When I was first told about Europa Universalis IV it was presented to me as a grand strategy mainly focused on military, colonisation and trade in period between Polish-Lithuanian-Hungarian defeat in battle of Varna, and death of Napoleon. Unfortunately, as colonisation and wars are successively expanded in patches, trading seems to fall behind. Of course, it’s not like devs totally forgot about the aspect, trade routes have been rebuilt in the latest expansion, Res Publica added a bit of flavour to merchant republics… but it’s still not enough! As for now trading seems to be a mini game in which you order your merchants to sit in a trade node to gain more money and maybe change their position every few decades. Oh, yeah, you also build tens of light ships to protect trade on chosen trade nodes. So much to do, so much to see.
I decided to create this thread so we could gather our suggestions on how to improve the trade mechanics! I happen to have a few ideas.
First of all I’d like to talk about:
DYNAMIC TRADE NODES
This is an issue mainly in the ROTW because some of the trade nodes are based on how the trade flowed there during colonial era, which might highly differ in-game from how it looked historically, but European trade nodes could differ massively from how they looked like in reality as well – if Genoa conquered Constantinople and majority of Mediterranean islands, it would be just natural for their rivals, like Venice to re manage trade nodes they held. The biggest problem in all of the trade nodes is America – there wasn’t really any important centre of trade, nor sea trade routes before the colonists came. As the trade nodes themselves could stay as they are(they’re mostly reflections of colonial regions anyway), the ICoT(at least the coastal ones) should be established only once the colonial era starts, by the colonists themselves.
Besides changing province’s affiliation to trade node, I’d also thought about merchant republics being able to create new trade nodes. Though this idea seems to be the least realistic, at least in means of execution, it would be great if players(I doubt AI would ever create a working, making sense trade node…) could try themselves in revolutionising the trade in their region.
Though I fear this idea is impossible to implement, I still hope devs will consider this, probably mentioned thousands of times already, idea.
ROLE OF THE TRADE GOODS/RESOURCES
Trade goods don’t seem to have any impact on countries, unless they have “trading in x” modifier. In my opinion this should also be changed, or rather enhanced(I don’t want to get rid of “trading in x” modifier, in my opinion it’s a great thing but… the bonuses could make more snese). Trade goods require much more in-depth mechanics. Every trade good(except for luxuries like dyes or ivory) should have an impact on country’s economy, giving bonuses for each percent of global production held by the nation(e.g. +0,2% ship durability for each % of global production of tropical wood) or penalties if the country suffers from lack of supply because of their territories or trade decisions, for example: if a country owns huge % of world’s grain production, as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did for quite a few decades in that period, say 15%, not only would they gain an enormous morale boost(or whatever should grain grant) but also after some time countries embargoed by them should suffer penalties such as famine, which would lower manpower and morale of armies. It would force a player to pay more attention to trade, seeking other ways to get the vital resource. Similarly, lack of iron would result in low weapon quality(lowered combat ability) and no access to naval supplies would cripple ship combat ability or morale of navies – trade goods like those would be considered “the basic resources” without whom a country cannot function normally.
Increasing the role of resources could also expand subject interactions. Rebellious union partners, such as Sweden, could be subjugated once the overlord cuts off their access to food(in Swedish-Danish case – Denmark taking southern Sweden, Finland province and their Islands, the only places in which they produce grain and fish). Such action would highly weaken disobedient subject, especially since you’re the only source of said trade goods(maybe except for independence supporters, who with these mechanics could illegally ship resources to the subject). Yet, in case of Sweden and Denmark, the Swedes would still have an advantage of owning provinces with valuable trade goods such as iron or copper, of which Denmark lacks. These two resources could highly improve army’s combat ability, causing Sweden to be a dangerous partner, even after emptying their granaries. Other subject interactions would be trade good exchange with marches/vassals, forcing them to give bigger amount of resources to their liege, investing in marches by sending them more goods, and so on.
The previous point leads us to
EXPANDED TRADE INTERACTIONS AND TRADE POLICIES
What can one do to influence other country’s trade? They could… embargo them, and… transfer trade power, and… that’s pretty much it. With trade goods impacting economy it would only be natural to find someone to trade with. Let’s say you’re Wallachia – not too wealthy country, but thanks to grain and wool production you’re able to feed and maintain your army. Yet, because of chain of events/mission you need to get salt – since Wallachia isn’t the most powerful duchy in the region declaring war could end awfully. The easiest way for you to obtain salt would be making a trade contact with Poland or Pomerania. Both lack wool but own cloth provinces, causing their interest in buying wool to lower but not disappear – in this case, Wallachia could send them wool for price a little bit lower than the market one(e.g. 2 ducats instead of 2,5), in exchange receiving salt for normal price(3 ducats in 1444).
