I do not think Genoa or Venice should beadle to draw in from wetn, but they should be able to draw in from nodes like servile.
So as any Mediterranean country colonization is even more pointless
- Thread starter delpiero1234
- 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.
Thanks I knew that and but my reply was to jockedahl who said that only newbs steer trade. In my opinion one has to steer trade in certain nodes because of the lack of merchants to collect in every node.
Steering trade is not noob only. It usually only makes sense when others can't siphon out cash en route though, so it's best used in chains where you have most or all of the power. IE say you own both Malacca + Zanzibar almost completely; steering to Zanzibar can be worth your while.
You aren't limited to going west, east can be extremely profitable! I can't recall the trade map, but when I was playing as Venice, taking over the Sinai and then expanding east was fun and extremely profitable. If you are playing Savoy and collecting in Genoa, I'm not sure how to steer though (at work/can't see the trade map).
Yes I know that I could go east but this is not the issue discussed in this thread.
The issue is why Mediterreanean countries cannot get any income from the WETM. A solution could be steering trade from Sevilla to Genoa and Venice.
Mediteranian powers have no business in the Americas, their geographic location means it makes no sense to go there. Going east makes geographical sense so yes it is part of the issue discussed in this thread. The issue is that you want to do something that makes no sense and a sensible alternative is presented.
We could also complain about Hesse no longer being able to create a vast colonial empire in the Americas, but again, geograpically that would make 0 sense.
The reason people started colonizing south was to go around the mediteranian powers. The reason people went west was to avoid having to go south. In essence going to the Americas was the 2nd alternative to having to deal with nations such as Venice, it was meant to compete with Venice. The logical move for Venice would be to further it's grasp on the eastern trade routes through the middle east, not going off to the west or south.
We could also complain about Hesse no longer being able to create a vast colonial empire in the Americas, but again, geograpically that would make 0 sense.
The reason people started colonizing south was to go around the mediteranian powers. The reason people went west was to avoid having to go south. In essence going to the Americas was the 2nd alternative to having to deal with nations such as Venice, it was meant to compete with Venice. The logical move for Venice would be to further it's grasp on the eastern trade routes through the middle east, not going off to the west or south.
Sure you can do anything if you really want to do it, but the more rediculous it gets the harder it is to achieve and perhaps the fewer the rewards. Doesn't mean it's fair to get pissy about it.
I thought that the issue was colonization as a Mediterranean power. I just pointed out that you can colonize the East.
It depends on the reasoning for it. In the case of Mediterranean fleets vs ocean vessels, you do have some real limitations, unlike the ridiculous colonial range vs cog travel distance issue in general. However, a lot of this game is about re-writing history, so if options are cut off the reasons should be sensible.
That said, in this case I'm not sure they are. WETN sucks for everyone, not just people who can't reach it. If you overpower it, everyone steers out of it. If you don't, then you can't realistically collect good value via that path. The actions surrounding it are reasonable, but it's still unpopular because it's a bit odd conceptually and questionable from a design standpoint.
That said, even the colonial powers can sometimes benefit from collecting outside their home node, where they have power strangleholds, and the changes haven't impacted that a great deal. Certainly, the tariffs/trade/force limits from colonizing the new world can make it useful to Mediterranean nations. It's useful to anybody who can realistically reach it (even Chinese tech group, which can rush there via the vassal Maya route and annex that to get colonial range on the Americas very early). However, whether one can hold onto the territory is another matter...
Little known fact: Venice could easily build ocean seafaring vessels and had a plan to colonize the Americas that was presented to the council of the X. The plan was rejected because Venice was worried about its possible impact in diplomatic relations with foreign great powers, basically they didn't want to anger Spain Portugal and England because they could not defend against them.
If the player wants to take that risk unlike Venice, may be because they're stronger in their game, there is no reason why trade should no steer inside the Mediterranean. I mean come on Navarra and Brittany that don't even have a fleet can colonize and steer trade but Venice and Genoa can't?
If the player wants to take that risk unlike Venice, may be because they're stronger in their game, there is no reason why trade should no steer inside the Mediterranean. I mean come on Navarra and Brittany that don't even have a fleet can colonize and steer trade but Venice and Genoa can't?
Yes, but currently Venice *can* do that, although the colonial range thing kind of screws them unless they work over Morocco or Connaught.
I don't see why Venice or any other Mediterranean power shouldn't be able to colonize the Americas and attempt to benefit from the trade income.
No they can't send trade to Venice due to deterministic trade route that follow somewhat historical happenings regardless of the fact that every game is different and what was true in history might not be in a certain game. My point about colonization was to answer those who were along the line "they didn't colonize in history so they should never be able to steer trade inside the Mediterranean", which is a pretty poor argument.
The trade system is still an abstraction, its directions are preferred directions of wealth, not absolutes. You can still trade in the Americas, you only have to collect there. It can be less efficient, too bad, but it doesn't have to.
The powerful always suffer from the same strange affliction - not having total control equates total hysteria. As we can see this often also extents to imagined power in computer games.
So rather than attempting to modify the system so it can handle the inevitable ahistorical events that happen in the game, it should be left the same because the people who want it changed are just hysterical about lack of control?
...ookay?
o
Genoa had strong trade (as well as banking) interests in Spain so they had some involvement in the whole profit-from-the-New-World galore. Tuscany had some colonisation plans for the Guyanas that fell through. Ragusa had a trade depot in Goa. Also if Brandeburg Courland managed to have a trade link from the Caribbean and West Africa all the way to the heart of the Baltic I see no point for limiting a westwards looking Mediterranean player. And just because Iberians controlled Tangiers or whatnot doesn't mean they would steal the cargo of every ship passing the straits of Gibralatar. I mean, Suez for crying out loud.
I don't see why it's so difficult to punch through africa and route the india trade through timbuktu-tunis-genoa or alexandria. Or to grab ifni off Morocco, colonize brazil and collect in mauretania.
Totally zero reason.
The best solution would be for countries with twice the trade power AND a Merchant to reverse flow of trade. But in Mediterranean case in particular, just make whoever controls Gibraltar and Tangiers to have a decision to make trade flow TO Genoa, not FROM.
The best solution in my opinion would be the following:
WTN -> Safi
Safi -> Tunis
Tunis -> Ragusa (For Venise)
Tunis -> Alexandria (For Venice and Constantinople)
Sevilla -> Genoa
WTN -> Safi
Safi -> Tunis
Tunis -> Ragusa (For Venise)
Tunis -> Alexandria (For Venice and Constantinople)
Sevilla -> Genoa