• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #38 – Trade Routes & Tariffs

16_9.jpg

If money is the sinews of war, then trade is the lifeblood of nations and in no period is this truer than the Victorian Era. Victoria 3 takes place in a period of time where the nations of the world pushed this concept further than before, through a period of industrialization and growing interconnectivity of first homelands and colonies and then among nation-states themselves. The trade routes on the map connecting our nations became the fabric that underpins many of the understandings of our modern world today.

But what is trade? It may seem obvious to some but to better understand the systems we need to make sure we understand the foundations they are built upon. Thus, trade is understood to be the movement of goods between two markets as a means of commercial transaction so that the other party is effectively paid for their services. Trade is not conducted between businesses and/or nations but is instead conducted through their national markets and by proxy their trade centers. While this may not seem a meaningful distinction, the market and economy of a nation is not synonymous with its national government; while that government may attempt to influence the economy it does not always have an absolute degree of control over it. Thus the trade that goes on in your market is something that you can influence and encourage (or discourage if you like) but never fully control (unless you are the only nation in existence I guess?).

While trade takes place between national markets at the behest of players and AI, it is conducted in the trade centers of those respective countries. Trade centers function similarly to urban centers, talked about in a previous dev diary. These are not buildings that are constructed manually but develop as a result of their engaging in trade routes as they are representative of the many gray areas of industry that necessitate the collection and movement of goods.

If you were to create an import route of goods for your industries, a resulting level of trade centers would develop within your nation. While urban centers tend to develop where you have placed many industrial buildings, trade centers develop in the market capitals and the ports of your nation. While you cannot paint the placement of trace centers outright, you can influence their development by creating ports in states that are naturally suited to such, where infrastructure and pops are readily available to staff them.

Where there is a port and people, there is likely to be trade, and hopefully profit!
DD38 01.png

Yes, trade centers must be staffed. Goods do not just appear in one nation from the next but require the maintenance of bureaucrats, laborers, clerks, and the like to offload and onload cargo, take account of it, tax it, and move it forward. These are for the most part privately owned enterprises that normally have capitalists in charge, instead of government run services. Without pops staffing your trade centers you will find yourself unable to conduct trade in accordance with your aspirations but that shouldn’t be too hard to manage as trade centers have also been historically known to be centers of migration, the first stop of migrants both domestic and international seeking a better life and sometimes finding it.

All the goods moving to and from New York means it's easier for Pops to hitch a ride.
DD38 02.png

Trade centers collect revenue on both sides of the routes they manage, in relation to how many goods are moved and how much the routes affect the prices in their respective markets. This revenue is allocated to the employees and taxed by the same logic as any industry, so who makes money off your trade is related to your domestic policies in the same way as the rest of your economy.

While trade is something every nation can take a part of, how they affect trade in relation to conducting it efficiently, preventing it when it hurts them, or profiting off of it when they can is dependent upon its trade policies, which also dictate how a nation can utiize embargoes and tariffs to achieve such. Yes that’s right, I said tariffs, cue historical excitement of the fanbase.

Where at first there was one law category, now there are two!
DD38 03.png

We’ve done a little restructuring of the economic laws in Victoria 3 since we wrote the Law dev diary, where originally your economic system affected both your domestic and international situations. It has been broken into economic systems which now cover the domestic economy, and trade policy which covers your international endeavors. As such trade policy governs how you interact with a customs union, your ability to set embargoes and tariffs, as well as the general efficiency of your conducted trade.

The Trade Policy laws are broken down into the four categories of ideology relative to the time period which interact with each of the economic systems you can put into place domestically.
DD38 04.png

Embargos represent the ability of a national government to extend its influence in protecting its national market and subsequent interests. Most, if not all nations can engage in embargoing a good but their effectiveness of doing such is dependent upon the trade policy the national government is centered around. A government centered around the ideas of protectionism has an easier time implementing a more efficient embargo on goods vs those that are committed to a more mercantilism or free trade policy. Notice I said influence, not authority there? While it costs authority to enact taxes domestically it costs influence to place embargos as whether or not they are able to be enforced is dependent upon your ability to influence other nations to respect them. Refusing to make fair trade deals will strain your diplomatic corp.

