Strategy without conflict? Introduce a little of (trade) geopolitics in Imperator Rome

[ashandresash]

Unlike in other Paradox games, there’s almost no conflict in Imperator Rome, which makes really hard the emergence of strategy. Why would you clash with other powers, other than "painting the map" in their direction? I suggest trade as a good candidate to generate "organic" conflict in IR, but it would need to be revamped.

Three are the main problems I think trade mechanics have in Imperator Rome:

- Trade in IR is an internal issue.
As it is now, trade depends on your social structure basically, with higher classes generating trade routes and their subsequent revenues and bonuses, so... little to no interaction with other countries, and it shouldn't be so.

- Map in IR is “flat”.
EU4 cleverly made of trade a matter of dispute, with predetermined trade nodes, fixed flows connecting them and certain provinces greatly increasinge your trade power in the node. In comparison, IR map is “flat”: trade range is indifferent to geography or development/civilization. This is bad both in simulation and gameplay aspects.

- Trade in IR is a matter of luck.
Once a region is in your range you can import any good available. In fact, getting the good you want is a matter of luck, you only need that nobody is already importing it. It doesn’t make any sense in a strategy game, so a less arbitrary system is needed.

Other Paradox games also features trade, like the aforementioned EU4, Victoria 2 and Stellaris. I think that, rather than a “rigid” model, as EU4’s trade nodes, Victoria 2 and Stellaris bring some ideas to a more dynamic system, like diplomacy playing a central role (Vicky2’s spheres of influence) and investments building your trade network (Stellaris’ starbases). My proposal would be:

- Trademap should be rugged.
Trade range should be drastically reduced, and not only distance but infrastructure and geography should affect it. With no ports, other than trade routes to immediate provinces should be hindered. There could be geographic features increasing or reducing range, and civilization should also play its part, making difficult trade with tribal regions, unless some diplomacy or investments are involved.

- Trade should be a matter of power or influence rather than arbitrary
As it’s great that demand depends on your social structure, supply should not be arbitrary as it is now. Trade power/influence should shape the commercial network of a country, allowing access to foreign goods (or to export yours). Trade agreements should be “actionable” for a country with enough trade power/influence, which could have consequences. Trade power/influence should be built thanks to infrastructure, investments, navies, policies, POP features… as well as by diplomacy.

- Trade should be a matter of two… or more, so diplomacy needs to be involved
Once one country have enough trade power/influence over another it may form trade routes with it, and even take more control of its economy. Those trade agreements wouldn’t be set in stone, and depending on their relative trade power/influence, other countries could adopt actions , like cancelling trade agreements, allowing casus belli, etc. The door should be open to “economic” subjects (with their trade routes now controlled by their overlord), peace treaties reducing trade power/influence over certain countries, embargoes, “closing” a country market for just your exports…

In conclusion, Imperator Rome needs more “organic” conflict, otherwise it could seem just a simulation game where your ultimate goal is to paint the map or build peculiar cities. Improving IR trade mechanic making of it something less flat (making geography and civilization matter), less internal (opened to diplomacy and wars) and less arbitrary (with trade power/influence shaping a country trade network) could help to bring more interaction, and conflict, among countries. There could be sources of conflict others than trade, but I think it is a “natural” way to get it, and developed trade mechanics would also help other features, like diverse economic strategies (taxes vs trade incomes), feed internal conflicts (not all social classes benefit from commerce), cultural and techological exchanges, epidemics through trade routes, etc.

 

[lnCarvalho]

Awesome ideas.

I think the resources should/could be less distributed. Iron, for example (I don't know if it's geographically correct, but...) seems kinda easy to obtain.

It's rare the moments when look to the resources map to decide where I'm going to conquer, and a it should be more impactful think

 

[nachinus]

Great post!

Next step for Imperator is the "Autumn of War", and what the game needs most in this area is to give good reasons to wage wars and engage players. Mission trees are great, but developing organic conflicts between nations within the game mechanics is much more engaging and enrichening for the gameplay experience.

Trade and access to strategic resources should be one of the main reasons of conflict and wars. Maybe there should be regions where a specific resource gives bigger benefits or that work as trade/wealth hubs that make them a very attractive target for conquest or indirect domination for great powers.

More geopolitical and diplomatic depth and 'feel' is the way to go to make the game a more engaging experience.

 

[Rabid]

I've been calling for a massive nerf to overland trade range since day 1. This one small change would make a huge difference, let alone the rest of these fine suggestions. There's a reason why the mediterranean coast was a source of huge wealth to many - the sea gave unparalleled trade opportunities.

 

[Amlet]

Good points, I hope they will not copy the eu4 trade system: it's fun to play that minigame inside eu4 but it is not dynamic.
Best node is English Channel and no chances to revert the direction of the stream between nodes.

