Make downstream trade a multiplier

[Kh3lben]

Imho adding any modifiers of this kind would only mask the problem(s),not fix it.Two things need to be changed/revamped:

a) End nodes. Even if we ignore how absurd it is for someone with 100% trade deficit to be making (this much) money,the fact that they are concentrated in one tiny part of the map is infuriating.Just remove the damn things.They give you the feeling that global production/trade system is solely set up for a lazy Englishman that doesn't even bother to send a postcard out of London.

b) Turn the system into a perfect circle by making some nodes go both ways ( you know what i mean ).A prime example for this would be the routes between Europe and the colonies.At some places,where you want to represent heavier activity just create small loops that have only one or two exit points.You could also make it so that the number of connections is tied to trade efficiency.This way,the busy European trade nodes will be buffed,and rightfully so, without destroying the trade everywhere else.

 

[Santoes]

Imho adding any modifiers of this kind would only mask the problem(s),not fix it.Two things need to be changed/revamped:

a) End nodes. Even if we ignore how absurd it is for someone with 100% trade deficit to be making (this much) money,the fact that they are concentrated in one tiny part of the map is infuriating.Just remove the damn things.They give you the feeling that global production/trade system is solely set up for a lazy Englishman that doesn't even bother to send a postcard out of London.

b) Turn the system into a perfect circle by making some nodes go both ways ( you know what i mean ).A prime example for this would be the routes between Europe and the colonies.At some places,where you want to represent heavier activity just create small loops that have only one or two exit points.You could also make it so that the number of connections is tied to trade efficiency.This way,the busy European trade nodes will be buffed,and rightfully so, without destroying the trade everywhere else.

I'm pretty certain the end nodes are there to keep the trade money from becoming infinite.

 

[Burgonde]

I completely agree. My Tunis' trade was dirt poor.

Ironically, I can't get my investment back by protecting trade at home node, which is overwhelmed by the about 1,000 trade power from Portugal and about 800 trade power from Spain. And now that the trade embargo doesn't work I literally had no way to get rid of their trade power besides outright conquest, which I only managed to pull off on 1814 (after noticing the "Son of Carthage" achievement).

However, since the Seville node is quite rich, privateering Seville gives me much more return than protecting my own trade node... Well I can't complain, since this is the Berber nations' way to play this game after all..

well, this looks like a sound and flavourful mechanic to me!

 

[Kh3lben]

I'm pretty certain the end nodes are there to keep the trade money from becoming infinite.

If you keep the current routes that would be a passable excuse.If you however make every node *bleed* and just adjust the efficiency values,i don't see that being a problem.

 

[greendevil]

I agree. Trade power propagation is OP. While we're at it, could we remove those awful multipliers for outgoing trade if there are many nations that steer there? I don't really understand why would two OPMs manage to steer more than a single country of two provinces.

 

[Santoes]

If you keep the current routes that would be a passable excuse.If you however make every node *bleed* and just adjust the efficiency values,i don't see that being a problem.

When trade is steered the outgoing value is modified. Any loop in trade would create an infinite number of gold. It's there to reward those that create a trade steering chain. Except now the end nodes are pulling everything towards them and it's nuts.

What I think needs to be done is to have hard modifiers to anyone that isn't steering the trade, or even a nation modifier that protects trade that is collected from being steered out of a node. Everyone collecting could add a multiplicative effect, or a degrading effect like how outgoing trade is. Something to some degree needs to limit end nodes taking everything with out doing anything.

 

[Melville]

I noticed that in my last game as the USA. I owned the entire North American continent but the British still had more than 40% of the trade power in Chesapeake Bay without sending a single ship or merchant to the node.

 

[artemis667]

I don't think trade should be bidirectional in and of itself. The fixed trade steering directions are the best way to do it, for many reasons - not least being the potential for loops and the complexity that could cause.

But what would be cool is some tariff system, to reward upstream countries, when trade is taken out of their country. Exactly how you'd do it is another question, but with a bit of work a really solid, balanced, and implementable mechanic could be proposed.

edit: The other thing I like is to have a parallel trade system, where everything goes back up the other way from Europe! End nodes in, for example, Siam, Nippon, and Ceylon. Perhaps we would even have the 'Occidental' trade map, and the 'Oriental' trade map. Loops are impossible because there's no interaction between the Occidental system and the Oriental system.

You drop the value of all trade by 50%, and make the downstream modifier even stronger than it is.

Is it all too complicated? Yeah. But it would be cool.

