Ideas for Rworked Trade [Reposted From General Discussion]

[jensen0james]

Under the current trade system, the goal of trade is to direct it all to one of the three in game trade nodes. By chaining together long trade routes and having a significant holding in either Genoa, Venice, or the English Channel a player can dominiate every other country when it comes to Ducats. Here I will outline a serious and, though insignificant in scope, monumental change to the trade system.

This thread outlines the changes for that reworked trade system

1. Rework trade between nodes so that the direction the trade flows between two nodes can be determined by the country with the most trade power in those nodes, say 50%
2. Once a country has embrassed Global Trade, grant a special casus belli 'Trade Conflict' to reverse the trade in any node where a country or its subject has a significant interest, perhaps 10% trade power. Countries can only take this action if they do not have 50% of the trade power.
3. The war is declared against the country with the largest share of trade power, not including the country declaring, and any country with a share of 10% or more may join this war as a defensive ally.
4. Once a trade conflict has been won between two trade nodes, the option to reverse the trade peacefully is grayed out or unavalible for 50 years.

These changes would allow playthroughs like that of an early United States or a trade empire Japan. The way these trade systems work now, trade within the Americas or Asia hardly get any chance to grow. The trade just simply moves away from these regions. This would not effect world conquest games much, as by definition you will have a significant stake in every trade node if you conquer the world. These changes are meant to provide more roleplaying opportunities to those wishing to play a trade build outside of Europe. As trade flows back to other parts of the world, say the Americas in the United States example, the other countries around you in turn would become wealthier and be able to divert more trade towards themsleves, mimicing what happens in Europe as trade flows through the current version of the game.

It is also worth noting that the description for Global Trade reads in part, "Iron mined and wrought in Scandinavia is being sold in West Africa by English merchants [...]" Trade from Scandinavia cannot reach any part of Africa, it all terminates in the English Channel. With these changes trade from Scandinavia could truely flow to West Africa through the English Channel.

Credit for the original idea goes to Alex Jensen, my brother. Love you bro! <3

I expanded on his idea of trade coalitions and designating certain trade nodes as end nodes. I incorporated the idea of reversing trade to create those end nodes and the casus belli for 'Trade Conflict' starting in the institution of Global Trade.

Thanks for your time reading my tread and feel free to expand on it. I hope I have been of service and that, just perhaps, this reaches the eyes of the devolopers. It might make a good DLC

This is the same post but in the EU4 Forum instead of general. This is my first post.

James Jensen

 

[romothecus]

This isn't going to happen in EU4.

Based on how things turn out in Vicky 3, we'll probably see something like that.

 

[MatthewP]

It’s actually quite complex with the EU4 trade system. Among other reasons, this is because reversing the flow between two nodes can potentially create a cycle. For example, let’s say you have:

A -> C
A -> B
B -> C

then you reverse the flow between A and C, giving:

A -> B
B -> C
C -> A

Now, where does the trade get collected? Where is it forwarded from? How can you decide in a way that will be clear, logical and consistent? Basically, without a defined upstream and downstream, the trade algorithm is not well-defined.

That said, I hope they figure out a variant for EU5 (or vic3) that allows this type of change, for exactly the reasons you mention.

 

[Chippings]

It’s actually quite complex with the EU4 trade system. Among other reasons, this is because reversing the flow between two nodes can potentially create a cycle. For example, let’s say you have:

A -> C
A -> B
B -> C

then you reverse the flow between A and C, giving:

A -> B
B -> C
C -> A

Now, where does the trade get collected? Where is it forwarded from? How can you decide in a way that will be clear, logical and consistent? Basically, without a defined upstream and downstream, the trade algorithm is not well-defined.

That said, I hope they figure out a variant for EU5 (or vic3) that allows this type of change, for exactly the reasons you mention.

Allow a player to place a trader directing trade "upstream" at any time. However, provide feedback through a tooltip that there is no effect if:

1. <50% of trade power: "[Merchant_Name] is gathering influence and making bold claims in [Trade_Node], but the local population does not yet believe there is more money to be earned in [Upstream_Node]. (Gather more trade power to complete this activity.)"
2. Creates Loop: : "[Merchant_Name] is arguably the most influential trader in [Trade_Node] but the regional trade network doesn't agree with his radical ideas. (Shift more trade nodes to complete this activity.)"

