The economics update is perfectly timed

[AlexNereča]

2) logistics rework to stop Australia to London shipping being as cheap as Dublin to London (the 1.9 rework will likely be one-sided, as what we really need is intermarket trade improved and intramarket trade nerfed, and we will only get the former)

It would seem almost an oversight to bring the 'market areas' feature to the forefront of trade gameplay and then not implement some limited changes for intramarket trade. I mean they're also changing around what convoys do as well so it would be a bit strange as well to look past it, though who knows how much more developmental overhead this would cost...

---

I don’t care much for interventions (unless I misunderstood what you mean by the word, is this interfering in the ongoing war?) While it certainly would be realistic, it requires breaking core game principles and IMO isn’t worth it.

Regarding that...

Long term yes, short term no. This has to be done in such a way that it doesn't completely invalidate the diplomatic plays or makes it utterly unpredictable who will be your enemies in a war.

 

[Jamey]

3. there are still bugs from previous updates that will not be fixed until next update+expansion

i would believe a very very very very very few people actually think reworking trade is a bad idea.

This exactly.

I want a working military system first. That doesn’t mean I don’t want improved trade…

 

[Bisonmask]

Well, agree to disagree.
I don’t care much for interventions (unless I misunderstood what you mean by the word, is this interfering in the ongoing war?) While it certainly would be realistic, it requires breaking core game principles and IMO isn’t worth it.

Yes, and I think those core gameplay principles were poorly determined here. Intervention was a major tool used by all GPs and MajPs during this period to both establish their status and keep their rivals down. Persia just eats Afghanistan in half of my games and the British and Russians just allow that to happen which is nonsense

Getting around GPs shouldn't be a situation where you flip a coin and hope they don't have an interest somewhere, it should be a problem you have to handle in order to carry out your geopolitical goals

Other points do resonate with me, that’s true. Still, I prioritise them less.

My argument wasn’t that international loans are that important. It’s that if there is an economic problem that can be solved with them (e.g. countries struggling to dump their late-game money effectively, which is admittedly not very realistic, but will do as an example), then they are worth being prioritised higher.
A better argument goes for techs: they are not terrible per se and do the job. However, we desperately need more differentiation in labour efficiency, and doing this through a sort of V2-like invention system sounds logical, and that’s why I would support a tech rework, although it’s only tangentially related to economy.

I don't think the tech system is as bad as you think it is, single player is just overly easy. And the trade system should impede minor power industrialization more than you already can. In multiplayer existing comparative advantage in technology is enough to get backward powers to mostly produce agrarian goods while their bloc leaders handle manufacturing

This could be improved but I don't think that would require reworking tech in any substantial way

I support that some things are so unfinished even in 2025, that they should take priority regardless, like land fronts. But apart from that, I think there’s a good track record on economy-first updates that have these tangent improvements to all other aspects, and not-as-stellar track record on other types of updates (movements are passable, power blocs suck outright, agitators are gamey etc).

True but I think they have a good track record because they've been handling items that have an enormous impact and as more adjustments are made there are fewer big ticket items to get

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Yes, and I think those core gameplay principles were poorly determined here. Intervention was a major tool used by all GPs and MajPs during this period to both establish their status and keep their rivals down.

How major was it then?

The European powers took all of Africa and much of Asia, and they wernt in their hairs all the time over it. I cannot think of all that much examples in this time period where a country would have tried to invade an other and would be stopped trough the intervention of a third, there were some cases as a Belgian i can obviously attest to it but i dont see that happening for all that many conflicts especially outside Europe.

 

[Bisonmask]

How major was it then?

The European powers took all of Africa and much of Asia, and they wernt in their hairs all the time over it. I cannot think of all that much examples in this time period where a country would have tried to invade an other and would be stopped trough the intervention of a third, there were some cases as a Belgian i can obviously attest to it but i dont see that happening for all that many conflicts especially outside Europe.

Them taking over those places was, in many cases, through intervention. Fx the British takeover of Yorubaland was due to them being invited by local rulers on the losing side of a civil war. They basically entered the war by being offered protectorate status to help in a unification play like the ones the game has in Ethiopia

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Them taking over those places was, in many cases, through intervention.

Sounds very Roman, they also build their whole empire trough self defense. Oh look the Germans are crossing the Rhine, time for Caesar to intervene right?

i'm not convinced though that intervention against other significant powers was so common. i mean your talking about interventionism here versus rebels of Yorubaland, it doesnt really compare in strenght when it comes to Persia versus Afhanistan and even that was a particular hot zone due to the "great game" but Persia did in fact invade Afhanistan around 1836. Indeed the lingering matter of Herat would later spark the Anglo Persian war but that was like 30 years later. its not like the great game stays a passive matter in my games either, persia tends to have a desire to conquer Afhanistan but Brittain often intervenes in that region even to the point of controlling Afhanistan itself.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

it doesnt really compare in strenght when it comes to Persia versus Afhanistan

How about intervening in Mexican affairs/civil war because they were "invited" by one side? France conquered Indochina under the excuse of "they were expelling Catholics."

European powers would take any excuse that suited them to get involved in a war and conquer/subjugate the people/territory they wanted. I do agree that they should be less willing to take Chinese states, but France fully annexed 6 states in Indochina and created a colony to manage it, so perhaps we need something akin to trade companies in EU4/existing "colonial administrations" in Africa, but for the rest of the world?

 

[Znikii]

I miss when most building produced more then one good....

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

How about intervening in Mexican affairs/civil war because they were "invited" by one side? France conquered Indochina under the excuse of "they were expelling Catholics."