Protectionism means that not only are embargoes easier to maintain, they are also more efficient.
DD38 05.png

And now for the potentially more controversial statement, embargoes are not absolute. Sure you may embargo trade of a specific good into your country but that’s not going to stop it outright, only hinder the ease of its trade. Another nation might try and continue to push goods into your country but it will certainly require more of an effort to facilitate such, it all depends. In history there’s certainly something we can agree upon, embargoing something, making it illegal, or hindering its trade reduces the flow of the good but does not stop it outright if there is a vested interest by another nation and a profit to be made.

Tariffs are the means where a national government extends its influence as an intermediary in the trade between national markets, if not for the means of protecting its national interests, to at the very least ensure it gets its fair share of the profits that such entails. Tariffs are set on both exports and imports leaving the national economy because yes the government is interested in its fair share and if it cannot get the revenue by means of a consumption tax it will find other means. The ratio of this tariff level is dependent on the trade policy set. A more mercantilist trade policy would seek to ensure exports exceed imports so tariffs on exports will undoubtedly be lower. Protectionism is equal in its ratio as it seeks to shelter the domestic economy from booming or busting on either side of the equation. Free Trade, well free trade cares not for tariffs and seeks to profit through other means.

While the laws set the tariff ratio of import/exports these can be customized further in the budget screen by setting their tax levels. Tax levels don’t just bring in revenues but offer incentives to your economic actors, your pops. Lower tariffs encourage trade while higher tariffs will hinder their efficiency because well if the nation is getting a bigger cut, how motivated can you expect the pop to be in engaging in such trade?

A higher tariff means minimizing the profit to be had by business and disincentivizing trade.
DD38 06.png

So how do treaty ports play into these systems, as they certainly existed during the time period? Treaty ports are a means to ensure that you have access to a national market despite such embargoes and tariffs. They are a wedge in the barriers to trade another nation may put up so the goods may be funneled out of the market. Treaty ports have the special function that they permit the bypassing of embargoes and tariffs set in land adjacent markets through trading. They are a more permanent means of opening the market to your access but in the same vein also require a more permanent investment. Since treaty ports are first and foremost ports they will certainly become trade centers and will require the infrastructure and staffing to function. As you invest in this profitable endeavor, be aware that you will need to protect such from the eyes of other imperialist nations who might seek to take it away from you.

At game start Portugal finds itself holding the Treaty Port of Macao, a very profitable trade endeavor, but will such profits attract the attention of greater powers?
DD38 07.png

How do Customs unions come into play here? If you recall from the previous developer diary, customs unions are an agreement between one or more nations where one nation agrees to subject itself to another's national market. By agreeing to subject your national market to another nation you are agreeing to take on the structure set into place by their economic system and policies. While you are still able to enact trade between that national market and another you lose the ability to set embargoes on specific goods and tariff policies across the market, though you do receive your contributing share of the profit of such tariffs. Sometimes this development can be beneficial, sometimes it can majorly hurt your national sources of income, as the previous dev diary goes to great length to summarize “it depends.”

And that's a bit about trade, tariffs, and more! I may not have succeeded in delivering a concise explanation this time but it's certainly a shorter one. Next week is going to be the Kaiser himself (Johan Jons) to talk about Shipping Lanes. I’ll let the fanbase craft their own conspiracy theories about whether or not we are being literal with that one.
 
Last edited:
  • 182Like
  • 68Love
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I have an interesting question here: let's assume that I'm a junior partner in a customs union, and my senior partner is embargoing on certain goods that I desperately need for my nation(grain, fish, coal, etc.) while I can't get those goods from the senior partner. Will my subjects starve to death?

I'd assume embargoes affect trade between markets only.

EDIT: I think I misread your question, and yeah, I would guess your subjects are screwed. This is a danger of submitting your populace to the economic dominance of another. However, your the senior partner's subjects aren't likely to be much better off under this arrangement, so the embargo is unlikely to last forever.
 
Last edited:
I have an interesting question here: let's assume that I'm a junior partner in a customs union, and my senior partner is embargoing on certain goods that I desperately need for my nation(grain, fish, coal, etc.) while I can't get those goods from the senior partner. Will my subjects starve to death?
I thought embargos only lowered the effectiveness of trade routes targeting you, not those targeting everyone in your customs union
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I thought embargos only lowered the effectiveness of trade routes targeting you, not those targeting everyone in your customs union
well your customs union IS your market though.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
well your customs union IS your market though.
Doesn't that imply that either the "Embargos" mechanic is restricted to the head of the customs union, or that everyone in a customs union can change the rules for the whole customs union?

