Am I missing something or are merchant republics incredibly weak?

[fleetothemoon]

I've been playing merchant republics for a while and I can't imagine any scenario where I wouldn't want to change to another republican government. I made some comparisons between merchant republics and a standard republics. It seems clear to me that MR is a government form that pays a steep penalty just to get some flowery tools that become increasingly redundant as the game naturally progresses.

Thus, I have a few suggestions how to make MR government a bit more useful. I wanted to see if the community also agree with my comparisons or perhaps add in alternative or additional perspectives.

Compared to a normal republic, MRs gets the following penalties:

1. Loss of estates, which means:
   • Losing 50-150 mana in every category every 20 years
   • Losing 10% trade effiency (default burgher loyalty bonus)
   • Losing 15% tax (default clergy loyalty bonus)
   • Losing 20% manpower recovery (default noble loyalty bonus)
   • Lost of Burgher designated tradepower bonus (+50% tradepower)
2. Softcapped to 19 provinces, or lose RT
3. Heavy absolutism cap (-50 max)

In return, MR gets the following bonuses/mechanics:

1. MR Factions, which gives only ONE of these three bonuses:
   • +5% army morale, +25% sailors, -10% tradepower aboard (if Aristocrat in power)
   • +10% tradepower, 10% cheaper naval maintenance, -5% tax (if Trader in power)
   • -10% construction cost, +10% trade good, -10% manpower (if Guilds in power)
2. Ability to create trade leagues and trade cities
   • Allows you to hoard OPMs that donate half of their tradepower to you while serving as a defensive ally but only taking one diplomatic spot
3. All vassals give 50% trade power to a MR overlord passively
4. Various trading bonuses:
   • +1 Merchant
   • Can add +10 tradepower to one province in each trade node for 50 paper mana
   • Provinces gets a goods production bonus, scaling with half of your tradepower % in a trade node (capping at 50%)

With the above listed (feel free to add or correct if I'm missing something), let me just describe the usefulness of these bonuses:

1. Merchant factions mechanics are simply weak compared to estate bonuses. The passive bonuses granted by the factions are inconsequential - it doesn't even make sense why each comes with a penalty.
2. Trade leagues may be useful in some scenarios but anyone can make another weaker power donate 50% of their trade power without using a diplomatic spot. Defensively speaking, trade leagues becomes increasingly useless as the league leader grows and may even become a liability since league leaders cannot call in their allies to defend a member and the number of members in a league are softcapped. Trade cities can alleviate the softcap but they are limited since you can only have one in every trade node. League members can be unreliable, leaving if no longer a OPM or if they feel like it, and even ally with your rivals or pirate your trade node etc. The worst thing that can happen, is when you successfully defend a trade league member, only for them to go and steal province from the aggressor, causing them to leave the trade league...
3. Vassal giving 50% tradepower to you is redundant because you can make any vassal hand you 100% tradepower by using the divert trade interaction, at the cost of some liberty desire.
4. The governmental trade/economic bonuses are probably the only ones that actually scales half-decently. More money is more money.

Considering that all of this comes at the loss of potential mana from estates and major penalties to expansion, I feel as though Merchant Republics are simply not useful after early game.

Even if you play 'tall' going with 40 development in every province, that would still only be 760 development in total. AI in mid game can easily reach over 2000 dev. No trade league of weak improverished OPMs are going to make a difference if you get attacked. In other words, the strength of merchant republics is incredibly limited.

For this reason, I think Merchant Republic can really do with some buffs.

I suggest the following:

1. Buff the factions - I suggest doubling all the bonuses and removing the penalty but this is may be too significant of a change for people to accept. But honestly, even if this was done, it would still be weaker than estates...
2. Buff the trade leagues - attacking the trade league should be the equivalent to making the trade league leader co-belligerent, allowing the trade league leader to call in their allies. This covers the main liability of trade leagues, and makes them at least a net benefit past early game.
3. Considering how limited trade cities are, I suggest that they should be made as a diplomatic-slot free subject, instead of a league member. If they are fed provinces to no longer be an OPM, they should be transition to a standard vassal.
4. Make divert trade cost no liberty desire for Merchant Republican government. Alternatively, make vassals automatically give 100% tradepower to a merchant republic.

These are some pretty radical buffs... but that is because merchant republic is unusually weak. No other (old world) government form forces you to stay at such a low province count.

Overall, these changes would not make Merchant Republics stronger than a typical republic, simply by virtue of still being softcapped to 19 provinces with -50 max absolutism cap. However, it would at least give them more ways to grow and develop their power base.


So, what do you people think?

 

[holyvigil]

They are weak. Estates are beefy.

 

[Laurent1944]

Just one thing to be precise: a merchant republic loses RT if your have more than 19 STATED provinces. You can have as much possesions as you want (and can support corruption wise) and as much TC land that you can take.

From my last run with Hamburg (for the Bunte Kuh achievement), my merchant republic was incredibly rich. I am often swimming in money in EU4, but here I was using also a gold pool to put the money in....
No estate mean losing 450 MP every 20 years... roughly 2 per month. I was running high level advisors far much earlier than in normal run, so I would say that MP wise, having better advisors in all categories is better (3 per month), at least until a "normal" state can pay lvl 4 advisors. Also as you don't conquer/state much provinces, you don't need so much mana as big blobs.
No estate mean losing 10% trade efficiency, 10% taxes and 20% manpower. But as a merchant republic, only trade count, and the +10% tradepower of the trader factin compensates the 10% efficiency. Taxes are quickly irrelevant, and a MR army is mostly made of mercenaries, so manpower is not so useful.

As for trade league members, with diplo ideas and the ivory bonus, I was able to lead a league of 14-15 members shortly after 1600, each providing between at least 6k men. I had never to defend a league member after 1500, and before that it was pure HRE internal matters.

My experience of Hamburg was that I became 1st GP by conquering TC land and had so much more money than I can build all TC buildings, so boosting my military power

 

[Laurent1944]

Also you estate bonuses are not 100% free. You have to give them provinces that so have 25% autonomy minimum. In a merchant republic, you can have all provinces at 0% autonomy.

And speaking of MPs, the average republic leader is better than the average king.

 

[Laurent1944]

For some reason I can't upload screen captures but here are some figures for my Bunte Kuh run, done in 1612:
_ 90 provinces, 988 dev + around 1000 in vassal/CNs, including a Mexican CN of 600+ dev. 1st GP with 1499 points, followed by Otto with 1172.
_ net income: 540 (including 385 from trade, 110 from production), spendings: 160/month. Net gain 4500 ducats/year not counting Gold fleets. Meaning I can change my three lvl 5 advisors each year if I want. Or build a lvl 3 trade port every three months (well I have build them already), or a manufactory per month (done too).
_ league has 14-15 members, in Germany, Italy, India, Burma, Indonesia and even... the Pirat Republic of New Providence
_ army is 28 regular artillery + 54k mercenary infantry (5th in the world), FL is 138 (even 5th in the world) but if you had the league members (just counting 6k men for each, so 90k) the league has the 3rd army in the world (after Ming and Russia) and the second FL (after Ming).
_ navy is the first in the world with 339 ships, second is GB with 104. By the way the end of the game was me invading Great Britain and asking GB to share its trade power, to have the livestock trade bonus.
_ I have the trade bonus in 20 different trade goods.

So, yes, I can't WC with Hamburg, but the gameplay changes a lot from your usual blob, and is certainly not as weak as said above.

Last point regarding the MP, Dharma allows you to reduce the election from 4 to 3 years. The Republican Tradition is reduced, but your leader gains 1 MP in each category faster. Also you have a choice to have a new leader start with 7 points rather than 6. And you take no stab hit when losing your leader.

 

[macd21]

Overall, these changes would not make Merchant Republics stronger than a typical republic, simply by virtue of still being softcapped to 19 provinces with -50 max absolutism cap. However, it would at least give them more ways to grow and develop their power base.


So, what do you people think?

I think you’re missing one of the main reasons why MRs are limited to 20 provinces: they’re not supposed to be viable governments in the mid or late game. It’s a government you’re supposed to ditch as you grow in power, unless you want the challenge.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Just one thing to be precise: a merchant republic loses RT if your have more than 19 STATED provinces. You can have as much possesions as you want (and can support corruption wise) and as much TC land that you can take.

Being limited to only 19 provinces that you can make into a state significantly limits your strength. You can definitely go far with a Merchant Republic, but it doesn't change the fact that MRs are a weak government, and that it is essentially a self-handicap. Can you enjoy the game with it? Sure. But there are no gameplay reasons to remain a MR.