Another idea would be allowing countries to choose their trading policies(not to confuse with country policies unlocked after fulfilling two chosen ideas). Normal countries would get basic policies such as “free trade”(everyone’s allowed to trade through our country, except for the embargoed), “foreign merchants”(increase in trade power, but if country is weak, it might become more dependant on foreign power or merchant republic, which, with enough trade power in your nodes, will be able to relocate your merchants and change flow of your trade power. Option could enrich the “sphere of influence” aspect of the game, another one treated with too little love), “join/create trading union”(option for up to 3PMs to create or join a trading union, such as the Hansa. Members of the union would defend each other, share their trade power and be able to swap their national ideas to “trade union ideas”, be it randomly generated/custom set for each TU, Hanseatic or predetermined new idea group, meanwhile the union leader(Lübeck in case of the Hansa) could invite new members/force other countries to join, force his associates to transfer their trade income directly to him through subject interaction window(though some members might leave after such action) or invite them to offensive trade wars(countries in the trading union won’t join in conquests, honour nor colonial wars, as long as they’re offensive). The idea of trading unions would also allow getting rid of an ahistorical abomination, which is the Hansa(country)) and probably a lot more I couldn’t come up with.
One of the reasons of finding the New World was handicapped contact between Europe and India, caused by hostile Middle Eastern trade policies. Europeans wanted to find another way to India, something less dangerous and time consuming than traveling around the whole African continent. Powerful countries with important trade ports and control over most of trade node’s provinces, like the Ottomans after conquering Constantinople, should be allowed to ban/cripple the trade flow, causing the flow to stop at their trading port, enormously increasing country’s trade power but in exchange worsening relations with that trade node users by a lot(up to -200 with merchant republics like Venice or Genoa). The option would also oblige other countries to ask for your permission if they wanted to use the trade node, for which they would have to pay an amount of ducats proposed by you. To avoid the blockade one could create a new trade flow, thanks to dynamic trade nodes mentioned earlier.
Whew, that’s quite an article I’ve written! I hope someone managed to finish it? If yes, thanks for spending your time on reading that! Don’t be shy, post your opinions and ideas below and, hopefully, the developers might notice this thread.
I decided to create this thread so we could gather our suggestions on how to improve the trade mechanics! I happen to have a few ideas.
First of all I’d like to talk about:
DYNAMIC TRADE NODES
This is an issue mainly in the ROTW because some of the trade nodes are based on how the trade flowed there during colonial era, which might highly differ in-game from how it looked historically, but European trade nodes could differ massively from how they looked like in reality as well – if Genoa conquered Constantinople and majority of Mediterranean islands, it would be just natural for their rivals, like Venice to re manage trade nodes they held. The biggest problem in all of the trade nodes is America – there wasn’t really any important centre of trade, nor sea trade routes before the colonists came. As the trade nodes themselves could stay as they are(they’re mostly reflections of colonial regions anyway), the ICoT(at least the coastal ones) should be established only once the colonial era starts, by the colonists themselves.
Besides changing province’s affiliation to trade node, I’d also thought about merchant republics being able to create new trade nodes. Though this idea seems to be the least realistic, at least in means of execution, it would be great if players(I doubt AI would ever create a working, making sense trade node…) could try themselves in revolutionising the trade in their region.
Though I fear this idea is impossible to implement, I still hope devs will consider this, probably mentioned thousands of times already, idea.
ROLE OF THE TRADE GOODS/RESOURCES
Trade goods don’t seem to have any impact on countries, unless they have “trading in x” modifier. In my opinion this should also be changed, or rather enhanced(I don’t want to get rid of “trading in x” modifier, in my opinion it’s a great thing but… the bonuses could make more snese). Trade goods require much more in-depth mechanics. Every trade good(except for luxuries like dyes or ivory) should have an impact on country’s economy, giving bonuses for each percent of global production held by the nation(e.g. +0,2% ship durability for each % of global production of tropical wood) or penalties if the country suffers from lack of supply because of their territories or trade decisions, for example: if a country owns huge % of world’s grain production, as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did for quite a few decades in that period, say 15%, not only would they gain an enormous morale boost(or whatever should grain grant) but also after some time countries embargoed by them should suffer penalties such as famine, which would lower manpower and morale of armies. It would force a player to pay more attention to trade, seeking other ways to get the vital resource. Similarly, lack of iron would result in low weapon quality(lowered combat ability) and no access to naval supplies would cripple ship combat ability or morale of navies – trade goods like those would be considered “the basic resources” without whom a country cannot function normally.
