Trading: Useless?

[Black_Shade]

Does anyone else get the impression that trading is useless? From what I can tell it only increases the effectiveness of funding your treasury bar, which is useless unless you have the national bank gov. choice. Even if you do have the national bank, the boost in income is laughable at best.

As sweden I had 5 merchants in 6 different CoTs. My increase in income was maybe 2 ducats a month. Throw in the costs of having to replace merchants, and its basically a push (i.e. no profit). I also spent all 3 gov. tech choices in things that would effect trading (or in the national banks case, allow you to do it w/o massive inflation problems). So... can anyone tell me why you would waste the time/effort/gov choices/advisor slots on trading? Am I just missing something?

 

[noddysseus]

I doubt trading is useless.
It was extremely important in EU2 and will probably have a big role in EU3 too.

 

[Lord Ederon]

Trading, if done properly, can lead to financial and technological edge for your country. The fact trade income does not go straight to your treasury isn't that important. Treasury is not everything, technology is at least as important. And by contributing to your monthly income, you boost your research.

Read some articles about trading in EU2 forums or EU2Wiki, there is lot of experts on this topic.

 

[alpreb]

Does anyone else get the impression that trading is useless? From what I can tell it only increases the effectiveness of funding your treasury bar, which is useless unless you have the national bank gov. choice. Even if you do have the national bank, the boost in income is laughable at best.

As sweden I had 5 merchants in 6 different CoTs. My increase in income was maybe 2 ducats a month. Throw in the costs of having to replace merchants, and its basically a push (i.e. no profit). I also spent all 3 gov. tech choices in things that would effect trading (or in the national banks case, allow you to do it w/o massive inflation problems). So... can anyone tell me why you would waste the time/effort/gov choices/advisor slots on trading? Am I just missing something?

You are missing a certain place (click your nations flag in upper left corner, one of the pages there) where you can see that your invest a lot of money in different techs, not just gold. You can choose to change the slider's so you get a lot of money (about 6 or 7 times what you get from it now) but the increase in inflation makes it unwise on longer term. Being ahead in technologi is better.

 

[JaguarUSF]

In my Portugal campaign (currently in the year 1672), my monthy income is:
Tax: 89.7
Production: 143.5
Trade: 72.3
So trade can become significant. I used the shrewd commerce practices national idea, which greatly increases your merchants competition levels.

 

[minority]

I used to get 10,000d per year as England in EU2.

Yes trading is great. Unlike getting extra provinces to increase income, trading does not come with the excess baggage of increased stability cost, revolts etc. etc.

cheers

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

My biggest problem with trading in the demo has been the speed at which your merchants are competed out (oh, and deciding on the best strategy on how to send them, too ). In a game as England, despite having a decent trading technology, many of my merchants would last only days...

Adapting the national idea that gives a plus to competition chance seemed to help a lot, though.

 

[Black_Shade]

In my Portugal campaign (currently in the year 1672), my monthy income is:
Tax: 89.7
Production: 143.5
Trade: 72.3
So trade can become significant. I used the shrewd commerce practices national idea, which greatly increases your merchants competition levels.

Well, I'm playing the demo so I cant get that far in the game. But I basically control every CoT in europe save 1 or 2, and my income from trade is not good.

Is the research benefit associated with trading the "neighbor" influence?? Otherwise im not seeing any boost what-so-ever in my technology via trade.

 

[minority]

In the early parts of the game, trade is less profitable because your trade tech level influences your trade efficiency. Trade efficiency is a modifier that affect the income you get from trade (e.g. 0.27). The higher your trade level, the higher your trade efficiency.

IIRC in EU2, at the highest trade tech, your trade efficiency is 1.10, which means if you monopolise a CoT without any other trader present, your income would actually by higher than the total value of the CoT.

In any case its all about thinking whether maintaining a monopoly is worth the cost. Early in the game it might be wiser to leave it at 5 merchants IMHO.

cheers

PS: the boost in your tech is because trade income is counted into the monthly income, which can then be invested into tech.

THe neighbour bonus is a bonus to speed up your tech due to neighbour influences. Not sure how this works

 

[unmerged(22461)]

I haven't played around enough with the demo to see how well it works, but I found a game as Venice to offer some intereting possibilities with trade. By focusing on trade related national ideas, trade tech, and one or two CoT's I was able to significantly increase my income (~50% more than what I started with).

It also forced a bit more caution when thinking about entering into wars and risking a collapse of my little trading empire.

 

[JaguarUSF]

The trade tech advisors are helpful.

 

[lucaluca]

I haven't played around enough with the demo to see how well it works, but I found a game as Venice to offer some intereting possibilities with trade. By focusing on trade related national ideas, trade tech, and one or two CoT's I was able to significantly increase my income (~50% more than what I started with).

It also forced a bit more caution when thinking about entering into wars and risking a collapse of my little trading empire.

that's very good news, trading per se should bring more money in then anything else.

 

[Stonewall]

Well, I'm playing the demo so I cant get that far in the game. But I basically control every CoT in europe save 1 or 2, and my income from trade is not good.

If you're controlling most European CoT's, then you have probably built a significant badboy rating, which will decrease your trading ability and make your merchants a likely target of newly arriving merchants in the CoT's you trade in.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

If you're controlling most European CoT's, then you have probably built a significant badboy rating, which will decrease your trading ability and make your merchants a likely target of newly arriving merchants in the CoT's you trade in.

I believes he means trade control, not physical control...

 

[knul]

Does anyone else get the impression that trading is useless? From what I can tell it only increases the effectiveness of funding your treasury bar, which is useless unless you have the national bank gov. choice. Even if you do have the national bank, the boost in income is laughable at best.

Trading is mostly for tech, which is very important. What was so good about trade in EU2 was that it didn't increase all kinds of costs unlike gaining provinces. Every province added to your empire increased stability and tech costs, for example. So trade was the way to increase your research speed. I assume this will be the same in EU3.

Also, in EU2 trade wasn't worthwile until you had a higher level in trade tech, so it's probable that trade isn't that hot in the time period of the demo.

 

[EnderV]

Well, I'm playing the demo so I cant get that far in the game. But I basically control every CoT in europe save 1 or 2, and my income from trade is not good.

Is the research benefit associated with trading the "neighbor" influence?? Otherwise im not seeing any boost what-so-ever in my technology via trade.

Go to your budget window (where the sliders are set). On the left side, there's a break-down of your monthly income and expense. Income has something like:
Tax (100%): x
Production (40%): y
Trade (38%) :z

Z is the amount trading contributes monthly to your budget. If it's 0, it means you don't have any traders anywhere.
Note that if a CoT says "your merchants get xxx out of this", it's the theoretical 100%, which you won't get until you have 100% TE (trade efficiency, the percentage number next to trade income).
Also, this number (N) is yearly, so to get your monthly CoT income you do N/12*TE.

Observation:
I found that the highest value CoT can be very hard to get merchants in without high TE/competition (shrewd practices national idea) , as all the highest TE/com nations will congregate on it. So, unless you have high TE, watch CoTs very carefully and have tons of merchants (and the money to send them), it's better (in demo, anyway) to send them to a middle income one, where you're much more likely to survive.

 

[berhaven]

I am a little disappointed about how trade is handled in EUIII, even if it is - in game terms - far from useless.
As it happened in EUII, the all trade concept is IMHO reversed: you make money based on control of the sources of goods, and not of the consumption or transportation of them.
The importance of - say - Venice fell when the spices and other far east products begun to be transported directly by the sea instead of along the "silk road".
This is definitely not simulated by the EU system.
I'm deeply sorry for this.

 

[EnderV]

The importance of - say - Venice fell when the spices and other far east products begun to be transported directly by the sea instead of along the "silk

Hmm.. AFAIK, Venice had almost monopoly with Alexandria on spices for ages (definitely until 15-16th century). Most of the European silver and later on New World silver passed through Venetian hands to pay for spices/silk/etc.

 

[unmerged(42324)]

I am a little disappointed about how trade is handled in EUIII, even if it is - in game terms - far from useless.
As it happened in EUII, the all trade concept is IMHO reversed: you make money based on control of the sources of goods, and not of the consumption or transportation of them.
The importance of - say - Venice fell when the spices and other far east products begun to be transported directly by the sea instead of along the "silk road".
This is definitely not simulated by the EU system.
I'm deeply sorry for this.

I agree totally... transporting of spices and other eastern luxourius(sp?) goods was one of venices most important wayes of income, and venice didnt kontroll any provinces where spices were grown.

But on the other hand im not sure how to implement this in the game, maybe through some sort of trade routs, where you can send merchants to trade routs instead of to CoT. but these routs would have to be hardcoded, and routs changed through out history like berhaven says that venice lost a huge amount of income when other europeans started to get spices from south eastern asia and india by them selves buypassing the silk road and the trade routs of venice

 

[Lord Ederon]

I am a little disappointed about how trade is handled in EUIII, even if it is - in game terms - far from useless.
As it happened in EUII, the all trade concept is IMHO reversed: you make money based on control of the sources of goods, and not of the consumption or transportation of them.
The importance of - say - Venice fell when the spices and other far east products begun to be transported directly by the sea instead of along the "silk road".
This is definitely not simulated by the EU system.
I'm deeply sorry for this.

Goods from provinces under one CoT is traded by merchants who are present in that CoT. Their income/share is not because they have established stall in CoT and sell goods there. It is because they have access to goods traded in that CoT and they can further profit from that, by selling goods where they are more expensive.

In fact, trading system of EU2/3 does implement what you call for. It's just abstracted, so it is not obvious when you just glance at it. But it definitely makes sense, despite it's not perfect. But what is?