Make proximity matter more for market access/influence (through rivers and coasts)

[Sulphurologist]

The current market influence/access mechanic is tied to market attraction (TT #10), but is also very strongly tied to proximity, control, and maritime presence (TT #6), where the geographical factor of trade (proximity) seems to take a backseat versus control and maritime presence. EDIT: Maritime presence was more thoroughly explained in TT #24.

Seas and Rivers were king in determining the extent of trade influences, and for lighter goods major roads were next in line. So I advocate that aquatic transport should be a lot stronger than overland routes (without roads), regardless of your share of maritime presence. Market access decrease should be slow along these major arteries, and drop off more quickly in regular overland routes. Similarly, markets should be able to extend further along these major arteries, instead of simply radially around market centres.

In summary of my exposition below:
A location should belong to a certain market due to a combination of proximity and market attraction, of which proximity should impact market access. Rivers need to boost the proximity factor a lot more. At the moment, this is achieved by always having 100% maritime presence along MAJOR rivers.
Control should on the other hand determine the amount of wealth you can extract from a location, where the excess is 'lost' to the local pops.
Maritime presence in your own and a foreign markets should indeed increase your merchant power in those markets. However, low maritime presence in your own locations should only be detrimental during wartime or trade conflicts. In peacetime, it should be beneficial that foreign markets visit your locations for trade.

With money earnt from other markets you can then invest in your own market(s) through infrastructure and buildings.
- Infrastructure (roads, investments towards development) benefit proximity, which if not enough to flip a location to your own market, should increase your control and market access, further increasing the profits of that location.
- Buildings built within your own market increase your own market attraction, which can make a location flip to a more distant wealthy market, despite closer proximity to less wealthy markets. Market attraction should not be too OP in this regard, however.

Feedback Germany thread's market map mode	Overlay with major rivers (rivers with discharge of >100 m³/s) Note odd truncations like in Northern Austria, which ignore more intuitive patterns

For instance, I'm surprised about:
- Calais, Béthune, Arras,... being part of the Paris market, while sea tiles and major rivers are nearby.
- Northern Austria being part of the Venice node with low market access seems odd, when the neighboring Prague and Pest locations have high market access.

Proximity

It is basically a distance to capital value, where traveling on the open sea is extremely costly. Proximity is costly over land, but along coastlines where you have a high maritime presence you can keep a high proximity much further. Tracing proximity along a major river reduces the proximity cost a fair bit, and if you build a road network that will further reduce the proximity costs.

[EDIT] TT#24: Importance of Maritime Presence
First of all, we need to get back to the importance of maritime presence and naval capacity in Project Caesar. Before you can get advanced road networks through your country, your proximity propagation is much faster through places where you have maritime presence. Any seazone where you have no maritime presence OR a location without any road network costs about 40 ‘proximity’ to traverse through, which basically means you can not propagate any control more than 3 locations away. Of course, there are things that impact your proximity costs per location, like topography, vegetation, development and societal values as well.
For a coastal seazone, if you have 100% maritime presence, the base cost is 5 per location. If you have less than 100% maritime presence it will scale the price accordingly. So at 33% maritime presence, and you have no other modifiers, it would cost 0.33*5 + 0.67*40, i.e. about 28.45.
Lakes and Major Rivers are always considered to be 100% maritime presence sea zones for proximity calculations and market access calculations.

Regardless of which market a location belongs to, market access should be tied to proximity to that market.
Imo a major issue is that maritime routes, river routes and lastly major roads seem to have little influence in the market calculations atm. The trade along the Danube (and several other rivers) seems to be split into several markets, regardless of the proximity factor. The reality is that Goods are more cumbersome to transport than humans, and putting them on a ship along a river is immensely more efficient. Trade is therefore immensely impacted by geography, and therefore proximity. Regardless of the factors that definte a state's control on the market, proximity factor should be much more important, if not the most important.

