Trade in eu4 : Improvement in future update ?

[naovar]

Trade in eu4 is the main income source past 1550 for most nation once you understand how to expand/devellop.

My first toughtvwhen i saw it was :
Too many arrow i don't understand anything.

Now my reaction is more like :
All your asian trade are belong to me.

Trade in eu4 are quite simple to understand once you know the basic (steering >collect in many cases).
Yes lot of modifier come but to earn decent ducats your option are quite simple :
-conquer all the province in trade node or at least CoT.
-spam light ship if you don't want to conquer everything.

Yeah i forget to speak about all the modifier. But these boni are here in a game nalancing purpose and doeesn't influence really your move in your playtrough focus on trade. (Get trade hegemony in a end node or virtual end node and colonize )

One of the flaw about trade in eu4 is the war thing :
Going to war doesn't impact too much your trade income if you plan this correctly.
Trade goods value have static world price.

One of my main dissapointment about it is simple : from a game to another trade doesn't really change.

For more diversity i tough about some change about how trade value are compute:
Production efficiency and trade value can be more linked:

If a country have trade power outside his home node, all his own province in this nodeget a modifier : something like +2% production efficiency . -1% trade value.
This modifier can be scaled on trade power share .
But this modifier is multiply the deeper you go in the downstream node if you compare it to the home node ( so with a range about 2 you will get +4% -2%).

And change how event affect trade goods' price.
A modifier on region instead of worldwide. And maybe with more event and with some strange trigger condition. (american country invading europe can cause a decrease on a america goods and an increase on european goods).

Obviously one of most intetesting feature can be a direction choice with 'transfer trade'..

Obviously this idea can be impossible to implement in eu4 engine.
But with the 1.23 annoucement i tought the rework will aim trade . Wrong hope ...
Can we see a improvement in trade system in few patch or the current system is enough?

 

[mag_zbc]

The problem with EU4 trade system is that it's static - routes and nodes are fixed, all end nodes are in Europe. You can play as a country in Asia, Middle East, Africa and conquer entire world, but trade will still flow towards Europe. Trade needs to be rebuilt from ground up, but I wouldn't count on it in EU4, that change would be too fundamental. Though I hope that will be changed in EU5.

 

[3ishop]

Trade goods value have static world price.

They do move about due to events now. They used to have a more fluid system but it was a performance hog, it greatly limited the number of provinces. It also didn't really work as most goods ended up being very cheap unless AI owned the majority. E.g. coffee was once up to 22D each in a Spain game of mine, I took all provinces producing it and was able to crash the price to 3D.

A modifier on region instead of worldwide. And maybe with more event and with some strange trigger condition. (american country invading europe can cause a decrease on a america goods and an increase on european goods).

Goods values are set globally, e.g. Fur in America is the same as fur in Russia. So they'd have to split the goods so you'd end up with American fur and Russian fur.

The problem with EU4 trade system is that it's static - routes and nodes are fixed, all end nodes are in Europe. You can play as a country in Asia, Middle East, Africa and conquer entire world, but trade will still flow towards Europe. Trade needs to be rebuilt from ground up, but I wouldn't count on it in EU4, that change would be too fundamental. Though I hope that will be changed in EU5.

Personally this makes sense. Doesn't matter who controls the world if the supply and demand isn't changed. Europe is the place that you want to sell the silk the most, can charge more and they are more willing to pay for it so makes sense for it to be the end node, prices are currently based off the historic supply and demand, so they'd have to cause a lot of the asian and middle eastern goods to crash in price if it switched.

 

[Metz]

Victoria II type trade would be interesting. Stockpiles, resource consumption, strategic conquests, etc...

 

[3ishop]

Victoria II type trade would be interesting. Stockpiles, resource consumption, strategic conquests, etc...

Could be, but at the same time miss the importance of the trade routes. Maybe if it was crossed with HoI type supply lines? So it has to flow back to a regional capital and maybe then the home capital.

 

[Metz]

Could be, but at the same time miss the importance of the trade routes. Maybe if it was crossed with HoI type supply lines? So it has to flow back to a regional capital and maybe then the home capital.

