Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

[silktrader]

In my mod i did : negative_stability = { stability_cost_modifier = 0.1 }
It's close to what you have here (you have 25%), but works on the both ends of stability bar.

As I wrote earlier, we can't do that — there's no more room for negative "stability_cost_modifier". Additional stability cost reductions could lead to this situation (not an uncommon possibility in vanilla, which I think you once commented on):



Negative stability costs, starting from -1 stab.

A further incentive to recover negative stability levels can be provided via events. I had planned to write one for large nations with high stability costs and negative stability levels: they would be offered the option to release a modestly sized vassal in exchange for one stability point.

… when i had advisors lvl5 i had feeeling that ["Great Man"] event comes as often as in vanilia, maybe was my luck this time. Anyway i would still change it to "+1 stability"
A +1 stab in OCO is much more worth than +2 stab in vanilia

When the game was originally released "Great Men" events used to provide +3 stability. Since then cultural tradition was introduced, along with a plethora of different advisors (and therefore more such events). I've heeded your advice: "Great Men" events now provide +1 stability, rather than +2 — along with other differences which I hope to tackle later.

Anyway i like what you did with starting advisors, every country has more. And if i noticed right, when advisor dies, a new one appears. It's really nice chance.

Look, I am glad you found something to your liking, really! But it's not my doing… I haven't meddled with starting advisors: the dynamic remains the same as vanilla. At the beginning of the campaign they are assigned semi randomly, with higher tax base provinces featuring better chances of producing high star advisors.

[Scion]

Silk, should we expect you to participate in playing with this mod, or just developing it?
I'm considering starting a "pilot game" up for a limited number of people just to try it out, and then later doing a bigger "standard sized" game.

[silktrader]

I'd rather play, of course — so I'd gladly participate to a test campaign. I am otherwise unable to organise one, due to time constraints.

[Scion]

I'd rather play, of course — so I'd gladly participate to a test campaign. I am otherwise unable to organise one, due to time constraints.

Oki, well i think i'm fine with organizing one. i figure like 5-7 players for a pilot campaign, and only european countries.

edit:
on second thought maybe it would be more useful to have around 10-12 players.

[Lama43]

Oki, well i think i'm fine with organizing one. i figure like 5-7 players for a pilot campaign, and only european countries.

edit:
on second thought maybe it would be more useful to have around 10-12 players.

With 12 players you'll cover all the European countries worth playing.

[Scion]

With 12 players you'll cover all the European countries worth playing.

the advantage of a smaller game is that its much easier to play around and be flexible about play times etc.
my people will talk to some other people's people, and those people will figure out what to do

[silktrader]

I think what is essential is that players be somewhat familiar with the game already, for the test campaign to be telling. As for the number of participants, I am not concerned about there being fewer than eight players — but I am worried that more than a dozen would prove to be hard to manage: the lower the number of players, the easier it will be to meet everybody's requests and needs for information.

A plea, Scion: don't start a multiplayer campaign before the mod has been tested by participants in single player mode, at least superficially. While I am doing so, I am certain I will have missed issues.

[Scion]

I think what is essential is that players be somewhat familiar with the game already, for the test campaign to be telling. As for the number of participants, I am not concerned about there being fewer than eight players — but I am worried that more than a dozen would prove to be hard to manage: the lower the number of players, the easier it will be to meet everybody's requests and needs for information.

A plea, Scion: don't start a multiplayer campaign before the mod has been tested by participants in single player mode, at least superficially. While I am doing so, I am certain I will have missed issues.

what i'm thinking in regards to playing it in SP, is that much of the balancing you've made, is very MP specific, do you have any idea how the AI will manage?

Also i'm not expecting the pilot game to be considered really serious, its a test game essentially. it be a game that can be restarted without too much fuss, and also have flexible playtimes (so that a session could be more than 4 hours for example).

[silktrader]

what i'm thinking in regards to playing it in SP, is that much of the balancing you've made, is very MP specific, do you have any idea how the AI will manage?

The AI struggles with high stability costs: it has an irritating tendency to repeatedly declare war without casus belli. I will attempt to solve the issue by steering AI priorities. For the moment most large AI nations' stability will float around zero, rather than the more common +3 in vanilla.

(I don't want to lower the AI's aggressiveness.)

