So as any Mediterranean country colonization is even more pointless

[wilcoxchar]

True but I liberated Granada and conquered parts of Spain and Portugal so the argument that Mediterranean countries like Savoy cannot colonize because Spain owns the Straits of Gibraltar is pretty shitty.

So then you collect in Seville.

Idea:

Make conquering the Straits make trade flow TO Genoa instead of FROM.

Solved. That is, be decision you should be able to change the trade flow.

This could be a good idea, but it might be too much work to implement triggered directional changes and still avoid having any looping paths.

You are thinking as if every route is predefined. It would have been entirely possible for Venice to push its trade into Mali and it progress up the Niger River to the Venetian trade posts that they had in Northern Africa during the time.

Gibralter only became important because Spain/Portugal dominated trade from the colonies in the Mediterranean.

And that's already modeled in the game. The Mediterranean powers can steer trade going around the Cape of Good Hope up through Timbuktu to Tunis.


It sounds like a lot of people aren't understanding the limitations of the trade node system. Because of the increase in wealth when trade moves between nodes, you can't have reversed or circular paths because then the amount of money from trade will increase in a loop to infinity (and makes the game crash). Having a fixed nodal network is a limitation of the engine. Because of this, some abstractions are necessary. Right now, the trade model does much better at simulating trading patterns and shifts in global trade rather well. You already have the shift from the Silk Road to Indian Ocean trade and then later around the Cape of Good Hope, the shift of the global economic hub from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic European coast after the wealth of the New World comes into play, and the competition among the western colonial powers for their shares of the colonial wealth. Improvements could be made, yes, but making changes to a complex nodal network like this isn't as simple as everyone seems to think it is.

 

[Konair0s]

Having a fixed nodal network is a limitation of the engine. Because of this, some abstractions are necessary. Right now, the trade model does much better at simulating trading patterns and shifts in global trade rather well. You already have the shift from the Silk Road to Indian Ocean trade and then later around the Cape of Good Hope, the shift of the global economic hub from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic European coast after the wealth of the New World comes into play, and the competition among the western colonial powers for their shares of the colonial wealth. Improvements could be made, yes, but making changes to a complex nodal network like this isn't as simple as everyone seems to think it is.

Please, don't try to make impression that you actually know about the engine (did you see it?) or how hard/easy it is to make specific changes. Unless you have insights, you can not know how exactly the trade nodes are implemented.
It is just pure speculations.

 

[Galaahd]

Historically, italian merchants and bankers funded much of the iberian expansion in America, and so a lot of the american gold and silver ended in Italy.

They didn't have to colonize directly to profit from the trade. So at least it should be possible to steer from Seville.

 

[Musthavename]

Indeed. I've always wondered this. Better trade route changes imo would be:

- Seville -> Genoa
- Genoa -> Venice

It's still difficult for Italians to profit from colonisation in this scenario, but it's at least possible. Right now the only colonial regions they could theoretically steer into Italy are California and Mexico, and that's not exactly easy.

 

[Phalanx300]

When I first heard about trade routes I figured they were dynamic and could go both ways if influenced accordingly. Might be worth looking into a way to make that work.

 

[grommile]

When I first heard about trade routes I figured they were dynamic and could go both ways if influenced accordingly. Might be worth looking into a way to make that work.

Enough people have been saying that pretty much since release that if the devs had any intention of doing so, I would have expected it to be mentioned in the Wealth of Nations announcement.

 

[Beagá]

Me too but there is hope.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Please, don't try to make impression that you actually know about the engine (did you see it?) or how hard/easy it is to make specific changes. Unless you have insights, you can not know how exactly the trade nodes are implemented.
It is just pure speculations.

How about you read my post again, make the effort to understand it, and maybe come up with some actual arguments next time?

Indeed. I've always wondered this. Better trade route changes imo would be:

- Seville -> Genoa
- Genoa -> Venice

It's still difficult for Italians to profit from colonisation in this scenario, but it's at least possible. Right now the only colonial regions they could theoretically steer into Italy are California and Mexico, and that's not exactly easy.

