-
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.
Castellon,
You'd get those either way. But the level bonuses will still be lower because you're bouncing back and forth. And you won't get to monopoly for nearly twice as long. That's why I say go up trade. Get the refineries, then turn around and get monopolies. And then you can pour all of that bonus income into the other.
You don't get Goods factrories until the end of the infrastructure track (lvl6). And fine arts factories don't do a whole lot for income, not nearly as much as refineries.
You'd get those either way. But the level bonuses will still be lower because you're bouncing back and forth. And you won't get to monopoly for nearly twice as long. That's why I say go up trade. Get the refineries, then turn around and get monopolies. And then you can pour all of that bonus income into the other.
You don't get Goods factrories until the end of the infrastructure track (lvl6). And fine arts factories don't do a whole lot for income, not nearly as much as refineries.
It says in the in-game help that both refineries and Fine Arts Academies add 12 income, but that is only if the Refinery is in a Sugar or Wine field and if the FAA is in the capital. It also says that the FAA adds 6 income if in another field, but it does not say that the Refinery earns any income outside its bonus type. Does it? All of the other manufacturies do...
BiB,
Exactly, whereas FAA provide diddly over squat as a bonus unless you're not at +3 stab. Which is why many players who are capable of keeping stab high may never build one other than the purely asthetic/cultural significance.
Exactly, whereas FAA provide diddly over squat as a bonus unless you're not at +3 stab. Which is why many players who are capable of keeping stab high may never build one other than the purely asthetic/cultural significance.
Could you show me the math on this because I am still not getting it? An example might help.
Castellon,
AHH, I'm not a math major. So you'll have to take a very crude example.
IF you go through the trade tree, as I suggested, you hit refineries at trade tech 2. You also increase trade efficiency. So you'll increase the percentage by which you bump competition out of CoT by say 10% (I think that is right, actually) for all whom you are a tech level above (For each tech level, IIRC). So if you hit trade 3 when someone else is still trade 1, for instance, you're running a VERY high percentage of knocking him out.
Also, you pick up monopolies at Trade 3. If you have your own CoT, there is no excuse, IMHO (and I know some disagree) why you shouldn't monopolize it. Even less if you follow my suggestion. The money you would gain from monopolies is shown in the manual pg 50. Also getting 5 merhcants in every CoT you know of shouldn't be TOO difficult. Much easier than if you're equal in level trying to do the same thing.
If you bounce back to infrastructure to invest in lvl2, by the time you get it, many nations (statistics would say) will be at trade tech 2 with you, thus your advantage will, to a large extent, be lost. Thus you'd get no advantage in trade. You might pick up cash from factories you built, but the factory bonus for the refinery goes to trade, which you zeroed out to invest in infrastructure. Thus you're very likely to not hit level 3 very much before everyone else as well.
Once you'd hit lvl 4 trade, you should still be 2 levels up in trade. And you'll stay that way based on your factories for the rest of the game, in all likelihood. You can zero out trade, rely on factoreis and monarch skill, and turn to infrastructure (which very well could be at lvl2 due to neighbor bonus and monarch skill) but your additional income due to trade will drive your investments.
What you're suggesting is basically 1+1+1+1.
What I'm suggesting is bring the bonuses in as well. 1+1.2+ 1.3
Then instead of having just 2+1 you can have 2.3 or 2.4+1
Like I said, I'm not a math major. I understand the theory, hope that helped somewhat.
AHH, I'm not a math major. So you'll have to take a very crude example.
IF you go through the trade tree, as I suggested, you hit refineries at trade tech 2. You also increase trade efficiency. So you'll increase the percentage by which you bump competition out of CoT by say 10% (I think that is right, actually) for all whom you are a tech level above (For each tech level, IIRC). So if you hit trade 3 when someone else is still trade 1, for instance, you're running a VERY high percentage of knocking him out.
Also, you pick up monopolies at Trade 3. If you have your own CoT, there is no excuse, IMHO (and I know some disagree) why you shouldn't monopolize it. Even less if you follow my suggestion. The money you would gain from monopolies is shown in the manual pg 50. Also getting 5 merhcants in every CoT you know of shouldn't be TOO difficult. Much easier than if you're equal in level trying to do the same thing.
If you bounce back to infrastructure to invest in lvl2, by the time you get it, many nations (statistics would say) will be at trade tech 2 with you, thus your advantage will, to a large extent, be lost. Thus you'd get no advantage in trade. You might pick up cash from factories you built, but the factory bonus for the refinery goes to trade, which you zeroed out to invest in infrastructure. Thus you're very likely to not hit level 3 very much before everyone else as well.
