Is traderoutes static or dynamic?

[Unready]

I looked at screenshots and video and would like to clarify one question - in EUIV will trade system be with dynamically changing trade centers (as in EUIII) with adding traderoutes between them, or it will be a system of pre-defined static trade centers?

 

[Seli]

I looked at screenshots and video and would like to clarify one question - in EUIV will trade system be with dynamically changing trade centers (as in EUIII) with adding traderoutes between them, or it will be a system of pre-defined static trade centers?

It will be trade dynamically moving around in a static network of traderoutes. With the option to force/stimulate trade through nodes you can control. It is discussed in some detail in this unlcearly labelled thread: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...amescom-2012-Europa-Universalis-IV-Sneak-Peak.

for example with this post by Besuchov: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...Sneak-Peak&p=14261917&viewfull=1#post14261917

 

[unmerged(52491)]

I keep reading you can use you navies to "direct" trade to your ports but I'm not sure what it means. Does that mean the route changes course or simply getting more money from the route?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I keep reading you can use you navies to "direct" trade to your ports but I'm not sure what it means. Does that mean the route changes course or simply getting more money from the route?

I think it means more money that is generated along the trade route ends up in your treasury. We don't really have enough to go on yet. Or at any rate I don't have enough brainpower to grasp what is meant.

 

[Seli]

I keep reading you can use you navies to "direct" trade to your ports but I'm not sure what it means. Does that mean the route changes course or simply getting more money from the route?

And I believe it means more trade flows through the provinces/routes you protect and own. So you get a bigger slice of the total trade in the world. Perhaps it also influences the profit you make per trade passing through (tolls? protection?) but I am not sure at this moment.

 

[jcinq4]

I assumed that directing the trade flow basically means: more money to the route directed to; less money to the route directed from.

 

[Killzerslaul]

I think from besuchov's post (linked above) it seems directing the trade flow can also be specific to certain provinces, to get them more of the trade in a trade zone. It seems that the province actually shown to be on the trade route doesn't matter, the trade routes shown are actually between entire trade regions, and trade income is actually divided between the provinces of each trade zone based on ships etc. directing the trade.
But it does seem you can direct trade across or past trade routes as well.

 

[herrhals]

Being landlocked means you will be very poor, compared to others who can intimidate with navies.
What if two navies are vyng to control the same route? I.e. Spain and britain both send their death fleets to Alexandria to steal trade. It would be cool if a small scale trade war could instantaneously break out with a means of escalation.

This means being a naval power will surely be more valuable than it was in eu3. Eu3 navies were only tools of conquests.
Whatever the new mechanic might be for "free trade vs mercantilism", how will small free traders compete with naval powerhouses like Venice, Britain, etc? I'm super curious and I hope they do DD's super soooooon!

 

[Poh]

I keep reading you can use you navies to "direct" trade to your ports but I'm not sure what it means. Does that mean the route changes course or simply getting more money from the route?

From the video with Venice we see trade from the Alexandria area represented by a Node with X ingoing, Y generated and Z outgoing tradevalue. Where the sum is the value of trade in the area. The outgoing trade is split evenly on the three outgoing routes (lets say Venice, Thrace and Provence). Using a merchant the trade is shifted more into the Venice route (hence not evenly spread anymore). Using the navy shift the trade even more, now no trade is going towards either the Thrace or Provence area. At the same time the trade towards the Venice area is now larger than the sum of all three routes from the start.
Now why do venice benifit from this shift in trade. More trade is now going into the Venice area instead of being at the Alexandria area. Since Venice has 1 province in the Alexandria area and maybe 8? in the Venice area they got a larger share of the area at Venice hence they can probably get a larger % of the total trade from that area by using their merchant to setup office. (this is just me speculating)
That is what i think it means with directing trade. You manipulate the trade into going along the routes you want to create the most benifit for yourself.

Being landlocked means you will be very poor, compared to others who can intimidate with navies.
What if two navies are vyng to control the same route? I.e. Spain and britain both send their death fleets to Alexandria to steal trade. It would be cool if a small scale trade war could instantaneously break out with a means of escalation.

Not nessasarily. first the naval nations like Venice bullying the Alexandria trade area to send alot of its trade to the Venice area will also mean that every other nation in that trade area can send merchants to the node and get cash from it. Also i bet the inland tradecenters can also send merchants to try and force the trade further inland - though it may not be as effective as navys.
Spain and Britan couldnt do anything about the Alexandria trade area and wouldnt want to anyway. First i believe you need a presence aka. a province in the trade area to be able to send a merchant there. Second you need a costal province to base your fleet or you wont be able to protect the trade. Third the trade from the Alexandria area will never move to either Spain or Britain so it wouldnt make any sense to waste their efforts there.
Ofcourse if there were a area sending with routes to both spain and britain this could happen and it would be nice if two navies trying to protect the same trade fought or made a trade war cb possible where the only action happening would be naval.

 

[Eh up me duck]

If trade routes are static, how will that work with the New World?

 

[flame7926]

If trade routes are static, how will that work with the New World?

With them empty for however long it should be. Then they start having more and more money going on them.

 

[Poh]

If trade routes are static, how will that work with the New World?

and depending on the actual routes it could force a more sensible colonization pattern i guess. As the countries will want to colonize in trade areas that have trade routes going back to the trade areas they control. Also it will be more profitable to colonize the whole area in the trade area i think. and maybe even in depth into Canada and US as you then only have to defend 1 or 2 routes. But thats just be speculating again ^^

 

[king hannibal]

and depending on the actual routes it could force a more sensible colonization pattern i guess. As the countries will want to colonize in trade areas that have trade routes going back to the trade areas they control. Also it will be more profitable to colonize the whole area in the trade area i think. and maybe even in depth into Canada and US as you then only have to defend 1 or 2 routes. But thats just be speculating again ^^

Also there will be a good reason to colonize Africa and India, not just the new world. Now you also will have to concentrate on where to colonize.

 

[Korsan82]

I'd like to remind people of the following thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?625855-Allow-us-to-create-own-trade-routes