Trade vs Tax.

[Zardnaar]

EUIII is a great game and kinda fun due its sandbox nature of the game. I used to enjoy free market type nations that would go forth and colonise and one of the craziest games I ever played was as the Netherlands doing that and I ended up at tech level 70 or so. I almost never play to 1820 though and most of my games even earlier often around the 1550's or so or around 1700 at the latest. By the 17th century I can usually spam manufactories, earn thousands of ducat through trade/tax/production and for me the end game is crushing all of the European superpowers (usally Spain/ Great Britian/ France/Austria and the HRE).

However I am starting to lean towards taxs being better than free trade although one can do both. A large land based empire (espicially one with free trade sliders and NIs) is usually more powerful than a colonial nation. Both Russia and Germany unifications can result in large empires having around half a million manpower by 1700 or so and a strong economy. France and the Holy Roman Empire or any state aggressive enough to expand to a similar size can also pull this off. Income is via spamming manufactories in Europe usually arm factorys, refineries and textile mills along with the production buildings

India is also anpother great place to go espicially for a christian nation wanting to form hindustan although Hindustan is kinda by itself let alone as a western power.

One can also build a economic empire via colonisationin the new world and in indonesia. Colonial empires however stuggle with manpower i relation to large European Empires and they take time to develop. Often it will be around 1550-1600 (or later) before one can start looking at France or Austria and start thinking "payback"- at least mano a mano as one can always join a winning dogpile. As stange as it sounds however the Colonial nations (Britain, Hansa, Netherlans etc except maybe Navarra) can alos expand in Europe as well. If one is in the HRE you can expand in France, Spain and Britain without annoying the Emperor along with Anatolia and choice parts of the middle east such as Alexandria, Judea, and Mecca. Even if you colonise the New World shifting your capital and then going down the production path offers advantages that are perhaps better than tariffs.

I may not have has a 100% optmised colonial naiton though in terms of trying to get the maximum amount of ducats even though as say the Dutch I was raking the the golds. My latest game as the Hansa/Great Britain I tried spamming colleges and cathedrals. I my recent Dutch game I tried to paint as much of the new world light brown as I could which kind of limited my ducat focus. Basically are taxes/production always better than tariffs (from an optimisation PoV) or do you want to limit mindless expansion in favour of well developed colonies and economic based NI? I'm going to start up another game as Navarra and focus on trading and tariffs without getting sidetracked by silly ideas like grabbing all of the America's, forming Hindustan or seizing Ceylon ahistorically early in the 1430's. Any advice on what to do as I am gonna look at the Caribean, Brazil and seizinf the Inca/Aztec lands and developing them as opposed to spamming all over the map. Is it actually better just to move the capital and go for production?

THen again I haven't formed Spain yet as Navarra but I have formed Hindustan so go figure.

 

[unmerged(128725)]

I think it depends mostly on the date.

1399-1500 taxes are you main source of income, 1600-1820 production (or tariffs) takes the lead.

But you can always get rich with trade, with the catch that in 1399-1500 you have to invest in sliders moves, NIs and keep your infamy low to be effective at it. Afterwards you can just be a large protectionist beast and live off your own trade.

This models the changing economic tide of Europe at the time, lifting production oriented countries and sinking tax-based ones, while shifting CoT wealth outside Europe.

So taxes would be best if you want to have an early success (1399-1500), but you still need the cores to make this strategy work.

Hindustan is a kind of a "cheat" of taxes and production, because you get a large, cored area with decent tax and good production, and manpower to boot!

But on the long economic run, nothing beats a properly planned american empire with the capital there. The trade goods there are simply the best. You may have less manpower than other large empires, but you can defend yourself with a navy while saving your army for opportunistic attacks.

So it boils down on your playing style, and your "game over" date. If it is 1550-1650 then taxes may still be a reasonable economic focus.

 

[Zardnaar]

So USA Empire with capital shifted is rich? i've done the Brazil as new capital thing but I rarely settle the Cotinental USA.

 

[przemo_li]

If you talk about min/maxing everything.

Stick to holand (less land == faster tech), max trade (with or without focus on gov 4), take +10%TE NI, get explorer, explore EVERY CoT in the world (via explorers and conquistadors), grab some land, in NA, africa, india (on the east side if possible) and Ryoku, to get trade range. Dominate World Trade.