 

[ashandresash]

Awesome ideas.

I think the resources should/could be less distributed. Iron, for example (I don't know if it's geographically correct, but...) seems kinda easy to obtain.

It's rare the moments when look to the resources map to decide where I'm going to conquer, and a it should be more impactful think

I agree, I use that mapmode only when I have to decide my next building. It'd be great taking in account not only what you'd be producing in your new territories, but also what trade routes would you have access to.

Great post!

Next step for Imperator is the "Autumn of War", and what the game needs most in this area is to give good reasons to wage wars and engage players. Mission trees are great, but developing organic conflicts between nations within the game mechanics is much more engaging and enrichening for the gameplay experience.

Trade and access to strategic resources should be one of the main reasons of conflict and wars. Maybe there should be regions where a specific resource gives bigger benefits or that work as trade/wealth hubs that make them a very attractive target for conquest or indirect domination for great powers.

More geopolitical and diplomatic depth and 'feel' is the way to go to make the game a more engaging experience.

Hopefully Autumn of War would have a 'Clausewitzean' concept of it (politics by other means) rather than a new layer of modifiers. I think they're making a great job binding several political features of the game... I'd love to see that in other IR's dimensions, like diplomacy-warfare-economy.

Hubs would be great, no doubt of it. Now that Victoria 2 is turning 10 I remember discussions about regional markets... XD

I've been calling for a massive nerf to overland trade range since day 1. This one small change would make a huge difference, let alone the rest of these fine suggestions. There's a reason why the mediterranean coast was a source of huge wealth to many - the sea gave unparalleled trade opportunities.

Sure! I find it annoying, being able to establish a trade route from Rome to a lost tribe in the Gauls the very first day of the game.

Good points, I hope they will not copy the eu4 trade system: it's fun to play that minigame inside eu4 but it is not dynamic.
Best node is English Channel and no chances to revert the direction of the stream between nodes.

Though EU4's trade system worked, as you said it's too determinitic; a more dynamic system would be better.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

You have good points, and good "shoulds", but you havent really outlined a concrete system like other suggestions, I don't know if this is gonna be much helpful to the devs, as Im sure they are aware of the issues you've pointed, but they are having a hard time coming up with a good idea that is realistic to implement within their capabilities.

Here for instance @Lambert2191 makes a good fleshed out suggestion, which I mostly share and agree with.

But yeah, I do agree mostly with you. I think should trade should have some sort of trade area and trade route system (dynamic) that allows those trade areas to be connected so goods can flow across the world, but having to follow a route, not teleporting from one point to another. A mix between victoria international market, but with IR goods instead, and with trade zones like in EU4, with some kind of dynamic CK2 kind of route syste that connects it. Like a power grid you have to connect to to have access to the electricity (trade goods) flowing through it. You can't just get the electicity stright out of the nuclear center. It travels across some points, throug many kilometers and houses and cities and areas until it reaches your house. And all of it influences the costs and profits.

But I think there can't be a trade rework really without a production rework, as outlined in Lamberts post. Trade goods need to become granular, and monthly produced. You no longer produce an infinite unit of grain. You produce 1 a month. And that unit will be consumed monthly by pops. If you increase the production to 1.6 monthly, that excess of 0.6 will go to the trade route, and be sold in the markets where it has demands; monthly. The same with everything.

Now; I understand that making all trade goods granular might be too much; but they could do just like with food, group of trade goods which give a monthly quantity of a certain group set. For instance, military supply, which units consume monthly, just like food. Or luxury goods, which pops consume monthly just like with food. And the surplus will go towards that trade "grid", to supply buyers in the nearest markets where they can pay the price.

I also like your idea of diplomatically influence this. With this like spheres of influence and trade agreements between countries as well as blockade, to block access to certain countries to a trade route or to buy certain goods. As well as making those under your influence give you preferential access to those goods. Trade agreements could be a way to create trade routes or grids within trade zones and even within.

I don't know, many possibilities without needing to turn the game into Victoria 2, but going away from the abstract nonsensical current system.

 

[Basileus2]

Posting in an epic thread. Loving the ideas people are putting forth here, from OP to Lambert's vid.

 

[ashandresash]

You have good points, and good "shoulds", but you havent really outlined a concrete system like other suggestions, I don't know if this is gonna be much helpful to the devs, as Im sure they are aware of the issues you've pointed, but they are having a hard time coming up with a good idea that is realistic to implement within their capabilities.

Here for instance @Lambert2191 makes a good fleshed out suggestion, which I mostly share and agree with.

