So I think in singleplayer there isn't really much to discuss with regard to economic policy. If you want to get really rich, spend the time to go heavy Free Trade (usually achievable by the mid-1400s and maxed well before 1500) or get a center of trade or three controlling a LOT of value for Mercantilism monopolizing; the AI can't beat you in either one consistently even with Lucky Nations, so there's not much to consider. Tailor your policy to factor in your penalty from Infamy if you're expanding, and you're good.
Multiplayer's a different beast though. I made the point in another thread that Free Traders ultimately end up in relative danger, especially with the more human players doing it; virtually all of the compete chance bonuses available are universal, so by 1500 the only significant differentiation mechanism is Trade Efficiency, which isn't going to vary all that much because the Trade tech shouldn't be that disparate. From about 1500 onward, no Free Trader should be able to maintain even a nominal monopoly for very long, simply because your compete chance against your fellow Free Traders is bound to be 50/50.
Is the optimal multiplayer strategy, then, to see a bunch of complete monopolies in all centers of trade in the world? Mercantilism's compete chance bonus from owned provinces is enormous, and undoubtedly the deciding factor in a head-to-head matchup against a Free Trader. It then follows that anyone owning a Center of Trade should go for Mercantilism so that a complete monopoly can be established instead of having to fight the Free Traders. But then if every COT owner does this successfully, the Free Traders are obviously out of luck.
I haven't played much multiplayer so I wouldn't know if this analysis matches empirical reality, and there may be some holes in the reasoning that I'm just missing. But it seems like it holds up. So in MP, which is it, mercantilism or free trade?
Multiplayer's a different beast though. I made the point in another thread that Free Traders ultimately end up in relative danger, especially with the more human players doing it; virtually all of the compete chance bonuses available are universal, so by 1500 the only significant differentiation mechanism is Trade Efficiency, which isn't going to vary all that much because the Trade tech shouldn't be that disparate. From about 1500 onward, no Free Trader should be able to maintain even a nominal monopoly for very long, simply because your compete chance against your fellow Free Traders is bound to be 50/50.
Is the optimal multiplayer strategy, then, to see a bunch of complete monopolies in all centers of trade in the world? Mercantilism's compete chance bonus from owned provinces is enormous, and undoubtedly the deciding factor in a head-to-head matchup against a Free Trader. It then follows that anyone owning a Center of Trade should go for Mercantilism so that a complete monopoly can be established instead of having to fight the Free Traders. But then if every COT owner does this successfully, the Free Traders are obviously out of luck.
I haven't played much multiplayer so I wouldn't know if this analysis matches empirical reality, and there may be some holes in the reasoning that I'm just missing. But it seems like it holds up. So in MP, which is it, mercantilism or free trade?