Increasing the role of resources could also expand subject interactions. Rebellious union partners, such as Sweden, could be subjugated once the overlord cuts off their access to food(in Swedish-Danish case – Denmark taking southern Sweden, Finland province and their Islands, the only places in which they produce grain and fish). Such action would highly weaken disobedient subject, especially since you’re the only source of said trade goods(maybe except for independence supporters, who with these mechanics could illegally ship resources to the subject). Yet, in case of Sweden and Denmark, the Swedes would still have an advantage of owning provinces with valuable trade goods such as iron or copper, of which Denmark lacks. These two resources could highly improve army’s combat ability, causing Sweden to be a dangerous partner, even after emptying their granaries. Other subject interactions would be trade good exchange with marches/vassals, forcing them to give bigger amount of resources to their liege, investing in marches by sending them more goods, and so on.
The previous point leads us to
EXPANDED TRADE INTERACTIONS AND TRADE POLICIES
What can one do to influence other country’s trade? They could… embargo them, and… transfer trade power, and… that’s pretty much it. With trade goods impacting economy it would only be natural to find someone to trade with. Let’s say you’re Wallachia – not too wealthy country, but thanks to grain and wool production you’re able to feed and maintain your army. Yet, because of chain of events/mission you need to get salt – since Wallachia isn’t the most powerful duchy in the region declaring war could end awfully. The easiest way for you to obtain salt would be making a trade contact with Poland or Pomerania. Both lack wool but own cloth provinces, causing their interest in buying wool to lower but not disappear – in this case, Wallachia could send them wool for price a little bit lower than the market one(e.g. 2 ducats instead of 2,5), in exchange receiving salt for normal price(3 ducats in 1444).
Another idea would be allowing countries to choose their trading policies(not to confuse with country policies unlocked after fulfilling two chosen ideas). Normal countries would get basic policies such as “free trade”(everyone’s allowed to trade through our country, except for the embargoed), “foreign merchants”(increase in trade power, but if country is weak, it might become more dependant on foreign power or merchant republic, which, with enough trade power in your nodes, will be able to relocate your merchants and change flow of your trade power. Option could enrich the “sphere of influence” aspect of the game, another one treated with too little love), “join/create trading union”(option for up to 3PMs to create or join a trading union, such as the Hansa. Members of the union would defend each other, share their trade power and be able to swap their national ideas to “trade union ideas”, be it randomly generated/custom set for each TU, Hanseatic or predetermined new idea group, meanwhile the union leader(Lübeck in case of the Hansa) could invite new members/force other countries to join, force his associates to transfer their trade income directly to him through subject interaction window(though some members might leave after such action) or invite them to offensive trade wars(countries in the trading union won’t join in conquests, honour nor colonial wars, as long as they’re offensive). The idea of trading unions would also allow getting rid of an ahistorical abomination, which is the Hansa(country)) and probably a lot more I couldn’t come up with.
One of the reasons of finding the New World was handicapped contact between Europe and India, caused by hostile Middle Eastern trade policies. Europeans wanted to find another way to India, something less dangerous and time consuming than traveling around the whole African continent. Powerful countries with important trade ports and control over most of trade node’s provinces, like the Ottomans after conquering Constantinople, should be allowed to ban/cripple the trade flow, causing the flow to stop at their trading port, enormously increasing country’s trade power but in exchange worsening relations with that trade node users by a lot(up to -200 with merchant republics like Venice or Genoa). The option would also oblige other countries to ask for your permission if they wanted to use the trade node, for which they would have to pay an amount of ducats proposed by you. To avoid the blockade one could create a new trade flow, thanks to dynamic trade nodes mentioned earlier.
Whew, that’s quite an article I’ve written! I hope someone managed to finish it? If yes, thanks for spending your time on reading that! Don’t be shy, post your opinions and ideas below and, hopefully, the developers might notice this thread.
- 7
- 1
Upvote
0
.png){kind=avatar}