Alternatively, spent the time to adjust the trade algorithm. For example, trade cannot flow from a node with greater trade power to lesser trade power. I have faith in Paradox Tinto! But I also absolutely do not expect this ever gets changed in EUIV.

 

[jensen0james]

I see your point MatthewP. Your point is valid, once trade has passed through a trade node it does not make sense for that same trade to return to that node. One potential solution to this problem is.

It’s actually quite complex with the EU4 trade system. Among other reasons, this is because reversing the flow between two nodes can potentially create a cycle. For example, let’s say you have:

A -> C
A -> B
B -> C

then you reverse the flow between A and C, giving:

A -> B
B -> C
C -> A

Now, where does the trade get collected? Where is it forwarded from? How can you decide in a way that will be clear, logical and consistent? Basically, without a defined upstream and downstream, the trade algorithm is not well-defined.

That said, I hope they figure out a variant for EU5 (or vic3) that allows this type of change, for exactly the reasons you mention.

A -> C
A -> B
B -> C

Reversed flow of A and C

A -> B
B -> C
C -> A

In this example, assumung that A is the only node with inputs just so that we can model the flow between these three nodes and assuming all trade is transfered upstream for simplicity, trade that flows through A would terminate in C. Trade generated in B would terminate in A. Trade generated in C would terminate in B. This would involve some code or system within the game itself that keeps track of where trade has been generated and where that trade has flowed too already

 

[MatthewP]

I see your point MatthewP. Your point is valid, once trade has passed through a trade node it does not make sense for that same trade to return to that node. One potential solution to this problem is.


A -> C
A -> B
B -> C

Reversed flow of A and C

A -> B
B -> C
C -> A

In this example, assumung that A is the only node with inputs just so that we can model the flow between these three nodes and assuming all trade is transfered upstream for simplicity, trade that flows through A would terminate in C. Trade generated in B would terminate in A. Trade generated in C would terminate in B. This would involve some code or system within the game itself that keeps track of where trade has been generated and where that trade has flowed too already

This could work and is an interesting idea. But unless I’m missing a trick, it changes the trade algorithm from linear to quadratic in terms of the number of nodes. I have no idea if that would actually matter practically, but it’s an example of the type of risk that explains why the devs won’t do this in EU4.

Also questions like, if the trade in a node is divided into multiple pieces based on which other nodes it has already visited and each piece will potentially have a different behavior, how is this information communicated to the player? Probably not an impossible obstacle but a tricky one, added onto a system that is already incredibly opaque for new players.

Finally, it does weird things to forwarding logic. If different segments of the trade in a node behave differently, it’s going to be sometimes weird and unintuitive to figure out which direction to forward. In fact there are different ways the game could handle forwarding and each one I can think of is a bit odd.

 

[dm99]

Under the current trade system, the goal of trade is to direct it all to one of the three in game trade nodes. By chaining together long trade routes and having a significant holding in either Genoa, Venice, or the English Channel a player can dominiate every other country when it comes to Ducats. Here I will outline a serious and, though insignificant in scope, monumental change to the trade system.

This thread outlines the changes for that reworked trade system

1. Rework trade between nodes so that the direction the trade flows between two nodes can be determined by the country with the most trade power in those nodes, say 50%
2. Once a country has embrassed Global Trade, grant a special casus belli 'Trade Conflict' to reverse the trade in any node where a country or its subject has a significant interest, perhaps 10% trade power. Countries can only take this action if they do not have 50% of the trade power.
3. The war is declared against the country with the largest share of trade power, not including the country declaring, and any country with a share of 10% or more may join this war as a defensive ally.
4. Once a trade conflict has been won between two trade nodes, the option to reverse the trade peacefully is grayed out or unavalible for 50 years.

These changes would allow playthroughs like that of an early United States or a trade empire Japan. The way these trade systems work now, trade within the Americas or Asia hardly get any chance to grow. The trade just simply moves away from these regions. This would not effect world conquest games much, as by definition you will have a significant stake in every trade node if you conquer the world. These changes are meant to provide more roleplaying opportunities to those wishing to play a trade build outside of Europe. As trade flows back to other parts of the world, say the Americas in the United States example, the other countries around you in turn would become wealthier and be able to divert more trade towards themsleves, mimicing what happens in Europe as trade flows through the current version of the game.

