Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Allow us to create own trade routes

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 82631 EUIV: Bug Reports 1256 EUIV: Suggestions 19355 EUIV: Technical Support 6865 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Korsan82

Korsan82

Anadolu beylerbeyi
11 Badges
May 15, 2007
998
126
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Since it is still under development you might want to consider (if not already done) to allow creation of own trade routes. If nations decide to use it it will prosper, if not it will vanish.

Creating a route should be as easy as clicking on the origin of the route (your own province) -> establish new trade route -> Select target province -> DONE.
The trade route should be then drawn on map and everything runs fine

This would be a really awesome feature and I'd be very happy to see at least 1 of my suggestions making it into the game!

Keep up the good work, the screenshots look promising!
 
Oh and this makes me think of another great thing:

Allow us to chose which trade route our provinces use. Allow us to connect provinces to a certain main trade route. There should be many side arms of that route and the provinces where the most side arms running together into 1 trade route. Perhaps a province that is the meeting point for many side arms should get a trade bonus (similar to the CoT system).

Seidenstrasse_GMT.jpg

There should be a trade map view which looks like the picture above (silk road). Just to explain in detail what I meant: On that picture you see the main silk road, but its side routes are not in it. For example where does Trebizon trade with? Does it use the silk road? If yes, EUIV mapmode should draw a small line to the silk road there if chosen to trade with that and the main silk road should get thicker with every province joining it.
 
Last edited:
That would indeed be awesome :)
 
That would work if it were wind/terrain dependent. By that I mean that if you choose a route which these discourage, you should pay a cost. That means it'd tend to wither away unless there are countervailing factors. You can't make routes wherever you want.

BTW, I'd love to see the trade winds changed in 3 ways:

1. Make them bi-directional, slowing you down if you're beating into the wind.
2. Make them seasonal.
3. Make them vary in strength.
 
By trade winds you mean winds for sea routes? I was talking about land and sea trade routes, not just sea. Of course there should be limits for creating a new side arm of the route like certain building or technology requirements.
 
Korsan82 said:
By trade winds you mean winds for sea routes? I was talking about land and sea trade routes, not just sea. Of course there should be limits for creating a new side arm of the route like certain building or technology requirements.
Click to expand...

Obviously, with 2 types of routes, there are 2 types of constraints. Trade winds apply at sea; bad terrain on land.

One thing which would be realistic would be if land routes were more effective when the ran along rivers' paths. Some of them, or some parts of them, anyway.

The bottom line, to me, is that there should be inherent map-based reasons why a route is preferable. These might be overcome based on things which happen in-game, as a country which is unable to prevent pirate or brigand interference, or a country which chooses to exclude some or all traders.
 
1alexey said:
What else should head of the state micromanage?

I really fail to see a reason for head of the state to have controll over that. I may agree that he should have the power to close some ports to foreign trade, but that is about all.
Click to expand...

You dont represent the head of state, you are the all knowing force controlling your country.
 
1alexey said:
But you`re basically that person.

I question the idea, that head/the_Spirit will do it any better than the regular, automated system or even fixed trade routes. I also fail to see why merchants should comply.
Click to expand...

Well I hope that there is a good natural flow to trade routes, like they go where it is profitable, and factor in terrain, winds, and different places to buy and sell, like the triangle trade, but I see how that would be hard to do.
 
1alexey said:
What else should head of the state micromanage?

I really fail to see a reason for head of the state to have controll over that. I may agree that he should have the power to close some ports to foreign trade, but that is about all.
Click to expand...

If you argue like that then your head of state should not be able to give commands to your armies every day while they are thousands of miles away fighting. Must be a damn effective communication chain if the leader in Lisboa can tell his troops to go to province A instead of B within 1 day while they are fighting at South America.

Besides, that's not much micromanagement. EU3 gave us not much to do inside our country. Its focus was merely on going to war and conquering. Important meta games like spy wars, missionary wars, trade wars were completely missing. This is just an attempt to fill that gap. Once you set your provinces' trade route you don't have to worry about it again - so it ain't such an annoying micromanagement thing as they the magistrate stuff given in DW.

The aim of EU should always be the next logical and possible step. I seriously don't want to see EU3 with better graphics when they could clearly improve the game in so many areas.. Besides a simple standard "auto assign trade route" on your provinces would solve the problem for those who don't want to bother with it.
 
Korsan82 said:
If you argue like that then your head of state should not be able to give commands to your armies every day while they are thousands of miles away fighting. Must be a damn effective communication chain if the leader in Lisboa can tell his troops to go to province A instead of B within 1 day while they are fighting at South America.
Click to expand...
How are the two conected?
Korsan82 said:
Besides, that's not much micromanagement. EU3 gave us not much to do inside our country. Its focus was merely on going to war and conquering. Important meta games like spy wars, missionary wars, trade wars were completely missing. This is just an attempt to fill that gap. Once you set your provinces' trade route you don't have to worry about it again - so it ain't such an annoying micromanagement thing as they the magistrate stuff given in DW.
Click to expand...
In that case, i think PI is better of fixing the meta game.
 
1alexey said:
How are the two conected?
Click to expand...

Because your argument was that it wasn't something that rulers could do. Rulers can't do that also. Therefore, the player can do things that real rulers couldn't.
 
l
Featauril said:
You guys don't even know what trade routes are and how they work and you're already telling them how to handle them.

Just no.
Click to expand...

I don't want a complete repeat of history, I want something that works well and is fun to play. Doesn't matter if it wasn't like that in history, if its balanced and fun it should be in.
 
Have Paradox ever erred on the side of historical determinism in their latest games? Why not wait for them to explain the system before going in full speculation mode? Heck, from the latest interview it looks more like the trade routes will be dynamic than anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back