Curious to how the 1.9 Trade re-work will... work?

[IsaacCAT]

As an example of a nation using competitive advantage as it is in the game, the most supplied goods are grain and fabrics, then tools, clothes, opium, and only then the usual construction suspects of coal, steel and iron. The year is 1930, oil is no where to be seen but I am number 2 great power and 3 in GDP. This is a single player game starting as the Sikh Empire and I plan to unite India before the game ends, as I have played on a military focused game.

 

[Prob32]

As an example of a nation using competitive advantage as it is in the game, the most supplied goods are grain and fabrics, then tools, clothes, opium, and only then the usual construction suspects of coal, steel and iron. The year is 1930, oil is no where to be seen but I am number 2 great power and 3 in GDP. This is a single player game starting as the Sikh Empire and I plan to unite India before the game ends, as I have played on a military focused game.

Could you post the GDP state map from you MP game? Also and there's no offense intended here but it seems your game isn't taking a pure meta path based on the coal pricing and the lower throughput bonuses on your mines.

I do think if implemented correctly trade could help alleviate some of these build insanely tall issues.

 

[Prob32]

I don't think it just a volume problem- if you look at Pennsylvania here and compare its local vs market pricing it'll become clear that there is some strong advantage coming from the purely local pricing. Unless you're setting up local to local trade routes between trade centers I don't see how trade volume along the national market are going to fix things.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Could you post the GDP state map from you MP game? Also and there's no offense intended here but it seems your game isn't taking a pure meta path based on the coal pricing and the lower throughput bonuses on your mines.

I do think if implemented correctly trade could help alleviate some of these build insanely tall issues.

none taken, we play mostly to have fun. I only played first session and fourth as I couldn't be there for the 2nd and 3rd as Spain.

However, these game fun involves war, could you tell me how do we compare with your military build up around 1876? GB is AI the other are Human Players

The GDP states of the German player:

 

[Prob32]

none taken, we play mostly to have fun. I only played first session and fourth as I couldn't be there for the 2nd and 3rd as Spain.

However, these game fun involves war, could you tell me how do we compare with your military build up around 1876? GB is AI the other are Human Players

Our games are quite different it seems:
Yr 1870

Global GDP

 

[IsaacCAT]

Our games are quite different it seems:
Yr 1870
View attachment 1242417

Global GDP
View attachment 1242418

amazing, this is true META :O

Ps: such difference of results may well grant different solutions for different players to what is needed for the trade rework, though

 

[Prob32]

amazing, this is true META :O

Ps: such difference of results may well grant different solutions for different players to what is needed for the trade rework, though

Yes that's true- and obviously my perspective is definitely skewed from the average player- but what I will say is that "META" by definition is just trying to follow the most efficient mathematical pathing in a PDX game and the above results clearly point to insanely overbuilding a few states and focuses heavily on efficiency per construction point. Which yields the wood, iron, coal, steel & tools.

If you shift the meta everything else will eventually balance out and follow.

This perspective is what leads me to think that the best solution would be something like local to local trade centers and local to international trade centers such that Pennsylvania could directly export its coal to a specific French state for example.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

Here's some screenshots from a recent MP game to highlight some of the sameness and my fears regarding throughput and trade:

TLDR: Everyone is making a ton of coal and even states without coal traits are over 100% throughput. Year: Feb 1870

View attachment 1242203
UK:
View attachment 1242205
Ger:
View attachment 1242206
Rus:
View attachment 1242209
Can:
View attachment 1242213

They need to introduce some inefficiencies when everything is privatised, or buff nationalisations.

 

[Prob32]

They need to introduce some inefficiencies when everything is privatised, or buff nationalisations.

I disagree here- in general government ownership is much worse. But also we're simulating the immense vertical integration and technological advantages that Carnegie steel had during this period. The game makes zero attempt at simulating monopoly pricing action within the game- at some point it should do so, until then I think it's fine.

Also you don't really want to have play patterns encouraging government ownership

 

[Prob32]

Some key hit points that any trade re-work must have to help summarize some useful feedback here:

1. Private trade centers paying for Convoys- it's silly gov pays for them.
2. Some sort of land trade mechanic that isn't just fixed distance from capital to capital- ideally using transport across the state it travels across.
3. Increase in volumes through better calculation methodology - see Time Walker + IsaacCat's ideas
4. Internal trade routes in additional to international ones

Also the UI should make it more clear what the base value is verses the node value. Perhaps starting node value should be called out and change based on technologies. Large trade centers should get throughput advantages on their cost basis per route.

