• 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.

Tinto Talks #10 - 1st of May 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the final of four on the economy system for our secret game with the code name “Project Caesar”.

Today we will talk about all the things related to trade, including markets, merchants and trades. This talk is heavy on tooltip screenshots, and a lot of concepts to digest, so I recommend checking it through multiple times.

Markets
Let's start with the markets themselves. These are dynamic and will change through the playthrough, as countries can create new markets and disband their old if they so desire.

Each market has a center in a location, and the owner of that location is in control over that market.

Every location and coastal seazone will belong to the most fitting market, which depends on the market attraction of the market, the distance between the location and the market center, diplomatic factors, and more.

IND8u3KEluhwiu85x22WKoYosHcca0_GsOSQ4X3fkAUkxE5HJCluAOPf7Ndp1AOWs3SVq7COQGwn1pqsALYsFUh-JlKW2BQotToqtBQxdVQ_8qTRUrqrkEuG-tpOFKXY3jY2HcqGPDmkFV9dvc6vECg

The Riga market has control over much of the Baltic region in the start..

A market has merchants, who have a power depending on buildings and maritime presence in the market, and a merchant capacity which depends on the infrastructure for trade that country has in that market. The Merchant Power impacts in which order exports from a market are executed, as there is not an endless supply of goods in a market. The Merchant Capacity impacts how much goods the merchants can ship.

DmG80vDbiHg8Lz7za7ZygAL03fx0xES5mMUIPqvzcxicW20awRNeO77099TOeRNkoYxwYrsaiRThpDn_XPNE_mq3uP_Zz8YA5JbLICIemjYwsGEPRf3de9P8CXNI1JGpztSAT1PAPYjSUzinUKaVEQQ

This is the source of the Hanseatic League’s merchant capacity in Riga.



As you can see in the market screenshot, every good has a local price, and a supply vs demand value as well, let's take a look at the beer price in the next tooltip.

J88wyLaCAImVXdvbW7e4YTks4qTitOU--vFt8_SKhlFVS3LRU8H1uSurnqo-L28kbzZXSFTBoz23S9TT49UkpqMVps6KBNUSfw1TCRW2Wh8UIurvvmkxz0ufWPA3ZRugdLJtv2cRUSbrmOkyJ2NdojE

Cheap beer, must be paradise…

Prices change every month towards the Target Price, which depends on the supply and demand of the goods in the market, and the current price stability. Price stability can change through the ages as well.

Supply & Demand
The supply of each good in a market depends on several factors.
  • The output from RGO’s
  • The output from buildings
  • Base Production
  • Burgher Trades

So what is ‘Base Production’? Some goods like clay, lumber, sand and stone are produced in every market, without the need for specific RGO’s, even if an RGO with that raw material can produce much more, and there are buildings that can be built to provide these as well.

Also, your burghers will trade on their own, if they have the capacity for it. They will attempt to address needs within the market, and can trade in a slightly shorter range, thus enriching their estate. There are laws and privileges that impact them, like the “Trade Monopolies” estate privilege that the Hanseatic League has granted in the earlier screenshot, which reduces their own merchant capacity by 25% to increase the capacity of the burghers by 100%

So what about demand? This is primarily from the maintenance, input, and construction of buildings, recruiting and maintaining armies and navies, and the demands of the population, but there are more sources as well.

Of course, trades themselves impact supply and demand as well.

Trade
You can use your merchant capacity in a market to either export a good from that market, or import a good from another market. Of course that market needs to be within your trade range, which is not world-spanning in 1337.

A trade is a variable amount of goods shipped from one market to another market, purchasing it for the local price in the exporting market. The longer the distance between the markets, the more capacity each good will require to ship, and higher the maintenance costs will be.

Trades have an impact on the last land location they are in before leaving the market, and the first one they enter in the importing market, giving boosts in development to them over time. A trade always has to trace a path on the map.

N_IzZLynmh-xb_S63dKE5-bOopZ1LQo18PP8xrozl4i5Dpt78lHd2Z0gmu1gKrXelHOvD0weruSAlJYpUfks5RKKNw-U3J-mxFMV1XX88ULIXpfadMP6VBcm3FU70pb9pbyNOCxC_ewWSFWkOQcm3As

Our merchant power makes us get the amount of goods we want in Riga.

There are also the Sound Tolls, if you pass through Öresund or the Bosphorus to consider.

Diplomacy and Trade
There are many diplomatic factors that impact the trade and market mechanics of Project Caesar.

First of all, you can “Deny Market Access” to a nation owning a market, which will reduce the attraction of their markets on your locations, but also make anyone with merchants in those markets upset with you.

You can also request and/or offer market access preference making it likelier for a country’s locations to belong in a certain market.

If you dislike paying Sound Tolls, you can always try to ask for exemption for it through diplomacy with the country controlling the strait.

Some countries have isolated themselves completely, so you need to negotiate a specific exception to allow you to export or import from their markets.