European powers would take any excuse that suited them to get involved in a war and conquer/subjugate the people/territory they wanted. I do agree that they should be less willing to take Chinese states, but France fully annexed 6 states in Indochina and created a colony to manage it, so perhaps we need something akin to trade companies in EU4/existing "colonial administrations" in Africa, but for the rest of the world?

It's not really my point, i have no issue to them taking those areas trough "some pretext". The person i replied to, bisonmask, used intervention in the context to acting against the colonial aggression of another, aka "to keep their rivals down", and its to that which i was replying:

Intervention was a major tool used by all GPs and MajPs during this period to both establish their status and keep their rivals down. Persia just eats Afghanistan in half of my games and the British and Russians just allow that to happen which is nonsense

The point that you could make out of this is that the Uk did not stop the french from taking Vietnam, or any other GP, even if that was quite the landgrab. It matters for the context of the discussion that was had there, even if Bisonmask didn not always differentiate clearly enough between one and the other. There is a big difference to "interverne" as a pretext to agression where no other power meddles, and to "intervene" as a way to stop another power to apply aggression for some gain in power. When it comes to the latter, its much more a matter of how relations in power are as to how likely a country will even intervene upon the aggression of another. Bisonmask then claims that there is no way that Britain and Russia would stand asside from Persia conquering Afhanistan, whereas there is some historical relevance to consider in that matter that seems something that is perhaps debatable within the context of a possible alt-history scenario that the game in its non railroaded form is.

Thats all diplomacy related though, and straying from the topic really. This was about the economics update right?

 

[PedroLuiz]

2) logistics rework to stop Australia to London shipping being as cheap as Dublin to London (the 1.9 rework will likely be one-sided, as what we really need is intermarket trade improved and intramarket trade nerfed, and we will only get the former)

It isn't? Port connections are super expensive

 

[yurcick]

It isn't? Port connections are super expensive

Last time I consciously checked, they weren’t.
This wasn’t recently, I have to admit.

The way they are designed suggests that they could be significant if you have a lot of market members (or some very large market members) that are overseas from the market capital. Maybe I just haven’t had a Britain playthrough in a long time.

Anyway, while port connection costs are nice computationally (just add a shipping multiplier to the output), they are fundamentally flawed.
Even if we somehow accept that there are limited convoys and that they are financed by the government (which is very weird in itself), still, when we consider adding new country to the market, we should think of how the goods flow will change and whether we can afford that. Not whether a self-sufficient partner is large enough to tank our market.
In a hypothetical situation where all prices are the same between two markets, joining them together should be a convoy-neutral action. When it’s not, all sorts of weirdness are introduced.

I still think it’s more convenient and beneficial to add countries to the market rather than trade between markets (maybe this will change in 1.9), but my complaints with the system are larger than that (and are not going anywhere in 1.9, unfortunately).

P.S.: and by the way, unless I either misunderstand some fundamental thing or wrong about how the Irish Sea works specifically, this doesn't really refute my originally-worded complaint. Regardless of whether port connections are expensive or not, they still are the same for Dublin and Sydney for a unit of goods produced (not even "for goods shipped", as nothing like that even exists for intramarket shipping).

 

[Amina144]

My always problem with this game is how connection through sea cost more than connections through land, which is literally opposite of real life. Russia can have a market that stretches all the way to China and into Egypt through middle east with no cost what so ever. Meanwhile sometimes Belgium can barely connect to British market across the sea.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

It isn't? Port connections are super expensive

Afaik with certain power bloc ideas (internal trade afaik) a colonial overlord can have his colonial subjects provide more convoys than port connection take up.

My always problem with this game is how connection through sea cost more than connections through land, which is literally opposite of real life. Russia can have a market that stretches all the way to China and into Egypt through middle east with no cost what so ever. Meanwhile sometimes Belgium can barely connect to British market across the sea.

I might look how that could possibly be altered with a mod that might be easy to make, that might give +5 land trade modifier per level of railroad build and then sets starting land trade limit at something like 20.

 

[ingenieux]

How about intervening in Mexican affairs/civil war because they were "invited" by one side? France conquered Indochina under the excuse of "they were expelling Catholics."

European powers would take any excuse that suited them to get involved in a war and conquer/subjugate the people/territory they wanted. I do agree that they should be less willing to take Chinese states, but France fully annexed 6 states in Indochina and created a colony to manage it, so perhaps we need something akin to trade companies in EU4/existing "colonial administrations" in Africa, but for the rest of the world?

I'd like the ability to create subjects from whatever states and give them whatever guidance we want, either administrative or through local rulers or other. I did begin to think (i've stopped since) on what it could look like and if that could be intertwined with power blocs ; that would require a change on both subjects and power blocs.

 

[Desseabar]

How about intervening in Mexican affairs/civil war because they were "invited" by one side? France conquered Indochina under the excuse of "they were expelling Catholics."

European powers would take any excuse that suited them to get involved in a war and conquer/subjugate the people/territory they wanted. I do agree that they should be less willing to take Chinese states, but France fully annexed 6 states in Indochina and created a colony to manage it, so perhaps we need something akin to trade companies in EU4/existing "colonial administrations" in Africa, but for the rest of the world?

The point here is more that Europeans needed at least a semblance of legitimacy and opportunism in these conflicts.

It wasn't acceptable to the British populace nor to the other great powers for Britain to arbitrarily declare war "just because." The first Opium War was only passed by 9 votes in Westminster, as an example.

Put into game terms: colonialism and wars need to be limited by domestic politics. An anti-German lobby should be more likely to approve conflict/war goals against Germany, while a religious interest group should be more motivated to avenge missionaries killed in Vietnam.