From my last run with Hamburg (for the Bunte Kuh achievement), my merchant republic was incredibly rich. I am often swimming in money in EU4, but here I was using also a gold pool to put the money in....

From from what I can see of the game mechanics, you being rich is largely not due to you being a merchant republic, but due to you playing the game properly and controlling the trade nodes properly. Any non-merchant republic can do this and not be hit by a -50 abolutism cap along with softcap of 19 provinces. At the end of the day, any one can play Lubeck, Genoa, Venice etc successfully. However, the question then, is this: what is the point of remaining as a merchant republic?

No estate mean losing 450 MP every 20 years... roughly 2 per month. I was running high level advisors far much earlier than in normal run, so I would say that MP wise, having better advisors in all categories is better (3 per month), at least until a "normal" state can pay lvl 4 advisors. Also as you don't conquer/state much provinces, you don't need so much mana as big blobs.

I agree with you that advisers are definitely far better mp-generation wise. However, the important thing to note, is that I'm comparing a merchant republic with the standard republican government. A merchant republic can't get MP from estates but can use advisors - that is true indeed. However, other republics can get MP from estates and use advisors.

I would also argue that mana-generation is actually more important for any sort of 'tall' playstyle. From a total development growth perspective, developing your own provinces is less mana-efficient than just outright conquest or diploannexation. The higher development each of your province already is, the less mana-efficient it becomes. For Merchant Republics who are limited to play very tall at 19 provinces max, mana generation will be directly linked to the growth of your total development aka 'power level'.

No estate mean losing 10% trade efficiency, 10% taxes and 20% manpower. But as a merchant republic, only trade count, and the +10% tradepower of the trader factin compensates the 10% efficiency. Taxes are quickly irrelevant, and a MR army is mostly made of mercenaries, so manpower is not so useful.

Once again, I like to point out that I'm comparing merchant republic to a standard republic, not whether or not you can succeed as a merchant republic. If you just compare the bonuses between the two, you will see clearly that MR loses out. You can also say this: "As a non-merchant republic, the +10% trade efficiency, +15% taxes (taking into account of the guild's -5% tax penalty), +20% manpower, and ability to get mana from estates every 20 years, is better than the 10% global trade power and -10% naval maintenance-bonus that you get as a merchant republic that has guild faction in power. Global tradepower is quickly irreverent once you dominate a trade node."

Plus, I should note that mercenary heavy army is not a merchant republican trait. Essentially, any nation with enough money can do it. Of course, those who have the manpower can do raise both standard troops and mercenaries. This is not an advantage for MRs.

Also you estate bonuses are not 100% free. You have to give them provinces that so have 25% autonomy minimum. In a merchant republic, you can have all provinces at 0% autonomy.

You're thinking of the older version of the game. In the current version of the game, you don't have to give the estate anything. In fact, I often don't, and mostly only assign high trade value provinces to Burghers. There are events which they demand provinces, but you can just ignore them. I even strip estates entirely of their land sometimes, since any estate disloyalty/superloyalty penalties are temporary and drift towards the medium where they provide passive bonuses. You would only bother giving estates land if you want to increase their influence, but you can do that through estate interactions anyway. For burghers though, it generally doesn't hurt to give them high trade value provinces anyway.

For some reason I can't upload screen captures but here are some figures for my Bunte Kuh run, done in 1612:
_ 90 provinces, 988 dev + around 1000 in vassal/CNs, including a Mexican CN of 600+ dev. 1st GP with 1499 points, followed by Otto with 1172.
_ net income: 540 (including 385 from trade, 110 from production), spendings: 160/month. Net gain 4500 ducats/year not counting Gold fleets. Meaning I can change my three lvl 5 advisors each year if I want. Or build a lvl 3 trade port every three months (well I have build them already), or a manufactory per month (done too).
_ league has 14-15 members, in Germany, Italy, India, Burma, Indonesia and even... the Pirat Republic of New Providence
_ army is 28 regular artillery + 54k mercenary infantry (5th in the world), FL is 138 (even 5th in the world) but if you had the league members (just counting 6k men for each, so 90k) the league has the 3rd army in the world (after Ming and Russia) and the second FL (after Ming).
_ navy is the first in the world with 339 ships, second is GB with 104. By the way the end of the game was me invading Great Britain and asking GB to share its trade power, to have the livestock trade bonus.
_ I have the trade bonus in 20 different trade goods.