It is also worth noting that the description for Global Trade reads in part, "Iron mined and wrought in Scandinavia is being sold in West Africa by English merchants [...]" Trade from Scandinavia cannot reach any part of Africa, it all terminates in the English Channel. With these changes trade from Scandinavia could truely flow to West Africa through the English Channel.

Credit for the original idea goes to Alex Jensen, my brother. Love you bro! <3

I expanded on his idea of trade coalitions and designating certain trade nodes as end nodes. I incorporated the idea of reversing trade to create those end nodes and the casus belli for 'Trade Conflict' starting in the institution of Global Trade.

Thanks for your time reading my tread and feel free to expand on it. I hope I have been of service and that, just perhaps, this reaches the eyes of the devolopers. It might make a good DLC

This is the same post but in the EU4 Forum instead of general. This is my first post.

James Jensen

As far as I remember, there were always plenty of people willing to change the existing trading system. Even despite the fact that the existing system most adequately reflects the realities of that time. Just think of it not as a flow of goods, but a flow of profits.

Your idea is the most wonderful of all. For starters, you didn't seem to be building a global trading empire. In order to have a lot of money in the end, you need to invest a lot. One trader per node requires each node to have a minimum of over 51% trade power. In general, the normal number is 65% -75%. Otherwise, what you brought to this node will be collected in it. And your whole chain at the end will give out what it collects at the very beginning.

In order to make any node in the chain final node, you don’t need to be smart about anything, 85-95% trade is our everything.

But you want to go further, i.e. reverse the entire chain from end to beginning. To do this, you will have to have enough trade power in each node. Those. You need to capture a bunch of provinces across all chains. But if you have the strength and opportunity for this, then just capture the end node as well and you will be happy. And you don't have to change anything.

 

[Saat98]

Your suggestion would be a nightmare to implement, and I think it would be damaging to gameplay. First of all, if I understand correctly, a country should have 50+% trade power in two nodes to be able to change peacefully the direction of trade flow between those two nodes. Indeed, if one country controls node A and another country controls node B, which country decides the direction of A-B? If you require that a country controls both nodes to change the direction of the flow, only the biggest countries would be able to change it (I imagine Spain wrt Seville-Valencia, Ottos wrt Constantinople-Aleppo/Alexandria, and Ming wrt Beijing-Yumen). If you only require one node to be controlled to change trade, it would be possible that, unless your capital is in the New world, your own colonial nation is able to reverse the trade flow into the Caribbean, leaving the colonizers poor. Many players would hate this (including me). Especially, I fear that an AI Spain or Portugal is unable to reverse trade back to Seville, and suddenly they become way weaker than they are today.

If you somehow add the trade power of the two nodes to determine who is "the winner" in this tug-of-war, trade nodes with more CoT's or more dev will always have the upper hand, and will effectively become the end nodes. So it will be impossible to send trade from English Channel to Ivory Coast unless you conquer a lot of English Channel, because the total amount of trade power available on the English Channel is way bigger than the trade power available on Ivory Coast.

Secondly, suppose that country C controls the flow between A and B, but country D embargoes country C, making country E the one with the biggest trade power in A-B. So, he reverses the flow of this link. But then, C sends some light ships, recovering his place as the biggest trade power. So the flow is again reversed. My point being that small changes in trade power could cause enormous changes in the trade network.

I think that your idea is not a good solution to the fixed trade flow, as it makes the trade flow too discrete, so the changes for you and other countries are too big when they happen. I think that a good solution would be something more continuous, such that a small change in trade power corresponds to a small effect in your (and other countries') overall income. This could be achieved for example if any country is able to direct trade to wherever they want, proportionally to their trade power in the node. But I reckon a system like this has to wait to EU5.

 

[3ishop]

As above it wont happen due to the mechanical issues in cycles and unlimited ducats/computation crashing it.

There's also the issue of trade. We'd need the Vic 3 style trade system for it to work. The current representation is off the generally European value of goods (hence the events) and the idea of supply and demand. Just dominating a region doesn't mean that area has the highest demand.