What's the issue with having Genoa or Venice collect trade in Seville using their Mediterranean fleets?

 

[delpiero1234]

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

I agree!

 

[wilcoxchar]

When I first heard about trade routes I figured they were dynamic and could go both ways if influenced accordingly. Might be worth looking into a way to make that work.

While that would be great, it looks like that's not possible with the current way the trade nodes are set up. For one, having a circular trade path currently makes the game crash. And to make circular paths work, you'd have to remove the increasing value from trade being transferred between nodes because otherwise it sets up an infinitely increasing loop. But removing that bonus would remove one of the biggest incentives to steering trade from a node instead of just collecting it at the starting node. Dynamic trade nodes and paths would be really great, but with the way it works now it's not really feasible.

 

[Ame]

"Historically true"?
When did in history Venice colonize something in NA and was unable to benefit from trade?
"Historical" arguments just simply can not be applied to situations which NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY. And if Venice would manage to colonize Caribbeans in history, wouldn't it create a new trade route to Venice? "historically" trade routes were not hard-coded, they have been created naturally.
Dynamic trade routes with dynamic trade regions would simply solve it. With more complex rules. Something like a hybrid of EUIII system and EUIV system.

If you want to benefit from colonial trade; build more light ships and steer the trade. Timbuktu-Venice or Genoa works.

Italian City States, Byzantines, Hungary and others are not supposed to be as easy as Spain, France or England stop acting like this is Civ and take the extra light ships; of all the ways to make the game harder an extra light ship fleet is by far the most laughable and least thing to complain about. You just happen to get massive bonuses to naval force limits from colonial nations.

 

[Konair0s]

How about you read my post again, make the effort to understand it, and maybe come up with some actual arguments next time?

So then you collect in Seville.

This could be a good idea, but it might be too much work to implement triggered directional changes and still avoid having any looping paths.

And that's already modeled in the game. The Mediterranean powers can steer trade going around the Cape of Good Hope up through Timbuktu to Tunis.


It sounds like a lot of people aren't understanding the limitations of the trade node system. Because of the increase in wealth when trade moves between nodes, you can't have reversed or circular paths because then the amount of money from trade will increase in a loop to infinity (and makes the game crash). Having a fixed nodal network is a limitation of the engine. Because of this, some abstractions are necessary. Right now, the trade model does much better at simulating trading patterns and shifts in global trade rather well. You already have the shift from the Silk Road to Indian Ocean trade and then later around the Cape of Good Hope, the shift of the global economic hub from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic European coast after the wealth of the New World comes into play, and the competition among the western colonial powers for their shares of the colonial wealth. Improvements could be made, yes, but making changes to a complex nodal network like this isn't as simple as everyone seems to think it is.

Go rage somewhere else. Or do you have proofs that the changes are hard? Maybe they implemented it in mind that it may be easily modified to dynamic/anything, how do you know? 1) Pure speculations 2) Current Trade Routes system is a fairly simple graph, no Rocket Science involved.
Also, it doesn't matters how hard it is at the first place. Users want to discuss and suggest things, it is not their concern how to implement something, the developers take ideas into consideration or do not take.

If you want to benefit from colonial trade; build more light ships and steer the trade. Timbuktu-Venice or Genoa works.

Italian City States, Byzantines, Hungary and others are not supposed to be as easy as Spain, France or England stop acting like this is Civ and take the extra light ships; of all the ways to make the game harder an extra light ship fleet is by far the most laughable and least thing to complain about. You just happen to get massive bonuses to naval force limits from colonial nations.

I don't usually play City States, but when I do, I don't colonize. These are just unreasonable things, not my personal desires.

 

[Beagá]

What's the issue with having Genoa or Venice collect trade in Seville using their Mediterranean fleets?

It´s silly.

It´s supposed that ships would stop there, when that wouldn´t be the case. I don´t think UK stopped in Gibraltar to give trade to Spain after the Suez was built now, did it?