Market Access
However, a neighboring, very attractive market could make it worthwile for a location to switch to that market, despite a potentially more efficient route somewhere else. However, transport efficiency is a major factor for trade, so the more attractive market has to be proportionately very attractive, or the flippable location should be on the edge of proximity of both markets.

Control

Every location that you own has a control value, which is primarily determined by the proximity it has to the capital,...

[...] it directly impacts how much you can tax the population in that location, and the amount of levies they will contribute when called. A lack of control, reduces the crown power you gain from its population, while also reduces the potential manpower and sailors you can get, and weakens the market attraction of your own markets, making them likelier to belong to foreign markets if they have too low control.

What I find odd is that currently the state control/ownership of a location interferes with the trade potential of a location. A lot of trade occurred across borders, and while revolts, wars and embargoes obviously influenced the effectiveness of the market, several autonomous cities and regions were very wealthy due to trade, regardless of the state control. Regardless of how well the state can extract money from a location, the location itself will still flourish. Wealthy trade centres often had a high degree of autonomy, because they were so good at trading. While the rate of taxation was perhaps lower, due to the sheer wealth, that low rate was still a lot of money for the state.

One such example is Ghent, which became the most populated city in Northern Europe after Paris, because all regional trade had to move through the city due to its crucial positioning on the crossroads between Bruges, Antwerp and upstream rivers. The city was very autonomous in 1337 (even revolting and ousting the count in 1338-1345), yet trade flourished.
Similarly, regardless that of France recently acquiring Lille, and positioning lots of troops (and presumably a high level of control in game), the matter of the fact is that the goods of Lille were dominantly traded along the Lys river and were reliant on the market of Bruges.

Maritime presence

In every coastal location around your locations, or where you have special buildings, you have a maritime presence. This is slowly built up over time based on your ports and other buildings you have in adjacent locations. Placing a navy in the location helps improve it quicker, but blockades and pirates will decrease it quickly, making it absolutely vital to protect your coastlines in a war, or you’ll suffer the consequences for a long time. Maritime presence impacts the proximity calculations, but it also impacts the power of your merchants in the market the seazone is a part of.

Maritime presence is a very cool concept, but atm, it severely depends on the maritime presence of the market owner on how far the market can reach (if I understand it correctly). I think it would be better to have a clear distinction of its effect in peace time versus wartime or trade conflicts. During peace, high maritime presence of other (peaceful) nations in your market should be beneficial for the local wealth. Low maritime presence slows/limits control growth in peace time, so is dangerous to neglect. In wartime, an overpowering maritime presence of the enemy should indeed tank your control, while blockades eliminate the coastal aspect of the proximity calculation.
- a fully blockaded zeeland should have low market access to Bruges, while still remaining in the Bruges node.

Take Bruges as an example: Bruges was a one of the most wealthiest trade hubs of the time period, because it was situated on the crossroads between the mediterranean market (mostly due to Genoa by sea and by road through Champagne), Baltic market (due to the Hansa), and Cologne (through a major overland road between Bruges-Mechelen-Keulen). Regardless of how many ships / maritime presence the County of Flanders had, Bruges was rich because of the maritime presence of others.
However, Bruges was easily blockaded several times in the 1300s (100 years way, conflict with the Hansa, Austrian Succession war with Burgundy,...). Due to its low maritime presence it could not safeguard its own trade in wartime, with limited regrowth afterwards, which led to the eventual decline in favor of Antwerp, and later Amsterdam.

 

[taylor320]

Be aware that these are the markets at the start of the game and that there are likely advances and buildings that increase the strength of maritime trade compared to overland routes as the game progresses. Even then in 1337 the Seville market is able to reach all the way to the coast of West Africa, though the markets balance is ever changing so who knows how representative this is of the final product (TM #14).

 

[Sulphurologist]

Be aware that these are the markets at the start of the game and that there are likely advances and buildings that increase the strength of maritime trade compared to overland routes as the game progresses. Even then in 1337 the Seville market is able to reach all the way to the coast of West Africa, though the markets balance is ever changing so who knows how representative this is of the final product (TM #14).

