Are merchants even worth it?

[unmerged(16983)]

In most games that I have played, it seems that each merchant, at least in early games, only makes around 7 or 8 gold per turn in the best Trade Centers. However, about 2 or 3 get competed away each year, and when it takes at least 2 merchants to replace each of those, and they each cost 6 or 7 gold, it seems like I'm spending a lot more to replace these merchants than I'm actually getting from them. Is there any point at all in doing this?

 

[unmerged(6925)]

Merchants are definitely worth it, in the long run. By endgame, its generally my largest source of income by a longshot.

 

[artemis667]

Okay, this depends on a number of things.
First thing to note - really early on in the game, when your trade tech is low and there are lots of little minors, it's usually not worth trading because your return is low, chance of failure is high and all the little minors will compete you out. However, once the map consolidates a bit, your trade tech hits 3, it's well worth your while. Don't use auto-send, obviously. Concentrate on your own COTs first, then neighbouring ones. Don't just look for COTs with the highest return/lowest costs, look for ones which aren't as competitve (ones outside Europe are great later on in the game, almost to the point of being an exploit because the AI generally doesn't go to them). When your nation's developed a bit more, if you're playing a solid economic game (keeping inflation low etc) then you'll find it easy to maintain 5 merchants in every COT you know, which will give you a great financial return.

If you're getting more merchants than you can afford to send, you might be able to experiment by moving your trade slider toward mercantilism - less merchants, but lower costs per merchant. That can help to make trading affordable early on. You don't want to be stuck in mercantilism for the whole game though.

Another note, trading will be easier under the following conditions: Monarch with high ADM rating, high stability, and high trade efficiency relative to competing nations. If ADM rating, stability, and/or trade efficiency is too stunted, it's barely worth bothering because your chance of success will tend to be lower, and your merchants won't last nearly as long.

 

[Jayavarman]

Ugh. I hate the auto-send feature. Hopefully, the CoT system will be scrapped in EU3, but if not, I would like the option to prioritize what CoTs auto-send concentrates on.

 

[Sidney]

Mercahnts generally suck to deal with. The crazy AI sending them out and running you broke is bad enough but then the worse angle is turning off auto-sending and having to handle that stuff yourself. Ugh. Jayavarman is right, ditch the system at least as it relates to sending individual merchants.

 

[unmerged(3931)]

In the early game just be satisfied with five or six merchants placed in total. Place no more than one in a CoT, except Novogord and Tago can each take two. Place merchants in empty slots from the first year when CoTs are mostly empty.

Small countries benefit from the grain trade. Just 1K higher support means a savings of about 0.5d per month when you have a lot of cavalry and are near or over your support limit. Both large and small countries will profit from early merchants so long as the merchants stick. They will stick if you do not place too many merchants. Expect only an occassional loss.

If you are at war, they nations you war with are likely to kick your merchants out. So do not trade in CoTs where your prospective enemies are most likely to trade heavily.

 

[Duke of Wellington]

Ugh. I hate the auto-send feature. Hopefully, the CoT system will be scrapped in EU3, but if not, I would like the option to prioritize what CoTs auto-send concentrates on.

Entirely right never use auto send, the best result you can hope for is that the CoT doesn't disappear due to lack of competition.

Merchants are definitely worth it, in the long run. By endgame, its generally my largest source of income by a longshot.

Also very true, the day I discovered how to send merchants prperly my trade income increased from 30 a month to around 200

 

[Lucidor]

If you compete away a merchant, you also wake the AI. Some COTs are stable over the years if you don't upset them. I send merchants in pairs all the time.

 

[unmerged(32886)]

If you compete away a merchant, you also wake the AI. Some COTs are stable over the years if you don't upset them. I send merchants in pairs all the time.

True. I mostly send three (if no empty slot is available) merchants. One will fail, one will compete a merchant away and one will succeed.
My preference is the open slot method: cheaper cause you only need to send 1 or 2 merchants, but costs a lot more time since you need to check CoT for empty slots.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

My preference is the open slot method: cheaper cause you only need to send 1 or 2 merchants, but costs a lot more time since you need to check CoT for empty slots.

