and lose her lands in Italy to, say, Hungary, then Venetian trading skills would vane in comparison with Hungarians. That's what I hate in this system most.

I couldn't agree more

 

[BrokenSky]

I agree that the current trade system is pretty good (trade nodes, trade value vs trade power, steering vs collecting), but improving it remains very important since it is a major feature of this type of games, focusing on oversee exploration, colonisation, early globalization, etc.
I think its main weakness is the fixed trade routes. it makes the trading system very eurocentric (OK the game is called EUROPA universalis but still...). We need something more dynamic, perhaps inspired from Empire Total War. There are no pre-existing trade route. Once you send a merchant and/or a trade fleet in a trade node, a route is created toward your main port. The route follows the shortest way possible.The condition for this would be to have more merchant at the beginning of the game (maybe 4 ?)
I also was very fond of the price evolution of trade goods in Empire Total War. Insted of 2 or 3 events that change the value of a particular trade good, the prices were very instable and depend on supply and demand.

They used to be based on supply and demand in EUIV, but the problem was that it was a very difficult system to understand in practice (for example the price of a good was based only on countries you had met, things like being at war increased demand for certain things etc) and it resulted in certain goods becoming too cheap, notably new world luxuries, because a lot of provinces made them. This was clearly stupid because the reason that a lot of provinces made them IRL was because of the high demand. The opted to go with a simple system, rather than fix the broken parts of the complicated on. Personally I'd prefer it if the events which changed the values of various goods were more dynamic (e.g. not getting Protestantism entrenched if Protestantism isn't actually all that big, popular or entrenched). And if there were a-historical events (e.g. the silk road: "We, Crimea, have succeeded in controlling all of this legendary trade route!" Options: 1."We should invest in more thorough infrastructure" - all nations: +30% trade steering towards (relevant nodes). 2. "We should impose heavier tolls on this route" - Price of Silk +1, all nations -10% trade steering towards (relevant nodes).

Stuff like that.

 

[De Guise]

Yeah. Empire total war could introduce dynamic prices because both supply AND demand were dynamic, while in EU4 you can only act on supply.
The problem of demand points out another blind spot of EU4 : population increase. It simply didn't exist until Common Sense introduced "development", which is very good, but not completly satisfying. Population should increase by itself, without spending monarch points (maybe proportionaly with you grain production, which is completely useless so far !) You could still use monarch points for increasing base tax, production and man power (it represents how you convert population into taxpayer, workforces and recruits)