Trade Goods

[Razer_greece]

Is there any real reason that trade goods exist? Cause besides money they don't add any strategy into the game. I would love to play a game where i would have to conquer provinces based on certain goods i need for my country. Has paradox any plans about developing this area of the game?

 

[CountKino]

There is a little strategy to trade goods.

Obviously if a province produces gold, then it's a highly desirable province early in the game.

You get "trading in" bonuses for controlling 20% of the global supply of anything. A lot of these bonuses are great, for instance the +2 dip rep for trading in ivory; you won't get this unless you expand into certain parts of the world. I'd also be more inclined to expand towards India than Mongolia because not only are these provinces more developed, but they produce more valuable trade goods. (and they're trade company regions of course).

There is definitely some incentive to go after certain goods like you ask.

 

[makaramus]

all trade goods benefit at diffrent value with devolping it, each trade good should considered when demanding land both diffrent for ealy and late game(while gold and spice very valuable at early game cacao , iron and salt has great value late game)
also each trade good got benefit for province it produces also trading bonus if you trading %20 of it. as example if you are producing wool that province makes your units faster. if you are producing salt then forts you built there will last longer. wich means if you manage to have a desert province with salt you can cause massive attirtion there by building best fort there especially if you got defensive ideas too (op if you got divine ideas)

or if you got province with is trade center and producing cloth its a great place to make it your capital and devolp it

etc etc... production can effect you a lot

 

[Armillus Dynat]

I think what Razer is getting at is the idea that we as players have relatively little influence on which province produces what and how much of it is being produced. We have relatively little control over how much of a trade good we are producing and besides extensive and invasive wars no ability to change what other nations produce. I often find trade goods become a secondary thought for most of the game. They are only really brought to the front when you are placing manufactures and then only briefly. Even when you get the trading in bonus its more of a surprise than something planned and executed and quickly forgot about.

 

[ecrurudesby]

Cause besides money they don't add any strategy into the game.

Even if we ignore the trading and local bonuses that the first two responses mentioned, saying goods don't add strategy besides money is like saying troops don't add strategy besides warfare. But the aforementioned bonuses which we can't ignore make your evaluation incorrect.

Trade goods directly influence how valuable a trade node is. You get more financial benefit from owning valuable goods than owning goods that are worth less. The strategy comes from choosing when and where to conquer to get the most benefitat any given point in the game.

I would love to play a game where i would have to conquer provinces based on certain goods i need for my country.

There are multiple such Steam achievements.

Has paradox any plans about developing this area of the game?

Yes, five new goods are being added in the imminent 1.23 patch.

(while gold and spice very valuable at early game cacao , iron and salt has great value late game)

Gold's value doesn't really diminish, unless your mines become depleted, which is quite unlikely. And if you can avoid the Decline of the Spice Trade event then Spices remain high value for the whole game.

Whereas Salt is a fairly middling good at 3 to 3.3. It only rises to 4.05 for a duration of 10 years in the mid 1600s. By that point Fur and Cloth are higher.

I think what Razer is getting at is the idea that we as players have relatively little influence on which province produces what and how much of it is being produced. We have relatively little control over how much of a trade good we are producing and besides extensive and invasive wars no ability to change what other nations produce. I often find trade goods become a secondary thought for most of the game. They are only really brought to the front when you are placing manufactures and then only briefly. Even when you get the trading in bonus its more of a surprise than something planned and executed and quickly forgot about.

Production development and Manufactories both increase the production of goods in a province. Seems well within the players control to me.

 

[Armillus Dynat]

Limited control at best. As players we can't

-Change trade goods in a province
-Foster/Subsidize the Growth of production
-Limit your enemies ability to produce or trade their trade goods
-Store or use trade goods in a really meaningful way

Even the ways you can influence goods produced are fairly limited giving at most a handful of extra goods produced points.

I get this isn't Victoria and I have nothing against the developers. The system works, its just that for a lot of players I think it does become an after thought. I never take a particular province because it has I think to myself "it has grain and I need the extra force limit" never mind saying something like "I need the grain in this province to feed my men through winter". It just doesn't happen.

 

[Sfan]

Well you can limit their ability to trade trade goods, with embargos or privateer. It affects their trade income. You can develop for more production and build manufactories.

 

[Ironside121]

If you think Trade Goods aren't useful, then you're missing out on a lot.

They all have their individual bonuses for the province they're in. There's then trade goods price which directly effects production income- which means the production you have is more efficient. (This is why Cloth is so good, cheaper dev cost, and more income per development on production). And trade income itself- the better the good, the more income manufactories will add to both your production money and goods produced for trade.

 

[Armillus Dynat]

I'm not saying that I never use them, the system works, its just never the justification for major actions. That why I think it could use improvement. Because the trade good system is fairly static (for reasons listed above) it never becomes a major concern.

Wars are never fought to limit or control trade, they are fought to control land and this is no different. Controlling land is a major factor is controlling production and trade but like I said before those things feel like an after thought to map painting.

And I believe I acknowledged the benefits of trade goods on individual provinces "it has grain and I need the extra force limit".

On a personal level I'd be more happy edging a little closer to Victoria and having trade goods amass and then be able to use those trade goods to activate the provincial bonuses. You could still get the trading in bonus for controlling so much of the trade of that good. I would love to fight wars to steal a poorly defended nations reserves of grain (don't know why I'm picking on that resource) so I could radically improve my force limit before a much more protracted war. I'm also not big on the idea that every province has to start with a trade good and cannot change it. It makes the game far to static and regions too similar for my taste. Maybe a tiered trade good system for every province, so that grain, cattle, fish etc could still be fairly available but the more luxurious goods would actually need to be fought over.