 

[Ame]

It´s silly.

It´s supposed that ships would stop there, when that wouldn´t be the case. I don´t think UK stopped in Gibraltar to give trade to Spain after the Suez was built now, did it?

Smuggling was a rampant problem with British Mercantalism; if you think it was even possible to truly enforce the navigation act against smugglers I have a good price on a certain bridge......

Is it so horrible to use the Timbuktu route?

We have dynamic trade routes already it is called light ships; they exist for a reason.

A very large number of threads seem to just want I win buttons; I would seriously consider no longer playing if EU IV turned back into EU III. If you liked EU III's system of ridiculous trade system (which consisted of have center of trade, auto-send merchants, expand by conquest/occasional embargo to destroy other trade centers) appealed to you because it didn't involve any work the game still exists.

 

[Beagá]

Lol yeah man. Because asking the game to be plausible is the same as asking it to become EU3.

 

[MrLebanon]

If you are a trading nation in the Mediterranean sea, I agree forget about colonization.

It is much more interesting and rewarding to secure Alexandria and Aden Trade Center and then you own all the trade coming from China and India to your Trade Node! Negating all the steering around Africa going to Sevilla and Bordeaux.

Let the Spain, Portugal and France fight to death over pile of dirt! You have spices, chinaware and protectorate for you!

+1

My game as Venice -> Italy I grabbed some land in the arabean peninsula and eventually went east to forcefully colonize parts of indonesia

 

[Ame]

Lol yeah man. Because asking the game to be plausible is the same as asking it to become EU3.

The op asks for the eu III trade system back.

You have dynamic trade routes; they are called light ships.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The op asks for the eu III trade system back.

You have dynamic trade routes; they are called light ships.

The monodirection trade flow is actually a problem though. For an Asian nation trade can be a real pain unless they conquer west and move their capitol and/or just get an overwhelming stranglehold + merchant to collect (I suppose you could also whip up some funtimes in the new world and route to Nippon for some lulzy outcomes). If you're in Europe the flexibility is much greater. That's how it went in history.

However, had the political situation been different and a nation in the East grew massive and possibly even westernized, trade flow would have been much different. It's the same thing with the Americas, although perhaps with colonial nations it's best to leave trade there alone.

Going back to EU III sounds like a mistake to me, though EU IV is my first in the series. It's not too bad overall though.

 

[Konair0s]

Going back to EU III sounds like a mistake to me, though EU IV is my first in the series. It's not too bad overall though.

EUIII was just too simplified. I liked to have fun with super-mega-global Hyper Most Serene Trade Republic of Ireland, which had just 4 provinces but controlled so much trade so the income was bigger than for the Ottomans. And then I cautiously bringed democracy to the Balcans and Middle East. Cautiously, because if you are a warmonger and have high BB then your merchant would suck at trade. It was not so bad, and had clear reasons behind it.
It straightforwardly told - "here are game rules for trading, ok?".
And you was like "Ok".

And the new system tells "here are realistic emulation of trade routes, see, you have to protect your trade and can direct it from Alexandria to Constantinople and then to Ragusa and then to Venice, how awesome it is!".
And you are like "Really awesome!" and n hours later: "Wait, why as Venice I can not just benefit from the goods coming from the New World? I have best merchants and best fleet ever, and even couple of my own Colonial Nations".
And the game is like "Nobody knows".
And then on the forums some guys are like "FU, ANOTHER NOOB WANTS 'I WIN BUTTON!!!!!'".

So I think a hybrid would work. Dynamic trade nodes/centres creation from EUIII + trade routes and rules from EUIV. Because EUIII version is too simple, and EUIV is too wooden.
And again, about 'complexity'. This 'complex' trade routes system is just a trivial graph, and it should be the game's concern how to prevent closures and stuff.

 

[ABookshelf]

What route should American trade take that doesn't go through France, Spain/Morocco, Britain, or the Netherlands?