Once you'd hit lvl 4 trade, you should still be 2 levels up in trade. And you'll stay that way based on your factories for the rest of the game, in all likelihood. You can zero out trade, rely on factoreis and monarch skill, and turn to infrastructure (which very well could be at lvl2 due to neighbor bonus and monarch skill) but your additional income due to trade will drive your investments.
What you're suggesting is basically 1+1+1+1.
What I'm suggesting is bring the bonuses in as well. 1+1.2+ 1.3
Then instead of having just 2+1 you can have 2.3 or 2.4+1
Like I said, I'm not a math major. I understand the theory, hope that helped somewhat.
Okay I think I see where you are coming from a little more. I just don't buy that it is more efficient. I did not mean to imply that I exactly alternate 1 for 1 especially on the lower levels. Re the AI catching up to you in trade tech. I don't think so either since, they will be splitting there Research into 4 areas say 25% into each. So on average all else being equal, they would progress 1 trade tech level for every 2 that you do if you are alternating between Infra and Trade. Surely you were joking when you talked about getting an infra level form nieghbour bonus, I would say (without actually doing the math) that that is mathmatically impossible.
Plus I would note that getting to govenors allows you to reduce your inflation which in turn will reduce your tech costs.
Plus I would note that getting to govenors allows you to reduce your inflation which in turn will reduce your tech costs.
sorry to enter the discusion, but i do the same thing that castellon does, i think it is more eficient that way.
(and i didn't know someone else does that until now!!! )
(and i didn't know someone else does that until now!!!
)next infra step is 100 yrs.!
I'm playing Prussia GC, it's 1463, and by keeping the infra slider at about 2/3 I've just reached level (the ability to build breweries/refineries) That was my first infra step. Now the slider mouse-over indicates my next step up will happen in 1565. What gives?
(My territory currently consists of the 3 core provinces: Memel, Prussia and Danzig - plus 2: Masovia and Wiezopolska. )
I'm playing Prussia GC, it's 1463, and by keeping the infra slider at about 2/3 I've just reached level (the ability to build breweries/refineries) That was my first infra step. Now the slider mouse-over indicates my next step up will happen in 1565. What gives?
(My territory currently consists of the 3 core provinces: Memel, Prussia and Danzig - plus 2: Masovia and Wiezopolska. )
Re: Re: Re: How to speed up tech progress?
IIRC, ws2_32 (was that his nick?) explained in his brilliant "isolation factor" thread that:
. For the average american precolumbian nation, the combination of the whiteman factor and the "isolation factor" (=to know less than 19 countries) could make technology costs about 8 times the normal cost (...the normal cost for a pagan, exotic tech-group nation, which is already a big cost)
. For most other non-american exotic countries, the isolation factor could increase tech costs about 3 times. Among this group are sub-equatorial african kingdoms, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Manchu...
. AFAIK, there are no countries affected by the isolation factor in the mediteranean or Europe (perhaps someone could confirm this)
. Not sure about the level of "isolation factor" in mid-asian khanates (Sibir, Khazaks, Uzbeks and the like), but I would say it hasn't to be excessive (if any)
QUIZ:
And btw: could someone confirm if physical contact with non-american colonies reduces the whiteman factor penalty, and how is it calculated (should it depend on number of bordering colonies alone, bordering colonies x years passed in contact, etc)
Five wars are enough to completely cancel the whiteman factor, but how many non-american colonies, or how many years in contact with one single colony should be required?
IIRC, ws2_32 (was that his nick?) explained in his brilliant "isolation factor" thread that:
. For the average american precolumbian nation, the combination of the whiteman factor and the "isolation factor" (=to know less than 19 countries) could make technology costs about 8 times the normal cost (...the normal cost for a pagan, exotic tech-group nation, which is already a big cost)
. For most other non-american exotic countries, the isolation factor could increase tech costs about 3 times. Among this group are sub-equatorial african kingdoms, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Manchu...
. AFAIK, there are no countries affected by the isolation factor in the mediteranean or Europe (perhaps someone could confirm this)
. Not sure about the level of "isolation factor" in mid-asian khanates (Sibir, Khazaks, Uzbeks and the like), but I would say it hasn't to be excessive (if any)
QUIZ:
And btw: could someone confirm if physical contact with non-american colonies reduces the whiteman factor penalty, and how is it calculated (should it depend on number of bordering colonies alone, bordering colonies x years passed in contact, etc)
Five wars are enough to completely cancel the whiteman factor, but how many non-american colonies, or how many years in contact with one single colony should be required?
