Today in the stream it was mentioned by Joachim that there will be a new port system in the 2.0 patch. Has this ever been described in the DDs?
- 11
New port system?
- Thread starter bass12
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I haven't seen it but it's needed.
Ports being the staple of trade would be a much simpler system that would add a lot of fun and strategy.
IR is struggling because it plays like a battle of numbers instead of fighting for on map resources.
Ports being the staple of trade would be a much simpler system that would add a lot of fun and strategy.
IR is struggling because it plays like a battle of numbers instead of fighting for on map resources.
- 12
- 2
Not that I am aware of, but on last DD this text was spotted by some as interesting:
And in another DD, ports icons were different, as if they were not fixed (I will look for the picture) EDIT: this image:
Last edited:
- 7
- 3
- 2
I really hope by improving ports that they go down the line of creating a visual line of trade connecting port to port.
Say Carthage starts with an amazing port that has 7 routes. Instead of IR trade routes being as they are now, these 7 routes are instead 7 white dotted lines connecting the Port of Carthage to 7 other ports. Carthage will then have access to excess goods in other provinces that the faction has agreed to sell. And ships will be needed protect that route.
The abstract nature of trade routes as they are now is just really bad. It needs to be changed into something just more realistic and plays with general realistic and relatable strategies like ships/ports/ trade agreements. Its weird to think they don't even them into account other than a 'modifier' for ports.
And that's another thing with regard to mechanics. Ports should not be a modifier to trade. They should enable it. Trade across the sea should need a port, that should be the mechanic. Not because there is an available 'trade route' modified by the port.
Say Carthage starts with an amazing port that has 7 routes. Instead of IR trade routes being as they are now, these 7 routes are instead 7 white dotted lines connecting the Port of Carthage to 7 other ports. Carthage will then have access to excess goods in other provinces that the faction has agreed to sell. And ships will be needed protect that route.
The abstract nature of trade routes as they are now is just really bad. It needs to be changed into something just more realistic and plays with general realistic and relatable strategies like ships/ports/ trade agreements. Its weird to think they don't even them into account other than a 'modifier' for ports.
And that's another thing with regard to mechanics. Ports should not be a modifier to trade. They should enable it. Trade across the sea should need a port, that should be the mechanic. Not because there is an available 'trade route' modified by the port.
- 6
- 1
But there is no explanation on what a "better port" means. I guess is a new minor mechanic that will be explained sooner or later
- 1
Yeah, maybe it'll be talked about in a future DD alongside some other minor changes, maybe after the mission trees.
Whilst in so many respects I:R is so much more complex than the old Rome EU : VV you were able with the former to construct your own ports, it's about time this ability was brought back . . . if indeed it is?
I hope it's not like EU4 CoT upgrades. They're very dull, hopefully the Imperator team can do better than just some minor modifiers for improving ports.
- 6
- 1
It might be too much for the update 2.0, but then it should be definitely included in 2.1 with a focus on trade and economy.
- 1
I didn't quite understand what you mean by changing ports but I think naval range should be reworked and be extended when you capture new ports.
- 3
I think they may limit the update of ports in 2.0 by turning them into buildings, perhaps with a smattering of natural ports on the map that have latent port levels that can be expandes upon, and the size limits the number of trade routes and which ships can be built. Theyre already gonna allow you to automate governor's trade soni doubt they'll do more than that now.
I hope for more though, I don't really like trade as it is right now it could be more about controlling markets and its access to certain goods rather than peer-to-peer exchange. The Amber Roads, the lucrative tin trade from Britain, wine flowing from the Med into Gaul. These should be represented somehow with a less invasive system than we have at present. I don't expect, nor want, a Vicky 2 like system because this game isnt about trade at that level, but borrowing some core principles and applying them to the famously routes and exchange networks we know off could be ok.
I hope for more though, I don't really like trade as it is right now it could be more about controlling markets and its access to certain goods rather than peer-to-peer exchange. The Amber Roads, the lucrative tin trade from Britain, wine flowing from the Med into Gaul. These should be represented somehow with a less invasive system than we have at present. I don't expect, nor want, a Vicky 2 like system because this game isnt about trade at that level, but borrowing some core principles and applying them to the famously routes and exchange networks we know off could be ok.
- 2
- 1
- 1
In Alexander's conquests, port strategy was key in his campaign, I think they will do something similar.
My theory is that there will be port levels that you can improve. Each improvement will bring more wealth, trade routes and faster food storage.
Maybe we could even see supply ships.
This is 100% speculation xdxd
My theory is that there will be port levels that you can improve. Each improvement will bring more wealth, trade routes and faster food storage.
Maybe we could even see supply ships.
This is 100% speculation xdxd
- 3
I second this, I'd love to see more organic trade represented so you get these cool trade trends like this in game.