I agree, maritime trade shouldn't be that strong at the start of the game, (although it was definitely established by this point in time), but should definitely ramp up as time progresses.
But as a base, aquatic trade (especially along rivers) is just too weak atm, as that wasn't very reliant on technology/advances (with the exception of cranes).

The Bruges market should be very strong at game start though, and the fact that it is lacking in TM Feedback Germany currently, is why I thought to make this suggestion.

 

[SPb enjoyer]

A little clarification about Austria - it is in the Venetian market due to the embargo from Bohemia and Hungary

And I agree so much about rivers! This is especially evident in Eastern Europe, where trade has always followed the flows of the Volga, Dnieper and Neva rivers, but market maps do not take this into account at all and market access in Kazan, for example, simply decreases radially

 

[MTGian]

Control

What I find odd is that currently the state control/ownership of a location interferes with the trade potential of a location. A lot of trade occurred across borders, and while revolts, wars and embargoes obviously influenced the effectiveness of the market, several autonomous cities and regions were very wealthy due to trade, regardless of the state control. Regardless of how well the state can extract money from a location, the location itself will still flourish. Wealthy trade centres often had a high degree of autonomy, because they were so good at trading. While the rate of taxation was perhaps lower, due to the sheer wealth, that low rate was still a lot of money for the state.

One such example is Ghent, which became the most populated city in Northern Europe after Paris, because all regional trade had to move through the city due to its crucial positioning on the crossroads between Bruges, Antwerp and upstream rivers. The city was very autonomous in 1337 (even revolting and ousting the count in 1338-1345), yet trade flourished.
Similarly, regardless that of France recently acquiring Lille, and positioning lots of troops (and presumably a high level of control in game), the matter of the fact is that the goods of Lille were dominantly traded along the Lys river and were reliant on the market of Bruges.

Yeah, the control TT was one of my biggest disappointments because of this.

I've been hoping that Paradox has just not been explaining control well and that there is something that we are missing. If not and low control areas are just bad, poor, etc, then that will be a major problem for modders to solve. Hopefully, it is solvable.

 

[Ispil]

Yeah, the control TT was one of my biggest disappointments because of this.

I've been hoping that Paradox has just not been explaining control well and that there is something that we are missing. If not and low control areas are just bad, poor, etc, then that will be a major problem for modders to solve. Hopefully, it is solvable.

With how Johan has explained his reasoning, it is 100% the case that low-control locations will be "poorer", because he wanted to have a gameplay model that requires increasing control to gain benefits. If the rich just get to keep more money due to low control but still build there, then control basically doesn't matter.

Now, it is possible to square away this problem. Control doesn't have to necessarily mean "state control", but really just any organized control. There's been a lot of talk of "local privileges" for some estates that boost their estate power in that location considerably. There's no reason that such things can't also boost control, as that sort of "power ceded to the nobility to handle administering this region". In that case, low control doesn't represent the lack of state authority in a region, but the lack of any authority.

There's a reason why a part of Dušan's Code is about villages being held responsible for brigands originating from them, as a way to try to handle legal authority on the frontiers of his empire. That's the sorta thing that control is talking about.

Or at least, it should be.

 

[MTGian]

With how Johan has explained his reasoning, it is 100% the case that low-control locations will be "poorer", because he wanted to have a gameplay model that requires increasing control to gain benefits. If the rich just get to keep more money due to low control but still build there, then control basically doesn't matter.

Now, it is possible to square away this problem. Control doesn't have to necessarily mean "state control", but really just any organized control. There's been a lot of talk of "local privileges" for some estates that boost their estate power in that location considerably. There's no reason that such things can't also boost control, as that sort of "power ceded to the nobility to handle administering this region". In that case, low control doesn't represent the lack of state authority in a region, but the lack of any authority.

There's a reason why a part of Dušan's Code is about villages being held responsible for brigands originating from them, as a way to try to handle legal authority on the frontiers of his empire. That's the sorta thing that control is talking about.