There is also the possibility to embargo a country, which would block the merchants from that country to trade in your markets, and also to not be allowed to move through your country. Of course, this a legit casus belli, so use with care.

Other aspects to Trade
Each market can have specific goods banned for export or import, with one common example being that muslim markets will ban import and export of wine, beer and liquor.

We mentioned in an earlier Tinto Talks that Markets will have stockpiles, so that surplus can be stored for a rainy day. There are buildings that will increase the amount that can be stored.

There is also food in the markets, with prices adapting to the supply and demand of food as well.

ZZti8FBtbpZfZ0U5VjmqbP2fguK-coTm8FO0nn0aMPPpb0wJThjX2_XmvKwD-rJ4ru22FZWqQgQ55P1QfzDdqjx5C_mknn5KpbaG_9TLc3RRBXLDsVz9Q6oUe3zZNSNmbb2OI6gk3JlumV6vPoukAWE

Västra Götaland är Sveriges Kornbod!

There are also automation options where you can assign trading completely to the AI. You can also lock some trades so that the AI will not interfere with them.

Stay tuned, next week we’ll be talking about mercenaries, levies and regulars!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 266Love
  • 175Like
  • 14
  • 3
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
So if the top two locations have e.g. 90% and 89.9% access, the top location could gobble up all of a rare resource before the second one gets any? I feel like it would make more sense for it to be distributed based on the access, so it would be closer to a 51/49 split between those two locations (obviously more complicated for the actual number of locations with access, this example assumes they’re the only two locations in the market).
A split like that would mean that nobody can ever construct anything, since they'll only get a fraction of the construction goods they demand, unless total supply is higher than total demand (but that's a situation where everyone gets everything anyway, so no scarcity and no need to distribute).

It also sounds computationally expensive to actually distribute goods fully across all locations based on such a fraction.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
currently straits only..
wouldn't it make sense for passes (for eg through mountains or deserts) on land to also have this as an option? I think it was mentioned in one of the earlier diaries that there would be a special type of location that wouldn't be settled in but just exist for trade and armies to pass through (or something like that). Shouldn't the owner of such locations be able to impose a fee? Historically, this is how Bavaria became so rich, by controlling alpine passes, no? And Mali, Uzbeks and Marwar, through their respective deserts?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
wouldn't it make sense for passes (for eg through mountains or deserts) on land to also have this as an option? I think it was mentioned in one of the earlier diaries that there would be a special type of location that wouldn't be settled in but just exist for trade and armies to pass through (or something like that). Shouldn't the owner of such locations be able to impose a fee? Historically, this is how Bavaria became so rich, by controlling alpine passes, no? And Mali, Uzbeks and Marwar, through their respective deserts?
Well if you're going to expand it to mountain passes, then why not expand tolls to all roads or waterways? That would definitely be historical.
Just think of the staple right granted to some towns along rivers, or just straight up tolls demanded from merchants along certain routes (which, of course, the cities were trying to fight against, igniting a conflict between cities and what they called robber knights).

I guess the system isn't really set up for something this expansive, but it would be cool if every country could collect tolls on trade passing through their land, and if they own roads, river cities, straits or passes, they would get a small income from any trade tracing its route through those locations, while adding that money as expense to trades. This would naturally end up making countries along popular trade routes more prosperous, while making trade across open seas more profitable for the people owning the trade route. Very historical.

Each location could have a "toll cost" value, which is increased by having a mountain pass, having a road, having a toll station building, having a town/city with a river flowing through, or being a strait. Each trade would pay money to the owners of the locations it's going through, based on its trade value and the locations toll value, unless you have a diplomatic pact to be exempt from tolls.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
A split like that would mean that nobody can ever construct anything, since they'll only get a fraction of the construction goods they demand, unless total supply is higher than total demand (but that's a situation where everyone gets everything anyway, so no scarcity and no need to distribute).

It also sounds computationally expensive to actually distribute goods fully across all locations based on such a fraction.
Maybe I’m misremembering/misunderstood that TT, but I got the impression that partial demand could be met. It’s not a binary yes/no for construction or production, it just takes longer to construct or output is reduced with partial supply.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Maybe I’m misremembering/misunderstood that TT, but I got the impression that partial demand could be met. It’s not a binary yes/no for construction or production, it just takes longer to construct or output is reduced with partial supply.
#9: "In this game, almost all constructions require different materials to progress, and if that material is not available in the local market, then that construction is stalled until the material is available. "

So it is a yes/no. You need to have all materials available or you can't construct. No reduction in construction speed for partial availability, no stockpiling enough goods over several months.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What if you had 40 wool and you had 2 buildings that require 30 each, with equal access. Is it going to give one 30 and the other 10, or each 20?
In another thread, Johan said that all being equal, the order the demand gets satisfied is decided by the location ID. So if two locations both require 30 wool, their market access is equal, but the market has only 40, location #1002 would get 30 and location #1003 would get 10 (or vice versa, Johan didn't remember if it's the higher or lower ID that gets prioritized.
 
#9: "In this game, almost all constructions require different materials to progress, and if that material is not available in the local market, then that construction is stalled until the material is available. "

So it is a yes/no. You need to have all materials available or you can't construct. No reduction in construction speed for partial availability, no stockpiling enough goods over several months.
The material would be available though, just not enough to fully meet the demand. In the current “all or nothing” system for market access, 2nd-place locations might never get the materials they need. Changing it to an access-proportional distribution would enable the high-access locations to get most of their needs and low-access would slowly trickle in. All locations can get something, except 0% market access can’t reach the market at all.

If I need 5 lumber to build a bakery and I can only get 4 per month from the market, I don’t give up building it. I get 80% the first month and finish it up 6 days later. A low access location would get 0.1 per month and take 4 years to build it.

I’m fine with the yes/no system if the gameplay is better or for performance reasons, but the distribution system makes more sense as a realistic simulation.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I find the connection between trade and income still confusing: is trade income the arithmetic sum of what my merchants sell (positive), what my merchants buy (negative) and other stuff (such as tolls I earn from)?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If a rich market based on the low countries didn't survive in testing I doubt this one would either, it doesn't make sense to make a market at game start if it's going to hurt the countries it's based in and the dissapear in a decade.
I think the two are not comparable. That part of Europe is packed dense with multiple strong markets, while Szeben's area is kinda the opposite. The area in question is on the fringes of the Constantinople, Caffa and Pest(Buda) markets. You can see that market access is pretty low around there in most locations.
 
If I need 5 lumber to build a bakery and I can only get 4 per month from the market, I don’t give up building it. I get 80% the first month and finish it up 6 days later. A low access location would get 0.1 per month and take 4 years to build it.
So when you start your construction, you request 5 and because of your access it would be modified by 80% to 4. But then the next month, you would only request the remaining 1 lumber and your market access would modify it to 0.8. Then the next month, you would request 0.2 lumber and your market access would modify it to 0.16. And so on.
Do you see why I said that nobody would be able to construct (when goods aren't in positive supply) if it worked like that?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This is such a waste of game design philosophy.... You talk about estates and privileges and then the french get some unique bullshit. And in the end we end up with eu4 style "unique dlc buttons and gimmicks".

No thanks
And I'm very glad that Tinto does not drop unique mechanics entirely. A solid design philosophy is desirable, but I also want specific flavour and different gameplay for different regions and countries, philosophical purity be damned.
Without so-called "unique bullshit", you'll get the generic blandness of Imperator, which is a game that I'd really like to love for its smartly designed gameplay, but can't get myself to actually play and enjoy, because there are so few countries with specific content that are actually interesting to play (and Imperator 1.0, which had almost no country-specific content at all, was even worse in that regard).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So when you start your construction, you request 5 and because of your access it would be modified by 80% to 4. But then the next month, you would only request the remaining 1 lumber and your market access would modify it to 0.8. Then the next month, you would request 0.2 lumber and your market access would modify it to 0.16. And so on.
Do you see why I said that nobody would be able to construct (when goods aren't in positive supply) if it worked like that?
Yes I see your point. A workaround would be to base imports off market access, which is then used or not based on the actual demand.

Full example with supply of 5, A with 75% access wants 8, and B with 50% access wants 10. A has market share of 60% and B has 40% (normalized access values). First month, A gets 3 from its market share and B gets 2. A still needs 5 and B needs 8. Second month, A gets 3 from its market share and B gets 2. A still needs 2 and B needs 6. Third month, A is able to get 3 but only needs 2 to finish. After A is done, there is 3 supply left and B has 100% market share for that good. Fourth month it gets the last 3 and finishes.

There might be a more complex calculation that includes the demand value for the distribution, but the basic idea is A doesn’t get to hog all the supply that first month when B also has a good amount of market access. This method is worse for construction because it takes A longer to build and B is the same amount of time, but it might make production more realistic by distributing goods across the market better.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What's going on with the borders in Britain, Why is there one Wales instead of two, (The welsh Marches and Principality), and what is happening in Scotland
Mb, it is Second War of Scottish Independence (1332 – 1357). It makes sense if the game starts in the 1330s.
I'm sorry, but the Welsh mark was not an independent state — it was part of England at that time. Border territories... So I think the question about 2 Wales is strange. May the red Welsh dragon judge us!
 
I am liking the sound of how trade/economy works and (from previous Tinto Talks) how centralization/owning land works. If you want to be in full control you play tall and only expand to where you have high control and high market access. Or you can play wide and use vassals to expand your reach and multiple markets to increase market control in your far away border provinces. Hopefully i'm understand it correctly and we see more tall vs wide features since most games just devolve into becoming wide as best. Good to see that tall is feasible as well.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Will we be able to Build the Canal of the Pharoahs aka Nechos Canal? It was a precursor to the Suez Canal and allowed ships to pass from Mediterranean to Red sea in Roman times and only got destroyed during 8th century.
Venetians had a plan to rebuild it together with Mamluks but Ottoman conquest of Mamluks stopped it
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: