economy merchants

[alvaro]

I feel this forum is a bit of a war between micromanagement gentlemen and those "do everything for me while I crash someone's ... head".

Here may come another battleground.

Merchants,
I don't like the way it was in EUII. I do see that a very complex economic system may be a big trap for beginners to start fast but I prefer a more realistic way of managing commerce.

I would go for a system based on Custom building that you can buy on your towns. From there you may set up trade lines that will increase income depending on the richness of the surrounding areas. You may build one or many, depending on the tech and your money and your domestic policies (if there'll be such a thing on EU3). That way you could forget about the hardcoded trade centers. That thing me no like.
I also liked the info screen on Victoria were you could see the domestic trade and the transportation available.

 

[unmerged(17763)]

My only serious issue with the economic system was that it didn't provide for interactions between CoTs, portraying them as merely handling the trade for their immediate area. Trade routes from great trade centre to great trade centre were crucial in EU's age - for example, speaking in terms of EU CoTs, merchants from Malacca bought spices from around their area, which then travelled to Kutch, Alexandria, Veneto and from there to Europe, but when the Portugese arrived, these same spices arrived from Malacca to Tago, enriching the latter. Mercantilism - Free Trade would probably affect this greatly.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I loathe COTs. I would give, well, at least one dollar, to be able to get rid of them. Why not allow the game engine to simulate this based on the relevant strength of your country, its stability, and the products it needs and those it exports? (I almost equally hate the idea of an "HOI-like system of convoys".)

 

[unmerged(53923)]

I loathe COTs. I would give, well, at least one dollar, to be able to get rid of them. Why not allow the game engine to simulate this based on the relevant strength of your country, its stability, and the products it needs and those it exports? (I almost equally hate the idea of an "HOI-like system of convoys".)

You seem to be in a minority of 2.

While the CoT system may need to be tweaked, the consensus is that it is both historically accurate and a useful gameplay feature. I myself would like to see better simulation of inter CoT Trade (the value of the CoT at Malacca, e.g. should only be "465" to European traders, as local traders would only be buying what is available locally anyway...until the Europeans arrive) and also an automatic embargo on any colonial CoT (it only trades with the home nation, unless a treaty is arranged). There are several other improvements I would like, but those would be my priorities..

 

[alvaro]

jeez!! what a crap thread title of mine!!

 

[unmerged(20220)]

You seem to be in a minority of 2.

While the CoT system may need to be tweaked, the consensus is that it is both historically accurate and a useful gameplay feature. I myself would like to see better simulation of inter CoT Trade (the value of the CoT at Malacca, e.g. should only be "465" to European traders, as local traders would only be buying what is available locally anyway...until the Europeans arrive) and also an automatic embargo on any colonial CoT (it only trades with the home nation, unless a treaty is arranged). There are several other improvements I would like, but those would be my priorities..

No they're not. Or we're a minority of 3!

Seriously, I do think CoTs were a bad idea, if a useful game tool in the developpers' mind. In the original boardgame, trade was modelled much more adequately/realistically and there only were 2 CoTs in all. One for Atlantic trade, one for Mediterrannean trade, simulating the dynamism of one or other specific port/trade center (moving from Flanders to Portugal and to Holland later on in the case of Atlantic CoT). They gave you a bonus on your trade revenues. Trade revenues were based on distinguishing internal trade and international trade (which could be subject to embargoes).

And there was no need for stupid micro-management of traders like in EU2. I sincerely hope that goes down the drain, but, after seeing the fisrt screenshots, fear it's here to stay.

 

[Registered]

You seem to be in a minority of 2.

I suggest you take a look in this thread, lots of loathing going on there.

While the CoT system may need to be tweaked, the consensus is that it is both historically accurate and a useful gameplay feature.

It is not accurate (naval blockades play almost no role, even landlocked nations can send merchants overseas) and it is extremely tiresome having to send the merchants all the time.

 

[unmerged(53923)]

I suggest you take a look in this thread, lots of loathing going on there.

It is not accurate (naval blockades play almost no role, even landlocked nations can send merchants overseas) and it is extremely tiresome having to send the merchants all the time.

I suggest that YOU read that thread. Lots of desire for changes, but very little loathing.

And it is accurate. No-one could deny that Venice was a centre of trade, as was Amsterdam, London, Lisbon, and Paris. That does not mean that it does not need tweaking to improve it. If you want to send less merchants, put it on automatic or suggest a viable alternative, don't just scrap the whole system because you don't like one part of it.

As for naval blockades: fine, come up with a way to simulate them (That provinces goods are unavailable in the CoT that month perhaps).

I for one find the concept of CoT's very strong in EUI & II. I agree that the implementation is sometimes a pain, but I am convinced that it is just a matter of tweaking the existing concept.

FWIW, I am of the opinion that Merchants should only be sent to the following CoT's:

Major ones (Paris, London, Venice, etc.) if the Hosting nation does not place an embargo against you and if they are within range of your network.

Minor ones you own.

Minor ones within distance of your network that you negotiated access to with the hosting nation.

By "your Network" I mean all those within trading range of a CoT you have a merchant at.

This means that landlocked nations can only send merchants overseas if they are trading with a coastal CoT.

As far as I can tell, this deals with all your complaints without leaving the CoT system. Why do you need to scrap it?

 

[Registered]

As far as I can tell, this deals with all your complaints without leaving the CoT system. Why do you need to scrap it?

I don't want to scrap CoTs as such. I want to combine them with trade routes. I'm not saying that Amsterdam being a centre of trade is unrealistic. I am saying that the system is unrealistic.

 

[alvaro]

I don't want to scrap CoTs as such. I want to combine them with trade routes. I'm not saying that Amsterdam being a centre of trade is unrealistic. I am saying that the system is unrealistic.

Right. as a matter of fact Trade routes create CoTs and not the other way around.

 

[Registered]

Right. as a matter of fact Trade routes create CoTs and not the other way around.

True, but that might be a bit hard to model in the game.

 

[alvaro]

True, but that might be a bit hard to model in the game.

I stick with the idea of the custom office buiding. Anyway at that time the traders had to work from certain places were the state placed burocrats to control trade. And as for trade routes, following the same system as HoI, a convoy would be like a trader and the supplies would be like the imported/produced goods on CoT hinterland.
I would also like to see a way to affect the extension of the hinterland depending on the amout of trade, routes, goods, merchants,...
I think all this make the system realistic and set up the basis for a more logical inflation.