Western Europe Trade Node, and the Fundamental Problem with Overseas Trade

[mudcrabmerchant]

The WET is a necessary evil, to allow countries like the Netherlands to get some trade from India or the Americas to their home node. But the need for the WET highlights the fundamental problem with the trade system.

In reality, would a Dutch empire, with full control over the trade coming out of India or Indonesia, have had to worry about the French and the English, unless they were at war, or dealing with privateers? The Dutch ships would load up with their spices, and then bring them back to Amsterdam. Now, I don't know if they would have stopped off in earlier ports to sell some of their cargo - but certainly East India Company ships wouldn't, at least legally, and as far as other ships go, I don't think they would have been any more likely to sell their cargo in one country over another because of general naval power projection in the Atlantic. Rather, at best non-Netherlands counties would benefit due to proximity to all of that wealth coming in from abroad.

In current game terms, this would really only be possible by having direct links between foreign nodes and Western European nodes, which of course would be ridiculous. I can't really think of a way to solve this problem without rewriting the trade system at a fundamental level. However if that's what needs to be done, then I want to get the idea out there. I would also appreciate any ideas from other forumites on how to better represent the reality of overseas trade using existing, or possible, EUIV mechanics. And if I have made any incorrect assumptions about the historical situation, please correct me on those as well.

 

[Pellucid]

I think it's kind of silly that all trade goes to Europe, and that European trade goods have such low value. I don't think the W Europe node would be necessary if trade actually flowed in a more intuitive manner, or if certain goods had "no local demand" and got passed out of/through trade nodes regardless of the trade power of those in the node. With the current system, all goods end up "stopping" somewhere, which is kind of silly. People from Antwerp must be up to their eyeballs in fish and cloth by now. I mean, the Triangle Trade has no real representation with the current system since ALL of the slaves/cloth/sugar would end up in London or Antwerp instead of each being traded at its logical place for the next good.

I actually like the system A LOT better than all previous EU iterations because at least trade flows at all now, but the clear next step is for trade to flow indefinitely and for those with the most acumen to simply profit from that flow the most.

 

[Chamboozer]

Yup. I think the trade system is decent as far as game design goes but it certainly can't be called realistic. It makes no sense that one country can create an extensive trade network bringing money from India to Europe, yet another can put 200 light ships on just that last trade node to steal 75% of it.

More fundamentally though, it's a problem that 'trade' is entirely one-directional. By this I don't mean that routes leading in one direction from Asia to Europe are bad, but rather that there is no benefit to be gained from another country having influence in your trade node. The Mamluks profited greatly from the Venetian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean because their extensive connections throughout Europe made them better able to respond to demand, which increased the volume of trade moving through the region and brought profit to the rulers of Egypt.

In EUIV the best thing to do is to fight Venice, embargo them, and reduce their influence in any way possible because every bit of influence they have in Alexandria is stealing money from the Mamluks. Not historical. To fix this problem there would need to be a distinction between having influence within a node, and having influence 'between' nodes. Perhaps a system where the Mamluks rule Egypt territorially so they dominate the Alexandria trade node, but the Venetians control the carrying trade from Alexandria to the next node down the line. The more 'trade volume' that moves through Alexandria, carried by Venice, the more profit for them both.

Then both the territorial rulers and the 'carriers' would rely on one another and you'd get into situation where an Ottoman player would have to choose between fighting Venice for territory but losing trade income during the war since they're suddenly not carrying, or leaving them alone with their islands to encourage trade to flourish. This was a dilemma the Ottomans had to deal with historically. Again, contrasts with the game where the best thing to do is crush the Venetians because they're stealing your trade money.

It would also make the trading game more complex and interesting since you wouldn't necessarily need to bring the income directly back to your capital to profit, you could make money as trade carriers like the Dutch historically did. Then you could simulate all sorts of things, like Franco-English competition in the Levant, a place where under the current system neither country has much interest in since the way it is now they have to make a chain to bring the money the long distance back to their capital.

 

[Ikenos]

Yup. I think the trade system is decent as far as game design goes but it certainly can't be called realistic. It makes no sense that one country can create an extensive trade network bringing money from India to Europe, yet another can put 200 light ships on just that last trade node to steal 75% of it.

More fundamentally though, it's a problem that 'trade' is entirely one-directional. By this I don't mean that routes leading in one direction from Asia to Europe are bad, but rather that there is no benefit to be gained from another country having influence in your trade node. The Mamluks profited greatly from the Venetian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean because their extensive connections throughout Europe made them better able to respond to demand, which increased the volume of trade moving through the region and brought profit to the rulers of Egypt.

