Will we ever be able to steer trade route directions

[Battlex]

If population density is supposed to indicate where trade flows to, why doesn't all of Europe flow to India and China? In fact, why does Coromandel flow to Cape in 1444? Why Lahore to Persia? Why Beijing to Yumen? Why Canton to Phillipines? Why Gujarat to Hormuz? The list goes on.

The current trade system is simply another way to buff Europeans, because the development and institution system, while already heavily balanced in Europe's favour, isn't neccessarily enough to manufacture an environment where Europe pulls ahead of Asia and Africa as much as it did in real life. Thus they simply just start out with a huge income boost in the form of trade.

Because the spice trade was long established so it goes that way? Why can't Bengal feed into malacca when rice was shipped as far as Brunei in the heyday of the nawab? You get decline of spice trade by event but also by Indian trade going to zanzibar or Cape rather than alexandria via aden, which also weakens Venice, Austria, and Ottos

 

[BlazeKnight_]

You guys are not understanding the biggest issue with the current trade system. The one producing and selling the goods are the ones making money, not the person in Europe who buys it. The trade flows work if you are an empire with colonies in nodes downstream, but in a regular map it makes no sense. So you're telling me that merchants from China go to Malacca, sell goods, and then the money ends up in Malacca's bank? Oh definitely, it makes total sense for those Genoans to be making more money from Iberians becoming more developed and showering in Mexican gold.

 

[cetvrtak]

The one producing and selling the goods are the ones making money, not the person in Europe who buys it.

Oh definitely, it makes total sense for those Genoans to be making more money from Iberians becoming more developed and showering in Mexican gold.

There is a separate system simulating production. It's called "Production".

So you're telling me that merchants from China go to Malacca, sell goods, and then the money ends up in Malacca's bank?

Malacca bank is filled by taxing their own merchants and enterprises.

Edit: on the other hand, if you were referring to Malacca trade node value (I originally assumed you meant country Malaccantrade income) - little can leave China for Malacca if majority of trade power is used for collecting in China.

 

[FrogCrusher]

I'm disagreeing with your snowball comment. Why do you think allowing TC everywhere has caused power creep, AI won't always TC their European stuff from a seperate region. Building regular buildings everywhere was already something that favoured majors provided they had high dev provinces. Trade companies involves two ideas set early on, and now the AI will only charter nations of they've got expansion. Yes as a central European you're screwed but you were always screwed by them being able to expand into more spheres earlier than you.

It has caused power creep because of the additional merchants. You can have 2 or 3 merchants more without going far from your starting point. By collecting trade everywhere, it can be 10 ducats a month more before 1550. (And yes, trade is modelled is such a way that steering is useless in 95% of the situation early game, that's why merchant are so valuable).

 

[Vohen]

You guys are not understanding the biggest issue with the current trade system. The one producing and selling the goods are the ones making money, not the person in Europe who buys it. The trade flows work if you are an empire with colonies in nodes downstream, but in a regular map it makes no sense. So you're telling me that merchants from China go to Malacca, sell goods, and then the money ends up in Malacca's bank? Oh definitely, it makes total sense for those Genoans to be making more money from Iberians becoming more developed and showering in Mexican gold.

There's one thing to consider here, aside from simple tariffs.
The merchants themselves are not doing much to develop their home region, they are just transporting goods from place to place, earning money with their fee.
But they do concentrate that earned money in their home region, where they'll be buying clothes, furniture, art, estates, etc etc, all kinds of locally produced items.
This creates demand for those goods, which in turn has the workshops and guilds responsible for them driving up recruitment of artisans to meet with supply, increasing wages.
This will increase urbanization, and those artisans will also get taxed, driving up state income as well (probably the effect we can see in the income tab).

That isn't simulated through "production" income as, even without accounting for the abstraction of only one good per province, that production is largely static, only calculating the (mostly static) trade value and goods produced, while in reality that value would be driven up by that wealth flowing in from merchants, as mentioned previously.
That's how italy became so wealthy in the middle ages, then declining when the Mediterranean stopped being the trade center of Europe, and later on it would be a decisive factor leading to the industrial revolution, as increased wages lead to more expensive labor in comparison to the competition in India, making mechanization more competitive.