So, yes, I can't WC with Hamburg, but the gameplay changes a lot from your usual blob, and is certainly not as weak as said above.

Your ability to play a merchant republic well is not inconsistent with the idea that merchant republics are inferior to a standard republic. Everything you said could be accomplished by a standard republic (minus the trade league) who decides to go on a colonization spree. In fact, I would assert that if you were playing a standard republic, you would had performed significantly better.

I am surprised that you managed to get 14-15 members though. I must of underestimated the power that diplomatic reputation plays in this.

I'm also surprised that the strongest AI power in your game only had 1172 development. Generally at that point, even Ming would had more dev than that in my games. Maybe the fact that you assembled such a large trade league over the world deterred the AI from expanding, thus, hindering AI from growing as much as they may usually? I can see how that might work.

Last point regarding the MP, Dharma allows you to reduce the election from 4 to 3 years. The Republican Tradition is reduced, but your leader gains 1 MP in each category faster. Also you have a choice to have a new leader start with 7 points rather than 6. And you take no stab hit when losing your leader.

Unless if I'm missing a point, I don't see how this is irrelevant to the how merchant republics compare to a standard republic though. A normal republic can get this reform too?

I think you’re missing one of the main reasons why MRs are limited to 20 provinces: they’re not supposed to be viable governments in the mid or late game. It’s a government you’re supposed to ditch as you grow in power, unless you want the challenge.

That's a valid argument. If that really is the case, then it would make sense. I don't think that it is supposed to be this way though, as they had too many unique mechanics to just be something that we get rid of later in the game. Plus, MR's province limit hasn't always been around, and back then, MR wasn't any stronger or weaker than a standard republic. From what I can see, it seems that the devs changed MR to be more unique, not more weak.

I feel as though that the devs just happened to start adding/changing various mechanics which removed MR advantage, such as: 1) DLC unlocked ability to divert trade nullifying MR subject bonus; 2) transferring trade power no longer requiring a diplomatic spot, nullifying a trade league advantage, and 3) making estates no longer demand land - eliminating the MR exclusive ability to having 0% minimum autonomy in all provinces.

 

[Dakka]

I think you’re missing one of the main reasons why MRs are limited to 20 provinces: they’re not supposed to be viable governments in the mid or late game. It’s a government you’re supposed to ditch as you grow in power, unless you want the challenge.

And yet somehow Pirate Republics are more effective forms of government...

 

[tafsiwerd]

@OP it's well known that MRs are a bottom tier government. The faction system was outdated/obsolete the day estates came out. Although it appears estates are getting a further rework.
It's also worth noting that probably the most popular merchant republic (venice) now has a special government that is even worse than the normal MR government. (Even though it was intended as a buff).

As you pointed out, Trade Leagues are worthless. Most MRs or nations that would want to be MRs are in or near the HRE and could simply join it for protection. Or are better protected by having a couple big allies. Instead TL's are a liability since it gives a way for someone like the Ottos to declare on you sans your allies. Even someone like Novgorod who wants all the help possible, isn't exactly benefited by bringing Odoyev into a trade league. Trade cities are also memelevel, since you cap out at one per trade node and they make it more difficult for you to get normal opms into your trade league. They might have a slight cheesy use, since you can create them during war and get some free units instantly. But it's still weak overall because they're separated.

MRs got a rarely mentioned nerf in Dharma patch. While the policy for shorter elections is quite good, the spamming of trade power provinces and upgrades completely diminishes the importance of "trade posts", which was the one good thing about being a MR.

The most viable way to play MRs is to get a lot of marches btw, since you can go over the soft cap and still rake in some trade power. And once you + your marches are strong enough, a trade league stops being a liability. Then eat into TC land just like everyone else.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

20 states + Colonial Nations + infinite amount of Trade Company land combines into pretty nice little empire. 20 States is enough to dominate any end node in Europe, and everything that matters in Africa/Asia is trade company land anyway. But yeah, that's not really a benefit of Merchant Republics but a benefit of trade companies in general.