In EUIV the best thing to do is to fight Venice, embargo them, and reduce their influence in any way possible because every bit of influence they have in Alexandria is stealing money from the Mamluks. Not historical. To fix this problem there would need to be a distinction between having influence within a node, and having influence 'between' nodes. Perhaps a system where the Mamluks rule Egypt territorially so they dominate the Alexandria trade node, but the Venetians control the carrying trade from Alexandria to the next node down the line. The more 'trade volume' that moves through Alexandria, carried by Venice, the more profit for them both.

It rather sounds like what you're suggesting is boosting production income based on trade volume. Which SORT of exists through the nigh-impenetrable supply-demand formulae.

 

[Sifaus]

I still hope that somehow trade flow direction will be changeable in game. There might be a few fixed ones yeah but flowing either one of the sides depending on trade power would make more sense, i guess.

 

[Mauer]

But is it the goods that get transferred from node to node, or the profits of it?

 

[Chamboozer]

It rather sounds like what you're suggesting is boosting production income based on trade volume. Which SORT of exists through the nigh-impenetrable supply-demand formulae.

Not really, since that only affects the provinces which the goods are in. Egypt should always be able to profit from trade moving through their region, even if Venice has 500 light ships in the region, the goods still can't fly from the Red Sea to the Venetian traders. The Mamluks should always make money so long as trade moves along that route. So I think the game should represent the way the territorial rulers and the traders in charge of the shipping had different and symbiotic roles in making trade functional. Venice and the Mamluks should be able to work together in this regard.

One aspect of the problem is that there's not much of a representation of the advantage Venice had over other countries in trade. National Ideas, sure, but that's just a country-bonus that doesn't take into consideration context and doesn't represent anything specific. For example, Venice controlled many cities on the routes from the Adriatic to Constantinople or Alexandria, and had expatriate communities in many other cities around the Mediterranean. This network made Venice superior to other states when it came to trade, and even if the Mamluks had tried to take the carrying trade into their own hands, they would have lacked the advantages the Venetians had gained through centuries of establishing commercial contacts. This should be represented in the game in some way. Therefore the Mamluks should be encouraging Venice to control the shipping because they're the best ones for the job. In this sense I think the territorial rulers of trade nodes should be able to give bonuses to certain favored nations when it comes to trading, perhaps in exchange for a slight loss in income - but if that nation has a strong enough commercial network, the added demand should make up for the loss. Later, as the English, Dutch, French, etc. build up their own commercial networks, they could compete for trading concessions, like the capitulations in the Ottoman Empire.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

In EUIV the best thing to do is to fight Venice, embargo them, and reduce their influence in any way possible because every bit of influence they have in Alexandria is stealing money from the Mamluks. Not historical. To fix this problem there would need to be a distinction between having influence within a node, and having influence 'between' nodes. Perhaps a system where the Mamluks rule Egypt territorially so they dominate the Alexandria trade node, but the Venetians control the carrying trade from Alexandria to the next node down the line. The more 'trade volume' that moves through Alexandria, carried by Venice, the more profit for them both.

Unless I am grossly mistaken, isn't this already the case in-game? The AI doesn't set every merchant to collect in nodes, and frequently steers trade. Often through my own nodes where I am collecting. This is additional money that flows through the node w/o my direct intervention and in effect is a boost to my own steering in a certain direction. In a similar example as yours, the trade from Alexandria flows through Ragusa to Venice. Ragusa benefits greatly from Venetian merchants steering trade back to Venice since they can collect on it in their own trade node. This is why embargoing isn't strictly a win/win scenario even between rivals. If your rival is steering a lot of trade along the way you want it to flow, then it doesn't make sense to embargo them.

 

[Chamboozer]

That's the case if the trade is being pulled toward the location where you want to collect, but not if it's being pulled away. Historically, the Mamluks and the Ottomans profited from trade moving through their land, such that they could tax it. Therefore having Venetians, Genoese or others to carry the trade from Alexandria or Constantinople onward to Europe was a positive thing, but when they pull trade in the game it's actually decreasing the money that the Ottomans and Mamluks get, which is the opposite of what the situation was historically.

So Ragusa benefits from Venice if they're steering trade in Constantinople to Ragusa, but is hurt by Venice when they steer trade from Ragusa to Venice, yes. The Ragusa example is harder to explain in historical terms though because they were themselves a merchant city which tried to control carrying trade. Ragusa was also center of export for the Western Balkans so they could historically benefit from Venetian traders there, although they were in reality often in competition.

However I can't see how Ragusa should benefit from Venetian trade in Constantinople logically, although that is indeed the case in the game as you say. It goes back to the problem mentioned in the OP where the Venetians historically would just sail straight from Constantinople to Venice without stopping to deal with Ragusa at all.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

This is true. I hope Wealth of Nations will make Trade more interesting dynamic. Here's to hoping!