 

[zdlugasz]

When trade is steered the outgoing value is modified. Any loop in trade would create an infinite number of gold. It's there to reward those that create a trade steering chain. Except now the end nodes are pulling everything towards them and it's nuts.

What I think needs to be done is to have hard modifiers to anyone that isn't steering the trade, or even a nation modifier that protects trade that is collected from being steered out of a node. Everyone collecting could add a multiplicative effect, or a degrading effect like how outgoing trade is. Something to some degree needs to limit end nodes taking everything with out doing anything.

One can easily avoid any infinite amplification of trade in the bi-directional trade-lanes (if Paradox really wanted it). It is trivial: you do not take ALL income for the purpose of calculation of outstream from A to B, instead you take ALL - incoming from B to A - and there is no feedback.

 

[Hirron]

Apparently merchants are now attracted to countries with massive monopolies over their own trade rather than the availability of any trade routes, or any distinction on local powers.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

I don't think anybody would try to refute what you are saying. The point is that you should have to invest in trade to get trade, which Europe did and it paid off greatly for them.

Ah, but not the *Monarchs*. The Scottish, for instance, created the early version of the bond market we have today for the purposes of colonizing the Americas. The Queens and Kings of England basically did little more than give permission (commission). They did not themselves go out and raise money and spend it on building colonies. On the contrary, they put taxation and limitations in place that the merchant class had to work with and around.

So sitting back and doing nothing useful while the traders make you rich is somewhat historically accurate. Albeit, the British Empire did more than its fair share of warfare in support of the mercantile interests of the East India Trading company; however, this was much like in the game, a matter of securing trade routes and subjugating indigenous peoples so as to make it easier for the trading interests to properly exploit them.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

One can easily avoid any infinite amplification of trade in the bi-directional trade-lanes (if Paradox really wanted it). It is trivial: you do not take ALL income for the purpose of calculation of outstream from A to B, instead you take ALL - incoming from B to A - and there is no feedback.

The trade lines themselves are the issue really. Tunis doesn't do well because to drive enough trade to it to matter is quite difficult since lines such as safi go straight in to Sevilla. But if you're playing Tunis, Alexandria is your oyster to shell. Grabbing this, then forcing Aleppo out of the Otto's hands basically means only needing to direct trade from Aqaba up to Alexandria so as to capture what would otherwise go south to Kilwanese largesse.

I did try in a previous game (1.7, not 1.8) to get Tunis up to a meaningful number and it just didn't seem feasible. Moving my trade port and capital to Alexandria simply worked better. Probably better palaces there anyway

 

[Hirron]

Presently September 1632 as Aztec having Colonized the entire East Coast of the US, Bermuda is the only province not owned. Have 50 trade ships to add to value, have first few trade ideas. The total % control of node ?
...
...
50%. Thanks to English Channel there is almost 250 tp worth of downstream. Never mind that GB despite having 160*0.87 = 233.

 

[Demetrios]

One thing I definitely believe should be done is that a nation shouldn't be able to draw power from a node they haven't discovered yet. I was looking over the 1444 trade map and the biggest power in the Ivory Coast node? England! Followed by Portugal and several other European powers. Never mind that none of them have discovered it yet!

 

[Miravlix]

I don't get this thread.

Trade Power is virtual, it's trying to emulate that Europa brings everything to Europa, without Europa there's zero value in all trade nodes, if anything Europa should get even more power.

 

[Hirron]

Trade power represents control of trade and it's value. Historically light ships and tight controls of specific points (Ex Venice and the Mediterranean, The Ottomans and Constantinople).
Trade consistently had value in that you could tax the lands it went through. I can't say for sure what downstream trade represents but I'm presuming its meant for situations like Genoa where nearby trade would effectively draw in more to major centers.

With Nodes like the Carribian, Ivory Coast, Tunis and so forth you don't have any nearby trade. Historically the Caribbean and Ivory Coast were colonized for their trade value. Hence it seems kind of silly to have downstream trade be worth >50% of all trade control. By modifying downstream to be a trade modifier (say 1 tp = +0.01) Rather than Portugal having 250 tp in Carribian without a single province instead it would get 350% trade power from any ships / provinces it invested in.

 

[Xiathorn]

I have to agree with this thread. Currently, in my England game, it's 1650 and I have total control over both the Ivory Coast and the Caribbean. Unfortunately, despite that, over 50% of the trade in those two nodes goes to Servilla, because of the obscene amounts of tradepower Portugal and Spain have there.

It seems extremely silly that you can sit back and effectively buff your home tradenode's tradepower, and completely ignore the source, and you'll get more money than the people who actually developed the tradenodes.