Get MoM. Earn more than you ever thought possible from just trade (and you still are far away from monopolies!!).

When you think you get max. Start expansion. Like that Hindustan you mentioned. Lots of land with wrong religion, culture and no cores, usually mean your technological death, but not for you. Your trade compensate, and you already had head start (like 15-20y of advance in EVERY tech).

Best part of is that before you form Hindustan you can come back and smack those poor backwater europeans, to get your Netherland land back to form it (and you really should get claim on rivals by then)

On the other hand someone suggested that escaping to Caraibean (30 provinces total) you can form Naval power that have 700 Big Ships by mid 1700.

So expansion outside Europe is profitable, but only when one know what need to be done, and what is the purpose.

As for Trade vs Tax. I think its Trade vs Production. Tax is taken into account for technology, production is not. So its production that allow you to compensate for poor provinces, and give you edge over competition.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah I have done the grab a land in India for the trade range and India COmpany decision at naval tech 20. In 5.1 it seems you can send out traders when you take land in the east. In 5.0 you had to wait for it to core IIRC.

In my current Navarra game I more or less done it legitimately by colonisation and waiting for land to tech up. By trade 21 or so I could reach Bihar with no lands in India.

 

[przemo_li]

But that way you miss China which are most profitable CoT outside of Europe. (Ok. americas with monopolies can be better)

 

[Zardnaar]

I know I grabbed Ceylon later Just trying some different things.

 

[przemo_li]

I did grab Ceylon too, but early on it do not give you Trade Range into China (really early on, but 2-3 trade tech and you are done)

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought trade tech 7 aka quest for the new world gave you th range to china if u you grabbed Ceylon? Could be wrong as you have the indian and malaca ones I usually fill first.

 

[Dustman]

I played three major colonization games lately, with Navarra, Holland and Ragusa. In all games major hindrance to effective colonization was naval limit and associated costs. So moving capital to Americas was the best move income-wise. With total colonization other problems were rising stability cost and lack of magistrates.

5.2beta introduced another problem, namely manpower. With your capital in Americas, you can have huge income, very nice support limits, but manpower would stay miserable, and one unlucky army lost can put your 10 years behind on your expansion plans. While it's possible to compensate it somehow with army buildings, magistrates remain a problem and just go down the drain if you colonize everything.

So, I'm not fond of total colonization, and generally don't think much about it as a good strategy. I like colonization of Carribean tho. Islands, great goods, very good tax, easy to defend with fleets. I normally colonize few islands on the way to China as well, plus Taiwan and/or Java. If you can resist urge to grab every piece of land by either colonization or conquest, you can simply focus on creating local geographical bases, and stay free trader for huge tech lead. You can't get above 200% in trade efficiency anyway, and this is probably the upper limit you set when counting number of provinces you need to colonize and conquer. Reformed, National Trade Policy/Shrewd Commerce Practices, Enlist Privateers and Indian Trade Company reduce this number by a fair bit. Constitutional Republic/Smithian Economy is a nice combo, but it's applied only locally to your provinces only, while trade factors are feasible everywhere.

Unless you are all for conquest, Mercantilism can't beat Free Trade. Even a total monopoly in a CoT covering whole Americas will bring less money than 5 merchants in all CoTs around the globe.

Tax will always be dwarfed by production in mid- to late game, and production will be dwarfed by trade (for a free trader) in most ordinary games, during whole campaign.

IMO, spending money on development and conquest is a far better long-run policy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah just played another game as Navarra without focusing on anything to cheesy like early Ceylon/Hindustan, or trying to grab all of the AMericas. I have all the Caribbean apart from Curcao and all of Mexica and most of the northern Brazil coast. Just united Spain which is kinda neat I suppose and beat all the provinces I have cores on except for Gibralter (thanxs Ottomans see you soon). Just enacted some national decision that gve me +10% global trade (golden fleet??) it gave me 5% inflation anyway but had long term benefits. IN addition to spamming traing bukindings I have spammed a few colleges as well for extra magistrates. A balanced approach seems to be better than just spamming all colleges/manfactories/trade buildings. Even built a few produciton buidings in the richer provinces in Iberia and southern France.

Castille had a bad game.

 

[CelticMutt]

I thought trade tech 7 aka quest for the new world gave you th range to china if u you grabbed Ceylon? Could be wrong as you have the indian and malaca ones I usually fill first.

Yeah, I'm not sure what everyone is talking about. Every time I've grabbed Ceylon it's been at trade 7 or 8, and it's given me the range to at least Nanjing, maybe Kyoto too - though I think that usually takes til trade 8 or 9. This is under both 5.1 and 5.2.

 

[unmerged(128725)]

Unless you are all for conquest, Mercantilism can't beat Free Trade. Even a total monopoly in a CoT covering whole Americas will bring less money than 5 merchants in all CoTs around the globe.

This keeps being debated, and there is no consensus that I am aware of. If you focus on the Americas with a n-1 monopoly, you can get probably get a trade income comparable with a universal 5-slots free trader. And your production will be of the same order of magnitude.

 

[The-King]

This keeps being debated, and there is no consensus that I am aware of. If you focus on the Americas with a n-1 monopoly, you can get probably get a trade income comparable with a universal 5-slots free trader. And your production will be of the same order of magnitude.

Free trade is for the most part better then mercantilism. (type ctrl-f and then "trade" to see what most nations made in trade)
For example, check out these stats from an eu3 multiplayer game

http://www.europa3.ru/cgi-bin/mpsta...int&season=comp-2012-3&game=III&yearsave=1718

The best traders are portugal, GB, and venice which are all free trade. Other merc nations are ottomans, manchu, hansa, and mughals which aren't making as much as the free traders are.

 

[unmerged(128725)]

Free trade is for the most part better then mercantilism. (type ctrl-f and then "trade" to see what most nations made in trade)
For example, check out these stats from an eu3 multiplayer game

http://www.europa3.ru/cgi-bin/mpsta...int&season=comp-2012-3&game=III&yearsave=1718

The best traders are portugal, GB, and venice which are all free trade. Other merc nations are ottomans, manchu, hansa, and mughals which aren't making as much as the free traders are.

Nice tool, nice report. Probably a very nice game, too!

Who owns the Americas? If it is not the protectionists, then it is pretty clear why they are losing out - protectionism does not help you dominate against human player if you don't secure the best market. And according to the production values, Portugal is probably there with its capital.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Well, trade vs tax, i say : Trade obviously. If you focus on trade, you can gain alot more trade income. Free trade vs mercantilism is dependant on, wherever, you got high or low infamy. IMO every nation that does not realy need land ideas or naval ones, and don't need to focus on westernizing/is not christian, should take trade NI, and focus either on getting as much provinces AND COT's(so you trade in mercantile way - in your own cot's) as possible, or getting as big amount of trade as possible.

 

[warcry]

Trade vs Tax? If you got somewhat bigger country, then go trade. If you play vanilla, then mass trade lvl 6 and you get epic money. If you want to be uber rich, then colonize North and South America and you will have no equals to you.

 

[The-King]

Nice tool, nice report. Probably a very nice game, too!

Who owns the Americas? If it is not the protectionists, then it is pretty clear why they are losing out - protectionism does not help you dominate against human player if you don't secure the best market. And according to the production values, Portugal is probably there with its capital.

I was portugal, I moved my capital to south america where I owned all of it. Hansa and GB were in north america and venice was in asia.

map if you want to see exactly where people went:

Spoiler

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Evil Imperialist burgundy.

 

[unmerged(128725)]

map if you want to see exactly where people went:

Spoiler

That looks beautiful!

Still, income appears strongly correlated with possession of high-production regions.

One thought-experiment: a fully protectionist country able to mantain a 6/7 monopoly on its own CoTs covering its own provinces should be able to make 6/7th of its production income as trade income (if the two efficiencies are the same). So taking 8000 as the free trade term of comparison, whoever has a production value higher than 8000*7/6 = 9000 (roughly) would be better served by being protectionist. Amazingly, in your game it means Portugal and Venice

There is a problem with demand, though: being protectionist reduces starkly the demand for colonial goods. So this needs to be maxed out anyway for the comparison to make sense at all, to the point that being protectionist or free-trader does not matter anymore.