Radical non-European CoT proposal

[berhaven]

Re-reading some threads (notably about Italian merchants and North American Natives) I developed a kind of very aggressive idea.

Why don't find a way to get rid of "less developed" merchants?

It would give much more sense to the struggle for the domination of - say - spices trade, since usually portugal is finding a very hard time in competing in Malacca or India. Even Spaniard go on having incredible local competition after they take Atzec capital and CoT.

Hope the argument is of some interest.

 

[Sute]{h]

You want to remove the CoTs? I don't think this will work... mostly because the game generates random CoTs if there isn't one nearby.

 

[Arilou]

I think he meant to give Confucianism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Paganism a hefty penalty to the number of merchants recieved (can that even be done?)

 

[Garbon]

Of course it can be done(well at least you can effect trade eff.), but to get Malacca you need to penalize Islamic nations as well. So while I hear the suggestion, I don't think I like it.

 

[Arilou]

That could of course be compensated by giving the non-europeans a production or tax bonus.

Not advocating or anything, just pointing out.

 

[Garbon]

I just seems odd changing penalties and bonuses, for religions, around so that Portugal can do better in the spice trade (as one example). I mean is trading the CoT really representative of that?

 

[Arilou]

No Idea

 

[unmerged(12680)]

I could agree to give pagans a penalty at most. Muslims and all should be able to trade, and with their latin tech the Europeans will soon out-tech the ROTW. I think one of the main problems is that the AI in general doesn't use it merchants very well. They just don't seem to be able to trade very well.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Potentially everyone outside Europe could be made more land to reduce their tradin efficiency.

 

[chegitz guevara]

The Portugese and other Europeans didn't out trade the Muslims and Asians. They were pirates and stole their cargo and sank their ships. They physically destroyed the ability of other nations to trade in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia.

 

[berhaven]

Originally posted by Sute]{h
You want to remove the CoTs? I don't think this will work... mostly because the game generates random CoTs if there isn't one nearby.

No, I just want Portuguese (and later Dutch) to be able to monopolize Malacca, Kutch, Mascate, Zanzibar and maybe China more easily, specially when played by AI.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Potentially everyone outside Europe could be made more land to reduce their tradin efficiency.

Well China will go eventually more land-based, but it shouldn't start out overly so. But many of the nations should be able to comete well in local CoTs, reguardless of situation, unless except pagan nations.

 

[berhaven]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Portugese and other Europeans didn't out trade the Muslims and Asians. They were pirates and stole their cargo and sank their ships. They physically destroyed the ability of other nations to trade in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia.

I have two different answers to this - correct- observation.

First: I think the question is where we want profit to show. Of course local powers suffered more from piracy then from "fair competition". The question is that the profit was in the price gap between eastern (source area) and western markets (consumption), given the ability to monopolize the phisical transportation of the goods. The game does not reflect this, since spices are traded in the eastern markets and profits are thus given to countries able to successfully trade in these market, notably moslems. In real world the profit was at the most in the hands of merchants trading in the distribution CoT, closer to the consumption markets, i.e. mainly Aleppo, Alexandria and Venice before Portuguese travels, and Lisboa and Antwerpen afterwards.

Second: so let's talk about events that reflect European piracy: an event driven embargo on everybody (or all non Christian powers) by the Portuguese once they control Malacca or Zanzibar or Mascate could work perfectly. And the same could happen every timea a latin power gets control of a not-latin CoT.

 

[berhaven]

Originally posted by Jinnai
Well China will go eventually more land-based, but it shouldn't start out overly so. But many of the nations should be able to comete well in local CoTs, reguardless of situation, unless except pagan nations.

I do not see the point. The ability to produce - say- spices or chinaware is already reflected in the production income.
Trading income should reflect the ability to carry goods from where they are cheaper to where they are more expensive. That's trade.

I mean that from this point of view the game system works better in the "traditional" EU2, where many productions areas begin as native provinces, than it does in the eep, where many productions areas are given to local states, and thus their trade is absorbed by local CoTs.

What is the actual advantage in an eep game for the Portuguese to find the road to India?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by berhaven
I do not see the point. The ability to produce - say- spices or chinaware is already reflected in the production income.
Trading income should reflect the ability to carry goods from where they are cheaper to where they are more expensive. That's trade.

The same reasoning could be used for european nations placing their merchants in their own CoTs, but i don't see you or anyone arguing that is wrong.

 

[Garbon]

I think we also run into the problem that pagan nations is such a large category. In West Africa neither Songhai, Benin, or Oyo had problems trading whereas the less organized Mossi and Ashanti did. All of which, however, start off as pagan nations; but, it doesn't seem right to penalize them as I don't think CoTs in the ROTW can really be interpreted the same way as European CoTs. If Portugal was to have traders in an 'Ivoria' CoT, they wouldn't have historically been competing with Oyo for slaves, and so it wouldn't make sense if they were to gain a 'monopoly'.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

IMO the merchants represent the level of governemntal influence in the local market, reguardless of location. Thus China would generally have an advantage in its own CoTs and England in its own, but be at a disadvantage outside as it is now.

 

[Garbon]

Which would mean that this change wouldn't make much sense, in many cases...?

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Potentially everyone outside Europe could be made more land to reduce their tradin efficiency.

does trade efficiency affect the monthly income you recieve from your merchants though? i only know that it affects the yearly trade tax you receive from the value of resource of each province, which is good for colonisation purposes.

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
What is the actual advantage in an eep game for the Portuguese to find the road to India?

increasing the trade efficiency religious bonus could give more incentive (already +10% for reformed), that is if it is relevant.

anyway reducing the number of merchants is not possible through the altering religious bonus and penalties. the only way is to change the merchantile free trade position.

 

[berhaven]

Originally posted by Jinnai
The same reasoning could be used for european nations placing their merchants in their own CoTs, but i don't see you or anyone arguing that is wrong.

It's not the same. The owner advantage for CoTs in Europe actually reflect merchantilistic trade barriers. The importance of - say - Venice, Antwerpen or Hansa was top be a point of junction between different "worlds" so you actually had English merchants going to Antwerpen to sell their carises and buy dutch fish.