 

[browd]

It's not 20 states, it's 20 provinces in states. And it doesn't matter if you choose not to fully core a province in a state -- a province with a territorial core that is located in a state still counts.

 

[Laurent1944]

20 states + Colonial Nations + infinite amount of Trade Company land combines into pretty nice little empire. 20 States is enough to dominate any end node in Europe, and everything that matters in Africa/Asia is trade company land anyway. But yeah, that's not really a benefit of Merchant Republics but a benefit of trade companies in general.

It is not 20 states it is 20 provinces belonging to a state. On the other hand I dominated the Channel with only two provinces (lvl 3 and lvl 2 port), 100+ light ships and regular trade war to force people to give me trade power.

The obvious advantage of merchant republic is to serve the merchant class, and so to boost trade, and the EU4 MR are certainly very good at it. And for an achievement like Bunte Kuh where you need to have control of trade, a MR is probably the most efficient governement to use.

Regarding the relatively smaller GPs in my game above, the Ottos had 1172 pts but 1325 dev corrected by institution delay. And one factor that may explain that they did not blob as hard as in other games is that 100 up to date light ships with bonus privateering on your trade node is not good. I just checked and total trade revenue for the Otto was 8 ducats/months. Poor AI was probably in the red most of the time.

 

[fleetothemoon]

20 states + Colonial Nations + infinite amount of Trade Company land combines into pretty nice little empire. 20 States is enough to dominate any end node in Europe, and everything that matters in Africa/Asia is trade company land anyway. But yeah, that's not really a benefit of Merchant Republics but a benefit of trade companies in general.

Everyone already mentioned that it's 20 provinces, not 20 states.

I just like to mention that if it was actually a 20 states limit, instead of a 20 province limit, I wouldn't had made my post.

20 states is about 60-100 provinces - so 3-5 times what a MR can currently get in the game. More than enough for a standard tall playthrough - even one that ignores colonization.

 

[Skagzill]

i honestly would love to play as Merchant Republic, but these handicaps really bother me to play around them. I also don't see benefits as something monumental enough to warrant such debuffs.

My idea for buffs:

From 20 province limit > 50% of available state limits (while I dont understand the reason behind the limitation, if it has to exist making it scaleable into lategame should help a lot)
A way to interact with factions a la Estates (few buttons that trade influence for bonuses, to have way to play with it outside of random events, election and mana)
A new Diplo option maybe to pay some nations to fight wars on your behalf? Like if the idea that you get rich from all the trade, you should be able to leverage that money by giving them to certain countries to fight on your side. Cost could be different depending whether or not its defensive/offensive war, relations between you your opponent and your potential hire.

Thoughts?

 

[Regaccio]

Capped to 20 provinces = trash government. It could have all the other bonuses at the same time with none of the downsides, and it'd still be worse then a regular monarchy. 20 provinces is absolutely nothing in modern EU4.
Not having estates just further relegates them to the bottom of the barrel. -50 absolutism seals the deal in making it a government you switch out of ASAP and never enter to begin with.

 

[Laurent1944]

A merchant republic is not a blob, it is supposed to be a state ruler by merchants to maximilize their profits, and it is perfectly doing that.

Again, 20 provinces could be each the biggest province in a state, plus all TC land, plus the equivalent of possible states in possession (and even more as you can easily pay off corruption), plus CN is a huge empire, far bigger than any merchant republic had in historical time.

The best to have a merchant empire blob is to have all your provinces in separated states, surrounded by OPM that you attack for war repairs and trade share and attack again if they break the deal. These provinces should be big ones, and lvl 3 or lvl 2 ports. Then in places where you're not interested in a big trade center, you can take the whole state, but keep it as a possession. And of course you can have as much TC land as you want. Add in 2 big vassals, your trade league (that does not help much for military matters, but a lot for trade, especially as commercial range increases) and 1-2 big allies (easy to keep as you have few AE in Europe.... just if you go to the gold mines in Mexico and Peru you will piss off all European colonial powers that will always want them, even if they have not landed in the area, so you can choose Austria, Russia or the Ottomans).

So no WC with a MR, but 1st GP is certainly doable.

 

[Laurent1944]

A new Diplo option maybe to pay some nations to fight wars on your behalf? Like if the idea that you get rich from all the trade, you should be able to leverage that money by giving them to certain countries to fight on your side. Cost could be different depending whether or not its defensive/offensive war, relations between you your opponent and your potential hire.