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

The WET is a necessary evil, to allow countries like the Netherlands to get some trade from India or the Americas to their home node.

And the funny thing is that Netherlands can't even reach WETN, without conquering part of France. They should have left trade nodes as they were just add one trade route from Carribean to Antwerpen.

 

[unmerged(23444)]

A very interesting thread. I've been playing around with modding trade nodes. Surely there must be something we can tweak so that countries benefit a bit more from travelling trade? The one way trade makes sense from a gaming perspective, but would it help if it were two way, and maybe China pulled some trade back? They did soak up a lot of New World silver in exchange for all that chinaware.

 

[Pellucid]

And the funny thing is that Netherlands can't even reach WETN, without conquering part of France. They should have left trade nodes as they were just add one trade route from Carribean to Antwerpen.

I'm not even sure why that would be needed. Isn't there already a route from London to Antwerpen? Just build some light ships and steer it from there. There's a reason the Dutch didn't invest a lot of resources in the Americas after all.

 

[Chamboozer]

There's a reason the Dutch didn't invest a lot of resources in the Americas after all.

Yes: Because that's not where the money was to be found. Not because they'd be required to drop off all their goods in England before moving on to Amsterdam.

 

[brifbates]

A very interesting thread. I've been playing around with modding trade nodes. Surely there must be something we can tweak so that countries benefit a bit more from travelling trade? The one way trade makes sense from a gaming perspective, but would it help if it were two way, and maybe China pulled some trade back? They did soak up a lot of New World silver in exchange for all that chinaware.

This is represented in-game by production income: you produce and sell the stuff and get paid for it. the stuff then enters the trade system and either local traders make the money off it (collecting in the node) or the profit goes elsewhere (trade value leaving the node). In either case the locals get paid for the stuff they produce. The only thing not hugely represented is taxation of goods travelling through a node and you can make an argument that this is represented by land-based trade power in a node and the income bonus for a merchant collecting in your capital node.

 

[Chamboozer]

the stuff then enters the trade system and either local traders make the money off it (collecting in the node) or the profit goes elsewhere (trade value leaving the node). In either case the locals get paid for the stuff they produce. The only thing not hugely represented is taxation of goods travelling through a node and you can make an argument that this is represented by land-based trade power in a node and the income bonus for a merchant collecting in your capital node.

But it doesn't make a difference to the income of the state whether the local traders make money off of it or foreign merchants do. Ottoman merchants sell merchandise and the exports are taxed by the state. Venetian merchants sell merchandise and the exports are taxed by the state. It is the same except where different rates of taxation are involved, and the game doesn't simulate that. That's where Paradox's system is slightly off the mark: what really matters for a state's trade income is the geographical location where the trade goods move through. Right now your trade power moves the money itself from place to place, which is a decent representation as far as gameplay goes but leads to a lot of oddities and unrealistic situations as have been mentioned.

The difference is that the Venetians were better integrated into the Mediterranean commercial network, so their presence in the Ottoman Empire buying merchandise expedited the process and brought greater profits to the Ottoman since more was able to be efficiently exported or imported. But whether the Ottoman merchants were the ones taking the profits or the Venetians were didn't matter as far as the state was concerned, their cut was the same. Venetians can entirely dominate the carrying trade from the Ottoman Empire to Europe and the Ottoman state will still be making money off of it, even if the Ottoman merchants themselves are limited to the land.

 

[Pellucid]

Yes: Because that's not where the money was to be found. Not because they'd be required to drop off all their goods in England before moving on to Amsterdam.

Mighta had more to do with the high costs of breaking into the existing markets, which were quite cemented by the time the Dutch were looking for trade opportunities. I think the London trade node is the closest the current system can get to making those investments prohibitive.

 

[Chamboozer]

They could also expand on mercantilism. It's current effect isn't terribly unfitting, but it would be nice if it did more to keep one's own provinces' trade value from being pulled or stopped elsewhere. If carrying trade were separated from provincial trade nodes then we could have mercantilist policies affect the difficulty of other countries taking over the carrying trade from your nodes. That could simulate the anti-Dutch measures taken in places like France in the latter part of the Seventeenth Century.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

I'm not even sure why that would be needed. Isn't there already a route from London to Antwerpen? Just build some light ships and steer it from there.

That typically results with English pulling some of their ships from WETN to protect London resulting in most of the trade going to Sevilla. Sevilla is a problem - before WETN it wasn't an end node so they had to protect it against France. Today Spanish trading position is quite OP. I think returning the old system when Carribean was strategically most important would be an improvement, just with direct route to Antwerpen.