Trade or Economic for Russia?

[Richard-monagha]

Hey all. First time playing Russia, its 1628 and have control of everything from Norway to Eastern Siberia, all of central Asia and I'm about to start conquering the hordes north of Ming and Ming itself as well as Korea. I have just over 2k dev but can only afford 240k troops. I've had many games where I've hit this much dev and never had money problems. I've been building up my production income when I can but I never knew how bad Russia had it. The first 50-70 years I was living off war reps and getting most of my money from my enemies to repay loans, mostly unable to afford to fill my troop limit. But just unlocked my 5th idea and was wondering if I should take trade ideas over economic as I also lack the MP to core much of what i'm taking.. I spend most of my admin points on just conquering and coring save for a few of the vassals like Hungary Norway Siber and Kazzak who I release and feed cores to so I could save on admin points by using diplo instead. Transfering the trade from Asia towards Novgorod and have my main trade node int he Baltic as I will control that node as soon as I finish off the last few holdouts there. I also 100% control most nodes that feed into it from the east up to China (until I take that area).

My current ideas are religious, defensive, admin, quality.

 

[Jarvin]

 

[Deliberus]

Hmm, ok, I'll make my army comp 10/10/20 at end game!
/s

 

[ImAdrian]

I don't know if it's just me, but I actually never needed more than 240k troops in singleplayer... With vassals, allies, etc, you can kill anyone in late game with 240k troops. So you should be fine either way.

 

[Casko]

Honestly at the point where you are at its whatever

Though I feel like usually with Russia its Economic First to be able to develop your institutions and then later Trade, as Russia benefits greatly from the increased merchants to get that sweet sweet asian ducats to your heartland.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

Trade is a great idea for Russia’s 4th or 5th slot. By that point in your game, you likely have a good chunk of Astrakhan and Samarkand, so the extra merchants and steering/power will be very useful in generating solid extra income. Before you expand to that point, you typically won’t get enough bang for the buck to justify the idea group over stalwarts like Defensive, Religious, Influence, Administrative, etc.

In tall-ish games like Netherlands, Prussia, or UK, Economic is usually my 1st idea group - but if you made it this far and are already doing well, I’d say it would be less useful than Trade. Russia benefits through expansion rather than consolidation, and the ability to steer trade to your home node will be more beneficial overall and especially at this late stage than the ability to develop your land.

 

[EarlKonrad]

My suggestion would be to post a screenshot of the economic tab. Russia is very poor early on but by now you should be making a lot of ducats, more than enough to sustain 200K.

Also, trade is better for Russia and economic is rarely worth it if not taken early.

 

[Sidolowka]

Further note that Trade also has some great policies. Since you already have religious, taking trade and quantity means you can have +30% goods produced, which is absolutely massive considering the amount of high value trade good (mostly fur and iron) provinces you should be owning.

 

[iClipse]

Further note that Trade also has some great policies. Since you already have religious, taking trade and quantity means you can have +30% goods produced, which is absolutely massive considering the amount of high value trade good (mostly fur and iron) provinces you should be owning.

Was just going to say that. If Quantity is overkill, you can also go for quality, which gives +20% Trade efficiency (and gives a great policy with religious ideas). Administrative ideas, which are also top tier, also give +20% Trade efficiency. You can become extremely rich this way.

So definitely Trade for Russia. Low development, great trade goods -> Trade is the way to go.

Edit: You can get merchants from trade companies everywhere since 1.30, but having extra merchants never hurts, especially in early/midgame. You'd rather full state your siberian provinces than make them trade companies (imo). And doing that doesn't give you an extra merchant, which Trade also fixes. Late game you'll have plenty of merchants. But lategame you have plenty of everything, really.

 

[Kimbole]

Probably a vote for trade from me, if nothing else because it sounds like you need your admin points.

 

[Kapi96]

Personally I consider the trade idea group to be rubbish. Like, in a regular game I'd basically never pick it. Maybe in an RP game, but maybe not even then. It's in the same category as Espionage or Maritime.

Economic ideas are great. Especially the -20% dev cost. That would be awesome for Russia when you're trying to dev up and get institutions. Although if it's your 5th idea group it may be a little late to fully benefit from that.