Thoughts?

Money currently allows you to win allies quicker (influence, gifts, subsidies), to hire mercenaries and even companies... if the AI proposes you. Also as you are not so interested in taking provinces yourself, you can give much more than usual to allies, so favor and trust go up quickly and your allies will always be ready to fight for you (especially if you pay their debts, and you can do it too if needed). Actually in the current state of EU4 you spend a lot of money on your allies as a merchant republic, and so are sure they will fight on your side both defensively and offensively (only big changer are the American gold mines as I say above, because opinion may change from +200 to -200 immediately after you or your CN take it and your 100-trust ally will become your rival (by the way you don't need these gold mines)).

Edited: by the way the best way to manage American gold mines is to have your Mexican and Peruvian CNs take all provinces in the area except them. AFAIK no gold province is coastal, so if you keep native states having them, only your CN should be able to attack them, and we know how CN won't do that alone most of the time. Also you can attack them yourselves to ask money, prestige and so on each time the truce is over, and so be sure your CN can't attack them. Would be a fun reverse of history to see a colonial power NOT going for gold in America.

 

[Skagzill]

Money currently allows you to win allies quicker (influence, gifts, subsidies), to hire mercenaries and even companies... if the AI proposes you. Also as you are not so interested in taking provinces yourself, you can give much more than usual to allies, so favor and trust go up quickly and your allies will always be ready to fight for you (especially if you pay their debts, and you can do it too if needed). Actually in the current state of EU4 you spend a lot of money on your allies as a merchant republic, and so are sure they will fight on your side both defensively and offensively (only big changer are the American gold mines as I say above, because opinion may change from +200 to -200 immediately after you or your CN take it and your 100-trust ally will become your rival (by the way you don't need these gold mines)).

Edited: by the way the best way to manage American gold mines is to have your Mexican and Peruvian CNs take all provinces in the area except them. AFAIK no gold province is coastal, so if you keep native states having them, only your CN should be able to attack them, and we know how CN won't do that alone most of the time. Also you can attack them yourselves to ask money, prestige and so on each time the truce is over, and so be sure your CN can't attack them. Would be a fun reverse of history to see a colonial power NOT going for gold in America.

What you talking about is available to all nations. I am talking about exclusive mechanics for MR. The way I see it working is something likes:

I am Venice. I get attacked by Ottos. I check major Europeans who rival Ottomans. I see France Commonwealth and Austria-Hungary. Austria hates me, so they wont take my money, Commonwealth fighting with Russia so charges astronomical price, while France is willing to do it for 25 ducats/month. For that price they join the war on my side but dont consume Diplo slot and participate as they would innormal war. As soon as peace is declared I stop paying and we part ways until next time I need them.

 

[covya]

I would say that merchant republics are circumstantial, and aren't designed to stand in their own right. In a recent custom nation MP game, I started as a pirate republic on New Guinea (it's in the Oceania continent, letting you TC all of Asia) with the intention of taking the merchant republic option at tier 5. Between the MR bonuses and the TC bonuses, I was rolling in so much money while not going any further than Malacca in terms of conquest (there was nothing stopping me going further)

This meant that my boats could protect my entire empire (and there were a lot of boats) and that most other players spent most of their time trying to appease me so that I'd either fund them, or at least not fund their enemies

 

[Battlex]

@OP it's well known that MRs are a bottom tier government. The faction system was outdated/obsolete the day estates came out. Although it appears estates are getting a further rework.
It's also worth noting that probably the most popular merchant republic (venice) now has a special government that is even worse than the normal MR government. (Even though it was intended as a buff).

As you pointed out, Trade Leagues are worthless. Most MRs or nations that would want to be MRs are in or near the HRE and could simply join it for protection. Or are better protected by having a couple big allies. Instead TL's are a liability since it gives a way for someone like the Ottos to declare on you sans your allies. Even someone like Novgorod who wants all the help possible, isn't exactly benefited by bringing Odoyev into a trade league. Trade cities are also memelevel, since you cap out at one per trade node and they make it more difficult for you to get normal opms into your trade league. They might have a slight cheesy use, since you can create them during war and get some free units instantly. But it's still weak overall because they're separated.

How is venetian merchant Republic more weak?