But yeah, I do agree mostly with you. I think should trade should have some sort of trade area and trade route system (dynamic) that allows those trade areas to be connected so goods can flow across the world, but having to follow a route, not teleporting from one point to another. A mix between victoria international market, but with IR goods instead, and with trade zones like in EU4, with some kind of dynamic CK2 kind of route syste that connects it. Like a power grid you have to connect to to have access to the electricity (trade goods) flowing through it. You can't just get the electicity stright out of the nuclear center. It travels across some points, throug many kilometers and houses and cities and areas until it reaches your house. And all of it influences the costs and profits.

But I think there can't be a trade rework really without a production rework, as outlined in Lamberts post. Trade goods need to become granular, and monthly produced. You no longer produce an infinite unit of grain. You produce 1 a month. And that unit will be consumed monthly by pops. If you increase the production to 1.6 monthly, that excess of 0.6 will go to the trade route, and be sold in the markets where it has demands; monthly. The same with everything.

Now; I understand that making all trade goods granular might be too much; but they could do just like with food, group of trade goods which give a monthly quantity of a certain group set. For instance, military supply, which units consume monthly, just like food. Or luxury goods, which pops consume monthly just like with food. And the surplus will go towards that trade "grid", to supply buyers in the nearest markets where they can pay the price.

I also like your idea of diplomatically influence this. With this like spheres of influence and trade agreements between countries as well as blockade, to block access to certain countries to a trade route or to buy certain goods. As well as making those under your influence give you preferential access to those goods. Trade agreements could be a way to create trade routes or grids within trade zones and even within.

I don't know, many possibilities without needing to turn the game into Victoria 2, but going away from the abstract nonsensical current system.

Thanks for your comments! You are right saying I've not brought in a 'proper proposal'. I just wanted to stress that what IR really needs is not content, graphics or more modifier layers but digging deeper in its strategic core, particularly in what I find more lacking in IR: diplomacy and geopolitics. As economics is my background, I tend to look for economic solutions (you know... if you have a hammer, all seems a nail XD), so I wanted to share some preliminar thoughts on how trade could help.

I agree production should be revisited, and as you said, the way they added food may be a good model. There are also some conflicts and trade-offs there, like an agrarian vs. a commercial economy, or slaveowners' latifundium vs. freemen's small property, which would give the game so many ways to explore in politics, diplomacy, state-bulding... I think a better trade system could be the first step.

Posting in an epic thread. Loving the ideas people are putting forth here, from OP to Lambert's vid.

Thank you! Lambert's video is fantastic (great content in his channel, by the way).

 

[manager2525]

Just a little side suggestion I would like to see implemented regarding trade.
I would love somehow if the AI would prioritize trading with allied and friendly nations (especially for strategic goods like iron, horses, would etc).
Meaning that a nation could send a "please cancel this (strategic) good root since I don't have access to it and I would like to have it" message. This would boost or harm relations accordingly. Furthermore it would help bring diplo and trade closer together.
I do understand that a bit of fine tuneing would be needed to avoid constant break of trade roots or spam of suggestion but I feel it could definitely work out.

 

[Lord Lambert]

(great content in his channel, by the way).

Thank you <3

 

[Kyoumen]

Tin from the British isles was all over the ancient world, even as far as Israel. I'm not sure drastically reducing the trade range is appropriate, although I like the rest of the ideas. Perhaps further away trade routes should be less profitable for the importer.

 

[ashandresash]

Tin from the British isles was all over the ancient world, even as far as Israel. I'm not sure drastically reducing the trade range is appropriate, although I like the rest of the ideas. Perhaps further away trade routes should be less profitable for the importer.

I'm not opposed to long trade routes... once some investment (both in economic and especially in diplomatic/military terms) has been made. This would also help to represent the trade-offs I mentioned above.

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion. A few historical considerations first:

1. Rome and Carthage were in a sense "bound" to clash to death because they were competing for the same prize, influence over the central (i.e. Sicily) and Western Mediterranean. Practically speaking this influence meant being able to control important trade routes, which could benefit them either for strategic reasons (divert/cheapen imports of food or metals) or fiscal ones (being able to exact tolls and fees from merchants).
2. Most of the trade in this period, in whole the mediterranean, was private, i.e. it was not a matter of state. You would not see a governor or ruler deciding the minutiae of what to import. but you would some active interest in trying to control trade centers or to attract merchants/build new trade centers, for the reasons above.
3. A lot of the diplomacy in this period too was devoted to delimiting areas of economic influence, which practically meant that merchants/sailors from one country could or could not trade with some territories. or at least it made much more difficult or easier to do so.

