Trade Question

[Marshall Thomas]

In the few grand campaigns I have recently played, I have noted that trading before reaching trade tech level 3 seems to cost more than it profits. So now I simply don't send any merchants to CoTs while I am at trade level 1 or 2- basically the first 100 years of the grand campaign. Am I doing something wrong or is this economically correct? I would love to make even a small profit in trade during the 1400s but it does not seem possible. Please help- thanks

 

[unmerged(46084)]

No, thats pretty much true. The first years there is no reason why you should trade. Every nation is putting his merchants in the CoT's and there isn't much to earn. So try to avoid trading in the first years, it will only make you a loss.

 

[Ciçatrix]

Yes, trade once you get a few refineries and a better trade technology.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

You should send a few merchants to smaller CoTs where competition isn't so fierce. A little trade income from relatively stable merchants isn't so bad. Keep in mind: you are trading Treasury income for Investment income, so you can't just look at it from the standpoint of "I spent 4d to send that bastard out and only got 2d back before he was booted out!" But, in general, it is very difficult to compete in European CoTs OR pagan CoTs when you haven't gotten to Trade 3 yourself; the Portugese and Genoans and Venetians get there very quickly and the pagans spend money on little else early.

 

[unmerged(24934)]

I disagree. I believe you can make profits in trade level 1 and 2. They are very small, but still helpfull to small nations such as Tuscany or Mecklemburg. You should periodically check the trade competition of each center and send one by one the merchants to those that lack high competition (90% or more). Avoid Veneto, and probably Flander that are very competitive. But Novgorod, Tago and Ile-de-France are good for small trading nations. It's also convenient that early in the game you stand Mercantilist to reduce the merchants-sending cost.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

In the few grand campaigns I have recently played, I have noted that trading before reaching trade tech level 3 seems to cost more than it profits. So now I simply don't send any merchants to CoTs while I am at trade level 1 or 2- basically the first 100 years of the grand campaign. Am I doing something wrong or is this economically correct? I would love to make even a small profit in trade during the 1400s but it does not seem possible. Please help- thanks

The main thing to pay attention to for merchant placing, prior to your commanding a large trade efficiency lead, is your monarch ADM and stability. People can make whatever theory they want to about the profitability or unprofitability of early merchant placing, the facts are that with high ADM and high stab, you can be very successful at making a profit early with virtually any country.

So if you got ADM 7 or higher and stab +2 or higher, there is no reason not to do it, unless you know that your good stability is going to be lost soon due to upcoming historical events and/or your good monarch will soon be dead and followed by really crappy ones. This being said, I would reccommend sending them only to COTs with empty slots, at least until your trade efficiency is very high and much higher than the AIs.

Oh and if at anytime, you in a game, have +1 stability or lower AND don't have an enormous trade efficiency lead like +25 or so, absolutely you MUST invest to get that stab up to at least +2. This is because the low stab will cause your merchants to dissapear and whatever you would have gained by investing in straight tech instead of stab, you will almost certainly lose in existing merchant income by having +1 stab or lower for prolonged periods of time. Just keep in mind that, +1 stab or lower, means death time for your merchants. Of course if you have little to no active merchants, than obviously from a purely technological point of view it is hard to justify investing stab, assuming you don't have RR etc., but can easily maintain control and full or close to full income from your provinces.

 

[Muizer]

The main thing to pay attention to for merchant placing, prior to your commanding a large trade efficiency lead, is your monarch ADM and stability.

I agree with that analysis. Having tried to build up minors with trade money, I've come to the following rule of thumb:

1) If I have excellent monarchs, I start trading by 1440-1450
2) If I have average monarchs, I check if I can reach TL3 by 1480 at the latest. If so, I start trading around that time.
3) If neither apply, I abandon trade as a strategy in the early game.

Muizer

 

[unmerged(46057)]

If my capital has a CoT, I always trade in it from the beginning. It only costs 2 per merchant.

Otherwise I don't bother. Why would you spend 17 per merchant when you're only getting 4 back.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

If my capital has a CoT, I always trade in it from the beginning. It only costs 2 per merchant.

Otherwise I don't bother. Why would you spend 17 per merchant when you're only getting 4 back.

In large part because the issue isn't that you are "getting 4 back."

As I tried to point out, trade is an example of using Treasury income to increase monthly investment income. If you don't increase that income as much as you can with your resources, you don't do as well in the game. Indeed, from a mathematical standpoint (games theory, if you will), the whole GAME boils down to this important consideration.

As with all other expenditures out of the Treasury, you have to decide if the expenditure offers a reward in technology investment greater than another available expenditure. In general, it is good to focus on expenditures that result in long-lasting incremental contributions to monthly technology investment. Thus, getting 4d a year in increased income may not seem like much, but you have to start somewhere, and it does add up.

Would I recommend spending 8d a merchant to emplace them in Centers of Trade where they are competed out within a year or less, forcing you to spend that 8d repeatedly? No. But you can't just say "it's only 4d back so it's not worth it."

 

[Muizer]

As with all other expenditures out of the Treasury, you have to decide if the expenditure offers a reward in technology investment greater than another available expenditure.

In this regard I always point to a situation minors in particular may find themselves in in the early game: Census income not covering military maintenance for the full year. In this particular instance, once your treasury is emptied, your military maintenance will be paid for out of your monthly income. So, as long as your monthly income exceeds military maintenance, you can safely spend your treasury without being forced into a loan. But doing so means military maintenance will eat into your research budget. So, in this case you do need to make a profit on trade in absolute terms. Otherwise you'd be better off using your treasury money to pay for as much military maintenance as possible.

Muizer

 

[unmerged(24512)]

In large part because the issue isn't that you are "getting 4 back."

As I tried to point out, trade is an example of using Treasury income to increase monthly investment income. If you don't increase that income as much as you can with your resources, you don't do as well in the game. Indeed, from a mathematical standpoint (games theory, if you will), the whole GAME boils down to this important consideration.

As with all other expenditures out of the Treasury, you have to decide if the expenditure offers a reward in technology investment greater than another available expenditure. In general, it is good to focus on expenditures that result in long-lasting incremental contributions to monthly technology investment. Thus, getting 4d a year in increased income may not seem like much, but you have to start somewhere, and it does add up.

Would I recommend spending 8d a merchant to emplace them in Centers of Trade where they are competed out within a year or less, forcing you to spend that 8d repeatedly? No. But you can't just say "it's only 4d back so it's not worth it."

Generally though, money in the treasury is worth MORE, not LESS, than money invested in tech. This is, of course, because most of the time, you can make investments that gives you more money in tech than you spent. You can build manufactories for most of the game, and if you can't yet, it's often a good idea to simply save the money for when you can, instead of doing what you suggest.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Generally though, money in the treasury is worth MORE, not LESS, than money invested in tech. This is, of course, because most of the time, you can make investments that gives you more money in tech than you spent. You can build manufactories for most of the game, and if you can't yet, it's often a good idea to simply save the money for when you can, instead of doing what you suggest.

Early in the game, when you are Trade 1 or Trade 2, you likely are not able to build anything except Fine Arts Academies. So it is not so imperative to hold money back for use in manufactory purchasing. And the whole tech war gets won in the first 75 years of the game, so that's pretty important.

 

[unmerged(33557)]

Also I have a trade question...
The number of markets in the world are fixed or it can change?

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Also I have a trade question...
The number of markets in the world are fixed or it can change?

It depends on the number of occupied provinces at the time. As more provinces are colonized, the amount of allowable COTs increases.

 

[unmerged(24512)]

Early in the game, when you are Trade 1 or Trade 2, you likely are not able to build anything except Fine Arts Academies. So it is not so imperative to hold money back for use in manufactory purchasing. And the whole tech war gets won in the first 75 years of the game, so that's pretty important.

Why does the tech war get won in the first 75 years of the game? If you've saved up some money to build a refinery or two when you reach infra 3, that'll help a lot. I always go 100% for infra 3 from the start of the game.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

I go 100% (alternating) infra & trade until at least lvl 4 in both (if not 5). It's just is damn' simpler to dodge the AI's armies than vying to increase income without adequate techs.

And I only start trading when I deem my merchants will stay put long enough to actually earn me something, and this depends not only on trade efficiency, wealth vs cost of CoTs and monarch's ADM-skill, but also on the number of countries who trade in a given CoT. I've noticed that the smallest CoTs (Kerch, Livland, Danzig to name the three more regulars) are very profitable, since once implanted your merchants never face enough competition to be ousted (until the demise of Livland and Kerch).