[silktrader]

War Taxes

Among the most problematic aspects of the game is the "war taxes" mechanism. We can simply introduce the problem by describing a frequent scenario:

I play as the Ottoman Empire, casus belli abound. I declare war on Candar, on December the second — the following day I raise war taxes. I then storm in the enemy's capital and assault it, I collect 50% more census taxes on January the first. I then proceed to settle for peace with Candar — putting war taxes, and the war exhaustion they implicate, to a halt. I will have gained +1.1 WE overall: the initial +1 increase and a month of +0.1 WE.

It is easy to benefit from war taxes, by taking regular pauses. It is especially convenient to go through December, when every province's census tax will shoot up to 50% more. There are three drawbacks to war taxes: increased war exhaustion (+1.2 per year, +1 una tantum), cultural tradition decay (2%), one less merchant. In many cases, these three arguments are hardly a deterrent. In the unmodded game war taxes are merely tied to a state of war, regardless of the threat posed by enemies, or the treasury's status. In a now typical example: Russia could increase its taxation income, for every owned province, by 50%, simply be declaring war on Nepal.

In "Omnium Contra Omnes" the tax income increase has been sidelined, it is now replaced by a discount on military maintenance. I am listing every consequence brought about by war taxes:

-25% land, naval and mercenary maintenance + 4 maximum war exhaustion +0.25 monthly war exhaustion -0.35 officials

The -25% military maintenance will drastically help those fielding large amounts of regiments, with high maintenance (full strength regiments consume more than partially manned ones). The +4 maximum war exhaustion will guarantee that a state of permanent war taxes can't be reached without nefarious consequences on revolt risk, cultural tradition and legitimacy. The employment of magistrates is justified by the need to actually collect these war dues: the longer war taxes are exacted, the less administrative initiative players will have with regards to building infrastructure. While the monthly war exhaustion increase (+0.25) may seem excessively penalising, it is in fact covered by the beneficial effects provided by force limits. The value was chosen so that the monarch's administrative skill and the "Militia Act" would not be able to completely offset it.

It now is certainly less rewarding, in monetary terms, to levy war taxes while not engaging in warfare. Lowering maintenance would be a better alternative in most cases.

Lastly, two random events, tied to countries exacting war taxes, increase war exhaustion:

• When war score is over sixty, the "people" will ask for peace talks to be expedited, assuming war taxes are being collected. Low maintenance, a derelict opponent and high war score all speed up the event's occurrence.
• Provinces with high tax base may "demand" tax exemptions while war taxes are collected: it's not a particularly frequent event, but when it happens the player will have the option to grant tax exemptions or face rebels.

The intention was to reinforce the concept that war taxes be used as a temporary mean and not "exploited" (as we're fond of saying). For this reason, the minimum time to raise war taxes was decreased to six months, from the previous twelve.

[silktrader]

Logistic Support

This new decision gives the opportunity to temporarily increase provincial supply limits. It serves two purposes: the first is to address an issue stemming from the aftermath of battles fought on own ground, the second is to simply jazz up tactical aspects of the game.

Let us consider a scenario: Russia clashes with Poland, the Russians (quantity) defend in Smolensk against the Poles (quality). The Russian player stations several regiments (60), below his supply limits (70), in Smolensk. The Poles attack with a small army (25), retreating before the first of the month, in safe land: when the first day of the next month comes, both the Poles and Russians will have suffered the same attrition rate (5%, 7% or 10%). The Russian will have suffered more attrition though (more regiments), as his defensive stance doesn't give him the luxury of losing the battle. Russia, although winning the battle, will have gained +0.3 WE at the end of the month, Poland +0.125 WE. The battle will have also caused casualties and related war exhaustion: given the minimum seven days of battle, these can be neglected in many cases. In conclusion, by repeating these operations, provided war score allows it, the Polish player can increase the Russian player's attrition simply by stationing troops in the same province as his foe — supply limits aren't calculated for one army, but for all armies present in the province.

"Logistic Support" increases the base supply limits by 5 — which is higher than anything else at present. This value is multiplied by two factors: technology and the status of the province (owner, military access, etc.). Therefore "logistic support" will increase a province's supply limits by at least +25, for owned provinces — and significantly more as land technology progresses. These effects are similar to what forts bestow: their amplitude is though higher and they are temporary.