The suggestions that derive from these are:

1. let trade routes (which links) and intensities (how much is traded) be determined by geographical proximity, cultural/religious affinity, diplomatic ties, income level of cities/provinces/countries, in a way that is not immediately shaped by the player
2. make the player's role mostly that of incentivizing/exploiting/directing this trade structure by conquering territories, signing treaties, etc, and by adopting policies and developing cities that attract trade
3. practically, this can be done with basic network/gravity models that economists use (i.e. how close/attractive two places are > how much they trade) , plus the usual modifiers that we see in Imperator (e.g. sign an exclusive trade agreement with a minor state in you area of influence: trade base value +20% between relevant provinces)

The benefit of such a system would be to:
1) give great powers stronger incentive to compete for critical areas that generate a lot of revenue (Rome and Carthage should fight over sicily, rather than attack gauls and iberians; at least not 100% of the time)
2) give the player more reasons to be careful in developing policies/cities/diplomatic ties rather than conquering
3) reduce the imbalance between internal trade route and external one: that internal trade is so much less important than external routes doesn't always make sense: e.g. if Rome conquers the whole historical empire, silver from Spain and wood from Phoenicia would not be less valuable than those imported from outside the empire. the point is how big are the trade flows that cross your territory.

One note to @ashandresash's: I agree that geographical range should matter more, but if you are a great power with a great metropolis (e.g. Rome, Carthage, Alexandria) it's reasonable that some merchants ensured the provisions of exotic goods from far away

 

[ashandresash]

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion. A few historical considerations first:

1. Rome and Carthage were in a sense "bound" to clash to death because they were competing for the same prize, influence over the central (i.e. Sicily) and Western Mediterranean. Practically speaking this influence meant being able to control important trade routes, which could benefit them either for strategic reasons (divert/cheapen imports of food or metals) or fiscal ones (being able to exact tolls and fees from merchants).
2. Most of the trade in this period, in whole the mediterranean, was private, i.e. it was not a matter of state. You would not see a governor or ruler deciding the minutiae of what to import. but you would some active interest in trying to control trade centers or to attract merchants/build new trade centers, for the reasons above.
3. A lot of the diplomacy in this period too was devoted to delimiting areas of economic influence, which practically meant that merchants/sailors from one country could or could not trade with some territories. or at least it made much more difficult or easier to do so.

The suggestions that derive from these are:

1. let trade routes (which links) and intensities (how much is traded) be determined by geographical proximity, cultural/religious affinity, diplomatic ties, income level of cities/provinces/countries, in a way that is not immediately shaped by the player
2. make the player's role mostly that of incentivizing/exploiting/directing this trade structure by conquering territories, signing treaties, etc, and by adopting policies and developing cities that attract trade
3. practically, this can be done with basic network/gravity models that economists use (i.e. how close/attractive two places are > how much they trade) , plus the usual modifiers that we see in Imperator (e.g. sign an exclusive trade agreement with a minor state in you area of influence: trade base value +20% between relevant provinces)

The benefit of such a system would be to:
1) give great powers stronger incentive to compete for critical areas that generate a lot of revenue (Rome and Carthage should fight over sicily, rather than attack gauls and iberians; at least not 100% of the time)
2) give the player more reasons to be careful in developing policies/cities/diplomatic ties rather than conquering
3) reduce the imbalance between internal trade route and external one: that internal trade is so much less important than external routes doesn't always make sense: e.g. if Rome conquers the whole historical empire, silver from Spain and wood from Phoenicia would not be less valuable than those imported from outside the empire. the point is how big are the trade flows that cross your territory.

One note to @ashandresash's: I agree that geographical range should matter more, but if you are a great power with a great metropolis (e.g. Rome, Carthage, Alexandria) it's reasonable that some merchants ensured the provisions of exotic goods from far away

Very good points there...

And sure, trade range should be higher for metropolis, or trade-oriented cities. Ideally they should act as trade centers, controlling access to the goods in their area of influence (a network/gravity model was what I had in mind), so great powers would have an incentive to diplomatically control them, or try to promote their own 'trade center', as Rome did destroying Corinth and encouraging Delos instead.

I'd like trade to be a source of conflict, both external (as you said, by 'areas of influence') and internal. During the Roman Republic there was a pulsion between landowners (slave-based agrarian economy), and equites (more relying on trade and commerce, mining...). Nobles and citizens could represent this conflict, and several laws should favour one activity or another (like taxing land ownership, or reducing political rights of non-landowners, etc.). This would also solve the current situation of nobles being just like 'supercitizens'.

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

Very good points there...

And sure, trade range should be higher for metropolis, or trade-oriented cities. Ideally they should act as trade centers, controlling access to the goods in their area of influence (a network/gravity model was what I had in mind), so great powers would have an incentive to diplomatically control them, or try to promote their own 'trade center', as Rome did destroying Corinth and encouraging Delos instead.

Delos and Corinth are a great example!