Economic Warfare? Space Venetians?

[Gemellus]

I am creating this thread to gauge any interest in a merchant civilization. Creating a monopoly on some important resource, like helium, and using embargoes to cripple other nations that make you mad, driving them to social unrest and political collapse. How do you think it should work? What resources do you think should exist in Stellaris? As many, less or more than Victoria 2?

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I really~ want an economic focused civilization.

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I really~ want an economic focused civilization.

 

[Mattimeo78]

Spoiler

Edit: Spoiler tag.

 

[lwarmonger]

A Venice type situation would be hard to model. It would require chokepoints of a valuable resource (helium is far too common) that one power could dominate the shipping of. I think if you oriented your technology towards mercantile pursuits (like long range engines, large amounts of storage capacity for your ships... basically used technology to become the trader/merchant prince foundation state type) then you might be able to dominate trade between empires generally by getting things from one place to another faster, safer and cheaper than anyone else could.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

I would REALLY like ways to dominate the map other than with the strongest army. EU4 suffers from this immensely, and while you might argue that military might was the only way to succeed in the time period, I feel economic prowess was left out nearly completely from the game.

I want economic wars to be engrossing and fun for both parties, as military wars are.

 

[uberjedi]

I hope there are lots of different resources and that they are important.
I would love to build mining outposts and such.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Just don't make them goofy space jews like the Ferengi (coming from a half-jew, so no offence intended). A dark, corporatesque trading federation would be good.

 

[lwarmonger]

I would REALLY like ways to dominate the map other than with the strongest army. EU4 suffers from this immensely, and while you might argue that military might was the only way to succeed in the time period, I feel economic prowess was left out nearly completely from the game.

I want economic wars to be engrossing and fun for both parties, as military wars are.

I disagree. I find that unless I am playing the Russians, France or the Ottomans I almost never have the strongest Army, yet as Britain, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands or any number of other countries I rarely have difficulty competing. A combination of fortresses, a small elite Army, and/or a powerful navy (frequently dominating trade) enables you to fight asymmetrically. Yes you must win the occasional land battle... but such was true in real life.

As a merchant power in space you'd need to win the occasional battle too. If there is one thing it has always been rather dangerous to be, it is rich and weak.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Because someone must post it....

 

[Pentel123]

This makes me thing of how the foundation expanded in asimovs books, first religion then by commerence, producing gooda people couldn't live without

 

[Holy.Death]

I disagree. I find that unless I am playing the Russians, France or the Ottomans I almost never have the strongest Army, yet as Britain, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands or any number of other countries I rarely have difficulty competing. A combination of fortresses, a small elite Army, and/or a powerful navy (frequently dominating trade) enables you to fight asymmetrically. Yes you must win the occasional land battle... but such was true in real life.

As a merchant power in space you'd need to win the occasional battle too. If there is one thing it has always been rather dangerous to be, it is rich and weak.

Problem is that the AI in EU4 is stupid enough to make it possible - or even easy - to win, even if you don't have the strongest army. Not because it's a viable strategy to win without having the strongest army. This makes it rather hard to say that EU4 is modelling asymmetrical combat really well. If it was, then you should feel challenged to beat smaller nations while you're playing as a bigger one.

 

[lwarmonger]

Problem is that the AI in EU4 is stupid enough to make it possible - or even easy - to win, even if you don't have the strongest army. Not because it's a viable strategy to win without having the strongest army. This makes it rather hard to say that EU4 is modelling asymmetrical combat really well. If it was, then you should feel challenged to beat smaller nations while you're playing as a bigger one.

Agreed. I didn't say that it modeled asymmetric warfare well, just that it was a viable playing strategy as a player (and as someone who generally chooses an economically focused strategy, I do disagree with "the biggest Army wins in EU IV" because that isn't true, even in multiplayer).

I'd say the way to enable other types of gameplay is to make life difficult for conquerors. Have states pay the price for seizing new territory by modeling insurgent activity both on worlds and in space (like piracy, except with political ends). Make it so when you have a trading state, and another empire seizes your worlds, it is viable to support those insurgents with smuggling to make them even worse. Balance of power types of diplomacy would also help out the non-military oriented nations.

At the end of the day though, an economic style of playing needs to be desynched from a military style of playing, so that each has costs. If that doesn't happen, then you have Galciv, where everyone techs up while building masses of industry, and then when war is declared you simply transfer that industry into building enormous advanced fleets so you can be rich and powerful with no costs. Military production and civilian production should be separate, and switching between the two should be difficult, time consuming and costly.