There are two requirements to preparing "logistic support":

• the "trade depot" building is required (renamed to "warehouses")
• the player needs to station troops in the province, at the moment of the decision

There are two costs, a monetary one and magistrates:

• 25 ducats before gunpowder troops — or little above a cavalry regiment
• 45 ducats with gunpowder troops — or little above an artillery regiment
• -0.5 magistrates

The improved supply limits are meant to greatly reduce local attrition, to the point where they are absent. "Logistic Support" can either be used in provinces requiring substantial defenses, in pivotal provinces adjacent to possible enemy targets, or in provinces bordering the adversary, to cover and support an invasion.

The key idea is that "Logistic Support" needs to be planned in advance: it requires 18 months to be set up and can't be established in provinces bordering a country already at war with one's own. The positive supply limit modifier will also have a determined duration — three years.

The need for "warehouses" (the old "trade depot") is meant to increase their relevance in the game, there will be more about the building later. Players are otherwise required to station troops in the province prior to setting up "logistic support" for two reasons: a) it's a practical way to hide the decision from the topbar and b) it simulates the logistical problem of reaching a province: one can't prepare "logistic support" in a Japanese province that is unattainable before a seven months cruise.

The decision's description reads:

"For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost." — Old Proverb Our generals rightly insist that we we prepare our military campaigns in advance and appraise the need for increased logistical needs. Give the command and we shall stock $PROVINCENAME$'s warehouses with military supplies, requisition animals for our baggage train and plant barley for horse feed, in advance for our troops passage.

[Scion]

the fact that the mod now has the planting of barley in it, adds awesomeness

[silktrader]

the fact that the mod now has the planting of barley in it, adds awesomeness

(Wait until I let out about carrot growing and culturing yogurt probiotics.)

I am undecided about one bit: diplomatic annexations. As it is now (vanilla), diplomatically annexing even a single province state lowers stability by one. I've changed this dynamic so that for each annexed province (up to five) the overlord loses 10 legitimacy (which isn't as abundant as in vanilla). Does anybody have suggestions for republics. That is, what drawbacks could there be for diplo-annexing small states — as an alternative to stability. I've thought about removing spheres, dismissing the current (elected) ruler, forcing a national focus move, drastically reducing prestige … I've concluded the last option would be among the best, seeing as low prestige reduces chances of future annexations.

[silktrader]

The Black and Baltic Sea Trade — Tolls

Among economic modifiers, in vanilla, two are exceptionally significant: the "Sound Toll" and the "Bosphorus Toll". Both increase "global trade income", by 20% and 15%. The modifier's effects are explained in the thread's third post — despite the name, they don't concern trade income so much as production income. In short, "global trade income", which has been renamed to "trade worth" in the mod, alters goods prices — which in turn affects production value and the trade contribution a province makes to its affiliated centre of trade.

All in all, at 100% production efficiency, the "Sound Toll" would be equivalent to a nation wide 20% increase to production income — without considering the quite tangible and beneficial effects on centres of trade. As long as you control the Danish straits, and sit two notches shy of full free trade, those cozy province you acquired in Bangladesh and Hawaii will earn you 20% and bits more.

In "Omnium Contra Omnes", the control of the straits has concrete consequences, but ones that are local. Very simply, they:

• increase yearly merchants by 0.65
• increase "trade worth" in their respective regions
• offer the possibility to levy "tolls" — as in inflation-free ducats

Provided they are owned by the controller of the strait, the "Sound Toll" will increase the following provinces "trade worth", by 18%. They're twenty seven:

Stockholm Ostergotland Smaland Gotland Halsingland Vasterbotten Osterbotten Finland Nyland Tavastaland Viborg Savolax Kexholm Novgorod Neva Ingermanland Osel Estland Livland Riga Kurland Memel Samogitia OstPreussen Warmia Danzig Hinterpommern

The "Bosphorus Toll", on the other hand, will increase these provinces "trade worth" by 25%. They're sixteen:

Kastamon Sinope Trebizon Imereti Georgia Abkhazia Silistria Cherson Zaporozhia Crimea Kaffa Azow Kouban Cherkassk Kharkov Budjak

Requirements were also changed, it isn't sufficient to own the straits anymore — it's also required to "control" them, that is occupy them. A prolonged occupation will negate the positive effects of the two tolls.

