New Mercantilism Mechanics

[rickrolle88]

While I do enjoy cranking up mercantilism for the nice trade boost, it strikes me as rather bland. There really isn't any control over whether or not you get to increase it, and when you do get the option to through event, its almost always a good idea to increase it. The following suggestions are meant to add a strategic depth and add flavor to the mercantilism mechanic.

Firstly, bringing back the slider, maybe not in the same implementation as in EU3, but some way to determine whether your markets are oriented toward free trade or mercantilism. Changing this value would cost diplomatic points either way and would have a cool down time until it could be done again.

Secondly, there should be inherent disadvantages and advantages to both sides of the coin. For instance:

A highly mercantile market might

• increase domestic trade power/ provincial trade power
• decrease foreign trade power
• decrease better relations over time
• slightly increase liberty desire of colonial nations.
• increase trade power gained from colonial nations
• At extremely high mercantilism give CB for nations who have a certain percentage of trade in domestic nodes?

A free trade market might

• grant an additional merchant at high values
• increase steering
• increase foreign trade power
• increase dip rep slightly ( at max like .5 or 1)
• maybe decrease liberty desire
• maybe decrease trade granted by colonial nations

This is more of a brain storm about a element to the game I feel is an opportunity for more flavor. At the least I'd like to see a mechanic to consciously steer your country toward being more mercantile. Any thoughts or additions are welcome!

 

[Vistariel]

I agree that the mechanic needs to be reworked. In EU3 there were penalties for high mercantilism. I think if anything it should increase inflation. The mercantile policies of Spain combined with importing gold and silver from the new world caused their inflation to spiral out of control, and combined with their incompetence in regulating its distribution led to the state paying more than their actual debts, leading to catastrophic bankruptcy (see the event for Spanish Bankruptcy).

I think it should be a sliding scale, like the piety system in Islam. The midline confers no benefits or penalties, but increasing it in one direction or the other (Protectionism vs. Free Trade) scales the bonuses or penalties. Events could continue to impact the system, but you could also spend monarch points to modify it. Perhaps spend diplomatic points to push it in one direction or the other. Trade ideas should provide an idea that decreases monarch point cost to modify the scale.

Low mercantilism

• Should lead to higher domestic production efficiency/goods produced.
• Decrease trade income and steering (lower tariffs/trade taxes = lower state income and market control, but less tax pressure on market leads to increased trade and therefore production.)
  
• Leads to decreased inflation due to balanced imports/exports.
  
• Lead to decreased colonial tariffs and decreased colonial liberty desire.

High mercantilism should do the opposite:

• Increase trade income and steering.
• Increase inflation.
• Reduce domestic production efficiency/goods produced.
• Increase colonial tariffs and increased colonial liberty desire.

This way it is a modifier that can be effectively altered to adjust the phase in the game or the needs of the state. For example, a high mercantile market could be favorable in the early game for colonial powers, but need to be pushed towards free trade in the late game to prevent colonial rebellion. Whereas mainland powers may benefit more from free trade in the early game due to production income being a predominant source of income, but then switch to a mercantile market to capitalize on the trade flowing in from the new world late game.

Your ideas are good too. I am just trying to frame it around a historical model of economics and trade. Frankly, I think the whole trade system needs to be reworked to a more realistic imports vs. exports system.

 

[rickrolle88]

I think our ideas are very similar and could build off of eachother. The only real difference i see is what the benefits/ penalties would be. I like the increased production for free trade, but I also think that the international impact of a protected market should be looked into. It could add another layer of diplomacy.

 

[Maq]

Excellent ideas altogether!

 

[t6.28]

Realistically, there is no reason to ever prefer mercantilism over free trade. The only advantages that mercantilism could have are in the short run. So maybe being more mercantile could directly give you some more income from trade but destroy your trade power over time?

Or, if Paradox wants to keep the game as it is, they might just rename mercantilism to something that is actually good.

 

[Maq]

Realistically, there is no reason to ever prefer mercantilism over free trade. The only advantages that mercantilism could have are in the short run. So maybe being more mercantile could directly give you some more income from trade but destroy your trade power over time?

Or, if Paradox wants to keep the game as it is, they might just rename mercantilism to something that is actually good.

Mercantilism is a feature left in the game from previous versions, and I suspect the developers have not yet decided what to use it for. However, this feature's effects are perfectly moddable (in 00_static_modifiers.txt). Therefore, we can determine whatever we wish mercantilism to do.
The only concern is to choose effects which make some sense and not to imbalance other game mechanics.

 

[Vistariel]

I agree that mercantilism, in terms of economic theory, was altogether a terrible idea. However, since everyone was doing it at the time I think some of the economic negatives got canceled out (aside from the diplomatic malus it generated). I personally prefer a sliding scale of free trade vs. protectionism, as opposed to mercantilism, as mercantilism manifested differently between nations. Protectionism was the only component that was consistent between everyone, especially regarding colonies (that weren't allowed to trade with other nations, which was perhaps the most significant source of malus with their mother nations). I think that even as the system is, the one thing that absolutely should be changed is that high mercantilism increases colonial liberty desire.

 

[Maq]

It's perfectly possible to rewrite localisation files and rename mercantilism for protectionism instead. And I like it.