I guess my biggest pet peeve here would be on how this "greater wealth" doesn't actually translate to development and technology (unless indirectly through allowing you to hire higher level advisors specifically for developing your provinces and buying tech), and how dissociated these systems are down each other when in reality they were very intertwined.
Those systems are still more dependent on your monarch than the social situation of your nation (not mentioning how tech is such a joke, there's no real divergence at the endgame at all).
Ideally, higher wealth compared to production (representing wages per capita) would by itself increase development (urbanization), which in turn would increase tech progression (as a wealthier population is likely to be a more literate one).

 

[Titanius Puffin]

There are a few examples in game of trade countries that punch above their weight (Venice, Lubeck, maybe Portugal), but ultimately it comes down to conquering territory, albeit conquering territory strategically. But even so, by far the best way to play is to monopolise trade nodes and conquer the whole thing. A nation focused on conquering large amounts of territory (and being smart about where they conquer it) make far more in trade then countries that invest in trade ideas. You don't need trade power or steering if you own the whole node.

I'm not interested in the 'best' tactic, and I think a hybrid tactic is better than the one you're proposing as it let's you get more.
Historical maritime commerce is an area of interest for me - and the game mechanics agree with some popular perceptions.

In terms of your list of maritime powers, I think you should add England and the Netherlands. Probably Genoa. [Edit: and Denmark maybe too, but I need to read up on that]

Outside EU4's timeframe, Athens, Rhodes, Tyre, Sidon, Crete, and Carthage all were maritime city states that relied on trade fleets for revenue - not land holdings. The existence of maritime powers was fragile, and they rarely became great powers. Which partly explains why a lot of strategy 'optimisers' decry the entire field of sea commerce - the ideas aren't meant for them. They are the Napoleon's of EU4, great on land but relative strangers to sea power and the associated interests of maritime commerce.

However, EU4 lets you copy matime trade tactics: You can construct 474 power trade fleet around midgame: 100 early frigates(3 trade power each), an admiral with 3 manoeuvre (+15% power) merchant marine naval doc (+33%), and private trade fleets(+10%). This is enough to switch control of a coastal node in your favour without having to conquer the whole thing.
If you also know how to get 'free' merchants from Trade Company zones, then you have an availalbe merchant to move trade in the desired direction too (if needed). Pick your target trade node and divert income with few territorial holdings.

If you want to go on a world conquest... well then our goals are very different. Usually the challenge is well-over before the world is one colour.

 

[Battlex]

You guys are not understanding the biggest issue with the current trade system. The one producing and selling the goods are the ones making money, not the person in Europe who buys it. The trade flows work if you are an empire with colonies in nodes downstream, but in a regular map it makes no sense. So you're telling me that merchants from China go to Malacca, sell goods, and then the money ends up in Malacca's bank? Oh definitely, it makes total sense for those Genoans to be making more money from Iberians becoming more developed and showering in Mexican gold.

If the genoan currency is stronger, why wouldn't it? Genoan banks financed alot of Spanish enterprises and as the AI will never loan without the personality nowadays, is there much an issue with this being semi represented. As well as also showing all the smuggling that happens under the states eye

I'm not interested in the 'best' tactic, and I think a hybrid tactic is better than the one you're proposing as it let's you get more.
Historical maritime commerce is an area of interest for me - and the game mechanics agree with some popular perceptions.

In terms of your list of maritime powers, I think you should add England and the Netherlands. Probably Genoa. [Edit: and Denmark maybe too, but I need to read up on that]

Outside EU4's timeframe, Athens, Rhodes, Tyre, Sidon, Crete, and Carthage all were maritime city states that relied on trade fleets for revenue - not land holdings. The existence of maritime powers was fragile, and they rarely became great powers. Which partly explains why a lot of strategy 'optimisers' decry the entire field of sea commerce - the ideas aren't meant for them. They are the Napoleon's of EU4, great on land but relative strangers to sea power and the associated interests of maritime commerce.

However, EU4 lets you copy matime trade tactics: You can construct 474 power trade fleet around midgame: 100 early frigates(3 trade power each), an admiral with 3 manoeuvre (+15% power) merchant marine naval doc (+33%), and private trade fleets(+10%). This is enough to switch control of a coastal node in your favour without having to conquer the whole thing.
If you also know how to get 'free' merchants from Trade Company zones, then you have an availalbe merchant to move trade in the desired direction too (if needed). Pick your target trade node and divert income with few territorial holdings.