Scenarios:

The Ottoman Empire conquers Constantinople, it holds its historical provinces and qualifies for the "Bosphorus Toll". The +0.65 merchants won't be particularly enticing to them, but the +25% trade worth in every province bordering the Black Sea will likely increase their appetite for conquest in the area. While interests in Crimea and the Caucasus were previously unjustified, unless one was short in manpower and naval force limits, there now is a compelling economic argument to challenge other players expansion in the area.

Sweden or Denmark's expansion in the Baltic was not particularly profitable in vanilla — provinces therein are mostly poor, both in tax base and goods value. Trade goods prices were heavily changed in the mod, and the +18% trade worth could be an encouraging argument to gain naval supplies, fur and copper monopolies, in the Baltic.

Collecting tolls:

Scandinavian tax bases are strikingly low, compared to their Northern European neighbours. This aspect in the game is reflected by historical, demographic, facts. As a consequence though, the Swedes and Danes, who had their modest say in European history, have few tools to play with and raise armies, navies, send merchants and spies. I am quoting: "Frederik II and the Protestant Cause", by Lockart: "[…] the blossoming of the Baltic trade in the mid sixteenth-century and the introduction of a more onerous customs scheme transformed the Sound dues into the single most important cash revenue of the Oldenburg dynasty."

The mod uses an historical argument to re-balance northern dynamics: controlling the Kattegat strait will now provide inflation-free ducats, as census does — and alienate neighbours, traders. Any country, featuring two merchants or more in a centre of trade located in the Baltic region, and requiring to pass through the strait to trade in these spots, will have to occasionally cough up a few ducats that will go to the strait controller.

In practical terms:

The English player trades in Lubeck, she has placed two merchants there. Denmark controls the Oresund and retains a mercantilist attitude. The English player may receive an event proposing that she either coughs up a few ducats (relative to their income), or lose two merchants in Lubeck. When the English pays up, the Dane will receive an event granting ducats — according to their trade efficiency.

The "Sound" controller has the option to spare his allies or friends from paying dues: trade agreements are necessary. Good relations will otherwise slow down the rate at which tolls are collected. These items, on the other hand, will have the opposite effect, increasing the frequency of tolls collections for trading nations:

• high reliance on trade income
• large presence in Baltic centres of trade, as in placed merchants
• mercantilist position of the Sound controller
• trade embargo by the Sound controller
• war with the Sound controller

The "collection" event has a base frequency of six years. The collecting one can expect, at the very least, twenty five ducats. Dues go up as the Sound controller's trade efficiency increases, so that their relevance lingers on during the middle game. It goes without saying but the more traders in Lubeck, Novgorod and other possible Baltic centres of trade, the more ducats the Sound controller will cash in. If trade in the Baltic were to cease, centres of trade shrinking, the toll would cease to be levied.

The "Free Shipping Through the Sound" mission grants the Hansa a positive modifier increasing census taxes in Lubeck. When the Hanseatic league benefits from "free trade" through the Sound, the Sound controller can't collect tolls.

[silktrader]

Merchant Adventures

The old national idea used to provide +1 merchants a year. It never made sense to use an idea slot for such a marginal advantage — splitting centres of trade was a better alternative.

The spirit of the national idea wasn't changed in "Omnium Contra Omnes", its effects are simple: "Merchant Adventures" allow one to trade in remote places. More specifically, the idea doubles one's "trade range" — that is, the distance to which merchants can be sent.

"Trade range" is a result of technological progress, bestowed by the trade branch; although it is also influenced by the free trade slider. In vanilla, "trade range" used to be enough to trade anywhere, from the get go: since one was never short of "trade range", any modifier affecting it was largely irrelevant. The starting "trade range" was 140 in vanilla, it's 100 in the mod — it used to go up to 2100 in 1820, while it now reaches 315 in the mod. It is important to remark that a high "trade range" is not necessary to trade in distant locations: bases are also sufficient. The distance to a foreign centre of trade is calculated from the closest owned port.

