|
doingitwrong posted:I’ve been getting into the history of trade empires and the dynamics of power that has less to do Can't speak for EU IV, but in CK2, you can play as Venice without conquering anything else, and still have the largest army in the world while being filthy rich. Also works for Pisa, Genoa, etc., as well as player created merchant republics. Edit: You need The Republic DLC, as well as the Legacy of Rome DLC to get retinues, which are the way merchant republics get their standing armies. Torrannor fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Feb 19, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
In EU4 playing as a mercantile nation that concentrates on colonies and trade routes is a very viable path to success. Portugal is a good new player friendly nation to try this with (keep Spain friendly and you can effectively just dabble in colonies and trading posts forever), England is also good if you can get past the initial clusterfuck of the War of the Roses and uniting the UK. You'll probably need some DLC. (Art of War you'll want regardless, Wealth of Nations and Res Publica add features for merchant republics, El Dorado if you go heavy on colonizing the Americas) https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Portugal Lum_ fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Can't speak for EU IV, but in CK2, you can play as Venice without conquering anything else, and still have the largest army in the world while being filthy rich. Also works for Pisa, Genoa, etc., as well as player created merchant republics. But it doesn’t really feel like you’re interacting with trade at all. You have trade themed buildings that just arbitrarily make lots of money. EU4 is probably the closest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
There's also Victoria 2 if you want to try to understand a trade system no one can possibly understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Vic2 is the only game I can think of where you can crash the entire world economy with artisans. Or cause a complete market implosion by making other countries factories so unprofitable they shut down and then deleting your own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
I am seconding Portugal in EU4 for a trade empire feel. If you are more interested in managing prices and quantities of specific trade goods, than Vicky 2 is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
vicky 2 is the most fun game to interact with trade because much like real trade it is just complete madness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I’ve been getting into the history of trade empires and the dynamics of power that has less to do Not exactly a grand strategy but try out imperialism I and II on gog sometimes. Highly underrated games about managing trade and acquiring and processing resources to give yourself a leg up on your rivals
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Not exactly a grand strategy but try out imperialism I and II on gog sometimes. Highly underrated games about managing trade and acquiring and processing resources to give yourself a leg up on your rivals Heck yep! Imperialism 1 was one of the first pc games I ever played, and I still bang thru it once every year or so. Imperialism 2 didn't quite hold me the same way, but it's still good. It's a fairly simple formula, it's crazy no one has done a modern reboot of it. If you like the industrial era, imperialism 1 if you prefer the age of discovery imperialism 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Vicky's better in general for economy but for specifically feeling like a trade empire, and actually feeling like you're making a difference, I think EU4 is way better. For goods production / production lines with a little bit of trade empire-ing I'd also recommend Anno (1800 is what I've played but I assume all do it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I’ve been getting into the history of trade empires and the dynamics of power that has less to do Anno 1800.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
One of EU4's primary ways of growing your economy revolves around getting a tradechain that pulls value from one (or more) corner of the world to you. I'd recommend it over V2 even in terms of how well you can interact with the economy, in V2 it's often well beyond your control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Thanks friends!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Rynoto posted:Vic2 is the only game I can think of where you can crash the entire world economy with artisans. Or cause a complete market implosion by making other countries factories so unprofitable they shut down and then deleting your own. Playing as russia, building a poo poo ton of artillery factories, recruiting a poo poo ton of artillery units and getting a poo poo ton of money due to increase in demand. Or finding a way to civilize as China, use up all your manpower to build infantry and literally stop the world's production of armies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Vicky's better in general for economy but for specifically feeling like a trade empire, and actually feeling like you're making a difference, I think EU4 is way better. YF-23 posted:One of EU4's primary ways of growing your economy revolves around getting a tradechain that pulls value from one (or more) corner of the world to you. I'd recommend it over V2 even in terms of how well you can interact with the economy, in V2 it's often well beyond your control. I'm late but I just want to say that EUIV's tying of trade to place and geography puts it light years ahead of every other Paradox game on that front. The way it ends up touching every other system in the game is transformative, it stitches the whole thing together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Vicky does tie trade to geography though, not through imaginary trade lines,but by the placement of it's resources. It's not perfect, but neither is the way EUIV's trade routes force trade into certain nodes even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the world
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
Yeah EU4 is fine if you want to role play as a European trading empire but the actual trade system itself isn't like, amazing or terribly mechanically involved. Trade goods mostly only matter in terms of monetary value and trade routes and stuff like changing value of resources due to supply and demand are all hard coded and inflexible. It's more of a simulation of taxing static trade routes than the player actually doing any trading themselves, and the trade routes are all laid out eurocentrically in a way that ends up being kinda railroady in some regions. It's fine as an element of a game about warfare and conquest because it gives you set directions of where to conquer to make the most money, but it's static in a way that really shows once you get out of Europe. Like if you're playing as Japan, there's no way for 'trade' from indochina to get to Japan, but trade from the Philippines can, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 10:52
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Vicky does tie trade to geography though, not through imaginary trade lines,but by the placement of it's resources. It's not perfect, but neither is the way EUIV's trade routes force trade into certain nodes even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the world Hmm, no. Vicky ties production to location, but that’s not the same thing. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say that Vicky has no trade at all. It has a market, with buyers and sellers, but the relative positions of the two don’t matter at all. Goods don’t travel, they teleport. there’s barely a distinction between domestic and foreign buyers. Most importantly, there’s no way to make money off being the man in the middle- off of being the guy who moves goods from A to B. By the end of Vicky’s period Norway had the world’s fourth largest merchant marine. In the game, this is an incoherent statement. What’s a merchant navy? How could Norway, a subarctic rock whose primary export is fish, possibly have been so successful? How can you profit from the production of someone you don’t own? Vicky has no answers to these questions. And I’m not saying it necessarily needs to! (Though it would be a nice option for countries who need to find capital to industrialise and have limited options for domestic production.) It’s entirely appropriate to the history of the period for the game to care a great deal about production and not at all about how products move around. But it does mean it’s not doing “trade” per se. Red Bones posted:Yeah EU4 is fine if you want to role play as a European trading empire but the actual trade system itself isn't like, amazing or terribly mechanically involved. Trade goods mostly only matter in terms of monetary value and trade routes and stuff like changing value of resources due to supply and demand are all hard coded and inflexible. It's more of a simulation of taxing static trade routes than the player actually doing any trading themselves, and the trade routes are all laid out eurocentrically in a way that ends up being kinda railroady in some regions. Right, I’m not saying that the system is transformative in itself, but in the way that it’s constantly informing everything else I’m doing. I want to be here, so I need to do this. It adds structure and meaning to conquest and diplomacy and colonisation. The trade graph being directed and acyclic (static is less of a problem, imo) is bad, yeah, I hope that’s something they find a solution for in 5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Hmm, no. Vicky ties production to location, but that’s not the same thing. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say that Vicky has no trade at all. It has a market, with buyers and sellers, but the relative positions of the two don’t matter at all. Goods don’t travel, they teleport. there’s barely a distinction between domestic and foreign buyers. As for how you'd actually model the physical movement of gods, overseas transportation of goods might actually be the easiest part to add to a hypothetical V3. Ports determine the volume that can flow into your country from overseas, while supply and demand for shipping define how much the cost of goods go up, with that increase ending up in the pockets of the owners of merchant marines. A little harder to figure out overland transportation, given that it's not as simple as moving from A to B, but you probably don't have to model it to the finest detail - just make it detailed enough that it seems proportional to overseas trade. I feel like even a small improvement here would do a lot to make the economy feel more real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Right, I’m not saying that the system is transformative in itself, but in the way that it’s constantly informing everything else I’m doing. I want to be here, so I need to do this. It adds structure and meaning to conquest and diplomacy and colonisation. I'm not sure how they'd construct a hypothetical EU5 in a way that creates those middle-ground 'profiting from trade route' countries in a way that the AI can actually handle and that isn't also a gigantic pain in the rear end for players. Like, I can imagine a hypothetical system where all trade is done point-to-point and limits on trade routes are just calculated in the same way that movement for units is calculated, and in that system if you (for example) had the range to send a boat from portugal to East Africa without atrition, you would then find an East African country, make a diplomatic agreement to use their port in exchange for a fee, and then your range is bumped up so you can reach India and ship spices back from India to Portugal, with East Africa taking a cut. Or as, say, the Mamluks, you're buying spices from India and you have a big stockpile that you're marking up the prices on, and the Portugese are buying directly from you. But either of those hypotheticals run into problems when you're simulating an entire planet of what, 300-odd independent AI controlled nations, and they're ALL making trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Gosh sorry but I hate that. It's how every other game does it and it's exactly why I like EU4's system so much more; rather than being the weird-rear end monarch that's managing individual shipments and inventories, you just affect the flow of the trade on a macro level. It makes it all feel so much larger and like you're actually leading a country. I guess we have very different conceptions of what makes for trade in these games though. I want nothing to do with the individual goods; if I wanted that I'd play Anno, since that game lets you touch on the goods throughout the entire process. EU4 is about nations and empire building and trade is reflected on that in a way that makes sense on a national level and for building empires; I'd honestly like to see the trade goods EU4 does have abstracted somehow. Something to do with trade treaties might be interesting I suppose since right now everything revolves around racing colonization and taking strategic land, but civ-like point to point trade is the last place I want them to take it. Eurocentrism is definitely a huge problem in the EU4 system though yeah, but for the major European colonial powers it owns. I have 1000something hours in EU4 and by far the majority of them are as trading powers rather than doing much land warring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
EU trade is rather static and you don’t have much control over it. You can manipulate it but only a bit and in a very video games way. It’s kind of a word system
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
I think collecting profits from being the middle man is super trivial to solve with even the current model (though i'd not recommend it before the other issues with the graph are resolved) - right now, transferring trade strictly increases the value of the trade. Instead, have trade power % in a node you transfer from come with a cost, and trade power % in a node you collect from be the profits from that and the current trade value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:EU trade is rather static and you don’t have much control over it. You can manipulate it but only a bit and in a very video games way. It’s kind of a word system It's static in that you can't make it go backward, but you can have complete control over it; getting such control is one of the major goals of playing a trading nation. You can redirect 100% of the trade to where you want it to go and lock it down even in non-end nodes if you try hard enough. It is kinda video gamey but I think captures the spirit of it much better than most games do. Especially since it's like the only game to actually imply non-state trading, or trading as a series of short trips. It does fall completely flat in representing any kind of mutual benefit though; someone ages ago in this or one of the EU4 threads characterized it as more of a wealth extraction system, which I think is pretty accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's static in that you can't make it go backward, but you can have complete control over it; getting such control is one of the major goals of playing a trading nation. You can redirect 100% of the trade to where you want it to go and lock it down even in non-end nodes if you try hard enough. Don’t get me wrong it’s a weird system but for a game like EU where trading isn’t a high priority for most it does what it needs to do
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
What they could do is make the edges between trade nodes bidirectional, and then instead of a global price of a good, have local prices in each trade node. Calculate the price based on supply and demand. The player can tell their merchant fleet / trade caravans to operate in certain nodes, and they automatically will shuttle goods from where they have low cost to where they have higher cost, earning the player a profit. The quantity that can be transferred is proportional to the size of the fleet/caravan. Improving technology or building infrastructure lets you transfer more with less. This would work for both EU5 and V3 I think. You pay other countries fees for crossing through their land and using their ports. This opens a lot of play styles: you can try to conquer enough land to hold the entire route yourself including the origin of the goods you want, you can be diplomatic and try to negotiate for better docking fees with others, or you can just build a ton of merchant ships and laugh as you make money carrying other people's stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 11:29
|
|
|
In EU4 being a country that's on a source node isn't a trade death sentence anyway. You can move your trade capital without any real restrictions, so you are still incentivised to conquer based on trade routes and collect from a better node than the one you started out on. The only difference is that you're working your way downstream rather than upstream, and because moving the trade capital all the time can be somewhat of a pain you are perhaps incentivised to corner regional rather than global trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/en/year-end-report-2020/ Mixed bag for Paradox. Huge hit with CK3. But looks like Bloodlines is effectively cancelled. Other unannounced games (Vic3) delayed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 09:00
|
|
|
Oof. A lot of very unhappy campers in the Twitter iterations of those announcements. Development's not likely to pick up for most of this year either, so it might be a while before we get more updates on that. Been playing a lot of HoI4 myself, just generally screwing around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 09:24
|
|
|
I feel obliged to say that Imperator is Actually Good Now if your passion for new Paradox games needs to be slaked, though the usual immediate post patch caveats apply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/en/year-end-report-2020/ based on what you linked, bloodlines isn't exactly canceled; just in such sorry shape that they're seizing the work done so far from the current developers and turning it over to a different studio to retool for at least a year honestly probably for the best. a lot of publishers would have just said "lol release anyway, the goth money is guaranteed" and then had a huge failure on their hands
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 09:45
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I feel obliged to say that Imperator is Actually Good Now if your passion for new Paradox games needs to be slaked, though the usual immediate post patch caveats apply. It's true Jazerus posted:based on what you linked, bloodlines isn't exactly canceled; just in such sorry shape that they're seizing the work done so far from the current developers and turning it over to a different studio to retool for at least a year Didn't they do this once already lol? e: How hard is it to make an rpg about murder goths this concept is cursed apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 10:01
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:How hard is it to make an rpg about murder goths this concept is cursed apparently RPGs are inherently susceptible to feature creep because they always encourage questions like, "Well what if my character did this instead?" There's a reason every AAA RPG developer is infamous for troubled development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:e: How hard is it to make an rpg about murder goths this concept is cursed apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 11:00
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:
Yeah they had to take and develop crusader kings I themselves because the Russian studio they originally had doing it wasn't able to get it done
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 12:09
|
|
|
I really doubt this will ever be released. But if it is, then how about giving East v West to another studio huh Paradox?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 12:47
|
|
|
The unannounced game is Magna Mundi. The Barça studio is so ubik doesn’t have to travel far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The unannounced game is Magna Mundi. The Barça studio is so ubik doesn’t have to travel far. I'm betting it's Iron Cross 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
you fools, it's march of the eagles 2, which will be the tech demo for EU5
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
ItohRespectArmy posted:you fools, it's march of the eagles 2, which will be the tech demo for EU5 CK3 was a tech demo for Sengoku 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 13:22
|
|