If you want to go on a world conquest... well then our goals are very different. Usually the challenge is well-over before the world is one colour.

When do you tend to devote 100 frigates? To a Chinese node or one of the 3 end nodes?

There's one thing to consider here, aside from simple tariffs.
The merchants themselves are not doing much to develop their home region, they are just transporting goods from place to place, earning money with their fee.
But they do concentrate that earned money in their home region, where they'll be buying clothes, furniture, art, estates, etc etc, all kinds of locally produced items.
This creates demand for those goods, which in turn has the workshops and guilds responsible for them driving up recruitment of artisans to meet with supply, increasing wages.
This will increase urbanization, and those artisans will also get taxed, driving up state income as well (probably the effect we can see in the income tab).

That isn't simulated through "production" income as, even without accounting for the abstraction of only one good per province, that production is largely static, only calculating the (mostly static) trade value and goods produced, while in reality that value would be driven up by that wealth flowing in from merchants, as mentioned previously.
That's how italy became so wealthy in the middle ages, then declining when the Mediterranean stopped being the trade center of Europe, and later on it would be a decisive factor leading to the industrial revolution, as increased wages lead to more expensive labor in comparison to the competition in India, making mechanization more competitive.

I guess my biggest pet peeve here would be on how this "greater wealth" doesn't actually translate to development and technology (unless indirectly through allowing you to hire higher level advisors specifically for developing your provinces and buying tech), and how dissociated these systems are down each other when in reality they were very intertwined.
Those systems are still more dependent on your monarch than the social situation of your nation (not mentioning how tech is such a joke, there's no real divergence at the endgame at all).
Ideally, higher wealth compared to production (representing wages per capita) would by itself increase development (urbanization), which in turn would increase tech progression (as a wealthier population is likely to be a more literate one).

There's the urbanisation event where you spend ducats for increased dev, or ignore for unrest, and another for if you have had burghers have high loyalty for a while. Check what the requirements on the wiki are. A real issue with colonist promote development is they cost the same as a normal colony, but the dev growth compared to growing a virgin colony is far slower, as well as the money being better spent on advisors who can give you the monarch points to dev

 

[Battlex]

It has caused power creep because of the additional merchants. You can have 2 or 3 merchants more without going far from your starting point. By collecting trade everywhere, it can be 10 ducats a month more before 1550. (And yes, trade is modelled is such a way that steering is useless in 95% of the situation early game, that's why merchant are so valuable).

Collecting outside the home node gives a malus, that's why steering is better, especially because your conquests typically link up on trade nodes. The new mission trees mean that most people are set up by 1550 now, that's not just on trade company changes

 

[Titanius Puffin]

When do you tend to devote 100 frigates? To a Chinese node or one of the 3 end nodes?

You want me to boast about my fleets? Sure!
My last 'For Odin' used maritime commercial tactics. These numbers are from 1766 - I haven't gone as far as I could.
332 Light ships.
I had a naval force limit of over 800.

I had a 43% trade power bonus per light ship thanks to bonuses mentioned in my earlier post.
Trade multiplier in foreign nodes: +77.9% without merchant (+83% with merchant providing +5%)
Trade multiplier in home node: +177.9%

Fleets:
Lubeck trade node :
'Oresund Fleet' 81 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 572 trade power from ships. 154% of land trade power.
Land trade power:370, From Denmark and Norway
Percentage trade power: 57% - other traders Lubeck, 15%; Hannover 12%; Pommerania 6%
Cost of trade fleet: 4.05 ducats
Income sent forward: 61.09 ducats

North Sea Node:
'North Sea Squadron' 73 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 512 trade power from ships. 125% of land trade power.
Land trade power: 408, From Norway, Scotland, Ireland, and north England
Percentage trade power: 87%% - other traders Lubeck, 15%; Hannover 12%; Pommerania 6%
Cost of trade fleet: 3.65 ducats
Income sent forward: 73.88 ducats

Chesapeake Bay trade node: ( frankly it's too small - I could easily get more out of this node)
'Storm Fleet' 27 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 193 trade power from ships. 85% of trade power from colonies & vassals (once multiplied again by 1.83).
Land trade power: nil- fleet basing provided by colonial nations
Trade power from colonies: 418
Percentage trade power: 57% - other traders Storm Coast(vassal), 20%; United States 8%; Pirates 7%
Cost of trade fleet: 1.37 ducats
Income sent forward: 47.37 ducats

English Channel Node:
'Channel Squadron' 71 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 506 trade power from ships. 81% of land trade power.
Land trade power: 628.3 From England only
Percentage trade power: 78% - other traders Rev. France 9%, Rev Liege 4%
Cost of trade fleet: 3.55 ducats
Income Earned in node: 420 ducats (Home node)

Kingdom Revenue: 670.15 ducats
Balance: +195.82 ducats
National Savings: 77,000 ducats

The ivory coast is under my control 51%, but could use some attention from my ships to get 25% more or so.
Currently I have 64 ducats coming from that direction.

