There should be a way to limit other powers' trade routes

[Ethan_Smythe]

This is my first playthrough of Vic 3, and my first time with the series. I'm playing as Sweden/Scandinavia. I've made it to 1903 and have been struggling for some time to produce enough oil to meet my industrial needs. I'm currently the world leader in oil production. While browsing through my trade routes I notice that France has a trade route importing about TWO THIRDS of my oil production. I've got protectionism enabled and have my 20% tariff up, but France just pays the tariff and keeps taking my oil. I have ended my trade agreement with them, which of course has damaged my economy in other ways but France just pays the 15 bureaucracy and keeps taking my oil. My only option seems to be to start damaging relations with France to the point I can embargo them just because of this trade route. And there's nothing to say that Britain or some other country might not just start taking my oil once I've done all that with France.

One thing I don't understand is how the maximum level that a trade route can go to is calculated. Prussia is importing my oil but just takes a little and I don't mind that. I'm fine with countries taking SOME of my oil, but this is ridiculous, especially when I notice that the AI of France does not seem to be all that interested in developing it's own untapped oil resources, and why would they when then can just take mine!

I think there should be some way to mitigate or cap these massive trade routes beyond taking extreme measures like embargoing or isolationism. I get that not having complete control over trade is part of the challenge of the game, but I think there should be ways to prioritize domestic use - at the moment I feel like my whole empire is at the mercy of this one trade route.

 

[Marirosa]

Just two notes:

- Protectionism is about IMPORTING goods. You protect your industrials from foreign cheap wares.
- If you signed a trade agreement with France, then they were not paying any tarrif for the oil. Also not bureaucracy.

 

[Ethan_Smythe]

Just two notes:

- Protectionism is about IMPORTING goods. You protect your industrials from foreign cheap wares.
- If you signed a trade agreement with France, then they were not paying any tarrif for the oil. Also not bureaucracy.

Yes, you are right, I'd forgotten about that. Now that the trade agreement has ended, the tariff has taken effect. It has dropped the size of the route by a few hundred units of oil, but the route is STILL taking well over half my production.

 

[Marirosa]

There is no solution once they got your wares. I bet there was cheap scandinavian oil at the time so frenchs got all they can.

What you need to do is first create the demand and later the offer. Never go in blue with strategic wares as oil, rubber or iron.

 

[Ethan_Smythe]

There is no solution once they got your wares. I bet there was cheap scandinavian oil at the time so frenchs got all they can.

What you need to do is first create the demand and later the offer. Never go in blue with strategic wares as oil, rubber or iron.

I think that is exactly what happened. I could reboot at this point but this is a learning run-through and getting toward the end anyway, so I am going to embargo France and see what happens.

 

[MatthewP]

The other option is to keep expanding your oil usage. The more of your production you use, the less they will buy, until the trade route goes away.

 

[shoebird]

In addition to what others have said, it is important to bear in mind that in order to determine the profitability of trade routes, and thus size, the game uses the average between pre-trade(using only internal demand/supply) prices and post-trade prices, instead of just post-trade prices. Due to this, if you are producing much more oil than what you are using, they are going to import much more from you. So if you keep expanding your production you would make your own prices higher instead of lower, and tariffs would be less effective.

And alternative solution to the embargo, would be to increase your own consumption as @MatthewP said, using subsidies if needed to keep your industries profitable. You would see that as your demand get closer to your production, tariffs are more effective, and your market price for oil might end being lower.

 

[Milo36]

Yup had AI buy 95% if my tools with 20% export tax and no trade deal with them...
Seems the only solution is to embargo them

 

[tom5675]

"...it is important to bear in mind that in order to determine the profitability of trade routes, and thus size, the game uses the average between pre-trade(using only internal demand/supply) prices and post-trade prices, instead of just post-trade prices..."

This is the core of the problem, it means that countries can end up buying an excessive amount of goods, to the point that the prices are actually higher for the exporter than the importer.

There needs to be a hard cap put in, that trade routes can't grow, if they are going to result in the price being higher in the export market, than in the import market.

 

[zilla737]

The AI getting your goods for cheaper than what they are on your own market is a WAD design flaw, and causes this behavior. Russia play starts out with France getting a ton of wood, and selling it for half the price on its own market. It's unrealistic, but they don't care. It's probably the only way they could get the AI to do trade. Now if they could get the AI to develop goods in its own lands... but then why would it, when it doesn't pay market price for trade with the player? Sorry new player OP. Keep playing, though.
Try a Japan run. You start isolationist, so you can freely develop. Once you open trade, some "France" will target a good on your market, but it's all part of the challenge.

 

[lokthar]

They are supposedly testing using only the post trade price for trade routes for 1.2, as they agree that something is not working as intended with traderoutes.

 

[tom5675]

They are supposedly testing using only the post trade price for trade routes for 1.2, as they agree that something is not working as intended with traderoutes.

Where have you read/watched/heard this? I'd be interested to see what they've said about it.

Personally, I think using only the post trade price would cause trade routes to be too small. The limit of -75% +75% for pricing means that the price gaps likely wouldn't be wide enough to make large scale trade functional if it only used post trade prices.

That's why I suggested a rule that prevents trade routes from growing if they'd make prices higher for the exporter than the importer. So trade could still grow large and be viable, but wouldn't cause weird edge cases where exporters had shortages, while importers had oversupply.

 

[zilla737]

Personally, I think using only the post trade price would cause trade routes to be too small. The limit of -75% +75% for pricing means that the price gaps likely wouldn't be wide enough to make large scale trade functional if it only used post trade prices.

You're probably right, and that's probably why they implemented the trade system as is. I think if the AI developed its own goods with an eye towards its own strategic (meaning whatever strategy they're pursuing) needs first, then looked to trade for profit, it would likely result in robust trade, at least of basic commodities. Your solution sounds like a good band-aid, at the least though.
To explain what I mean, GB pursues a strategy of Economic Dominance at the beginning of the game, from what I've noticed, so she could build her own market out, and then look for profitable shortages to build for and fill or even aggressively export to undermine a rival market.
We know the AI can develop itself, as you can see it with the Great Powers. Perhaps the solution is to improve base construction speed. More than a year? (I forget base 5 construction speed) for a farm takes too long for a minor pursuing agrarian growth (I forget the name of the strategy) to ever be a player even in its own market, let alone on the larger world stage. At the base speed, developing your own needs takes years in some countries. Developing with an eye to trade is not even a thought. It would also stop the need to spend the majority of the game supporting construction queues by the player. It leaves the massive queue strategy in place, but it would relieve its necessity.

I just hope they do something to stop this game from being a map painter by necessity (not saying it always is, but it often becomes necessary to conquer just for your basic needs as your tech develops). Just imagine trading with, or at the most aggressive, puppeting the minors in Brunei for their oil and rubber potential, instead of just smacking those little countries down. You could even peacefully add them to your market, or simply get trade agreements. All of the pieces are in the game to play those strategies, but the resources aren't being developed.

 

[lokthar]

Where have you read/watched/heard this? I'd be interested to see what they've said about it.

Personally, I think using only the post trade price would cause trade routes to be too small. The limit of -75% +75% for pricing means that the price gaps likely wouldn't be wide enough to make large scale trade functional if it only used post trade prices.

That's why I suggested a rule that prevents trade routes from growing if they'd make prices higher for the exporter than the importer. So trade could still grow large and be viable, but wouldn't cause weird edge cases where exporters had shortages, while importers had oversupply.

I saw it here in one of the later dev responses to dev diary 68 that they were experimenting with the trade logic, and that as a first pass they'd set it to post trade pricing in 1.2