Which may explain why you miss (or deliberately leave out) something from your calculationOriginally posted by shawng1
Castellon,
AHH, I'm not a math major. So you'll have to take a very crude example.
There are significant benefits to gaining medium tech levels in both trade and infrastructure quickly, rather than focusing on one area. The most obvious, as you mention, is trade 3 (for monopolies), but trade 4 (emargoes) also comes to mind. (One of the higher trade levels also adds an extra merchant, but I forget which).
However, infrastructure does give you the tax collector, FAA, refinery, judge, governor, and goods manufactory upgrades.
By climbing the trade tree first, you pay extra for every aspect of the game (recruitment, upkeep, building &etc) since you don't have your inflation under control. While this works well for rich nations that seldom (if ever) need to coin money, it doesn't work well in general.
And it ignores the fact that infrastructure levels above 5 give at 10% boost while trade levels above 5 give a 5% boost.
And the detail, that the way the manufactories currently work it pays better off in terms of research and income to build refineries and goods manufactories - at least for the first score or two - assuming that 1) You have the provinces for it and 2) You have control of your inflation - which requires higher infrastructure to build in the first place.
For a European nation a trade2, infra2, trade3, infra5, trade4 (if you need to monopolise), infra6, manufactories makes excellent economic sense.
However, I think your so-called crude example, is an excellent way to gain lots of money as a few-to-medium-province trading empire, since your merchants will be virtually indestructible and tech costs low, but for nations with a significant production income (or with a lot of provinces and a wish to abuse the manufactory system
- the 25% trade bonus for gaining trade6-10 is the same as the one you get for building 25 refineries with regards to income and merchant longevity, but also gives you research to gain the tech levels while you invest in something else) I don't think it is ideal.
Peter,
First of all, I noted that I switch away from trade after lvl4. I've never seen a benefit in investing in trade past that (at least until I get infra to 6 as well). So I don't go 10-10.
Secondly, I almost always play "small" states that have to rely on trade to expand in the early-mid game, so that is indeed part of the reason why trade before infrastructure works better for me.
Almost any focused investment will work better than what the AI does if you're playing a "large" nation. That's why they're EASY.
First of all, I noted that I switch away from trade after lvl4. I've never seen a benefit in investing in trade past that (at least until I get infra to 6 as well). So I don't go 10-10.
Secondly, I almost always play "small" states that have to rely on trade to expand in the early-mid game, so that is indeed part of the reason why trade before infrastructure works better for me.
Almost any focused investment will work better than what the AI does if you're playing a "large" nation. That's why they're EASY.
*Knocks head on wall for overlooking that rather important fact in your original post*
And I typically play not too rich nations, not too large initially and not in the latin or orthodox tech groups, trying to grow bigger, meaning that it takes much longer to research tech, which means that I have to be very focused in my research, and making the question trade3 or infra5 first a matter of some difficulty, since trade3 first will drastically increase income, but may mean many decades extra of inflation, which colours my judgement
Secondly, I almost always play "small" states that have to rely on trade to expand in the early-mid game, so that is indeed part of the reason why trade before infrastructure works better for me.
Almost any focused investment will work better than what the AI does if you're playing a "large" nation. That's why they're EASY.
Refineries come at infra 3, don't they?
I don't tend to play trading empires all that much. Where do you get the ducats to place all those merchants -- obviously not from census taxes, so you have to be taking cash with the sliders. How much inflation does this result in by the time you've achieved your desired merchant positions?
the prof mentioned some good points, i can only second those...as ever.
i also think alternating is the better way to go in general. you shouldnt ignore the fact that trade effeciency is much higher later in the games. what does a level 3 trader earn in 1500 compared to a level 3 trader in 1600 - nothing except for more valuable manpower at much higher relative costs. in the meanwhile infrastructure pays itself of. later in the game -of course- trade rolls in the money.
another point is, that tech costs arent all the same. this shouldnt be overlooked! is it better to invest 6000 in trade or 8000 in infra? going only one path actually slows your overall trade+infra-level down......except of course you grow them with your neighbourbonuses
i also think alternating is the better way to go in general. you shouldnt ignore the fact that trade effeciency is much higher later in the games. what does a level 3 trader earn in 1500 compared to a level 3 trader in 1600 - nothing except for more valuable manpower at much higher relative costs. in the meanwhile infrastructure pays itself of. later in the game -of course- trade rolls in the money.
another point is, that tech costs arent all the same. this shouldnt be overlooked! is it better to invest 6000 in trade or 8000 in infra? going only one path actually slows your overall trade+infra-level down......except of course you grow them with your neighbourbonuses