Going back to my previous point: 100 Frigates cost 5 ducats to maintain. It's nothing.
I could make that money back (and more) by sending a fleet to the Carribbean, Panama, Ivory Coast, Zanzibar, the Gulf of Aden, or Malacca
By the mid-to-late game making 5 ducats by diverting trade is easy- sometimes you'll need a merchant, but sometimes not even that.

I also have 177 heavies eat your heart out Britannia!
Anyway, I was kind of losing motivation by this point... I felt like I'd won. But you can definitely go harder, and I believe I have in the past.

 

[Akela]

You guys are not understanding the biggest issue with the current trade system. The one producing and selling the goods are the ones making money, not the person in Europe who buys it. The trade flows work if you are an empire with colonies in nodes downstream, but in a regular map it makes no sense. So you're telling me that merchants from China go to Malacca, sell goods, and then the money ends up in Malacca's bank? Oh definitely, it makes total sense for those Genoans to be making more money from Iberians becoming more developed and showering in Mexican gold.

Nah, you're not thinking enough like a ruthless bastard.

At game start, yeah, the ones producing and selling goods are the ones making money - which is represented by the fact that trade value mostly doesn't move; it's all getting collected locally.

Then foreign merchants start turning up and parking armed warships outside the city with their cannons pointed at the governor's palace, or offering special gifts to politicians if they'll just sign this one little piece of paper, and generally trying to get hooks into as many people as possible. Then the 'offers you can't refuse' start, and soon they're buying everything in sight basically at-cost (so the ones doing the manufacturing aren't making much money now, because they're effectively getting paid nothing) and shipping it off to their home ports to make astronomical profits - and that's when the trade value really starts moving.

If the Iberians actually control their own economy, the Genoans don't make more money from that Mexican gold, because it all gets collected in Sevilla and doesn't ever reach the Genoa node. But they usually don't control their own economy fully, so value does get siphoned off to the next node down the line.

The fact that a powerful Asian empire can't reverse the trade flows and do the same stuff to Europe, yeah, that's a flaw in the system. The fact that the trade system allows people to make vast fortunes by leeching off other people's hard work? That's just an accurate representation of the historical reality.

 

[cetvrtak]

You want me to boast about my fleets? Sure!
My last 'For Odin' used maritime commercial tactics. These numbers are from 1766 - I haven't gone as far as I could.
332 Light ships.
I had a naval force limit of over 800.

I had a 43% trade power bonus per light ship thanks to bonuses mentioned in my earlier post.
Trade multiplier in foreign nodes: +77.9% without merchant (+83% with merchant providing +5%)
Trade multiplier in home node: +177.9%

Fleets:
Lubeck trade node :
'Oresund Fleet' 81 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 572 trade power from ships. 154% of land trade power.
Land trade power:370, From Denmark and Norway
Percentage trade power: 57% - other traders Lubeck, 15%; Hannover 12%; Pommerania 6%
Cost of trade fleet: 4.05 ducats
Income sent forward: 61.09 ducats

North Sea Node:
'North Sea Squadron' 73 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 512 trade power from ships. 125% of land trade power.
Land trade power: 408, From Norway, Scotland, Ireland, and north England
Percentage trade power: 87%% - other traders Lubeck, 15%; Hannover 12%; Pommerania 6%
Cost of trade fleet: 3.65 ducats
Income sent forward: 73.88 ducats

Chesapeake Bay trade node: ( frankly it's too small - I could easily get more out of this node)
'Storm Fleet' 27 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 193 trade power from ships. 85% of trade power from colonies & vassals (once multiplied again by 1.83).
Land trade power: nil- fleet basing provided by colonial nations
Trade power from colonies: 418
Percentage trade power: 57% - other traders Storm Coast(vassal), 20%; United States 8%; Pirates 7%
Cost of trade fleet: 1.37 ducats
Income sent forward: 47.37 ducats