Differences between the original version and the mod are best illustrated with some examples:

• In vanilla, a 1400 England can trade in Novgorod — they can't in the mod, they would either require "Merchant Adventures" or a move towards "free trade".
• Given the mercantilist setup the Hansa and Venice can't trade in their respective centres of trade — "Merchant Adventures" would be required. Whereas they would be able to, in the mod.
• In the mod, France, Castille, Portugal and several others wouldn't be able to trade in Turkey, if a centre of trade was to open there. Genova and Venice, given their bases, are otherwise able to trade in Alexandria, Istanbul and Astrakhan (which is now discovered by Western countries). But should Venice and Genova lose their naval bases in the Black Sea and Mediterranean they would also lose the possibility to reach such distant places: their "trade range" wouldn't allow them.
• In the 16th century, Austria isn't hindered by the remarkable distance between Europe and the New World: in vanilla the Austrians can send merchants to Mexico. There's no way they can accomplish that in the mod, they would need a) an Italian province with a port on the Tyrrenean sea and b) "Merchant Adventures", without a too heavy bias on mercantilism.

In short, a combination of "free trade", ports and "Merchant Adventures" are required to trade in distant centres of trade. The national idea is obviously reinforced by these requirements.

Related Decisions and Events:

Trade stations used to sprout in trade league members, triggered by random events. This aspect is now influenced by players decisions: one must "Expand the Franchise", the principal condition is that one features "Merchant Adventures". Trade stations' advantages are twofold: a) they increase trade worth and therefore provinces contributions to their affiliated centre of trade, b) they earn dividends for the merchant republic.

"Merchant Adventures" is required to trigger the "Merchant Shipping Act". The national idea is also necessary to benefit from a) the "East India Trade Route", which bestows players with +1 merchant and b) a new triggered modifier dubbed "Imperialism & Colonialism", giving +0.5 colonists.

These items will be described in their own sections.

[silktrader]

For those whose curiosity is piqued by the mod, a test campaign was set up here. There may be another one, in two weeks, depending on Scion's plans and interest. The first and third posts in this thread were updated with a link to the newest release and a (very disorderly) index.

[Krijger9]

Im kinda afraid of playing your mod seeing it will actually become hard

[Lama43]

Crap, i can't on tuesdays, if only it was on wednesday...
I'll wait for Scion's campaign if it's on a better time for me.

[silktrader]

Trade Stations and Dividends

The "trade stations" system, in the mod, is a tad peculiar: its introduction was motivated by the need to provide inflation-free income to small merchant republics, as well as an alternative to conquest (and accrued census) for these same countries. Players now have the option to "Expand the Franchise", that is sending merchants abroad to open trade stations. This national decision requires:

merchant adventures three active merchants in any centre of trade 45 ducats

During the ensuing period of expansion, the merchant republic will receive a +3 trade investment each month and a drastic reduction of merchants, 2.35 less. This extent of time (15 years) will be put to good use: every province owned by a trade league member will be a candidate to hosting a "trade station". These have two effects:

Trade worth

A "trade station" increases trade worth by 15%, which is comparable to marketplaces. This bonus in turn bears two fruits: a) it increases production income for the trade station province, b) it increases the value of the centre of trade affiliated with the province.

Point (a) is certainly the easiest to measure: a province producing 1.5 units (average) of a trade good priced at 12 (average), with a production efficiency of 20% (lowest) will net about +0.5 ducats more per year — at 60% production efficiency, on the other hand, the "trade station" may increase yearly income by 1.6 ducats. The trend is simple: the higher base trade goods prices or production units are, the more income "trade stations" will provide. They are particularly effective when coupled with "trade rights". It goes without saying but the production income increase is an exclusive prerogative of the province owner.

The second point (b) presents many intangibles. A province producing 1.5 units of a good priced at 12 would contribute three more ducats to its centre of trade, with a functioning "trade station". A province producing 2 units of a good priced at 20 would contribute twice as much, or six ducats more. This increase would lead to better compete chances for mercantilist countries, more census taxes for the trade league owner and obviously higher trade income for those countries featuring merchants in the affiliated centre of trade.

Dividends

These are exclusively earnt by merchant republics, that is trade league owners. Dividends are distributed with a varying frequency, but circa every five years: they are treasury-ducats, as opposed to investment-ducats. Two factors concoct to increase dividend margins:

• the number of established trade stations in foreign countries
• the time trade stations have been operating

I hope the dividend's collection description plainly conveys the dynamic:

The Republic's direct involvement in commercial affairs stems from the desire to protect its citizens interests abroad, as well as its need to provision the state's coffers. By promoting the establishment of trading posts in foreign lands, both the recipient nation and ours will benefit. Our own trade centres will gain sole access over goods, while the trade station host will prosper thanks to an improved distribution of its products. The Republic's investment in commercial ventures is expected to earn generous dividends, depending on the success of its franchise expansion. The Republic's share in merchant ventures abroad entitles us to an equitable cut of their profits. Alas, gains from commercial enterprises are ever so volatile. We rejoice today, for we've learnt that, after long anticipation, the latest dividends from our investments have being paid out. Our financial advisors anticipate returns ranging from twenty to twenty five ducats per operating trade station, to be distributed every five years on average.