Maybe you buy from pre-selected trade nodes based on your geographical location? The owner of the node gets bonus income as a sort of sales tax. This would allow for dynamic trade nodes as others may want to make one of their locations a more popular area. Flow of trade would be standard but what would switch is the node location within the trade zone. Goods like coffee and sugar cane/tea don't appear until the zones are discovered. The demand of all the other nodes for that good would make the pioneer in the coffee/sugar cane/tea area very wealthy until others tap in. This was the case in the Caribbean with the Spanish and then the French, British and Dutch. Sugar went from being an expensive good to an every day commoner good within a century.

Piracy would give you a random amount of goods in your stockpile every month as well as a bit of money. Though it will decrease your relationship with countries who trade in that node.

A lot of creative ideas can appear with this.

We can throw in development changes as well, where the more developed your provinces are, the more they produce yet the more resources such as food and other goods are consumed. Overdeveloping without the required goods may cause famine which triggers rebellions and development drop. Development should also be timed. You can turn a backwater province into a metropolis in a day with the current system if you have the monarch points for it. It should take a year per development level, similar to building.

 

[Canute VII]

I would like to see the possibility to change the direction of trade flow between trade nodes. I think this could be done and the conditions in game could be something like this:

• conditions:
  • country controls all trade centers / estuaries / natural harbors / trade posts in the trade region where trade is incoming (at which the trade arrow is directed). I say "control" not "own", since if it owned these, it wouldn't want to change the flow of trade. That means it could be neccessary to be at war with multiple nations at the same time.
  • country has the largest trade power in "incoming" trade region. That means, others can still contest its plans by sending light ships and/or ultimately declaring a trade war.
  • conditions 1&2 are true for at least 6 months (uninterruptedly)
  • (or, alternatively: country has highest trade power and twice as much trade power as second nation)
• now the country can spend 200 dip MP to change a trade arrow's direction. For a country actually permanently controlling a huge chunk of trade, there shouldn't be much difference between relocating its trading port (also cost 200 MP) and changing trade direction (well, to some degree as there can be multible "arrows")

• technically we would click at the "outgoing" or "incoming" symbol (where the merchants steering trade are shown), after which we would receive a pop-up which asks us if we want to change the direction of trade. Or it could be another action in the trade node view.
• I believe there's this issue with possible "loops" in trade flow, which could (?) result in strange effects / technical instability. I would advise to simply disallow changing trade direction if this would result in a loop. E.g. changing direction Alexandria->Venice could result in a loop (Alexandria->Istanbul->Ragusa->Venice->Alexandria), so it's disallowed. Changing direction Ethiopia->Alexandria, however, would be fine. However, if Ottomans change direction Istanbul->Ragusa, Mamluks could play their cards on Alexandria->Venice

So, if I play, say, China, I could forge trade wars along the trade chains and try to bring trade back and let it flow towards me instead of away from me... Alas, my tributaries wouldn't like it, but hey, this would be another option to play the game! As China (or whoever) we could create new end nodes in east asia or as Ottomans etc. try to obliterate the european ones and make (e.g.) Constantinoble or Alexandria and end node itself.

 

[hrimhari]

There's also just the fact that "trade" steals profits, whereas actually trade usually benefits both parties. In the 1400s, Venice dominated trade with the Mamluks, making vast profits from the pepper trade. They bought so much pepper it actually led to a silver shortage in Europe.

In EU4, this would be represented by Venice using ships (and trade post in Crete) to redirect trade to Venice. But in that case they're reducing Mamluk profits. Why would this be? That silver went somewhere.

The whole idea of "end nodes" is part of this, a side goods or profits reached Venice and stopped.

The system as it is is okay for showing looting of weaker nations, or determine what path trade takes (say, around Africa vs through Egypt), but it needs a root-and-brach overhaul.

 

[Chamboozer]

There's also just the fact that "trade" steals profits, whereas actually trade usually benefits both parties.

This is, as I see it, indeed the fundamental problem.

If you're playing in Asia, you should want a European mercantile presence in your country, because their presence results in customs income and, if there's a favorable balance of trade as historically, it brings silver into your economy. In EUIV, their presence literally comes down to them stealing your money.

 

[BSM]

The trade system is simplified, surely to avoid more complexity. However, the whole trade system needs overhauling. It is hard, not only for a newbie, to understand how the trade works. The user interface presents wrong info in some parts. There are some (maybe minor) bugs.