Or at least, it should be.

Control should be interpreted as autonomy. That's how the version worked in M&T that some people think inspired control.

Low control = high autonomy. The state doesn't have enough local resources to enforce its will, which requires that the state cede control to local authority. That means less tax revenue for the state, but it doesn't mean chaos. Local authority could be local nobility, city leaders, etc. Those groups could maintain order, etc. They could invest to benefit themselves. There is no reason that such a situation could not result in affluence.

The player/ruler would still have an incentive to increase control in order to gain control over tax revenue, investments in the area, etc.

This isn't hard. The solution is quite obvious. M&T already does this. I'm not sure why Paradox is being so stubborn.

 

[Ispil]

Control should be interpreted as autonomy. That's how the version worked in M&T that some people think inspired control.

Low control = high autonomy. The state doesn't have enough local resources to enforce its will, which requires that the state cede control to local authority. That means less tax revenue for the state, but it doesn't mean chaos. Local authority could be local nobility, city leaders, etc. Those groups could maintain order, etc. They could invest to benefit themselves. There is no reason that such a situation could not result in affluence.

The player/ruler would still have an incentive to increase control in order to gain control over tax revenue, investments in the area, etc.

This isn't hard. The solution is quite obvious. M&T already does this. I'm not sure why Paradox is being so stubborn.

Problem is then you could just conquer the world with abandon because zero control doesn't actually mean anything other than less tax money. When you have things like estates being the ones responsible for building buildings and the like, it actually becomes beneficial to have less control, because your estates are still building with all that wealth that you're now simply not taxing.

 

[rasakblood]

A location should belong to a certain market due to a combination of proximity and market attraction, of which proximity should impact market access.

Is this not exactly how it functions at the moment? Market attraction uses proximity no? And market access more or less IS proximity modified by infrastructure.

Control presence should on the other hand determine the amount of profit you can extract from a location.

This is already the case? The main point of control is to increase the money you make from taxes. Its why having low control is bad.

Maritime presence in your own and a foreign markets should indeed increase your merchant power in those markets. However, low maritime presence in your own locations should only be detrimental during wartime or trade conflicts. In peacetime, it should be beneficial that foreign markets visit your locations for trade.

Merchant power/trade advantage decides who gets to trade first. So this would only actively give you a penalty in markets you have locations in. So unless you changed what maritime presence actually do this makes little sense.

The benefit from others being active in your provinces market is the extra good they buy with gold. Increasing local buildings profits that you then tax.

So i find myself wondering. What exactly do you want to change?

 

[gaplater]

Problem is then you could just conquer the world with abandon because zero control doesn't actually mean anything other than less tax money. When you have things like estates being the ones responsible for building buildings and the like, it actually becomes beneficial to have less control, because your estates are still building with all that wealth that you're now simply not taxing.

Not really. I mean yeah the economy is still going on, but that money goes to the nobles not to your peasants/burghers, they use it to consume in lavish stuff (won't help if you wan't to create a domestic economy in the very very late game) or to consolidate their own power, and at the end you have a very powerful entrenched nobility who will keep asking for privileges/monopolies and threaten secession if you don't help them. Like imagine a system where the nobles have their own wealth that they can use to raise their own levies. Won't that make it a pain in the *** to do a world conquest ?

 

[SuperLexxe]

Problem is then you could just conquer the world with abandon because zero control doesn't actually mean anything other than less tax money. When you have things like estates being the ones responsible for building buildings and the like, it actually becomes beneficial to have less control, because your estates are still building with all that wealth that you're now simply not taxing.

---

How I understand such a system would prevent blobbing out, is precisely because the estates (and rebels) get maximum benefits from low control areas, giving huge rebel problems for the player.

Low control should empower estates, for good and bad (usually bad for the state).