English Channel Node:
'Channel Squadron' 71 Great Frigates at 5 trade power each * 1.43: 506 trade power from ships. 81% of land trade power.
Land trade power: 628.3 From England only
Percentage trade power: 78% - other traders Rev. France 9%, Rev Liege 4%
Cost of trade fleet: 3.55 ducats
Income Earned in node: 420 ducats (Home node)

Kingdom Revenue: 670.15 ducats
Balance: +195.82 ducats
National Savings: 77,000 ducats

The ivory coast is under my control 51%, but could use some attention from my ships to get 25% more or so.
Currently I have 64 ducats coming from that direction.

Going back to my previous point: 100 Frigates cost 5 ducats to maintain. It's nothing.
I could make that money back (and more) by sending a fleet to the Carribbean, Panama, Ivory Coast, Zanzibar, the Gulf of Aden, or Malacca
By the mid-to-late game making 5 ducats by diverting trade is easy- sometimes you'll need a merchant, but sometimes not even that.

I also have 177 heavies eat your heart out Britannia!
Anyway, I was kind of losing motivation by this point... I felt like I'd won. But you can definitely go harder, and I believe I have in the past.

Rule Britannia!

 

[Vohen]

There's the urbanisation event where you spend ducats for increased dev, or ignore for unrest, and another for if you have had burghers have high loyalty for a while. Check what the requirements on the wiki are.

You mean these?

Industrialization events - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

I think it barely counts, and swaps cause and effect.
It's not industrialization that brings development, it's the other way around.
Wealth brings higher wages, which encourages urbanization, which in turn, given the right conditions, forments innovation and, eventually, industrialization.
In gameplay terms, that'd be trade -> development -> tech.
Simulating something this important and integral to the time period through some very barebones events instead of fluid mechanics is very far from ideal.
Understandable in old PDX games due to technical limitations, but EU4 could do better, and hopefully EU5 will.

 

[Battlex]

You mean these?

Industrialization events - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

I think it barely counts, and swaps cause and effect.
It's not industrialization that brings development, it's the other way around.
Wealth brings higher wages, which encourages urbanization, which in turn, given the right conditions, forments innovation and, eventually, industrialization.
In gameplay terms, that'd be trade -> development -> tech.
Simulating something this important and integral to the time period through some very barebones events instead of fluid mechanics is very far from ideal.
Understandable in old PDX games due to technical limitations, but EU4 could do better, and hopefully EU5 will.

I'm just pointing out what we currently have that kinda meets it, even if far from perfect

 

[Don_Quigleone]

The key to accurately representing trade is accurately representing trade. Right now its so abstract its impossible to really know what each thing represents in real life, or even what "trade value" really is.

Instead, they should represent actual trade IE buy low sell high. Have each trade region have a "demand" for each good, different provinces produce different degrees of supply, have the price for a good in a region determined by the ratio of supply to demand, and then have trade be assigning trade ships/caravans to different routes between trade zones that move goods from one to the other, and generate income based on the difference in price. The system would automatically ship the goods that generate the highest profits.

This would be a better system that's far more intuitively understood by everyone.

This would involve many extra calculations, but there are plenty of ways that they could simplify these while achieving 90% of the effect (eg eliminating certain trade goods, simple largely static demand factors, performing key calculations infrequently, reduce the number of trade zones.

Once such a system was in place you could layer features on top of it (eg who has trade rights to buy/sell in a given trade zones, paying a country for a trade monopoly etc.)

 

[grommile]

This would be a better system that's far more intuitively understood by everyone.

And then awkward gits like me pipe up with "what about shipping costs?"

 

[FrogCrusher]

Collecting outside the home node gives a malus, that's why steering is better, especially because your conquests typically link up on trade nodes. The new mission trees mean that most people are set up by 1550 now, that's not just on trade company changes

I know that. As I said, you're wrong in 95% of the case. Steering is advantageous only if you hardly control all the chain. In my current Danish campaign, I went from 6 ducats to 10 ducats (60% more !!!) Only by putting my merchant from steering to collect in 1465. Just test by yourself. Even in mid 1600 it is often better in term of trade income to collect in 10 nodes than steering in 9 nodes and collecting in your home node.