Agreed. Empty slot searching (at least in SP) is definitely the way to go. But the time needed in micormanaging is extensive and frustrating, particularly immediately after an event like a political crisis. This is the one aspect of EU2 that I would most prefer to be changed or perhaps totally abstracted in a hypothetical EU3.

Back to the original poster: I agree with the answers that have been given. Early in the game trade returns tend to be poorer, but limited and focused trade can still be profitable. I usually stick to my home COT (the cheapest one) and perhaps one other. Don't try to spread traders more aggressively until your trade efficiency is up to 30% or more (typically, trade tech 3). Also, watch the AI nations, especially those about to be annexed, as that normally frees up a few spots. Finally, successful trading requires generally good stability unless you have an overwhelming advantage in trade efficiency. Keep in mind that your merchants are very vulnerable to AI competition at times of low stability, and that the AI usually sends a flood of merchants when a saved game is loaded. Conclusion: never end a playing session at poor stability if at all possible.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

There is an added factor to consider which is more difficult to quantify, and which rarely gets discussed.

The cost of sending a merchant is deducted from the Treasury. The income from the merchant is added to the monthly technology expenditures.

Thus, basically, you are using yearly income to boost or maintain monthly income, which is the reciprocal of "minting" money.

So you cannot always say, "It cost me 30d this year to send merchants, and I only made 80d in income, which was a poor investment." What you are really saying is, "I spent 30d of yearly income to ensure an investment stream to technology of 80d."

What is a reasonable conversion of yearly income to monthly income? I've never seen a calculation of this, but you can think of many cases where you spend yearly income to increase or maintain monthly income: troops to guard your realm, gifts to enable an annexation, etc.

Early trade is difficult, but early tech costs for a small nation are not very great, and that extra monthly income can send you a long way toward a substantial leg up on the competition in Infrastructure and Trade technologies.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

This is it exactly: it's too easy to worry that you're spending more on merchants than you're getting back, but that's not the point. Merchants aren't there to help your treasury they are there to help your income. If you like, a merchant is a bit like clicking on the little icon that gives you 100 investment for 200 gold. Each month the merchant survives, he's adding to your income and so helping stability, land tech, infra and whatever else you're investing in. By 1800, it's quite possible merchants are your biggest source of income.

 

[unmerged(46135)]

Wait until later in the game to send merchants. Check your TE (trade efficiency) first.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

Myself, I generally don't send until Trade Level 3.

 

[GrimPagan]

Also, send merchants to level 5, if you go for level 6, your merchants will normally be kicked out pretty quick, unless there is few merchants in the CoT to begin with. And if you spam a CoT with merchants, there is a good possibilty that the nation that controls it will embargo you so that you can't trade there anymore (which is bad, unless you want a war with that country and need a Causus belli).

So if you get too greedy, you might lose it all.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Monopoly gives you bonus TE and extra merchants though, so if you can get a reasonably stable mono, like in a colonial CoT, it's definitely worth it. And the part about it being yearly income -> monthly income is very important, since it increases your tech progress, which yearly income doesn't. And it's a great thing as you can increase your monthly income without increasing your tech costs like expansion does.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

That's why you should control as many CoTs as you can, unless you want to be Embargoed.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Also, send merchants to level 5, if you go for level 6, your merchants will normally be kicked out pretty quick, unless there is few merchants in the CoT to begin with.

This tendency was decreased about two patches ago by Johan.

 

[daedalus]

Wow!

In SP my merchants rule the trade, I have 15+ monopolies, with hardly any micromanagement, and I am not even a naval/plutocracit nation!

Come on, you can easily go with 1200+ monthly income with all that trade. Are they worthy? Yes, they are the only way to be filthy rich.

The key is to be ahead in trade level, have the right manufacturies and the right settings. The only time it takes a bit of work is when you load up the game as all the AI countries send their marchants at the same time, but after a couple of months it is back to playing monopoly all the way to tha bank!

 

[daedalus]

That's why you should control as many CoTs as you can, unless you want to be Embargoed.

Free CBs

But truely, the more you trade, the more efficient you will be, more money you get. more mearchants to send, more you trade, etc, etc.