Trade at the start of the game

[stratigos vasilios]

Why is there so little trade at the beginning of the game? I have read that Carthage traded with many different people and have to assume that at least a few other Mediterranean powers did the same. There was also important land routes like the amber road. I just thought maybe there should be a little more trading in the beginning..

The Amber Route is in EB1, as is the Silk Road in the east. Both give increases in trade bonus. Unfortunately that's all I can answer at present, some more experienced members will be able to answer your questions more thoroughly.

[XSamatan]

The engine can only let trade happen if two provinces share borders or in both is a port built and there is a unused trade-fleet. As soon as an empire has more connections to a friendly state the trade will start.
Be sure to see improvements in EBII on this topic.

XSamatan

[Tochata]

I was talking more about trade rights. I dont know about every faction but it seems that you only start having trade rights with factions that you are allied to. It seems that KH, for example, would already have trade rights with Epirus.

[Macilrille]

The Team cannot answer direct questoins like that without giving information away, which is AFAIK disallowed. Whether trade rights will be implemented or not from start in EB II; a direct question answered it is more than is allowed.

Sorry for the vagueness, but just rest assured that Xsamatan has stated that there will be improvements in that area in EBII, and interpret that as you will.

[GenosseGeneral]

I do still hope for the including of merchants in EBII. Has there ever been a statement about that topic? I do not want to steal the team's time by an unnecessary and already answered question.
But anyway, they add a possability to simulize trade over long distances in a much more flexible way, for example supllying the Imperium with amber or the carthaginan trade with the tin isles, so the long distance trade, could be simulated by merchants. In my MTW2 campaigns, merchants always played an important role. An even more important role than you might think in the first moment, since they dadd some income (from v1.2 on, before they are in fact useless because of too less income). I doubt that there are sources which would proof the existence of single persons send abroad by a ruler, but as you can see in the above quoted examples, there are examples for long distance trade, and in my opinion this trade can be simulated much more flexible, historically 'open' and probably more accurate by merchants than just by adding 2 % to the income of certain regions. I would e.g. believe (although i got no proof), that trade between rome and the baltic coast was quite rare in tthe 3rd century b.c., compared to later periods.
They do also make you plan in a more global way, than only in terms of the region your empire is.
So all in all, I think merchants should be included in EBII, since they are not only better suited for simulating long distance trade in a more accurate way and also because of a gameplay reasons.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

However, they should be expensive and especially long to train, but providing a large income. This could represent the difficulties in setting up major trade routes, as well as having a more realistic and useful application of merchants.

[Horatius Flaccus]

This could represent the difficulties in setting up major trade routes

And a normal building can't do that?

I'm against the inclusion of merchants, not in the least because it would mean even more micro-managing.