• 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.

AggaWackTan

Captain
36 Badges
Feb 18, 2019
334
1.065
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
After playing some hours of this game I have to say it definitely doesn't deserve the bashing it's gotten. However it does suffer some huge drawbacks. The Marius update looks like it's coming along very nicely and tbh the work the Devs have done has given me a huge sense of positivity that this game is well and truly alive. I have some criticisms regarding understanding senate influence and tyranny in republics (more tyranny decay would be nice) but my biggest gripe is most certainly trade and buildings. Nobody wants pop ups regarding trade routes, they should be scrapped as they're so tedious. They should follow the trend every other aspect of the game is following and that is towards a simulation.

I think the best strategy games follow the trend of controlling resources. This can be a civ builder too, players love their pops but I think war and strategy is where I:R can really shine after a trade rework has been achieved. Controlling food, iron, stone and precious metals should be the focus of certain civs. Without these goods units can't be recruited and food dwindles, this Imperator does but in a fashion devoid of strategy. As Rome is the province losing food? Well then magically create a trade route importing grain from Gaul. Low on vegetables? Import from Anatolia, after all the expiry date doesn't matter! Some of these goods should just not be able to exported, especially food ones other than grain.

I:R gets an awful lot right. No iron? Can't build heavy infantry. No food? Pops starve. How it fails is the execution, namely trade routes per province. This mechanic forces pop ups on the player constantly and is the most tedious trade simulation I've ever played, it's just not fun. It negates having to secure a route of trade through diplomacy/ conquest and allows a lovely arrow of trade to fly over mountains, seas and barbarian hordes that vegetables and sheep miraculously float over, somehow. Never mind what's happening underneath them.

IR got right what EU4 got wrong, goods=strategic importance (recruiting units + food for pops etc). But EU4 got right what I:R got so wrong and that's the strategy surrounding the control of trade. Defending key provinces, controlling grain provinces, gold, materials for building armies.

I:R desperately needs a new map mode ie. trade routes with lines of trade between all major cities on a coastline and along famous land routes. Investing in ports/marketplaces is then vital in these cities. Trade routes in their current form needs to be replaced with something along the lines of "goods for export that can be traded along the route". These can then be taxed. All other goods stay in the province, food however can trickle along roads to areas of starving pops.

No more 21st Century trade agreements with nations airdropping delivery boxes. Merchants and traders do their own business and more goods flow where there's peace and money. As the player we should focus on securing important trade hubs, building up the infrastructure and decide between peace with our neighbour or their complete destruction. Our only decisions should be what excess our pops don't need can be traded and what the tax on trade is. I'm traumatised from pop ups due to unused trade routes.

I'm basically championing a blend of EU4 trade routes with I:R trade goods. Plagiarism and basic thinking at it's finest but by god it's so badly needed.

In this time period all wealth came from the earth. Those who sitting on farmlands were the envy of all. Let us focus on satiating that envy through war and diplomacy. Instead of a pop up deciding where I want to import Olives from next, I want instead to start planning a campaign to control the trade of olives.
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Upvote 0
You are right that In ancient times, resources as food were very important; the example is the fight for Egypt grain.

But it is also true that trade routes were part of the nation building at the time, like the Grand Trunk trade route of the Mauryan empire. Nations were building the infrastructure to establish these future trade hubs.

On the other hand, IMHO the means of production on this game are slaves, and they are the resource that players shall be fighting for. In general, POPS are the scarce and more valuable resource in this game:

Treasury comes from taxes + commerce + tributes.
  • Taxes: come from Freeman and slaves, but mostly from slaves. The base tax is influenced by the output efficiency but because slaves are always considered 100.00% happiness when calculating output, you end up with the simple formulae more slaves more taxes.
  • Commerce comes from trade routes selling or buying goods produced by... slaves. You need the trade routes generated by Citizens and Nobles, but they are void without a surplus of goods to trade.
  • Tributes are not significant.
Conclusion: the number of slaves are the base of the economy. Something that is coherent with history but for the game I would like something to play. Thus I propose the following:

Slaves should come mainly from conquest (at the end of the Roman Empire the price of slaves increased as they became scarce), thus the program shall only grow freeman, citizen or noble POPS in our settlements/cities for the allowed cultures. Then, the player could choose to increase its slave population, embrace freedom or a mix of both:
  1. The player that wishes so can do the following to increase its POP slaves:
    1. Start wars for slaving purposes
    2. Enact laws promoting the demotion to slaves (like slave Treatment Sanctions or new ones, like the prohibition of freeing slaves law)
    3. Slave a whole culture, denying its civic rights, then every growing POP of that culture will be a slave
    4. Build slave estates that shall negate the slave promotion on the settlement by default (the slave promotion button shall disappear, only this building will allow it)
  2. The player that wishes so can have a viable economy with less slaves by:
    1. Build mines and farming settlements to decrease the slaves needed for local surplus
    2. Build Tax offices in cities that will tax more efficiently Freeman
    3. Enact laws to get a tax on Citizens and Nobles (new)
The player following the heavy slaved strategy will have an advantage to the other player, except that SPARTACUS shall come back and slave rebellions shall be a thing again, as noticed in @Herennius post. This time, not by a random event but something predictable:
  • Starting in a province with X slaves under Y happiness will transform all slave POPS in a militia. The player will have to beat them, loosing the slave POPS as they are killed to quell the rebellion. The slaves will not conquer territories nor siege towns but If they are not put down, a timer on other provinces will set off more slave POPS to militia. At the end, the player will loose all slave POPs if nothing is done.
On the other hand, the mixed economy allows for a less rebellious alternative and also a possible evolution in the middle/end game for the player.

To promote this evolution from a slave economy to a more trade based economy, besides the lower risk of SPARTACUS rebellions, the game shall increase the scarcity of slaves at the middle/end game by favoring the promotion of slaves to freeman. This can be done by the civilization value of the territory and/or the civic advances. This would also decrease inflation at the end of the game.

EDIT: minor corrections

On the pop up windows, the community has voiced this many times and on 2.0 they are automating the province trade by the governors if the player wishes so. See post:

Provincial Trading

One other new feature coming to the Marius update is the ability to assign control over Trade to your Governors. This is done on a provincial level, meaning you can decide to have some provinces under the control of your governor while still manually handling others.
The governors will try to get profitable routes set up while also securing access to food for their territories, but will expect to have total control over what is theirs
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're right that 'trade routes' were a part of nation building. What I'm arguing is that what are termed 'trade routes' in this game shouldn't exist. They magically create a trade link between nations that rule out much strategic gameplay that should exist instead.

Eg. Phoenician traders in the Levant want to trade with crete as they lack a resource they need to build civ/ maintain an army/ food? They exist within close proximity in the eastern med so the player should be focusing on building ships, improving relations, and constructing markets that increase their trading ability within the region. I imagine 'Trade Regions' having all goods produced in the settlements of the region pooling into a pot, whoever controls the highest percentage of the pot controls most of the access to the goods in that region, etc. On the other hand they could take an aggressive strategy and declare war, conquer, build a new trading hub to control the region and that could provide a source of further expansion into the med. These are two examples of strategy determining expansion/ diplomacy.

As of now this goal could be achieved by using '1 of 2 trade routes' in your province. This means there's no reason to expand other than for expansions sake. There's no strategic thinking behind it other than to kill your neighbour and this isn't enjoyable from an immersion/roleplay point of view.

Even in terms of empire building these trade routes seem to punish 'in faction' trading which is entirely ahistorical. Trade flourished in the mediterranean during the Pax Romana with Rome proving stability, peace and a navy to deter pirates. This made merchants feel more secure and a wider movement of goods. Conquest should open up trade within your empire but as of now IR insists on trading externally. (I'm not saying external trade shouldn't happen, I'm saying that income should come from taxing the abundance of trade now happening within the safety of your empire).

I think IR's 'trade routes' in their current use should be entirely revamped and used solely as 'emergency food support' to starving regions. I know it sounds drastic but this is the only use I can see for it as it makes no strategic sense whatsoever and kills a lot of reasons for diplomacy/ war. It needs to go and what looks like will be an amazing Marius 2.0 update I really hope they move onto trade & buildings next. I feel like the devs are listening so I think I should say it.

Trade should be rethought along the lines of centers of trade/ trade nodes/ trade power as it is in EU4. They are Paradox after all so it's not plagiarism. Combine this with I:R's use of goods determining what units can be recruited/ food/ pop happiness it will add an abundance of replayability. As of now I feel like I'm really playing by "IR reality" when I would like to think logically and strategically. I would love a trade rework.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I've been hoping for a trade range mechanic to limit the silly trades across huge distances. Use the supply train to tie the trade range into to military supply routes and you have another military strategic layer to consider. We will have to wait to see if any other changes to trade happen with the automated governor trade system. I like your suggestions to incorporate some of the EU4 trade game ideas.

This also could allow playing as a trade city to become a viable alternative. Make them a center of trade, naturally, and then provide them bonus trade power and trade range. It would be fun to limit them, via government type like Merchant Republic, to only holding center of trade provinces so they had to hold onto small chunks of land spread around the map. Adding a fun alternative to the tribal, republic, monarch game types would add some variety and could be a way to grow tall and "win" via trade vs conquest.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: