Europa Universalis IV announced

[Anatron]

That's not entirely exact. He should use his Merchant to Collect Trade from his American colonies, and part of their trade revenues will magically transport itself to his budget. Otherwise, its trade revenues will be lost.

That only works if there is no competition in Chesapeake Bay. If there is competition there, he get's a -80% or so modifier on trade efficiency as he is collecting outside his home node. That's very hard to compensate if the competitors send ships.
The right way to get trade from North America would then be to let England forward as much trade as possible to London and send a trader and huge amounts of small ships to London to forward trade from there to Antwerpen. That will still mean England collects a lot of it in London, but you'll almost certainly lose more on the North Sea > Lübeck route as Lübeck and North Sea are quite competitive as well.

Thats exactly what I will do at multiplayer.So basicaly netherlands become somekind of Pirate nation in eu4 .

[Anatron]

That only works if there is no competition in Chesapeake Bay. If there is competition there, he get's a -80% or so modifier on trade efficiency as he is collecting outside his home node. That's very hard to compensate if the competitors send ships.
The right way to get trade from North America would then be to let England forward as much trade as possible to London and send a trader and huge amounts of small ships to London to forward trade from there to Antwerpen. That will still mean England collects a lot of it in London, but you'll almost certainly lose more on the North Sea > Lübeck route as Lübeck and North Sea are quite competitive as well.

I don't really get this trade shit.  It's too complicated.  TBH I have hated trade in all of the EU games and wish they'd just do away with merchants and any mechanic involving management of trade at all.  I just want to conquer places and control the trade from them, and focus my energy elsewhere.

I like the concept of this new trade,but I should be reviced a bit.More trade routes should add.Plus trade routes should be reversible too.

[Zanza]

I think the concept in general is pretty cool and well-made. It does straight-jacket you what regions make sense for you to colonize/conquer though. It doesn't make any sense for Spain or Portugal to colonize North America for example as they can't route the trade from there to their home ports and can't really compete in Chesapeake Bay for collecting there either. Likewise if you play a strong power in Asia, you'll have trouble to capitalize on trade as almost all trade routes point away from you, the exception being Mexico -> Nippon, which somehow makes it more useful for Japan to conquer Mexico and California than it makes conquering Indonesia.

[Valmy]

Now, my HRE history knowledge is admittedly limited, but France has now been emperor for 2 terms. Would it have been possible to have an emperor that isn't also a member?

I think Sigismund was only King of Hungary when he was elected.

Sigismund of Luxemburg:

1387 – 1437 King of Hungary

1419 – 1437 King of Bohemia

1433 – 1437 Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

He was elected King of the Romans prior to that though.  That is why he was the Emperor in the 1419 scenario EU2 used.

[Anatron]

I think the concept in general is pretty cool and well-made. It does straight-jacket you what regions make sense for you to colonize/conquer though. It doesn't make any sense for Spain or Portugal to colonize North America for example as they can't route the trade from there to their home ports and can't really compete in Chesapeake Bay for collecting there either. Likewise if you play a strong power in Asia, you'll have trouble to capitalize on trade as almost all trade routes point away from you, the exception being Mexico -> Nippon, which somehow makes it more useful for Japan to conquer Mexico and California than it makes conquering Indonesia.

The only way to collect trade as Aian nation if you move your capital.That means for Japan should conquer the Aden region and build up the Toyota plant there.

[Valmy]

Likewise if you play a strong power in Asia, you'll have trouble to capitalize on trade as almost all trade routes point away from you, the exception being Mexico -> Nippon, which somehow makes it more useful for Japan to conquer Mexico and California than it makes conquering Indonesia.

What if you play an Indian power?  That is where I usually play.

[Zanza]

Thats exactly what I will do at multiplayer.So basicaly netherlands become somekind of Pirate nation in eu4 .

England will almost always control 100% of the provinces of the London node though, which makes it hard to compete, especially against a human that might maximize the province trade values too. If England keeps Calais, they'll have a very strong position in Antwerp too as Calais has like 500% of the normal trade value when designated as a staple port. And England never really runs out of small ships.

[Anatron]

Now, my HRE history knowledge is admittedly limited, but France has now been emperor for 2 terms. Would it have been possible to have an emperor that isn't also a member?

I think Sigismund was only King of Hungary when he was elected.

Sigismund of Luxemburg:

1387 – 1437 King of Hungary

1419 – 1437 King of Bohemia

1433 – 1437 Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

He was elected King of the Romans prior to that though.  That is why he was the Emperor in the 1419 scenario EU2 used.

Well then that scenario was wrong becouse he recieved the emperor title at 1433.
Anyway what was this Kingdom of Romans?A small group in Italy?Or germans who called themself Romans?I have no idea who they were.

[Zanza]

Likewise if you play a strong power in Asia, you'll have trouble to capitalize on trade as almost all trade routes point away from you, the exception being Mexico -> Nippon, which somehow makes it more useful for Japan to conquer Mexico and California than it makes conquering Indonesia.

What if you play an Indian power?  That is where I usually play.

Conquer eastwards from your home province. You can forward trade from South East Asia, Australia, China, North East Asia and even Mexico and California. You can't forward trade from Aden or Basra.



http://eu4wiki.com/Trade_nodes

[garbon]

I think the concept in general is pretty cool and well-made. It does straight-jacket you what regions make sense for you to colonize/conquer though. It doesn't make any sense for Spain or Portugal to colonize North America for example as they can't route the trade from there to their home ports and can't really compete in Chesapeake Bay for collecting there either. Likewise if you play a strong power in Asia, you'll have trouble to capitalize on trade as almost all trade routes point away from you, the exception being Mexico -> Nippon, which somehow makes it more useful for Japan to conquer Mexico and California than it makes conquering Indonesia.

Yeah, I've mixed feelings on the straight-jacketing.

[Zanza]

Well then that scenario was wrong becouse he recieved the emperor title at 1433.
Anyway what was this Kingdom of Romans?A small group in Italy?Or germans who called themself Romans?I have no idea who they were.

King of the Romans was the official title of the German king.

Sigismund can't really be considered a foreigner though. His father and great-grandfather were Holy Roman Emperors and he himself was margrave and elector of Brandenburg when he was elected as King of the Romans.

[Grallon]

I dislike the fact these nodes are static.  When you could create your own CoT it would grow depending on what investments you did there and outstrip the old one.



G.

[Valmy]

Well then that scenario was wrong becouse he recieved the emperor title at 1433.
Anyway what was this Kingdom of Romans?A small group in Italy?Or germans who called themself Romans?I have no idea who they were.

The Emperor title, to the best of my knowledge, was a technicality.  Back in those days you got elected Emperor and then got the title King of the Romans and then when you finally bothered to travel to Rome to get annointed by the Pope you officially became Emperor.  But I do not think there was much functional difference between 'King of the Romans' and 'Holy Roman Emperor'.

If the Scenario had been correct there would be no Emperor, as indeed I guess technically there was not between sometime before 1419 (when Sigismund was elected) and 1433 (when he actually got annointed).  But the game system did not account for this strange occurance of a title both being occupied but vacant simultaneously.  Also since one of Sigismund's near successors was the last Emperor to have to do this technicality it would not have even applied for most of the era.  Heck they do not even bother with this in Crusader Kings.

[Valmy]

Well then that scenario was wrong becouse he recieved the emperor title at 1433.
Anyway what was this Kingdom of Romans?A small group in Italy?Or germans who called themself Romans?I have no idea who they were.

King of the Romans was the official title of the German king.

Sigismund can't really be considered a foreigner though. His father and great-grandfather were Holy Roman Emperors and he himself was margrave and elector of Brandenburg when he was elected as King of the Romans.

Ah I was not aware of the Brandenburg thing.  I thought he was just King of Hungary.  I was trying to think of somebody elected Emperor who held no lands inside the Emperor and he was the only one I could think of.

[Zanza]

Yeah, I've mixed feelings on the straight-jacketing.

It fits okay to how history played out, but for ahistorical scenarios it doesn't work at all. If I conquer Northern Africa or the Balkans as the Ottomans, I want to be able to route trade from there to Constantinople. If I conquer Swahili as Oman or Korea/Indonesia as Japan it doesn't work at all either. That seriously limits the expansion possibilities of these quite interesting countries. Also if you want to unite India, it makes most sense to start in the Northwest, which excludes e.g. Viyiangar (or however they are spelled).