'The MP Economic Domination Guide' discussion thread

[Matt_the_king]

Excellent guide Ryo! I really agree with most of what you posted but to the inflation part... Now if a player plays as Spain or Austria they get the Fugger event that reduces 5% inflation. After the player reaches 5% and lets say there was no Gold inflation that player would pull all the way back left. Now the event fires up and the player takes the deflation choice the player depending on what country they played just made easy money with little or no affect on their Economy. Now im only in High School and i may not fully understand that part so if you see any problems to my post correct me. Other then that great post!

 

[unmerged(18418)]

This is excellent, but I would like to see you get even more basic and thorough. I am finding that there is so much to this game that is not in the manual or in any readme file. I would like to see you explain just how the trading system works, how the production system works, a breakdown of the taxes you get and what affects them, etc, etc. Also perhaps some strategies on how to invest for different countries, such as Portugal going for trading tech whereas Austria would go for infra tech, etc.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

A few comments and additions.

-Merchants: I usually try to send merchants to CoTs with empty spots. However when there are none and I have to compete someone out 3 merchants is a good number. It depends on the relative competetiveness of course.
Merchants should always be send to CoTs where they stick for a long while first. After you have filled them you can still send just (or almost) as many merchants to CoTs where you are competed out on a regular basis, but you will have the income form the easy CoTs in addition to that of the difficult ones. If you start with the difficult CoT you will only have the income from them. unfortunately the only way to know for sure which CoTs are easy and which difficult for sure is test. You can get a pretty good idea before testing, though. CoTs with many traders of your religion are easier than those without them. CoTs were the other human players have a stable number of traders are often easier. I. e. CoT were 3 people have 5 traders is better than were 10 people have numbers ranging form 1-3 . The number of nations the CoT is default CoT can be a good indicator. You can also observe the CoT for a while. If it's always the same nations there and the levels are stable it's probably an easy CoT.

-Colonization: the trouble with TPs is that they are burnable. I would only consider then for 2 base tax or lower provinces in easily defensible areas.

-Infaltion: You fail to take into account that your growthrate is highly dependend on your investments. Minting a bit money can do wonders for your tech in the long-run . 200 ducats income and 10% infaltion is better than 150 income and 5% inflation.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

You brought up something that is a good example of how more casual players like myself don't know certain basics of the game because they are not in the manual or in readme's. You said that trading is affected by religion. I did not know this at all until now. I got a gist of how it works from your comment, but could you go into a little more detail? I always thought that trading against non-Christians was preferable since they are likely to have lower trading tech, but it seems that you are saying the opposite.

 

[unmerged(16896)]

Somtimes it is possible to actually lose inflation per year if you have enough governors in enough provinces although generally this only happens if you reach superpower status.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Edited the primary post to include the following updates:

Addition of the "Alternate Trading Strategy: Looking for Empty Slots" section to reflect the input of Stein and Daniel in the main forum.

Added a "security" statement regarding the ability of TPs to be burned to reflect the input of Stein.

Added a note at the end of the Inflation section to answer Matt's question about events that lower inflation.

Added a statement to answer the critique of Stein about growth offseting inflation losses.


------------------------
Still working on a response to some of Edge's requests.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

ClashofCivs: Under the beta patches, promoting governors does not reduce inflation by 1 percent per governor. Instead, inflation is reduced by an amount each month based on the percentage of your provinces with governors. At 100% governor promotion, you deflate about .25 percent a year.

 

[arcorelli]

IMHO, the next part of the guide should concentrate in 2 aspects that are important on MP domination: Wars and Diplomacy. At least for me, those are the tricky part

How to conduct good economic policy when in war? How to think about wars in a economic manner? How to think of defense spending as a investment? (i.e when is better to spend your ducats in refineries on in forts and so on)

And diplomacy I think is important, since trade income depends heavily in not be embargoed I know situations when a country income has suffered a serious setback because a couple of players decided to embargo that country.

 

[unmerged(16459)]

at ryoken69:

You should metion the increased risk of getting embargoed when sending more than two traders ... .


Other than that, I agree that most players need a "quick and dirty rules of economics" lesson. Thank's ryoken for starting this thread.

Though this is probably not the right thread to do it in: I would also ask one of the vets ... (Peter, your reading this right?) to do a "beta patch update" on DP slider settings.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Edits made to main post:

Added statement addressing possible AI embargos; as suggested by Tricon.

Currently working on new sections on "Economics and Warfare" and "Economic Diplomacy" for Arcorelli and a new section on "The Game Dynamics of Trade" for Edge.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Tricon
at ryoken69:

You should metion the increased risk of getting embargoed when sending more than two traders ... .

Well. In a large multiplayer game, you will either be trading in European cots, which are most likely controlled by another player and thus, will likely not be embargoed...

Or, you're trading in the Far Eastern cots, and they probably won't have trade 4 until around the time the Europeans start annexing them anyways. You can flood AI cots all you want until they manage to get to trade 4, which can take some a very very long time...

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I agree Damo, but it can happen sometimes.


Edited in the new "Economics and Warfare" section.

 

[Damocles]

RE: Inflation

Inflation from 5-7% is acceptable to me. Around this range, you still stand to benefit from the exceptional year events to the full effect. Nothing sucks more then having 1% inflation, and getting a 5% deduction to it.

Anything beyond 10%...Provided you don't have events that increase it beyond your control, is pretty fiscally irresponsible. Nothing bemuses me more then someone in a war over 1 or 2 provinces, who chooses to rack up 5-10% inflation over the course of the war, rather then cut their losses. (Peter, I'm looking at you!).

The greater your income, the more inflation hurts as well. If I am making 200d a month, and I can choose between either giving up one or two border provinces, or fighting to a stalemate at the cost of 10% inflation, I'll choose the former...The exception to this would be if someone is absolutely trying to disembowl you. In the case, fight on and hope for intervention. It wouldn't be like the terms could get any worse. The famous Condottiere Carmagnola used to always leave his enemy a route of retreat, believing that cornered, desperate men would fight more viciously, then those who believe escape is possible. Of course, that was a simpler, more gentle era. Past the 17th century, total annihilation became much more fashionable. Yet I digress. On a grand, strategic diplomatic scale, it is still good sense.

For example, look at the war between Russia and Poland vs the Ottoman Empire in Machiavelli. During the course of it, the Russian inflation increased about 0.7 percent, and the Polish inflation actually decreased due to an event. Meanwhile, the Ottoman inflation rose nearly 15%. Granted, the war dragged on for almost 20 years, but half the time, it was just Ottoman and Russia one on one, and yet the Ottomans were destroying their economy, while still receiving thousands of ducats from Austria, Spain , France and the Netherlands. Yet some people still had the nerve to call it a stalemate. It was just foolishly prolonging the inevitable.

In any case...I have much more respect for someone who can look at the geopolitical situation and decide to logically cut their losses then someone who fights to the bitter end, then expects to get the same leniant terms proposed a decade earlier.

Granted. There are many situations where two sides are roughly equal in strength, to warrant an extended war, as well as certain coalition efforts. But we've all seen uneven brawls where some die hard optimist does more long term damage to himself by continuing a fruitless conflict then his opponent.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by ryoken69
I agree Damo, but it can happen sometimes.


Edited in the new "Economics and Warfare" section.

I've actually used the AI penchant to embargo to get free CBs on certain juicy cots. By the time they are advanced enough to embargo me, I'll be advanced enough to reach and give them a good drumming..

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Re: The MP Economic Domination Guide

Originally posted by ryoken69

Unless you are having severe revolt problems (like Spain, Russia, and OE during certain periods) or about to enter a war or be attacked, you should run half-maintenance. Do not sit your army on a province likely to revolt, but keep it on a safe province nearby. When there is a revolt, up the maintenance slider, move to kill the rebels, then lower the slider again. The same applies to the naval slider and pirates. DIE SCUM! The savings of running half-maintenance are huge. Just remember to push the slider back up during wartime!

An interjection, here. In the 1.07+ patches, the rebels' morale is tied to the nation that spawned them. Thus, by going full maintenance in order to kill rebels, you are increasing both your own AND the rebels' maximum morale and neither of you will gain the morale increase before next month, when the province will already be looted.

Thus it does not really pay to increase maintenance when fighting rebels, as you do not get any advantage from it.

As such, I now - unlike earlier patches - vastly prefer sitting armies on high RR provinces in most situations. It deprives me of the option not to engage the rebels, of course, but makes it more likely to avoid looting. In most cases, a good tradeoff.

On Pirates, however, I will agree with you, as they do not have their morale tied to yours.

 

[ForzaA]

On economy and warfare: capturing Baden does not only give you added income, it also decrease that of someone else (one should take that into account) but it also likely increases the chance of war, and thus a higher investment in the military/forts may be needed.

 

[TheArchduke]

Nice piece as soon as it is finished make a new thread and let it be stickied and closed..

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Damocles
RE: Inflation

Inflation from 5-7% is acceptable to me. Around this range, you still stand to benefit from the exceptional year events to the full effect. Nothing sucks more then having 1% inflation, and getting a 5% deduction to it.

Anything beyond 10%...Provided you don't have events that increase it beyond your control, is pretty fiscally irresponsible. Nothing bemuses me more then someone in a war over 1 or 2 provinces, who chooses to rack up 5-10% inflation over the course of the war, rather then cut their losses. (Peter, I'm looking at you!).

The greater your income, the more inflation hurts as well. If I am making 200d a month, and I can choose between either giving up one or two border provinces, or fighting to a stalemate at the cost of 10% inflation, I'll choose the former...The exception to this would be if someone is absolutely trying to disembowl you. In the case, fight on and hope for intervention. It wouldn't be like the terms could get any worse. The famous Condottiere Carmagnola used to always leave his enemy a route of retreat, believing that cornered, desperate men would fight more viciously, then those who believe escape is possible. Of course, that was a simpler, more gentle era. Past the 17th century, total annihilation became much more fashionable. Yet I digress. On a grand, strategic diplomatic scale, it is still good sense.

For example, look at the war between Russia and Poland vs the Ottoman Empire in Machiavelli. During the course of it, the Russian inflation increased about 0.7 percent, and the Polish inflation actually decreased due to an event. Meanwhile, the Ottoman inflation rose nearly 15%. Granted, the war dragged on for almost 20 years, but half the time, it was just Ottoman and Russia one on one, and yet the Ottomans were destroying their economy, while still receiving thousands of ducats from Austria, Spain , France and the Netherlands. Yet some people still had the nerve to call it a stalemate. It was just foolishly prolonging the inevitable.

In any case...I have much more respect for someone who can look at the geopolitical situation and decide to logically cut their losses then someone who fights to the bitter end, then expects to get the same leniant terms proposed a decade earlier.

Granted. There are many situations where two sides are roughly equal in strength, to warrant an extended war, as well as certain coalition efforts. But we've all seen uneven brawls where some die hard optimist does more long term damage to himself by continuing a fruitless conflict then his opponent.

I wouldn't even be caught dead giving money to the Turks

 

[unmerged(18866)]

OK. I'd like to add a few thoughts and even criticise a little, but of course, generally, in my opinion - this post was fantastic.
Great idea, great work, a huge amount of useful knowledge.

1. Merchants in CoT's
You wrote about Venice: merchants cost: 15, income: 17,5.
Shouldn't it be 12,5? 250*1/20 is 12,5
But that's not the point.
First of all - you must still remember about Trade efficiency. In the begining, a lot of countries have trade at ~25%. And than what with your calculations? You should consider it in your compendium.
That it's:
Venice 250
Sending 3 merchants: 15
Year income: 12,5*0,25=3,75
Kicked away after ... let' say one year.
Loss=11,25

2. Morale
As someone said, rebels morale relates to your. And, you must remember, that it takes some time for troops, to raise it to maximum. Have you got enough time on MP, to change sliders, control rebels, attack in proper moment, than change slider again ...

3. Inflation
You seem to be very experienced player, so maybe it's a bit incautious to get into discussion with you, but <someone else wrote a little about it>:
In my opinion, it's also not very wise to keep treasury income at minimum for almost all the time. I think, that efficieny graph of inflation/income slider is someting like a hill, with light (but still) growth from 0% inflation to it's peak, and than steep fall.
Why? INVESTMENTS is the key word.
OK, you've got 0% inlation, but what for you need it, if you've got no money to buy your cheap facilities???
Which is better? To have 1000G minted and have to pay 333 for fortress, or to have 120G minted and pay 250 for fortress?
OK, in long run IT MAY pay, but remember, that in MP noone will wait centuries for you. It's better to have 50k solidiers, little cash, but defend your kingdom and than expand a bit, than have 10000G "invested", 10k army, and get ass kicked.

In my opinion, you shouldn't be afraid of using treasury income slider. Just - don't mint usless money. Use it for expansion! You'll have inflation on 30% level, but three times as big country. And you'll have a lot of fun from the game

4. Last, little though.
How do you want to have money for colonists, manufactories etc. without minting money?!?!
Of course - peace resolutions, merchants income ... but that's just not enough.

PS. Sorry, my language might be a little simple and my sentences not perfectly clear Sorry for that, I hope you'll understand my point of view

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Added a response to Damocles justification/critique about running 5 percent or higher inflation and getting exceptional year/deflation events.

Added a statement about using AI Embargos to DOW for their COT to reflect input by Damocles.


Added a statement regarding rebel control to accomodate input by Peter Ebbesen.

Corrected calculation error pointed out by Biceps (nice work).

Added a note that my COT/Merchant example assumes 100% Trade Efficiency. Since the TE would be applied equally to both COTs and the loss would be proportional, I see no substantial problem with the analysis.


-------------------------------
Forzaa's comment is going to be addressed in the upcoming diplomacy section.

Brief Response to Biceps:

1. Yes, you should easily have time to move your sliders to full maintenance and time your attack properly on Below Normal or Normal speed setting (at least I have never had a problem with that).

2. I never said dont print a dime. I said if you NEED cash, print it. But dont print it frequently or through a permanent setting (20% in my example). I would advocate short printing for a huge investment, like a manufactory or promoting baliffs. For nations like Portugal, England, and Holland who make most of their money off trade (and therefore will not have large census tax returns), you may need to print one month a year during rough times. That is not so bad as long as you devote a lot of research to infrastructure technology.

3. People will wait centuries for you. Many games make it over 200 years or more. The impetus for me writing this FAQ was subbing for an England with 24 percent inflation in the 1700s. Most of the things I have talked about return on their investment rather quickly; at most 30 years.

4. I am not advocating keeping small armies. I suggest every nation keep their maximum supportable army at all times. Keep in mind that all that minting will set you back in technology and my slightly smaller army with a CRT advantage will defeat your larger one. Sweden vs Russia is the classic example of this.

5. You should have a plenty of money available to you through census taxes to run your nation. The key is to use (and save) it wisely.