The first option makes sense, but if it was so, I'd think they would have mentioned it
 
Doesn't that imply that either the "Embargos" mechanic is restricted to the head of the customs union, or that everyone in a customs union can change the rules for the whole customs union?

The first option makes sense, but if it was so, I'd think they would have mentioned it
It is not merely implied but explicitly state in the dd...

By agreeing to subject your national market to another nation you are agreeing to take on the structure set into place by their economic system and policies. While you are still able to enact trade between that national market and another you lose the ability to set embargoes on specific goods and tariff policies across the market.​
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have an interesting question here: let's assume that I'm a junior partner in a customs union, and my senior partner is embargoing on certain goods that I desperately need for my nation(grain, fish, coal, etc.) while I can't get those goods from the senior partner. Will my subjects starve to death?
My impression is that you and the senior partner share a national market, so (low Infrastructure aside) you can't have higher prices on staple foods than they do. Of course, that doesn't mean your pops are equally able to pay those prices, but it shouldn't be hugely common for your market leader to crash your economy in such a basic way.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
My impression is that you and the senior partner share a national market, so (low Infrastructure aside) you can't have higher prices on staple foods than they do. Of course, that doesn't mean your pops are equally able to pay those prices, but it shouldn't be hugely common for your market leader to crash your economy in such a basic way.
I agree. And you can leave a custom's union at any time(or after a truce timer if forced into the union through obligation) so if your market's senior partner has decided their pops needs are less important than waging economic war on another country than you can decide to leave that union and find one that will actually provide you with access to the goods you need.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree. And you can leave a custom's union at any time(or after a truce timer if forced into the union through obligation) so if your market's senior partner has decided their pops needs are less important than waging economic war on another country than you can decide to leave that union and find one that will actually provide you with access to the goods you need.

That would likely provide an additional reason to consider for which customs union to join; namely, customs unions that maintain peace are likely more stable and profitable as well. ;)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That would likely provide an additional reason to consider for which customs union to join; namely, customs unions that maintain peace are likely more stable and profitable as well. ;)
Unless you decided your niche is arms export
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm very disappointed in this trade system. There should be an ability to se tariffs on specific goods. Not only that but there should also be an option to embargo specific cuntrys. In your replys you said (to my understanding) that specific tariffs would weaken the embargo ability, but I dont by that argument. If that was the acse, you could simply attach a smaller influence cost to tariff specific goods, while everything else is tariffed on the base level set. Embargoing a good would then cost more, but even if you wnat to protect your industry full on em,bargos of most goods seem silly. Yes I want to save my own clothing factorys, but rather than embargoing other clothes (which would lead to a shortage short term maybe even long term) I woudl raise tariffs to make my clothes more competetive in my market.

The only goods I ever would want to embargo are drugs like opium, goods my population despises, like alcohol for muslims and similar edge case scenarios. If I realistically wnated to use a full on embargo I would rather embargo a single specific country, otherwise it has no use to me. If I know my enemy england buys my coal, which they need and we have a diplomatic incident on the rise, I will embargi coal exports to them. So the only good way to implement this system and make it feel right is single out goods and in the ebst case countrys too. That way you can also implement real substantial trade deals that dont end up in a customs union. For example I can make an agreement with the UK as germany, to set a lower base tariffs for all goods, while excluding specific goods, like making coal tariff free and clothes exempt from the tariffs between us. While the latter is probably a little much in terms of calculating power recuired the setting of specific tariffs is essential for this game, as is the ability to embargo specific countrys. Otherwise this feels just gamey and deliberatly unrealistic. Balancing it with embargos also isn't a huge problem as I see it.

