Can't decide what's best/free trade vs mercantilism
- Thread starter Chronicler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
depends on how many players, and how many players decide to go free trade. I, unfortunately, have no experience in multiplayer, so I can not say.
You need to compete effectively in multiple CoTs to get these (significant) bonuses. Free traders simply do that better, especially in muliplayer.
And, yes, there's nothing in the Sound trigger that would exclude the HSA. Since doing both of these DOES seem exploitive to my mind, and since I tend not to pursue Scandanavia, anyway, when playing as HSA, I won't swear, but it has happened to me, in prior versions. These days, as HSA, I try to get out of my existing alliances and find better ones. DAN is usually still interested in an alliance by the time I'm out. But if SWE is available, better for you to have the Sound than them, I think.
The Toll bonuses, themselves, while perhaps poorly designed, are one of the few things mercantile nations have going for them, so I consider it my moral obligation to try to get at least two of those, if I'm playing mercantilist. My HSA games always move toward free trade (single player though).
For a large empire, especially one like you described that abuses tolls and forms colonies, +1 and +2 free trade are the best settings. They let you use tolls and also have a massive effect on the prices of grain and wine.
For smaller nations, free trade is probably the way to go, with exceptions like merchant republics or countries that happen to own one of the tolls.
For medium nations, especially ones with lots of infamy, mercantilism is often the only way you can go.
For smaller nations, free trade is probably the way to go, with exceptions like merchant republics or countries that happen to own one of the tolls.
For medium nations, especially ones with lots of infamy, mercantilism is often the only way you can go.
I disagree. If you're going for the tolls, go full mercantile. Going +2 FT isn't going to benefit you anywhere near as much as the Indian Trade Route, which ties in nicely with the Indian Trade Company and is probably the easiest of the three Trade Income Modifiers to get. Plus you get several nice decisions at the mercantile end of the spectrum if you have a large percentage of overseas provinces.
Free trade is normally better than mercantilism but I normally find myself correcting most other sliders before the trade slider. It is all a matter of personal play style. If you are going to be playing a trade centered nation/game then I would recommend free trade, no doubt.
The trade slider is ALWAYS the slider I move first, one way or another.
Trade is such a major contributor to wealth; it is normally always towards free trade, because my expansion methods are mostly peaceful (lack of infamy buildup).
Trade is such a major contributor to wealth; it is normally always towards free trade, because my expansion methods are mostly peaceful (lack of infamy buildup).
I almost always go toward Centralization, because I'm a BlobberMeister. I only touch the other sliders once my Centralization is maxed for the gvt. type.
Mercantile policy or free trade
I play as the united HRE(from Brandenburg) and most of continental europe(except Spain and France) own 3/4 of S. america, 1/5 of N america, and half of africa, should I go for a more mercantile path since I control 25% of the world and everyone trade with me no matter what, or should I go for more of a free trade approach and dominate others economically? which one would benefit me more?
I'm in a bit of a pickle here as GB and france are at war with me over my lands in asia
I get 13.5 merchants per year
I play as the united HRE(from Brandenburg) and most of continental europe(except Spain and France) own 3/4 of S. america, 1/5 of N america, and half of africa, should I go for a more mercantile path since I control 25% of the world and everyone trade with me no matter what, or should I go for more of a free trade approach and dominate others economically? which one would benefit me more?
I'm in a bit of a pickle here as GB and france are at war with me over my lands in asia
I get 13.5 merchants per year
If you're close enough to Free Trade it is well worth it just to stay there. You would get substantial incomes from going Mercantalist, but FT is still going to outclass it (if you can maintain monopolies) unless you have an absolutely absurd empire (At which point you would have so much tax income it would hardly matter anymore).
For example, the Ming may as well stay Protectionist (they're almost full protectionist anyway), but Japan would do well to adopt Free Trade (as they have a tiny amount of land and resources and only 1 CoT)..
Basically, Free Trade doesn't make you do any worse in your own CoT and gives you a huge boost in overall trade efficiency. Protectionism, as a strategy, is usually inferior unless you absolutely dominate (or you're already so far protectionist that switching to Free Trade would be a waste of slider moves).
i felt a little stupid after seen so many explanations on this matter, thanks for the info.
I think I'll go with free trade, I need more money for the war.
I think I'll go with free trade, I need more money for the war.
In my opinion Free Trade is a huge trap, especially in multiplayer. However, even in single player I like to avoid it (at least until the late 1400s or so); I find that the cheaper troops from Land or Aristocracy give me a more immediate income boost of sorts, while actually making my country stronger (as well as richer) in the short term, allowing me to blob faster and thus become even stronger. On the other hand, going free trade early means you basically have 70ish years of no slider bonuses at all (as most nations), and after that you have to be extremely careful with your infamy if you want any trade income at all.
And then there's the multiplayer problems with free trade: mercantilistic players grabbing up CoTs and/or players with CoTs embargoing good traders. Even if everyone agreed to not embargo and all go free trade, someone's not going to magically end up with monopolies on half the world.
Obviously later in the game in SP (or as a pacifist country) free trade tends to be better unless you are abusing tolls though.
And then there's the multiplayer problems with free trade: mercantilistic players grabbing up CoTs and/or players with CoTs embargoing good traders. Even if everyone agreed to not embargo and all go free trade, someone's not going to magically end up with monopolies on half the world.
Obviously later in the game in SP (or as a pacifist country) free trade tends to be better unless you are abusing tolls though.
Not if you habitually play countries like Burgundy and Holland. Using your first click for full-free trade with Holland is a no-brainer.
Mercantilism is best for aggressive empires, if you're going to flirt with high infamy worry about your military sliders first.
How aggressive you begin your game should reflect how much digging out from a mercantile slider you'd have to do to compete. So playing a friendly-style Burgundy is out of the question.
How aggressive you begin your game should reflect how much digging out from a mercantile slider you'd have to do to compete. So playing a friendly-style Burgundy is out of the question.
I still go free-trade with Burgundy. I get onery, conquer a bunch, get a terrible infamy during which I can mainly compete in my CoT and in really low-tech foreigners (which can still be super-valuable), but once I have established OMEGA EMPIRE BASE 1 I only need to very slowly gobble up the rest of Europe, which means my infamy will still be quite low enough and my tech high enough to monopolize every center of trade.
The 1st goal is to be able to support 100k man standing army. After that your conquests can be very gradual, because no one is likely to ever challenge you.
I think going Mercantile should give you a Magistrate bonus. Big empires with 100+ provinces need more of them than a 25 province Free Trader. Free Trade already gives bonus Merchants, so it's not too much of a stretch that you should get something extra if you go the other way (Half that amount in Spies is obviously not much of a draw.)
I've noticed this as well. I have a sneaky suspicion that someone at Paradox is a pretty hardcore libertarian.
At this point, I'm half expecting Crusader Kings 2 to have an anarcho-capitalist Iceland expansion, lol.
But anyway, yeah, free trade is always best unless you're playing like Genghis Khan.
Using your first click for free trade as holland is a big mistake since you can just take antwerpen and pass The Statute of Monopolies (which you'll want to do anyways) for a free slider move. As for burgundy, seeing as they're basically a nation designed for mass conquest free trade seems like a terrible choice in comparison to, say, a move towards land.
--
Considering very few nations start with anything above -2 or -3 mercantilism (and every nation that I can think of which is even remotely difficult starts extremely mercantilistic), unless you only ever play trade powers you'll have a lot of games where you actually have to make the decision.