If any big change is done, I would go for something where somebody pays for the goods in far nodes, then get more cash by selling these goods in the node where you collect earnings: Trade means somebody gives goods and gets cash, while somebody gives cash and gets goods.
Each 'unit' of goods (a container, a ton or whatever) is bought by somebody in a node, and (besides piracy) should give earnings to the buyer in the final node (where you collect trade), and not just a part, or even nothing. If you have 2 merchants, one in your home node (collecting from trade) and another one in a distant node (buying some goods), intermediates should not steal your trade just dominating trade share in intermediate nodes. What about the goods you produce in end nodes? Does these goods travel the other way or always are sold in the same node as produced?
For example, the triangle IvoryCoast -> Caribbean -> Sevilla / Bordeaux / TheLongerRouteToNothSea. Africa sells slaves to America, then America sells goods (sugar, tobacco, cocoa) to Europe; then it is supposed that Europe sells manufactured goods to Africa (Cloth, Rum, Weapons, maybe in-game could mean cloth, wine, copper, iron). But how is this last trade in game? There is no route from Europe to Africa... I know the game cannot allow to change end nodes, due to engine limits, but maybe each route could be always bi-directional, and you just select which two nodes you want to connect among the possible connections (current ones, for example).

Also, as game is now, there is some double value for goods; you get earnings from goods produced, independent of if you trade these goods (external trade) or self consume it (inside country internal trade); then you can get additional earnings by trading the same goods (external trade).
For example, you produce 2.4 units of fish each year, 0.2 each month, priced 2.5 ducats each unit means a value of 2.4 x 2.5 = 6 ducats / year or 0.5 ducats / month; so you get that income from production (+ bonuses), then get an additional income from that fish on trade, depending on your trade power share. Who pays for these fish? Your citizens, or another country's citizens, or both?

Besides events, price for trade goods could be tied to offer (not just demand). If you develop a lot your provinces producing wine, there is more offer, so the price could be lower; that could avoid you developing only provinces with (almost fixed, besides events) high priced trade goods.

 

[YuriiH]

Trade goods value have static world price.

Besides events, price for trade goods could be tied to offer (not just demand).

Before 1.5 patch (as I recall), Trade Goods prices were dynamic, with offer-demand system. Changing that to current static system lead to incredibly improved game performance.

 

[BSM]

The trade system is simplified, surely to avoid more complexity.
(...)
Besides events, price for trade goods could be tied to offer (not just demand).

Before 1.5 patch (as I recall), Trade Goods prices were dynamic, with offer-demand system. Changing that to current static system lead to incredibly improved game performance.

I did not know that, thanks for the info, but I guessed it is so to simplify the game.
However, maybe a less CPU consuming system could be implemented. For example adjust prices on a year basis, or even every 50 years, every age...

 

[Foefaller]

I wonder if PDX could write code that lets them give the nodes themselves modifiers to simulated regional prices/demand.

Like, for example, instead of Protestantism reducing the price of all Fish worldwide, instead European (or maybe even just majority Protestant/Reformed) Trade nodes will get a modifier that reduces the income from producing fish there, and maybe even the amount of money from fish production that gets transferred to that node.

Course, you'd have to add something else that lets to take advantage of that... Thoughts?

 

[Foefaller]

There's also just the fact that "trade" steals profits, whereas actually trade usually benefits both parties. In the 1400s, Venice dominated trade with the Mamluks, making vast profits from the pepper trade. They bought so much pepper it actually led to a silver shortage in Europe.

In EU4, this would be represented by Venice using ships (and trade post in Crete) to redirect trade to Venice. But in that case they're reducing Mamluk profits. Why would this be? That silver went somewhere.

The whole idea of "end nodes" is part of this, a side goods or profits reached Venice and stopped.

The system as it is is okay for showing looting of weaker nations, or determine what path trade takes (say, around Africa vs through Egypt), but it needs a root-and-brach overhaul.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the flows to be where the goods go, but rather where the profits end up. This is the age of Mercantilism after all, when trade was seen as zero-sum and self-sufficiency was the ultimate goal.

