Why doesn't trade suffer during war?

[shaldon]

In my current game as Scotland I am a trading powerhouse, but Netherlands embargoed me, reducing my monthly trade income from 240 to 140. As it happened Protestant Bohemian Emperor was about to unite the HRE and had already vassalised all the HRE states including large Netherlands, Brandenburg and Milan ready for forming the full monty (well done AI). I thought I'd better stop it, so I attacked, allied with France and with Poland and Austria in a coalition, plus my vassals Sweden and England (= Brittany) vs Bohemia, Milan, Netherlands, Brandeburg, Hansa and a dozen or more other minor HRE states and Bohemian vassals.

Now, whilst at war my trade income immediately shot back up to 240 again and at one point it was 340 per month. This was after stopping 100 light ships protecting trade to use them to fight/blockade.

Seems odd that a massive pan-European war doubled my trade income and allowed me to build double the force limit in mercs whilst still amassing 10k. I can only imagine destroying the Dutch fleet, blockading them and taking Holland gave me all the English Channel trade power and late game, loads of money from RotW was coming in there.

Surely a war should have the same effect as an embargo involving all of the nations you are up against? And vice versa. I think this may well need some adjustment.

The year is 1725 or so. I'll make another post about a couple of buglike things that happened in that war, too (not to do with trade).

This is latest beta.

 

[A Swell Guy]

It sounds like the Dutch trade was the one that suffered from war, boosting your income back up.

 

[Xeorm]

War during this era wasn't the total war that one might think of when one thinks about "war". If anything, during a war prices can rise substantially, so even though there's fewer buyers the overall income can be stay similar. So don't think that war would automatically decrease trade income. In this occurrence as well, it seems like you have a fairly large naval superiority, so it stands to reason that with control of the seas that your trade income would rise.

 

[shaldon]

War during this era wasn't the total war that one might think of when one thinks about "war". If anything, during a war prices can rise substantially, so even though there's fewer buyers the overall income can be stay similar. So don't think that war would automatically decrease trade income. In this occurrence as well, it seems like you have a fairly large naval superiority, so it stands to reason that with control of the seas that your trade income would rise.

Your comment made me laugh...

From the Cambridge Economic History of Europe Volume II - Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages:

"...the crippling effect of war on trade must not be underestimated. Here and there war demands might inject a stimulating dose of inflationary expenditure into certain branches of trade; but on the whole war meant taxation, forced loans, monetary disturbance and physical hazards. Contrary to all the current notions, medieval conflicts could approach very closely the recent models of total war..."

 

[Thrake]

Embargo should still be in effect, but overall, light ships don't protect trade in war, so in large scale wars, effects can be hard to predict.

 

[Klausewitz]

Your comment made me laugh...

From the Cambridge Economic History of Europe Volume II - Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages:

"...the crippling effect of war on trade must not be underestimated. Here and there war demands might inject a stimulating dose of inflationary expenditure into certain branches of trade; but on the whole war meant taxation, forced loans, monetary disturbance and physical hazards. Contrary to all the current notions, medieval conflicts could approach very closely the recent models of total war..."

That book is from 1952.
You might want to check for newer research.

 

[Sorenzo]

It's true that war didn't necessarily have the impact on trade and civilians generally as they would in the modern era, but it kinda is silly that attacking your rival cancels your embargoes, giving one of the belligerents a potentially hugely increased trade income. One WOULD think that a war was worse than the embargo.

Instead, the conversation goes something like this: "Well, now our country is at war with the Netherlands. Great. Now we'll be overrun with Dutch merchants."

 

[Kalarhan]

Surely a war should have the same effect as an embargo involving all of the nations you are up against? And vice versa. I think this may well need some adjustment..

You and the AI can fight in trade as much for land. Maybe what you are asking is that the AI should be more aggressive on that front?

Consider this as the player: you can send your war ships to destroy the enemies trade ships; you can block all sea trade routes if you have a navy superiority; you can attack and take the best +trade lands provinces for the duration of the war; by killing the enemies troops you will force them to burn the treasure or take more loans.

In all you can bankrupt the enemy and with that you can drain the life of them.

Isnt that what should be happening? Why would war impact trade? Wouldnt be a consequence of the points above against your country?

 

[beckermt]

That book is from 1952.
You might want to check for newer research.

Have medieval times changed much since 1952?

And, in addition, less sarcastically, is there new research that disagrees with this conclusion? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's invalid.

 

[Viljainen]

The idea that war should give the same effect to enemy trade as embargo seems reasonable to me.

 

[aqvamare]

It does...

loose a war, get carpet siege, and your provincal trade power goes to the owner country, as long they siege your provinces. same goes when you siege a province, the trade power adds to yours.

 

[Bragi]

It does...

loose a war, get carpet siege, and your provincal trade power goes to the owner country, as long they siege your provinces. same goes when you siege a province, the trade power adds to yours.

Yeah, I don't see any problems for me getting some useful stuff when occupying provinces

 

[shaldon]

I would actually like to see a hefty (50%?) reduction in trade value of any province that is sieged, occupied or looted. In addition to an automatic mutual embargo between warring powers.

This way, wars affect all trading players, even those at peace, since the owning node is worth less. No more laughing at your enemies as they fight amongst themselves whilst you get rich!

I think the 'too much trade income' situation is exacerbating this problem, too. I hadn't noticed it before 1.8.

 

[Klausewitz]

Have medieval times changed much since 1952?

The consensus has changed since then, that is to say, what nowadays the majority of historians thinks what medieval times were like.
Also, there is (still) a steady stream of new research on the middle ages.

And, in addition, less sarcastically, is there new research that disagrees with this conclusion? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's invalid.

No, but if its 60 years old the chances are much higher that facts pertaining to it have changed (which then would have changed the conclusions).
I cannot tell you if it is wrong todays, because i have not kept up or ever taken specific interest in medieval economics.
What i can tell you though is that in the middle zeroes there was a slew of new essays, articles on Hansestädte and their economic dynamics.