The entire economic model seems a bit broken to me at the moment, construction seems all done by the player, tariffs are just all over the board, It seems like capitalists dont have any influence and the palyer makes all economic decisions (at the moment at least). This all seems very far away from what you said Victoria 3 would be and I personally am very sceptical and grow more and more sceptical about this game. I dont mean to offend, I'm sure the team does what it feels is right, but I dearly hope the team will reconsider at least some of these and other decisions like not beeing able to call people into already active wars. I want to love this game when it comes out and for it not to end like imperator, but stuff like this, which at leats to me seems an obvious mistake, make me belive it will end up beeing a game with great ideas, a great team, but a bad execution in key elements like the econemy and warfare (just to make it clear I like the strategic vision for warfare even if I belive a bit more control, but I mean the lack of an ability to call in further allies and adding new wargoals, and not beeing able to not take whole states outsiude treaty ports), which will let it down. The political part seems as of yet wonderfull, laws institutions. The social aspects seem as great as technology allows them to be (like I would love even more detail but you gotta stop at one point and while I hope to see population divds into men and women further down the line I get why it isnt in right now).

But both will probably not make up the majroity of time managing in Vic 3 but it will be econemy. Warfare is one thing, it will be rare and if it sucks well, it wont ruin teh game even if it will be sad. But the econemy seems so gamey and out of touch with teh great stuff of this game, it is fully controlled by the player (at least it sounds like that), trade, traiffs and embargos seem unrealistic and gamey for the lack of better terminology. I think player agency is great in many ways, but the econemy should be more like warfare for most players, you only get to set rough guidlines, outside of government buildings you shouldnt build anything. I get construction companies and I think they are a ok compromise, the problems there are understandable, but the rest seems to me like the player will need to micro manage it, like warfare before. Which runs so contrary to the philosphy of the game ina ll other systems to my understanding at least. And so to close this appeal, I would like for the dev team to really reconsider the approach to econemy, make it more strategic, lock many abilities like building factorys behind laws, make tariffs indicidual, introduce zoning abilities to cheapen buildings in specific slots etc. If I just totally misunderstood, and most of this is in the game already and I just misinterpreted all the dev diarys before, I apologize. But please if I undertsood right reconsider that part of the game, if I cannot micro units, I should certainly not micro where the glas factory is build.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 1Love
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
That would likely provide an additional reason to consider for which customs union to join; namely, customs unions that maintain peace are likely more stable and profitable as well. ;)
Profitable is a nice phenomenon. However being focused only on profit will get boring and grow dull as gameplay focus as prdx has capped the max. treasury you have and until now chosen the easy way out; avoidance of currencies and assimalating everything into gold BUT capped important note.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm very disappointed in this trade system. There should be an ability to se tariffs on specific goods. Not only that but there should also be an option to embargo specific cuntrys. In your replys you said (to my understanding) that specific tariffs would weaken the embargo ability, but I dont by that argument. If that was the acse, you could simply attach a smaller influence cost to tariff specific goods, while everything else is tariffed on the base level set. Embargoing a good would then cost more, but even if you wnat to protect your industry full on em,bargos of most goods seem silly. Yes I want to save my own clothing factorys, but rather than embargoing other clothes (which would lead to a shortage short term maybe even long term) I woudl raise tariffs to make my clothes more competetive in my market.

The only goods I ever would want to embargo are drugs like opium, goods my population despises, like alcohol for muslims and similar edge case scenarios. If I realistically wnated to use a full on embargo I would rather embargo a single specific country, otherwise it has no use to me. If I know my enemy england buys my coal, which they need and we have a diplomatic incident on the rise, I will embargi coal exports to them. So the only good way to implement this system and make it feel right is single out goods and in the ebst case countrys too. That way you can also implement real substantial trade deals that dont end up in a customs union. For example I can make an agreement with the UK as germany, to set a lower base tariffs for all goods, while excluding specific goods, like making coal tariff free and clothes exempt from the tariffs between us. While the latter is probably a little much in terms of calculating power recuired the setting of specific tariffs is essential for this game, as is the ability to embargo specific countrys. Otherwise this feels just gamey and deliberatly unrealistic. Balancing it with embargos also isn't a huge problem as I see it.

