How about exchanging world maps?

[Finnish Dragon]

IMO, one of EU2´s weaknesses was the exchange of maps. A large wealthy nation like France could easily buy maps of Middle East, India and China from minor nations. In that way, that nation gains access to those provinces and local trade centers even without a decent sea route.

I hope that they either remove the world map exchange or make it is much harder. I think that only allies should be able to change world maps and only of they have very good(+175) relations. They should also gain much more than you in that exchange as well meaning that every province they reveal to you then you must reveal at least two provinces to them. In EU2, it is too easy to exploit this and gain a lot of information about the world. AFAIK, nations at that time usually kept their maps classified as top secret information.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I think it would be interesting if one could purchase maps off specific nations for a (unfair?) price. Say I'm playing Aragon in 1500, and Castilé has just started colonising Mexico and the West Indies; now, Castilé are unlikely to trade maps with me because of the fact that I am an an obvious competitor. So, I could buy maps of the area from England or France or someone that wouldn't be so bothered about me having them.

Also, I think that as the map will probably be split into areas (like EUII was in the province.csv file), so instead of just buying/trading maps it would be interesting if one could buy maps of a particular area. For example, I'm playing France in 1530 and I want to colonise roughly the same areas as France historically did at that time and aftewards. I could (short of exploring the area myself, of course) purchase a map of that area or areas (Canada; Newfoundland; Hudson Bay, or whatever) for cash from whoever I know has the maps for the area(s) I want.

So for the areas idea, the greater the number of provinces a country knows of in a particular area, the more expensive the maps of said area will be, as well as perhaps a lesser chance of that nation accepting to sell them to me.

So, as Burgundy, I could perhaps buy a map of "Hudson Bay" from France for 250 ducats, as at that point they may only know 3 or 4 provinces. But in 1700, I could buy maps of "Hudson Bay", "Newfoundland" and "Canada" for 900 ducats, as they'd know lots more provinces. The better my relations with France, the better the chance of them accepting. If I am allied with France, then I could perhaps have a 20% discount when asking for maps, as well as a greater chance of them selling me them.

Naturally, if I conquer a nation's capital, I should be able to get their full world maps. That's one feature of EUII that I liked

 

[unmerged(46057)]

In the east that's true. It's way too easy to "discover" all of Asia by giving 100 gold to a Persian minor, then an Indian, then one in Indochina.

Maybe, only countries with a certain trade tech level can trade maps, like 3.

However, the New World is a pain to get maps to. You can be allied, royal marriaged, 200 relations etc with Spain or Portugal and they'll never share, even if you have more lands they don't than vice versa.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Naturally, if I conquer a nation's capital, I should be able to get their full world maps. That's one feature of EUII that I liked

I think it shouldn´t be that easy. If you play a large nation like France or England you will declare war on Portugal, conquer Lisbon and then you have all of Portugal´s maps. IMO, that should be a bit more random. For each unknown province, there should be 50% chance to get the map information about that province. In that time, when soldiers conquered a city, they usually plundered it and burned some buildings down. It is possible that the plundering would destroy some valuable maps.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

One thing that bothered me in EUII was that by the end of the period, a minor european nation might not know anything but Europe, whereas in reality, most nations had at least knowledge of the Americas following the enlightenment. Perhaps we could see a function, starting in 1700, where the world is slowly discovered by all "civilized" nations, without the need for conquistadors and explorers?

Alternatively, the 1700s could mark a sharp decrease in map prices and a larger likelyhood that the AI accepts.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

In the east that's true. It's way too easy to "discover" all of Asia by giving 100 gold to a Persian minor, then an Indian, then one in Indochina.

Maybe, only countries with a certain trade tech level can trade maps, like 3.

True, but given the new research system I would suggest 30 - 3 would've been too low for EUII as well - it should be 6, because:

*it is an important thing and should only become available later in the game,
*the first 6 infrastructure levels have a special bonus (the first 7, if you count lvl 0 allowing colonists ), whereas only the first 5 trade levels have a special bonus (the last one is not even listed and only exists in later patches).

 

[unmerged(49112)]

Why not take the trade for maps feature out of the game and add something like the tech spread of crusader kings?
I mean, when Spain discovered the Americas only they knew about it, but after some years other neigboring countries heard about it, and later got the maps. This should only work in continents. So that if spain discovers cuba in 1492 china doesn;t knows about it by 1580. If an European country discovers the caribean this knowledge should slowly spread through other European countries only. If China knows about Hawain, only nearby Asian nations know about it after some time, and so on. At least it would make the game a bit more realistic, and harder for the player to get maps, specially if you are playing as Austria, Poland and all far east European nations or an isolated nation in the middle of nowhere.

Also it would be good to have the option to give or not give certain knowledge to a vassal you are creating. So if I release aragon as my vassal, I can choose whether or not I want them to get my maps and techs.

 

[Evie HJ]

Japan knew about the Americas by 1600s (and sent emissaries to the Spanish there), so I don't see why not China in 1580.

 

[Registered]

Japan knew about the Americas by 1600s (and sent emissaries to the Spanish there), so I don't see why not China in 1580.

Gameplay reasons. Don't want the chinese to start colonising the americas.

 

[Evie HJ]

An AI China should essentialy be coded to never send out any settler outside Asia, if they ever send them out at all. Not to mention that their sliders should be around the 0.00 colonists per year area.

A human player China should be able to colonize the Americas if he so wants, as long as he gets the correct policies to do so (ie, switches to policies that will actually give him some colonists and such).

Either way, blocking map trading should be pretty much needless, and doesn't make the game particularly more historical.

 

[unmerged(55601)]

Maybe world map could be part of peace agreement like in you know what game.
But I think it is too late.

 

[knul]

I think the problem is not so much map trading as well the ability of any nation to send colonists everywhere. It's ridiculous that a nation can just send colonists to any place it has knowledge of. In Victoria: Revolutions they corrected colonization by having a maximum range, increased with naval technology. Maybe a similar thing is possible for EU.

 

[Rich Oliver]

The whole discovery system is utterly ridiculous. How long did it take for the rest of Europe to find out about the America's? 2 weeks maybe. England had mapped out the North American east coast within a few years of Columbus reaching the west Indies (can't find the date for this) but didn't even attempt to colonise it for another 100 years. Europeans certain certainly didn't need to discover China they had known where it was for 2000 years.

There was only one important discovery and that was the America's. That should be done by event. Why not get rid of the whole exploration system. it seems to be a hang over from Age of Empires that evey world strategy game feels obliged to include.

 

[Registered]

Europeans certain certainly didn't need to discover China they had known where it was for 2000 years.

But hey did not know how to get there, the route had to be discovered. And that was not a quick and easy process. The Portuguese guarded their maps tightly, though not tightly enough.

 

[unmerged(57561)]

IF you can recruit explorers with Naval Tradition I don't see why map trading or conquering is really necessary. Getting them from ships sure maybe.

 

[Rich Oliver]

But hey did not know how to get there, the route had to be discovered. And that was not a quick and easy process. The Portuguese guarded their maps tightly, though not tightly enough.

It took many years to get to the Indies round Africa but I think the limits on this were Naval technological development allowing longer, faster and more economical journeys and the development of naval bases to replenish supplies and the develoopment of trading posts to finance and justify further extensions of the their trading empire.

 

[vertinox]

Gameplay reasons. Don't want the chinese to start colonising the americas.

True, but we shouldn't have artificial restrictions preventing a player to do so.

The Chinese AI should have no motivation on its own to go colonizing, though.

 

[Jolt]

It took many years to get to the Indies round Africa but I think the limits on this were Naval technological development allowing longer, faster and more economical journeys and the development of naval bases to replenish supplies and the develoopment of trading posts to finance and justify further extensions of the their trading empire.

It took 83 years to discover India by the Portuguese, from the time they started discovering African coasts. The journey to India took roughly 1 year (2 years if you mean going and coming back), back then.