Petition: Don't remove supply and demand

[oblio-]

How isn't it meaningful to build factories in far east provinces producing eastern resources, have that trade value conga lined back to Europe thanks to trade companies and then raking in a thousand ducats monthly income? You of course also need many customs houses.

And even not trying to optimize trade like in the above example it was possible to gain increases in trade income from the old system; how is that not meaningful?

The impact was pitiful. I "optimized" my trade by conquering more land and spamming more lightships. Never had a problem with this approach.
It's cool that you got an extra 0.5 ducats per month from influencing trade goods prices

 

[MaXimillion]

How isn't it meaningful to build factories in far east provinces producing eastern resources, have that trade value conga lined back to Europe thanks to trade companies and then raking in a thousand ducats monthly income?

None of those things depend on the old supply/demand system though.

 

[selectah]

The problem with the old system being hard to influence was that if one could really influence it before becoming a huge blob it would probably be quite easy to abuse and it would snowball horribly. So while I liked the concept of the system it's not a bad change.

The downside I see: a system with fixed prices that fluctuate based on events means that it needs A LOT of events to add real flavor (and I don't mean generic 'trade good x is now more/less valuable for 20years). And considering how much stuff was added / changed in the upcoming DLC I fear that it will take quite some time until this status is reached. Around a year ago I remember Johan admitting that the game still needs tons of new events and -chains for things not directly concerning war, and this is still a major WIP as far as I am concerned .. so my hopes of a fleshed out event system that gives the accumulation of shekels it's proper place in the game are not too high.

 

[Golladan]

This was removed for three reasons..

1) it had no impact that the player could effect.
2) most did not even know about it..
3) it was a severe performance drain..

I'll concede points 2 and 3, though I would like to see a comparison in performance between the 2 systems. And I doubt most people will notice the new system anyways.

But you're replacing a system that players could not impact in a meaningful way with a system that players cannot impact at all?

 

[jockedahl]

Demand and supply has no place in a game without pops in my opinion. Or they should make some sort of railroad tycoon 3 system.

 

[selectah]

Demand and supply has no place in a game without pops in my opinion. Or they should make some sort of railroad tycoon 3 system.

Oh yes, instead of Victoria 3 give me some Railroad Universalis. It's not just building trains to haul goods. It's also conquering more lands to build even more trains to haul even more goods.

 

[Wagonlitz]

In your example, prices are only manipulated by building manufactories. For the rest of that example, it's only the player connecting trade nodes optimally. That part of the trade system has nothing to do with manipulating prices. You can still make ludicrous amounts of money through the same trade route even without bothering about prices.

None of those things depend on the old supply/demand system though.

Since both of you misunderstood my example I suppose I wrote it poorly. You both missed the point where I said you also needed many customs houses. The example is that you build factories in the far east to up supply; you then then spam customs houses throughout your realm to increase demand. Then you have the conga line transport the wealth home.

The impact was pitiful. I "optimized" my trade by conquering more land and spamming more lightships. Never had a problem with this approach.
It's cool that you got an extra 0.5 ducats per month from influencing trade goods prices

You could get far more than an extra 0.5 ducats a month from the supply/demand system.

 

[atwix]

RANT

Such anger. You can deny it all you want, but most players never even knew or used the system because they simply didn't know or understand it.

If the lead programer said the players couldn't meaningfully affect the system, i believe him.

You don't even know what they will replace it with, so just wait and see.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Such anger. You can deny it all you want, but most players never even knew or used the system because they simpl didn't know or understand it.

And I still don't see how that is the fault of the system. To me that mostly looks like people didn't want to learn all details of the game.

You don't even know what they will replace it with, so just wait and see.

They said they want to replace it with events and we say a screenshot of an event where the price of slaves suddenly rises 50%; that is a dumbed down system unless they have many events. But yes final judgement will have to wait until the expansion is released.

 

[lordelenath]

And I still don't see how that is the fault of the system. To me that mostly looks like people didn't want to learn all details of the game.
They said they want to replace it with events and we say a screenshot of an event where the price of slaves suddenly rises 50%; that is a dumbed down system unless they have many events. But yes final judgement will have to wait until the expansion is released.

That is a valid choice for game development though. If only 5% of the players actually know and utilize a system it makes sense from a developers PoV to scrap it and/or replace it. Personally I'm looking forward to the new one, although it might be bland if there're way to little events associated with it.

 

[Beagá]

It´s a bit more complicated than that. If the game doesn´t give solid UI input on how things work, people will not bother using a feature. Doesn´t mean it´s useless or can´t be improved, is it?

Also, in a game as complex as EU 4 MANY things demand player attention. People didn´t care much with creating demand in part because you had plenty of other stuff to consider. If you have 10% Manpower reserves and fighting a tough war, the last thing you will care about will be with trade good demand.

 

[oblio-]

You could get far more than an extra 0.5 ducats a month from the supply/demand system.

The number was an exaggeration, I understand that by properly using the system the delta could be much higher.
However, you mostly care about money when you're small. And when you're small you can barely build a trade fleet, buildings boosting production don't exist yet (they're probably 100 years away), and even if they were available they'd be too expensive to mass build. Controlling the right provinces is hard since they most likely belong to strong and/or faraway states.
And once you do reach the spam production buildings stage it's just more efficient to just conquer anything you can.

You could play a peaceful trade game but a peaceful game of EU4 is a snorefest.

If you're starting as a large country things are just fast forwarded by 100 years. Go conquer and you'll make more money than by super optimizing trade.

 

[Wagonlitz]

It´s a bit more complicated than that. If the game doesn´t give solid UI input on how things work, people will not bother using a feature. Doesn´t mean it´s useless or can´t be improved, is it?

I agree although I don't thinkyou could say it didn't provide solid UI input given that everything you needed to know was perfectly visible when hovering over a specific trade good; and then there also was the ledger.

 

[oblio-]

Oh, and another thing. What the supply-demand system needed, and what I proposed, was the possibility, for a certain cost(resources, time, other drawbacks), of switching goods produced in a province, based on a list for possible goods produced. You know, actually focusing my country on a specific set of goods.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

I think the new system could give more clear and strategic objectives to a player, to gain advantage in trade and interest on certain areas and resources. But we will see, when AoW will be out.

 

[Magean]

Since both of you misunderstood my example I suppose I wrote it poorly. You both missed the point where I said you also needed many customs houses. The example is that you build factories in the far east to up supply; you then then spam customs houses throughout your realm to increase demand. Then you have the conga line transport the wealth home.

You could get far more than an extra 0.5 ducats a month from the supply/demand system.

I got your point with custom houses. I just didn't mention them because I was summarizing. Like, manipulating prices = building stuffs. Mainly. I don't find this system to be of much interest. Other than that, you had convoluted maneuvers such as converting provinces to Islam in order to sink the price of wine and cut your rival's income... but that's a bit too situational, isn't it ?

I was aware of there being a supply and demand system, but I'd refer to oblio's post here for my feeling on it :

The number was an exaggeration, I understand that by properly using the system the delta could be much higher.
However, you mostly care about money when you're small. And when you're small you can barely build a trade fleet, buildings boosting production don't exist yet (they're probably 100 years away), and even if they were available they'd be too expensive to mass build. Controlling the right provinces is hard since they most likely belong to strong and/or faraway states.
And once you do reach the spam production buildings stage it's just more efficient to just conquer anything you can.

You could play a peaceful trade game but a peaceful game of EU4 is a snorefest.

If you're starting as a large country things are just fast forwarded by 100 years. Go conquer and you'll make more money than by super optimizing trade.

That's pretty much it. When you're small, you don't build manufacturies. That's a huge amount of money and it's better spent elsewhere, aka in the upkeep of your military or colonies. The return on investment of expensive stuff is unsure and thus hazardous. So, there is little you can do to impact prices when they matter.

And when you're big, with a long trade route set up from Malacca to your collecting node, you don't really need that extra money. Sure, you can take advantage of it for optimal gameplay, but you don't need to min/max by that point.


That being said, I fear, just as you do, that the new system may end up being pretty much bland.

However, it may also be the opportunity to implement events and decisions that would really allow small trading nations to influence prices. That would be great. Such nations were more interesting to play in EU3 because you had to keep dominating centers of trade by sending merchants there. Even when not waging war, you had something to do : overseeing CoT. Now, in EU4, small trading nations don't have much to do but expanding to the right places.

 

[Golladan]

I think the new system could give more clear and strategic objectives to a player, to gain advantage in trade and interest on certain areas and resources. But we will see, when AoW will be out.

How so? You have Slaves with a cost of maybe 2 for a good portion of the game. Until the Triangle Trade comes along and increases it by 50% to 3. Then later on the abolitionists cause the price drop, maybe also by 50%, and slaves go back to costing 2 ducats.

And actually that's a nerf to African nations that have slaves. Currently in 1444 the price of slaves starts at around 2.5 ducats. By 1700 the price of slaves is usually around 8 ducats.

 

[iron0037]

Speaking as an EU3/CK2 player that has been contemplating giving EU4 a try, this change isn't helping persuade me. I enjoy game mechanics that are mysterious and mostly out of the player's control. There should be limits on an autocrat's ability to understand and influence global supply and demand. But if you really wanted to master the game, you could study EU3's price mechanics and manipulate them to a modest advantage. The proposed system will need to be carefully balanced and prevent the player from exploiting a few key events.

 

[VampireBoot]

I enjoy game mechanics that are mysterious and mostly out of the player's control.

Suffice to say that's not a common sentiment among strategy players.

 

[grommile]

Speaking as an EU3/CK2 player that has been contemplating giving EU4 a try, this change isn't helping persuade me. I enjoy game mechanics that are mysterious and mostly out of the player's control. There should be limits on an autocrat's ability to understand and influence global supply and demand. But if you really wanted to master the game, you could study EU3's price mechanics and manipulate them to a modest advantage.

*looks at his last Muscovy->Russia game in EU3* *declares war* *looks at effect on production and trade income*

*looks at the phrase "modest advantage"*

*laughs uproariously*