And low control shouldn't mean that the estates are satisfied with the ruler. It should mean that the ruler is incapable, and in fact actually flare up the ambitions of said estates, demanding more and more privileges from the ruler (Bohemian nobility ruining the country during reign of Wenceslas 'the Idle'), or outright secession.

It's not like the ruler magnanimously granted those estates autonomy (low control) in exchange for loyalty. They are in control by their own power.

---

 

[gaplater]

Control should be interpreted as autonomy. That's how the version worked in M&T that some people think inspired control.

Low control = high autonomy. The state doesn't have enough local resources to enforce its will, which requires that the state cede control to local authority. That means less tax revenue for the state, but it doesn't mean chaos. Local authority could be local nobility, city leaders, etc. Those groups could maintain order, etc. They could invest to benefit themselves. There is no reason that such a situation could not result in affluence.

The player/ruler would still have an incentive to increase control in order to gain control over tax revenue, investments in the area, etc.

This isn't hard. The solution is quite obvious. M&T already does this. I'm not sure why Paradox is being so stubborn.

Yes. My biggest disappointment. I want a game where I feel like I'm doing realistic choices. The control system is really really weird. If I, as let's say Genoa, conquer a port in the Black Sea for my trading ventures, it's obvious that the control there is going to be low, but if we're going by Johan's logic that port will just suddenly lose all its economy, doesn't make any sense.

The idea of a mechanic for "law & order" is interesting, but we need a separate mechanic for local autonomy and local elite power.

 

[Ispil]

How I understand such a system would prevent blobbing out, is precisely because the estates (and rebels) get maximum benefits from low control areas, giving huge rebel problems for the player.

Low control should empower estates, for good and bad (usually bad for the state).

Right, but as long as those estates are happy, then there are no problems.

Not really. I mean yeah the economy is still going on, but that money goes to the nobles not to your peasants/burghers, they use it to consume in lavish stuff (won't help if you wan't to create a domestic economy in the very very late game) or to consolidate their own power, and at the end you have a very powerful entrenched nobility who will keep asking for privileges/monopolies and threaten secession if you don't help them. Like imagine a system where the nobles have their own wealth that they can use to raise their own levies. Won't that make it a pain in the *** to do a world conquest ?

Additionally, because estate money is global and not local, a zero-control economic powerhouse can lift the economy of the areas with high control, indirectly boosting your taxation.

Yes. My biggest disappointment. I want a game where I feel like I'm doing realistic choices. The control system is really really weird. If I, as let's say Genoa, conquer a port in the Black Sea for my trading ventures, it's obvious that the control there is going to be low, but if we're going by Johan's logic that port will just suddenly lose all its economy, doesn't make any sense.

The idea of a mechanic for "law & order" is interesting, but we need a separate mechanic for local autonomy and local elite power.

We do, though. Estate power is local, and global. Hence my suggestion for a local privilege that boosts estate power while also boosting control.

 

[SuperLexxe]

Right, but as long as those estates are happy, then there are no problems.

Additionally, because estate money is global and not local, a zero-control economic powerhouse can lift the economy of the areas with high control, indirectly boosting your taxation.

We do, though. Estate power is local, and global. Hence my suggestion for a local privilege that boosts estate power while also boosting control.

Edited my post. Includes reasons for why estates would not be happy due to low state control.

 

[Ispil]

---

And low control shouldn't mean that the estates are satisfied with the ruler. It should mean that the ruler is incapable, and in fact actually flare up the ambitions of said estates, demanding more and more privileges from the ruler (Bohemian nobility ruining the country during reign of Wenceslas 'the Idle'), or outright secession.

It's not like the ruler magnanimously granted those estates autonomy (low control) in exchange for loyalty. They are in control by their own power.

---

Right, but that's not control. That's crown power, and global estate power.

 

[SuperLexxe]

Right, but that's not control. That's crown power, and global estate power.

---

Sure, but in that system, if the estates of low control areas actually have less resources to combat the state (which seems to be the case currently), then it is actually easier to blob out when your rebels are weaker than they realistically would be if the location wasn't debuffed for no reason. It's not like the economic activities just disappear when the state isn't involved.