All in all, a trade station can bestow its founder with 5 treasury-ducats every year. The moment a country leaves a trade league, its trade stations are erased: the amount derived from dividends decreases appropriately.

These figures, relative to "trade worth" and "dividends", only make sense when one can assume the number of established trade stations. We shall be discussing that now. For a province to host trade stations, it needs to meet certain requirements:

province owner is in a trade league trade league owner is expanding his franchise tax base is higher than four (as it affects production units) the province owner doesn't own a centre of trade

The last condition is the one requiring more elucidations. Any owned province will always gravitate towards one's centres of trade: when England founds a trade centre in London, every English province will thereafter trade through London — regardless of English membership in the Hansa. Furthermore, the engine doesn't allow the creation of trade centres when belonging to a trade league — the original design was to exclude nations owning trade centres from being in a trade league. In the mod, trade league owners will want to avoid their members creating centres of trade while, perhaps, funding competing trade leagues members to emancipate themselves.

When the above conditions are met a trade station will have 25% chances of appearing in a province during the 15 years lasting "franchise expansion". The number of established trade stations will obviously increase the more provinces a league controls. Some parameters negatively affect the base chance of a trade station being founded — percentages refer to the "mean time to happen":

• +100%: neighbouring province hosts a trade station
• + 50%: province produces low value goods
• + 30%: province's revolt risk is higher than three (nationalism's threshold)
• + 30%: owner has over fifty provinces (generally scales with owner's size)
• + 20%: province does not have a marketplace

On the other hand, other variables speed up the process:

• -50%: owner has "Merchant Ventures"
• -25%: port province
• -20%: province has "warehouses"
• -10%: province owner has existing trade rights with the league owner

Considerations:

The first round of "Expand the Franchise" will always be the most profitable one, seeing as trade stations are more frequently founded when they are not in proximity of others. The need for successive rounds needs to be weighed against (a) their cost — 45 ducats per round and (b) the average lifespan one can expect from trade stations.

"Trade Stations" can't be funded in developing colonies, blockaded or occupied provinces.

When both the trade league owner and member feature "Merchant Adventures", the setting up of "trade stations" will be expedited. Given England's reliance on its coastlines (ports), lack of centre of trade and geographical location (hard to reach continental centres of trade), "Merchant Adventures" could allow them to significantly increase their income. Synergies with the Hansa (trade stations, trade rights) could provide good money, possibly superior to other national ideas benefits.

A frequent opening for merchant republics (but Novgorod) is to chose "National Trade Policy". "Merchant Adventures" may be as good an alternative or better.

Let's assume a 1415 Venice, with 30% trade efficiency, a 1300 trade centre and five merchants placed therein. "National Trade Policy" would increase income by about 30 ducats per year, without counting tolls. One would need to set up and maintain but more than seven trade stations to rival with "National Trade Policy", earning treasury-ducats rather than investment-ducats. There obviously are many other considerations to weigh: compete chances, diplomatic leverage, trade centres value, the number of provinces and relative tolls, the need for ducats or for investments, etc.

Even under the most extreme circumstances, a player will never earn more than one hundred ducats per year from trade stations. On the other hand, the trade range provided by "Merchant Adventures" will be most useful when countries have a) enough ducats to send merchants and b) sufficient compete chances to venture abroad. The incidence of these two aspects makes "Merchant Adventures" an enticing opportunity both in the early and middle game for "Merchant Republics".

As written above, the "Franchise Expansion" period bestows players with +3 trade technology investment, at the cost of 2.25 yearly merchants and 45 ducats: this last cost is easily offset by the technology investment.

The incertitude of dividends could push players to subscribe loans, in anticipation for returns. When you know you can expect dividends in the next five years, you're more likely to loan ducats — safe in the knowledge that minting won't be necessary. This possibility bonds well with new decisions facilitating loans (increasing their size and decreasing interest rates).

[Lama43]

One question: does being a free trade TL make sense? Is it possible to have comparable income to a free trader as a mercantilist?