 

[Desseabar]

Musing a bit: is it possible that the devs have a logistics system that has lots of synergies between the military and trade system? That could explain why they're both coming out simultaneously and why there's a heavy focus on supply in the dev diary comments we've seen.

Really early dev diaries for the game discussed tracking logistics and MAPI to the capital. Could it be possible that this is getting resuscitated in some way that overlaps between the two?

 

[Prob32]

Musing a bit: is it possible that the devs have a logistics system that has lots of synergies between the military and trade system? That could explain why they're both coming out simultaneously and why there's a heavy focus on supply in the dev diary comments we've seen.

I would love nothing more- but I fear this is slightly out of scope. As in they've said a few times they only want to fix fronts for this update, though they did have some side comments about making supply matter:

Really early dev diaries for the game discussed tracking logistics and MAPI to the capital. Could it be possible that this is getting resuscitated in some way that overlaps between the two?

I think that's everyone's hope & concern. I would think they would do more than just their internal launch vision at this point as they would want it to tie into their more complete pathing logic using spline networks for troop supply.

On a macro scale I agree it would make sense for whatever system they build out for internal trade to have a clear and direct way it will plug into military supply via the spline system and add capacity demand to the local economy.

There's also a lot of clamor for boats.

 

[Desseabar]

I would love nothing more- but I fear this is slightly out of scope. As in they've said a few times they only want to fix fronts for this update, though they did have some side comments about making supply matter:
View attachment 1243614



I think that's everyone's hope & concern. I would think they would do more than just their internal launch vision at this point as they would want it to tie into their more complete pathing logic using spline networks for troop supply.

On a macro scale I agree it would make sense for whatever system they build out for internal trade to have a clear and direct way it will plug into military supply via the spline system and add capacity demand to the local economy.

There's also a lot of clamor for boats.

Yeah, but we also know that they're trying to cook up a major naval update, which I'd assume gets paired with DLC either this or next year. That makes it hard to tell how much is in scope for a military change that would have to get revamped again in a few months.

That said, they've explicitly stated that this is a beefier update, despite the nominally narrow focus. 1.8 personally surprised me with its scope (harvest conditions, company ownership, and political movements were very big additions!), so I wouldn't be surprised to see a pretty major system overhaul.

 

[Prob32]

That said, they've explicitly stated that this is a beefier update, despite the nominally narrow focus. 1.8 personally surprised me with its scope (harvest conditions, company ownership, and political movements were very big additions!), so I wouldn't be surprised to see a pretty major system overhaul.

Which is funny because they said 1.8 was supposed to be a smaller update even though it was two patches smushed together

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

What is the "MAPI" issue according to the Devs?

 

[Prob32]

What is the "MAPI" issue according to the Devs?

All I know is what is in the screenshot in the Original Post for this thread. The next four pages is just us musing about what this might be! Potential fixes, what they were referencing, internal trade, external trade, land trade, full up re-works, partial re-works extc.

 

[Hansatron]

What is the "MAPI" issue according to the Devs?

Trade routes as of 1.5 (when they added local prices and Market Access Price Impact, or MAPI) suffer doubly from it.

Fundamentally a profitable trade route will try to move a good between higher and lower price markets. The issue is that when the trade good is loaded onto the boat, it’s going to eat the MAPI hit for that state. And when it arrives in the destination market, it ALSO eats a hit for the MAPI there. This basically means if both sides have 85% MAPI, all the trade routes between them can have up to 30% erosion of the actual pice difference between the two markets. It grinds out a lot of potential profit.

 

[Timewalker102]

I guess we're going to potentially find the answer to this question in a few hours lol

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

Trade routes as of 1.5 (when they added local prices and Market Access Price Impact, or MAPI) suffer doubly from it.

Fundamentally a profitable trade route will try to move a good between higher and lower price markets. The issue is that when the trade good is loaded onto the boat, it’s going to eat the MAPI hit for that state. And when it arrives in the destination market, it ALSO eats a hit for the MAPI there. This basically means if both sides have 85% MAPI, all the trade routes between them can have up to 30% erosion of the actual pice difference between the two markets. It grinds out a lot of potential profit.

Oh i see I thought it was only on the MAPI of the importer. That is bad.

I guess we're going to potentially find the answer to this question in a few hours lol

Isnt it going to be on YET ANOTHER recap of 2024, without anything specific on new stuff?

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

I just went through the roadmap and they mentioned re trade treaty ports and autonomous trade.

Any ideas how treaty ports could fix the MAPI issues? May be to avoid MAPI you will need to have a treaty port in a market?

If this is the case i would not like it. I should not have a treaty port in the US as UK to avoid MAPI. But i doubt they will go for this.