Have you considered Expansion ideas as an option though? You still get a merchant and 20% trade power if you want more trade. The colonists can be nice to dev up provinces (or nab Alaska). But also I'm assuming you made Siberia/central Asia trade companies and will eventually do the same to China? In which case the -10% minimum autonomy in territories could make quite a big difference.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Personally I consider the trade idea group to be rubbish. Like, in a regular game I'd basically never pick it. Maybe in an RP game, but maybe not even then. It's in the same category as Espionage or Maritime.

Economic ideas are great. Especially the -20% dev cost. That would be awesome for Russia when you're trying to dev up and get institutions. Although if it's your 5th idea group it may be a little late to fully benefit from that.

Have you considered Expansion ideas as an option though? You still get a merchant and 20% trade power if you want more trade. The colonists can be nice to dev up provinces (or nab Alaska). But also I'm assuming you made Siberia/central Asia trade companies and will eventually do the same to China? In which case the -10% minimum autonomy in territories could make quite a big difference.

Expansion is quite bad for Russia. It doesn't offer good policies with the group's that Russia usually runs (as they are mostly admin groups already), it costs admin points which are precious, the colonists are only useful to exchange ducats for development (a dubious trade at best even if you own a crapton of low Dev land) and you don't really need the -10% from territory as you either have enough capacity to core all of your lands or your have Siberia as TC so you don't really care about its autonomy.

The thing with Trade is that it is really good to make you money. Yes, it is a bad group, but it is an ok mid-late pick if you want the merchants and the policies.

 

[Vulpes Cinerea]

You don't need that many troops so I wouldn't be looking into those idea groups to begin with. Just take more land to TC and you'll get richer.

To take Trade as Russia was ok pre-1.30, now it's just merchant overkill. Maybe if you had Quantity and Religious...

Lastly, I would never take Economic for a wide SP game. Diplomatic or Influence would give you much more utility. Or take Humanist(+Offensive) so you never have to kill a rebel stack again, unburdening your troops of rebel whack-a-mole.

 

[Kimbole]

Personally I consider the trade idea group to be rubbish. Like, in a regular game I'd basically never pick it. Maybe in an RP game, but maybe not even then. It's in the same category as Espionage or Maritime

Trade isn’t top tier by any degree but in terms of making your life easier for a later pick I think it has vastly more value than espionage and maritime in general. I like economic too, but economic is best in my opinion where you are building and developing a lot. Which seems less likely for a wide Russia without a lot of cash to splash.

 

[iClipse]

Personally I consider the trade idea group to be rubbish. Like, in a regular game I'd basically never pick it. Maybe in an RP game, but maybe not even then. It's in the same category as Espionage or Maritime.

Economic ideas are great. Especially the -20% dev cost. That would be awesome for Russia when you're trying to dev up and get institutions. Although if it's your 5th idea group it may be a little late to fully benefit from that.

Have you considered Expansion ideas as an option though? You still get a merchant and 20% trade power if you want more trade. The colonists can be nice to dev up provinces (or nab Alaska). But also I'm assuming you made Siberia/central Asia trade companies and will eventually do the same to China? In which case the -10% minimum autonomy in territories could make quite a big difference.

You know, in my first 1500 hours I had the same opinion. I thought Economic ideas were the best idea group. Often the first group I took. And now? I hardly ever take them. The thing that's keeping me from taking econ ideas is the fact that you want Humanism/Religious as well as Admin ideas in most of your runs. And the earlier you take those other groups the better. If you take economic as well, you're constraining your admin power by a lot. When are you going to take Humanist/Religious ideas then? As 3rd group? And then Admin as 5th group? You're delaying crucial groups by taking economic. Diplomatic power however is often plentiful in the early/midgame.

Besides, Economic ideas are not THAT great at making money. + tax isn't that great, -5% maintenance is a small bonus, production efficiency is good, but not as good as goods produced or trade efficiency, -% build cost is stronger than in the past though. They have some good things going for them, don't get me wrong. Strong military policies. Ideas that save monarch power (inflation reduction, dev cost reduction). The best idea is probably the -20% development cost, but you don't want to be developing much, except for institutions.
But what of that is something you'd say you can't miss? Still, since 1.30 more than ever before, making good money is important. You want courthouses and state houses everywhere. You want high level advisors asap. And for that you need good income. And good income comes from building manufacturies which require money in the first place. Trade fills that in better than economic ideas.

For multiplayer though, economic ideas are top tier.

 

[mk7676]

You know, in my first 1500 hours I had the same opinion. I thought Economic ideas were the best idea group. Often the first group I took. And now? I hardly ever take them. The thing that's keeping me from taking econ ideas is the fact that you want Humanism/Religious as well as Admin ideas in most of your runs. And the earlier you take those other groups the better. If you take economic as well, you're constraining your admin power by a lot. When are you going to take Humanist/Religious ideas then? As 3rd group? And then Admin as 5th group? You're delaying crucial groups by taking economic. Diplomatic power however is often plentiful in the early/midgame.

Besides, Economic ideas are not THAT great at making money. + tax isn't that great, -5% maintenance is a small bonus, production efficiency is good, but not as good as goods produced or trade efficiency, -% build cost is stronger than in the past though. They have some good things going for them, don't get me wrong. Strong military policies. Ideas that save monarch power (inflation reduction, dev cost reduction). The best idea is probably the -20% development cost, but you don't want to be developing much, except for institutions.
But what of that is something you'd say you can't miss? Still, since 1.30 more than ever before, making good money is important. You want courthouses and state houses everywhere. You want high level advisors asap. And for that you need good income. And good income comes from building manufacturies which require money in the first place. Trade fills that in better than economic ideas.

For multiplayer though, economic ideas are top tier.

I've played much less than you have, though I tend to have the same opinion re: economic v trade. The -20% development is great but trade ideas just make so much more money. And I like a lot of the other admin power ideas better for early ideas, so by the time it seems worth taking economic, it's late enough in the game (tax income matters less, not a lot of time to enjoy -20% development, already making $$) that it makes more sense to pick a mil idea instead to gear up for a late game blob fest.

Just curious though - why is econ ideas great for multiplayer? I've never played MP.

 

[Rashie]

Main reason to go economic over trade is that it has a policy when combined with quality that gives 5% discipline. If you're not in a multiplayer game however, that becomes far less necessary, by which point trade outshines it from the mid game onwards when you start expanding into south Asia and can direct trade from there and Siberia.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I've played much less than you have, though I tend to have the same opinion re: economic v trade. The -20% development is great but trade ideas just make so much more money. And I like a lot of the other admin power ideas better for early ideas, so by the time it seems worth taking economic, it's late enough in the game (tax income matters less, not a lot of time to enjoy -20% development, already making $$) that it makes more sense to pick a mil idea instead to gear up for a late game blob fest.

Just curious though - why is econ ideas great for multiplayer? I've never played MP.

Basically because it makes Dev cheaper (people Dev a lot more in MP and conquer a lot less) and gives you +5% discipline when combined with quality. MP is all about who had the strongest army after all.

Main reason to go economic over trade is that it has a policy when combined with quality that gives 5% discipline. If you're not in a multiplayer game however, that becomes far less necessary, by which point trade outshines it from the mid game onwards when you start expanding into south Asia and can direct trade from there and Siberia.

I'd argue that economic can be a decent sixth or seventh pick for the +5% in SP if you are short of the 125% discipline Age of Revolutions goal. But this is rather situational.

 

[RichardOlcese]

Both. First Economic, then Trade.

 

[iClipse]

Just curious though - why is econ ideas great for multiplayer? I've never played MP.

Indeed as EarlKonrad said. MP is all about the strongest possible army. You see people go way out of their way to form another nation, just so they get somewhat better ideas. Look at the grandest LAN and you see Ethiopia forming Deccan. That's literally a continent away, just for better national ideas.

Also, expanding is only early game. After that, the AI's are dead and the land is divided per player. Conquer too much too quickly, and while AE is not a thing in MP, the other players will band together against you.

The only way to get stronger then is by developing your land. So, economic is best in both: strong army and developing.

In single player, both are not as important. Your army can't be completely pathethic, but you don't need +10% discipline over your rival, especially considering you can win wars without fighting a single battle. Developing is also not great, because it's better to just conquer new land.