Spice trade with Mamluks causing a silver shortage, for example, could be represented by them clamping down on profits leaving their primary trade node towards Venice's. Something like the Opium Wars (which caused a similar "so much money flowing the wrong way it started a silver shortage) could be represented by China holding nearly all the Trade Power in the Asia trade nodes, until Great Britan won wars that forced them to transfer trade power and give them trade centers.

In that way, the real flaw is that there are actual begin points and end points; There really should be neither, and any nation could see all their production profits get siphoned off by someone else downstream if they're outplayed, or find themselves the trading mecca for the world if they play their cards right.

 

[evilcat]

The goods price change over time, by events. Up and down.
If you dont play in Europe you can mess with production, by building and developing much more than Europe.
There is general pattern that Colonial Nation create alot of trade from New World.

• There is problem with building trade empire in east Asia. It would be cool if you can make Japan no2 economic world power.
  
• Trade Idea group is below avarage.

On the other side, very dynamic trade system is taxing on engine, when players care more about global dominance.

 

[3ishop]

In EU4, this would be represented by Venice using ships (and trade post in Crete) to redirect trade to Venice. But in that case they're reducing Mamluk profits. Why would this be? That silver went somewhere.

It's what pays the production income. Trade is then the selling of the good at a profit. So the trade is Venice buying it from the producers rather than buying it from the Mamluks merchants. Otherwise you have to explain why each location gets paid for producing a good.

 

[Richeleiu]

One way could be to handle trade in the same way as treasure fleets.

Where each trade node is handled as an individual CN. Each nation in the individual node gets their fleet filled based on their tradepower and the nodes trade value.when filled travels back to its home port and sploches the gain their, dividing gains depending on tradepower in the home node.

This could open up for different types of trade strategies.

In a fashion it would also replicate actual trade during this period somewhat better. As it was not an even JIT based flow but erratic and often disturbed by nature, wars, piracy etc.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

The goods price change over time, by events. Up and down.
If you dont play in Europe you can mess with production, by building and developing much more than Europe.
There is general pattern that Colonial Nation create alot of trade from New World.

• There is problem with building trade empire in east Asia. It would be cool if you can make Japan no2 economic world power.
  
• Trade Idea group is below avarage.

On the other side, very dynamic trade system is taxing on engine, when players care more about global dominance.

I've made Japan a no1 (Ouchi clan) economic world power with "only" the Philippines and the Moluccas. Early game Japan makes an ass amount of money by pirating from Beijing, and post-unification more from trade steering. With maritime, exploration, and the buffed naval ideas, I was able to field 400+ light ships (which were stronger than heavy ships so no need to invest on a combat navy) and control trade in Beijing and Malacca. I was NETTING 200+ gold a month by the 1650's and expenses payed on level 3 advisers across the board, though I did need policies that improved trade steering and goods produced. I gave my good production provinces to the Merchant guild (anything with an expensive good and easy development terrain), made all those provinces 40+ development with loyal Merchants. However I was too busy jerking off to 200+ gold instead of using that excess money to field an above-force-limit army (until I learned that taking Beijing actually hurt my economy instead of helped it).

Trade mechanics in this game are complicated enough to encourage unique play styles, but I definitely think this game needs a finance expansion. All trading is Spanish and Arab style in this game, with no investment banking advancements that the Dutch and Swedes innovated to allow tiny countries to become really rich. It's one thing to take a loan to build up to fleet strength, but its enough to start a Joint Stock Company. Not only for trade, a finance expansion would benefit domestic production too. I get that Ming are already OP, but who doesn't want to revitalize Song-era capitalism? Or see how powerful India gets if it adopts Dutch investment practices. Encourage players to take more loans willingly, or even lend money to other nations (who here actually sends loans instead of gifts? anyone?)

 

[Philthy]

We need some system where you basically trade ducats for significant benefits from trade goods including increased tax and production efficiency. Money flows away from end nodes, goods flow towards them.

 

[Liquidstuff]

This is, as I see it, indeed the fundamental problem.

If you're playing in Asia, you should want a European mercantile presence in your country, because their presence results in customs income and, if there's a favorable balance of trade as historically, it brings silver into your economy. In EUIV, their presence literally comes down to them stealing your money.

Exactly, silver and gold that you absolutly need because you don't have any left.