 

[Battlex]

The key to accurately representing trade is accurately representing trade. Right now its so abstract its impossible to really know what each thing represents in real life, or even what "trade value" really is.

Instead, they should represent actual trade IE buy low sell high. Have each trade region have a "demand" for each good, different provinces produce different degrees of supply, have the price for a good in a region determined by the ratio of supply to demand, and then have trade be assigning trade ships/caravans to different routes between trade zones that move goods from one to the other, and generate income based on the difference in price. The system would automatically ship the goods that generate the highest profits.

This would be a better system that's far more intuitively understood by everyone.

This would involve many extra calculations, but there are plenty of ways that they could simplify these while achieving 90% of the effect (eg eliminating certain trade goods, simple largely static demand factors, performing key calculations infrequently, reduce the number of trade zones.

Once such a system was in place you could layer features on top of it (eg who has trade rights to buy/sell in a given trade zones, paying a country for a trade monopoly etc.)

Varying how trade works between different countries would be great rather than the current:
None
Transfer up to 50% trade power
Embargo
Privateer
Especially as trade privleiges being given to the French within the Spanish empire is why England and the Dutch join the war of Spanish succession

 

[cetvrtak]

The key to accurately representing trade is accurately representing trade. Right now its so abstract its impossible to really know what each thing represents in real life, or even what "trade value" really is.

Instead, they should represent actual trade IE buy low sell high. Have each trade region have a "demand" for each good, different provinces produce different degrees of supply, have the price for a good in a region determined by the ratio of supply to demand, and then have trade be assigning trade ships/caravans to different routes between trade zones that move goods from one to the other, and generate income based on the difference in price. The system would automatically ship the goods that generate the highest profits.

This would be a better system that's far more intuitively understood by everyone.

This would involve many extra calculations, but there are plenty of ways that they could simplify these while achieving 90% of the effect (eg eliminating certain trade goods, simple largely static demand factors, performing key calculations infrequently, reduce the number of trade zones.

Once such a system was in place you could layer features on top of it (eg who has trade rights to buy/sell in a given trade zones, paying a country for a trade monopoly etc.)

Maybe even have little people that actually consume those goods, and if they can't get their needs satisfied they get a bit militant. But if they do, oh boy, do they pay good taxes on it.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

Nah, you're not thinking enough like a ruthless bastard.

At game start, yeah, the ones producing and selling goods are the ones making money - which is represented by the fact that trade value mostly doesn't move; it's all getting collected locally.

Then foreign merchants start turning up and parking armed warships outside the city with their cannons pointed at the governor's palace, or offering special gifts to politicians if they'll just sign this one little piece of paper, and generally trying to get hooks into as many people as possible. Then the 'offers you can't refuse' start, and soon they're buying everything in sight basically at-cost (so the ones doing the manufacturing aren't making much money now, because they're effectively getting paid nothing) and shipping it off to their home ports to make astronomical profits - and that's when the trade value really starts moving.

If the Iberians actually control their own economy, the Genoans don't make more money from that Mexican gold, because it all gets collected in Sevilla and doesn't ever reach the Genoa node. But they usually don't control their own economy fully, so value does get siphoned off to the next node down the line.

The fact that a powerful Asian empire can't reverse the trade flows and do the same stuff to Europe, yeah, that's a flaw in the system. The fact that the trade system allows people to make vast fortunes by leeching off other people's hard work? That's just an accurate representation of the historical reality.

Static trade directions makes this entire argument really stupid. The best way for Iberia to "control their trade" is to straight up annex Genoa node for themself. Wealth gets moved by things you have no control over, such as Transfers from Traders Downstream and especially Caravan Power. Why is the Channel and Italy the ultimate end of this supoosed scandalous behavior? The answer is that it isn't, the current trade system is just an old relic of a Euro-focused EU4.

 

[Battlex]

Static trade directions makes this entire argument really stupid. The best way for Iberia to "control their trade" is to straight up annex Genoa node for themself. Wealth gets moved by things you have no control over, such as Transfers from Traders Downstream and especially Caravan Power. Why is the Channel and Italy the ultimate end of this supoosed scandalous behavior? The answer is that it isn't, the current trade system is just an old relic of a Euro-focused EU4.

Because as said before there needs to be someway to prevent integer overflow. End nodes in America, Asia, and Africa would still ultimately cause trade from that node to not go to any of the other continents and so be arbitrary still.