When it comes to estate satisfaction, I just don't believe that just because the state, through its incompetence, has allowed the estates to rule and empower themselves in the frontiers, would mean that the estates would somehow be submissive to the state because of it.

---

 

[gaplater]

Right, but that's not control. That's crown power, and global estate power.

Yeah but the problem is that control in PC is linked to proximity ("Every location that you own has a control value, which is primarily determined by the proximity it has to the capital, or another source of authority in your country" from TT6). Why ? Why would the economic activity disappear if I conquer a far away province ? Why would there be chaos in that province ? In M&T the economy would still exist, it's just that the state there has no power, you annexing the province has little to no effect on the economy, lack of control means that a local power provides the control. I know that in PC there is local estate power. What would make sense is that the estates get more local power in locations with low proximity. That's the problem I have with the current control system.

 

[Ispil]

---

Sure, but in that system, if the estates of low control areas actually have less resources to combat the state (which seems to be the case currently), then it is actually easier to blob out when your rebels are weaker than they realistically would be if the location wasn't debuffed for no reason. It's not like the economic activities just disappear when the state isn't involved.

When it comes to estate satisfaction, I just don't believe that just because the state, through its incompetence, has allowed the estates to rule themselves in the frontiers, would mean that the estates would somehow be submissive to the state because of it.

---

The wealth of a location lost due to a lack of control funds rebels. So, low control means faster rebellions for wealthy locations. Issue of course is that low-control locations are naturally trending downwards economically (insomuch that estates, if they're operating by any sense of sanity, aren't going to invest in locations which they stand to make no money from investing).

Yeah but the problem is that control in PC is linked to proximity ("Every location that you own has a control value, which is primarily determined by the proximity it has to the capital, or another source of authority in your country" from TT6). Why ? Why would the economic activity disappear if I conquer a far away province ? Why would there be chaos in that province ? In M&T the economy would still exist, it's just that the state there has no power, you annexing the province has little to no effect on the economy, lack of control means that a local power provides the control. I know that in PC there is local estate power. What would make sense is that the estates get more local power in locations with low proximity. That's the problem I have with the current control system.

Right now there is no "crown power" at the location level at all, since local estate power is what's also used to determine who gets the cut of the location's revenue.

To be clear, I'm just explaining the rationality behind Johan's logic here (and playing a bit of devil's advocate). I don't know what I want to replace the system with, assuming I even have the means to do so. The M&T system of "get less taxes" doesn't really hold up, either, after having thrown myself at so damn much about medieval taxation.

I honestly don't know what control should actually do.

 

[Sulphurologist]

Is this not exactly how it functions at the moment? Market attraction uses proximity no? And market access more or less IS proximity modified by infrastructure.

Market attraction is the general attractiveness for the whole market, which is independent of a location's proximity. Market access is then both combined, as well as other factors, where imo control should not be one of them.

This is already the case? The main point of control is to increase the money you make from taxes. Its why having low control is bad.

I agree on the taxation part, but if control is a metric for autonomy, I don't think that it should contribute to the attractiveness of a market, nor decide the market access.

Merchant power/trade advantage decides who gets to trade first. So this would only actively give you a penalty in markets you have locations in. So unless you changed what maritime presence actually do this makes little sense.

The benefit from others being active in your provinces market is the extra good they buy with gold. Increasing local buildings profits that you then tax.

Trade goes both ways though: they also sell their goods on your market.

So i find myself wondering. What exactly do you want to change?

The title of thread: proximity should matter a lot more to determine a market's sphere of influence, where rivers need a serious buff in proximity effectiveness (at least for trade).

 

[Sulphurologist]

A little clarification about Austria - it is in the Venetian market due to the embargo from Bohemia and Hungary

Ah, that would explain it! So market access to the Prague and Pest Markets are denied, so it is more profitable to trade in the Venetian market at very low market access?
Brutal stuff, love it.