I like the idea, maybe pre-established trade routes could be on the Blitzkrieg map, but on other ones you could make your own.

Good idea.

Maybe it could also be based on your current economy? The better it is, the more trade routes you can have and the further they can go. Ex: Level 3 infrastructure across much of the nation could allow a lot of land trade routes, but the infrastructure of other nations that the route passes through could also affect how far they can go in addition to your own. Same idea for naval trade routes.

Exactly. You could also need to protect trade routes, maybe assign units to travel along the trade routes and protect your trade.

I don't like it. Just because it is more realistic, doesn't mean it is better. I mean, can you imaging playing a tank simulator game and then your tank breaks down, leaving you immobile and unable to play? That would suck.

Then, with this, you would generally have to be plundering a helluva lot of the stuff coming through the ports to make a significant difference to your economy, so that would be unrealistic.

Name 5 from WWII.

It was oil and a route to Turkey and the Middle East, not trade....

Trade Routes are a GREAT idea for the game. It will add a whole another dimension to it, the only downside it may make the game too complicated for some people and they may give it up before learning ins and outs.

How about linking specific territories (like traditional capitals or historical great ports) And making links between them (ports, infrastructure?) could unlock an increased monetary income in those territories

Hong Kong,
Singapore,
Saudi Arabia,
Lybia,
Malta,
Algeria,
Tunisia,
Netherlands,

+1 for this idea.

I don't like the idea. This looks like the feature from EU4. What it did was to make some nations stronger and some weaker than before based only on geographic position. Unlike EU4, this is not historical game, but a game based on balanced countries and equal possibilities.

Making some some regions importan for trade, traditional trade centers, historical great ports, preexisting trade routes and similar thing will greatly unbalance the game. They are also too complex to implement if you compare their benefit with the downsides. Also, this is not a grand strategy games like Paradox's games when you control all aspects of nations but a multiplayer war game when economy is not a priority.

More than 5 of those were not countries during WWII. Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong and Algeria certainly weren't and neither were Alger or Tunisia.

That could be for maps like Blitzkrieg. On the balanced maps, you would have to make your own. It's up to the devs for impact on a nations economy if they go ahead with it.

I say we already suggested this some time ago, but it was about morale and not economically, I believe it's about communications if my memory is correct (God I sound so old)

Anyway it makes the game more realistic, in WW2 EVERY country rely on trade to keep the war effort going, well except the Axis powers since they try to be self sufficient, without trade Britain would fall without US aid, and the pacific campaign would be a standstill, countries that stay neutral provided the materials for the participating nations, where at home we make bombs while somewhere else they make food and we bought them.


Game-wise it make the game realistic but it will be difficult to manage, remember non-core provide only 25% and we can't dedicate destroyers protecting them from subs all the time, consumption will outpace production if we allocate resource to defending the routes. Especially if said routes span half the map.

And don't get me started on the world map.

The only plus is the economic boost, but compare it to just focusing on defeating your enemy, we would spend half on attacking and winning and the other half on defending just to keep going.