At any rate I just don't think that the trade system makes the production of goods as much of a concern as it should be in this time period. Trade is good, Production not so much.

 

[Razer_greece]

Even if we ignore the trading and local bonuses that the first two responses mentioned, saying goods don't add strategy besides money is like saying troops don't add strategy besides warfare. But the aforementioned bonuses which we can't ignore make your evaluation incorrect.

Trade goods directly influence how valuable a trade node is. You get more financial benefit from owning valuable goods than owning goods that are worth less. The strategy comes from choosing when and where to conquer to get the most benefitat any given point in the game.

What i meant is that trade goods don't play a major role when it comes to conquering. I can think many reasons (centers of trade,culture,religion,development,access to the sea,access to other trade nodes) to conquer a province before looking at the goods they produce.

On a personal level I'd be more happy edging a little closer to Victoria and having trade goods amass and then be able to use those trade goods to activate the provincial bonuses

Armillus Dynat got my point completely. In Victoria 2, the first thing you check is trade goods. You go after provinces that will produce oil in late game, gold to create your own banks, certain raw materials that your factories need. And i'm not saying the game to become a copy of Victoria, but since trade goods exist in EU4 i'd be happy to check the trade goods map before deciding which provinces i want to conquer.

 

[CoolSpin]

Balancing this would be a nightmare. And AI would need to learn this too, and im pretty sure AI has enough on their/its mind just surviving unless as a GP.

 

[sigeena]

EU3 used to have dynamic pricing of trade goods. I remember it tracked some global units, for example if there were alot of ships, the price of Naval Equipment goes up. And if you have a unit of infantry on each Grain province, the cost of Grain goes up. It was quite cool, if you did a WC using horde, the price of Naval Equipment would probably be very cheap.

 

[Sfan]

Were wars really fougt over resources in the EU4 era? I thought this was more of an industrial thing. It seems to me that wars were fought over honor, map painting, and later on nationalism and imperialism, as in the game.

There was also a dynamic system in the beginning of EU4, but it was a nightmare.

 

[CoolSpin]

Were wars really fougt over resources in the EU4 era? I thought this was more of an industrial thing. It seems to me that wars were fought over honor, map painting, and later on nationalism and imperialism, as in the game.

There was also a dynamic system in the beginning of EU4, but it was a nightmare.

Why was it a nightmare?

 

[Sfan]

I really disliked it because it felt like you could impact it, but in reality you had little control, so tradegoods had shifting prices and you could invest in a manufactory and see the price fall. This was more or less impossible to predict from my experience and I found it way better when they created events instead.

 

[ShoGuL]

Were wars really fougt over resources in the EU4 era? I thought this was more of an industrial thing. It seems to me that wars were fought over honor, map painting, and later on nationalism and imperialism, as in the game.

There was also a dynamic system in the beginning of EU4, but it was a nightmare.

The EU4 period was very much the age of mercantilism. Back then, most economists thought of economy and trade as a zero-sum game; the idea was that selling goods enriched the state, while buying goods made you poorer. Therefore, it was of the utmost importance to acquire domestic production of every needed good so that you would not have to purchase it from your rivals.
This kind of thought, to a large extent, is what drove the East India Companies to take ever more land and compete for resources in Asia. While the goods themselves are simplified, I actually feel like this is modelled pretty well with the trade system.

That said, I find trade goods to pay a really big role when I play -- trade goods and terrain plays a huge part in deciding which provinces to state, where to develop, where to build manfactories first, and so on. I probably micro-manage my buildings more than most players, though.. getting workshops in all the good trade good provinces in preparation for manufactories is top priority for me.

Oh, and estates! I always try to put grain, fish or wool provinces in estates as needed and leave good trade good provinces free, not to lose that 25% autonomy on decent manufactory/workshop combos.

 

[ThatRabidPotato]

They're adding new trade goods? Really? Which ones? Where?

Trade goods are one of my favorite parts of the game, simply for the flavor they bring of managing an empire and its economy.

 

[Armillus Dynat]

Balancing this would be a nightmare. And AI would need to learn this too, and im pretty sure AI has enough on their/its mind just surviving unless as a GP.

Well I never said my system was workable . I'd just like to be able to fight over something other than land and the occasional partnership. A man can dream

They're adding new trade goods? Really? Which ones? Where?

Trade goods are one of my favorite parts of the game, simply for the flavor they bring of managing an empire and its economy.

Livestock, Paper, Gems, Incense, Glass.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...evelopment-diary-15th-of-august-2017.1039695/

 

[Incompetent]

OP does have a point given the current state of the game.

Goods type is a significant factor in the value of a province relative to its development, whether conquering, developing it, deciding whether to make it into a state, or estate management.

Or at least it would be, except: a) in the early game, goods other than gold aren't worth much anyway, b) once Absolutism rolls around, most players are just outright painting the map and don't care what good is in a given province, c) as far as your income is concerned, state/estate micromanagement is mostly rendered moot by the overpowered income from trade company provinces and colonial nations (and if you don't have either of those by the middle of the game, you're not serious about trying to make money). TC-land and the Americas have high-quality goods anyway, so it's just another incentive to focus your expansion on those places, but honestly, with current game rules, focusing on TC-land in preference to conquest in Europe would be the right choice even if Africa and Asia produced nothing but fish and wool.

The strategic bonuses for a dominant trade share in a good add up to a lot of power, but in most situations, they're not a deliberate choice but rather a 'winners win more' mechanic. The per-province bonuses are mostly fluff, although some of them do add up (e.g. grain's per-province bonus makes it a decent good in low-development provinces).

 

[uberjedi]

Perhaps Paradox can conjure up some interesting expansion to the trade goods system.
Im not saying the current system is bad, rather that it feels like some significant gameplay improvement potential lies hidden here.