-
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.
Crown power bonuses needs to be nerfed then I guess, as Autocracy government reform gave alone +10% crown power, which will increase trade income by 30-50% early game meanwhile trade efficiency bonuses are +0.5% etc
Overall I think there needs to be a seperate trade tariffs slider, which maximum tax is determined by crown power, and increasing the trade tax will reduce trade advantage, reduce burghers merchant capacity etc, maybe estates satisfaction too, but it might conflict with the normal tax not sure
Also low trade tax should move merchantilism-free trade slightly towards right and high trade tax to the left
Overall I think there needs to be a seperate trade tariffs slider, which maximum tax is determined by crown power, and increasing the trade tax will reduce trade advantage, reduce burghers merchant capacity etc, maybe estates satisfaction too, but it might conflict with the normal tax not sure
Also low trade tax should move merchantilism-free trade slightly towards right and high trade tax to the left
Last edited:
- 44
- 7
- 1
Personally, I care more about the market price-that is, supply and demand-taking trade into account. So, if we sell all our production surplus, the purchase price should increase, and in the place where we sell, it should decrease. This would also significantly reduce income and push the player towards focusing on production.
- 9
- 1
While it is a good change, estates keeping the difference still keeps the huge amount of money in the economy. I still think "market" building should be nerfed or softcap somehow. Put it at a later date? Reduce the trade capacity and advantage it gives? Increase the cost to 500? Limit it to 1 per city? (why would a city have more than one market specially in this period?)
Also as mentioned above, that just makes the meta to get rid of estates as soon as possible and get crown power to 100% since that means basically free money again.
It is a good step but I still think they need to give it another think after testing and seeing the results.
Also they need to fix the issue of supply from trade not affecting the price. That is a huge boost to trade out of nowhere and makes no sense
Agreed to the extent of my issue in my post with burghers keeping all the money. But instead of metagaming arbitratry mechanics like crown power affecting it I agree with you that it would be best to just give it all to your estates and then you tax them or at least have a trade tariff slider and the rest goes to the estates.
Also as mentioned above, that just makes the meta to get rid of estates as soon as possible and get crown power to 100% since that means basically free money again.
It is a good step but I still think they need to give it another think after testing and seeing the results.
Also they need to fix the issue of supply from trade not affecting the price. That is a huge boost to trade out of nowhere and makes no sense
Agreed to the extent of my issue in my post with burghers keeping all the money. But instead of metagaming arbitratry mechanics like crown power affecting it I agree with you that it would be best to just give it all to your estates and then you tax them or at least have a trade tariff slider and the rest goes to the estates.
- 25
- 4
I dislike the approach they have. "Trade income" as it is now should not be a thing. Taxes on burghers and other estates, port fees for passing trade and tarrifs should be the replacement of "trade income". Most of the income that currently state is getting should go to burghers and some to other estates. Limiting "trade income" with crown power but still keeping it as a source of income for the state is non-sense
Last edited:
- 39
- 14
- 3
It could easily be calculated based on % estate power and also, mainly, on trade buildings ownership. As most of trade buildings are staffed by burghers, that part of the calculation would go to them 100%, but if you have in a market market villages staffed by peasants, a % proportionate to the capacity of those buildings could go to the commoners.
Then also a small % would go to nobility and church depending on their weight on economy maybe as they do also conduct SOME trade to a small extent.
- 4
However, managing trade and having a lot of control over the flow of goods seems really fun from a gameplay perspective.
- 4
- 1
I still think the amount of money generated by trade is still just too high, especially early game. A good start though.
EDIT: Really the state(IE You) shouldn't profit off much trade at all rather you should be taxing trade/goods. AFAIK the majority of income for most states in the early game should still be taxes from agrarian workers and estates. The mechanisms for most states to profit off trade would have to develop over the period.
Less income off trade will also make minting more valuable to pursue.
EDIT: Really the state(IE You) shouldn't profit off much trade at all rather you should be taxing trade/goods. AFAIK the majority of income for most states in the early game should still be taxes from agrarian workers and estates. The mechanisms for most states to profit off trade would have to develop over the period.
Less income off trade will also make minting more valuable to pursue.
- 15
- 1
It would be nice if we could see at least a 5 minute clip of the game after the trade nerf to see how it has effectively changed? Or a screenshot of a income balance on 1339 and another in 1390? To see the comparison?
- 1
My main idea behind it was to give some money to other estates because they do help to produce it, they sell them to burghers (and if there is bigger demand even sell with additional profit) and sometimes they also indeed staff the buildings. But yes, vast ammount of the "trade income" should go to burghers.
- 1
This. I think the problem of 70% of the economy becoming trade still persist. You just see less money as the crown, but the economy will still snowball badly. Trade, like in EU4, should start very small and increase over the centuries as the economies globalise. This also removes a big problem with trade: It is a micromanagement hellhole. Even people who love the system and were hyped about it are just automating it because it is impossible to manage it because you get so much trade capacity that by 1350 you can't possibly manage 50 trade routes.
I still think that trade capacity from buildings should be severely nerfed.
To properly give feedback and see if the change actually works or not and leads to a more balanced situation after a few years of gameplay
- 8
- 5
- 1
All sorts of things are fun. But that doesn't mean they should be in the game. I like playing farming games. Should now each state take care of potato harvests and see that every field has enough nutrients, because they get income from growing plants?
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
In the game, we have population needs and countries focused on trade. We also have automation, so this shouldn’t scare anyone away. It just needs to be balanced.
- 4
- 1
Main focus in the game should be the state and not being a merchant. It isn't Anno. And again, state can still benefit from trade (for example by taxing burghers or with tarrifs). But they shouldn't benefit from it directly. King Henry VI isn't going to different European and Asian markets and buying beeswax and spices.. Merchants are.
- 2
- 2
There are literally merchant countries that don't do a lot more than trade. If the gameplay around trade already exists for them, there is no reason that it can't be available when playing other countries as well, just with the difference that normal countries shouldn't be able to get nearly as much income directly from trade.
- 12
- 1
- 1
Even in case of Merchant Republics wealth from trading did not go directly to Republics but to the Merchants and then they (the Merchants) were taxed or when they were ruling the country sometimes gave it to the state voluterily. The current "trade income" system is not fit to any country in the game.
And again. I am not against trade being in the game. I am against trade income going straight to the state.
Last edited:
- 8
- 3
But what you described is exactly how it works now? The state only gets a portion of the trade revenue.
Taxes on trade did exist and so did state monopolies on trade, so I don't see why that's not a good representation.
- 5
The exception being the banking countries, who aren't actually states and the "government" is just the people that run the bank. If you're playing as a company like that then "trade income" makes sense. But yeah, for any state in the game, which is 99% of the tags, you shouldn't really be making "business income" unless you've created some sort of state-owned enterprise, or a national bank collecting interest on loans. Feels like a late-game thing.
- 2
"trade income" should not be an income source. Tarrifs, taxes on burghers, port fees etc should represent that income. It is stupid to have "trade income" going straight to the state and not burghers and it is as stupid to now nerf it based on "crown power" that has nothing to do with how much state can get out of local and foreign burghers with taxes, tarrifs and fees.
- 3