The entire economic model seems a bit broken to me at the moment, construction seems all done by the player, tariffs are just all over the board, It seems like capitalists dont have any influence and the palyer makes all economic decisions (at the moment at least). This all seems very far away from what you said Victoria 3 would be and I personally am very sceptical and grow more and more sceptical about this game. I dont mean to offend, I'm sure the team does what it feels is right, but I dearly hope the team will reconsider at least some of these and other decisions like not beeing able to call people into already active wars. I want to love this game when it comes out and for it not to end like imperator, but stuff like this, which at leats to me seems an obvious mistake, make me belive it will end up beeing a game with great ideas, a great team, but a bad execution in key elements like the econemy and warfare (just to make it clear I like the strategic vision for warfare even if I belive a bit more control, but I mean the lack of an ability to call in further allies and adding new wargoals, and not beeing able to not take whole states outsiude treaty ports), which will let it down. The political part seems as of yet wonderfull, laws institutions. The social aspects seem as great as technology allows them to be (like I would love even more detail but you gotta stop at one point and while I hope to see population divds into men and women further down the line I get why it isnt in right now).

But both will probably not make up the majroity of time managing in Vic 3 but it will be econemy. Warfare is one thing, it will be rare and if it sucks well, it wont ruin teh game even if it will be sad. But the econemy seems so gamey and out of touch with teh great stuff of this game, it is fully controlled by the player (at least it sounds like that), trade, traiffs and embargos seem unrealistic and gamey for the lack of better terminology. I think player agency is great in many ways, but the econemy should be more like warfare for most players, you only get to set rough guidlines, outside of government buildings you shouldnt build anything. I get construction companies and I think they are a ok compromise, the problems there are understandable, but the rest seems to me like the player will need to micro manage it, like warfare before. Which runs so contrary to the philosphy of the game ina ll other systems to my understanding at least. And so to close this appeal, I would like for the dev team to really reconsider the approach to econemy, make it more strategic, lock many abilities like building factorys behind laws, make tariffs indicidual, introduce zoning abilities to cheapen buildings in specific slots etc. If I just totally misunderstood, and most of this is in the game already and I just misinterpreted all the dev diarys before, I apologize. But please if I undertsood right reconsider that part of the game, if I cannot micro units, I should certainly not micro where the glas factory is build.
fully agree 1M steam points - got to have it
look.. they need more time to develop this.. else it actually is a vic 2.5 (not fully using different non controllable game entities like capatalist being more mysterious self acting entity (which is more processor heavy)

If design gui for embargo: u can click embargo all boxes of all goods ticked, but u can untick the one u dont want to embargo.
Example ck3 recently played it wonderful game, but tiny annoying game design flaws (srry i now must be done here else it wont see the light) like raiding
u are raided, u have to wait until raiding effect is over say 30days even if he raided u a half day. Really stiff process steps that have no wiggle room.
This feature not polished made me as playing bohemia deinstall the game.

Nevertheless i want to give some kudos what is going well in current vic3 showcase:
- art work
- gui design colour scheme
- ranking systems and usage of common universal terms like gdp


better could be:
- deepening naval system (next dev diary shipping lanes.. exciting i look forward binoclar emoji)
- deepening troop variety incl. effect of logistics (troops win battles logistics wins war)
- using equipment feature at the least like from game eg. Ultimate General Civil War
- non capped treasury system
- as mentioned by dear forum contributor mr sauridconsider his points
- the choice of investing much in building up key unique industries like early aircraft manufacturing (reaping benefits)
- somehow visibile consumer marketin incorporation of brands if possible, seeing certain corporations grow (ccola?)

my estimate with current material that game is ready for release if acting now is late november this year

until end of june re-design re-consider certain base mechanics while leaving gui design intact is on right track
until end of july showing community new features
until end of august deepening and data filling in new game design
until end of september play testing new mechanics
until end of oktober polishing up
until end of november flag for community approval

Excellent game: me no reason to be involved anymore on forum

Good game: Strong boost and blind fury in buying any future home made prdx of shelf

Mediocre game: Sceptical community toxic seeding and reinforcement of toxic - mistreated - beaten up community members from IR
 
  • 4
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
This all sounds great, but it's left me a bit confused about how trade routes actually work. Are trade routes created entirely unilaterally?

So playing as, say, Belgium I could unilaterally choose to import a tonne of raw materials from the British market and to flood them with my own manufactured exports, and if they don't want that to happen they either need to embargo those specific goods or to raise tariffs?

Given what's been said in the comments about tariffs being universal and embargos being per good rather than per country, it sounds a bit like this could get really exploitable? What are the limits to setting up trade routes? Is it just if you've got enough pops to staff the trade centres and enough money to afford it? It seems like it could make it quite easy for a well-populated country to just suck all of the key goods out of a smaller country, and the only way they could respond is to try to shut down ALL foreign trade with all countries?

Which tbf in some ways is maybe not entirely unrealistic, and probably an improvement on Vic2 - probably good to make economic penetration and warfare more granular - but it seems like it could lead to some weird situations (outside the time period, but e.g. it would be a bit like Cuba having to embargo all trade with the USSR and everywhere else, just in order to curtail American influence in its domestic economy)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes I want to save my own clothing factorys, but rather than embargoing other clothes (which would lead to a shortage short term maybe even long term) I woudl raise tariffs to make my clothes more competetive in my market.
Their price is more competetive not the production function, big difference.

The only goods I ever would want to embargo are drugs like opium, goods my population despises, like alcohol for muslims and similar edge case scenarios. If I realistically wnated to use a full on embargo I would rather embargo a single specific country, otherwise it has no use to me. If I know my enemy england buys my coal, which they need and we have a diplomatic incident on the rise, I will embargi coal exports to them.
So another country would sell your coal at premium to England?

The entire economic model seems a bit broken to me at the moment,
Homogenous goods and homogenous job-workforce is a bit sad, but the latter is definitely necessary for computations sake, unless abstracted somehow. And variants for every good is definitely mod area as performance will take a nosedive. By far the best economic model they ever had and this one can be modded into Herlitz and Krugmann model abstractions.

construction seems all done by the player, tariffs are just all over the board, It seems like capitalists dont have any influence and the palyer makes all economic decisions (at the moment at least). This all seems very far away from what you said Victoria 3 would be and I personally am very sceptical and grow more and more sceptical about this game.
The economic model is functions on the abstraction level not player interactions.

I dont mean to offend, I'm sure the team does what it feels is right, but I dearly hope the team will reconsider at least some of these and other decisions like not beeing able to call people into already active wars. I want to love this game when it comes out and for it not to end like imperator, but stuff like this, which at leats to me seems an obvious mistake, make me belive it will end up beeing a game with great ideas, a great team, but a bad execution in key elements like the econemy and warfare (just to make it clear I like the strategic vision for warfare even if I belive a bit more control, but I mean the lack of an ability to call in further allies and adding new wargoals, and not beeing able to not take whole states outsiude treaty ports), which will let it down.
I personally love the military changes, but whether it's good or bad is very debatable and very subjective. The economy model on the other hand is far superior than anything Paradox had before and pushing in the direction of complex and complicated mechanics, but easy to learn and manage IS very good as this will allow more simulationey mechanics while still having a wide market appeal.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Their price is more competetive not the production function, big difference.

Which triggers another of the very interesting interactions between systems in Victoria 3; when you force your people to buy more expensive goods from your own factories, it keeps money in the economy, but it makes the standard of living drop as the people can now afford less clothes (or have to save on furniture to buy clothes).

Far better would be to produce something else at a competitive price and sell to the market supplying you with clothes, to equal out the trade balance that way. Of course, that builds dependency on trade, which could be a bad thing if war breaks out and you lose access to your trade partners.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Which triggers another of the very interesting interactions between systems in Victoria 3; when you force your people to buy more expensive goods from your own factories, it keeps money in the economy, but it makes the standard of living drop as the people can now afford less clothes (or have to save on furniture to buy clothes).
And in the end you reduce domestic demand for your competetive goods as budget decreases, this is one of the reasons, why I think base mechanics for economics are well done.

I mean I hate open economy-systems, but given how trade and trade ports look I am very certain that the shortage modifier will be good enough, that I can accept the open economy as an abstraction for black markets not directly observable. ( And I am certain the time saved on fixing a closed economy is well spent on mechanics )

Far better would be to produce something else at a competitive price and sell to the market supplying you with clothes, to equal out the trade balance that way. Of course, that builds dependency on trade, which could be a bad thing if war breaks out and you lose access to your trade partners.
System-interdependence is also a big reason why I like what the devs have shown so far. I am more concerned with the mechanics than raw numbers.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Far better would be to produce something else at a competitive price and sell to the market supplying you with clothes, to equal out the trade balance that way.
This way lies the Middle Income Trap.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: