Income early in a game

[Balin son of Fundin]

Ok this post is just to inform you about how your conquest decisions in a game will effect your income.

I will use the English as an example: At the start of the campaign we have 5/6 provinces with either tradable goods or a resource and 5/6 which are eligble to build ports. This is very handy as you can quickly build up a nice trading income by building merchants etc. combined with ports and ships.

As the English there are a few provinces that are ripe for the taking if you can get in there fast enough. For this example we will use Scotland and Navarre. You might say it would be better to conquer Scotland, so that your control the majority of the British Isles and the fact that it will give a faction like France no opportunity to attack you from the North and the South... Ok Valid point, but Scotland has no tradable goods or resources and it can be conquered later as the AI factions also start with only around 6000 florins. If you take Navarre on the other hand it has iron, which by building mines and merchants, as well as a port, can quickly start bringing in the cash.

On the other hand you could expand to the east by taking Norway and Sweden before the Danes do, you could have 2 provinces bringing in a combined total of around 1.8k florins if both provinces have full upgrades. You could then continue down and take Denmark, wiping out the Danes in the process, and these 3 provinces alone would bring in around 2.5k anually.

With the other English provinces added to this with all upgrades, and not making too many enemies, if you have a decent trading route by sea, which reaches the Mediterranean and also into the Baltic, to Trade with Novgorod, Poland, Byzantines etc. you can be bringing in 10k+ in only a few decades into the game, which will then enable you after time to become a formidable military power.

However if you choose the wrong places to conquer, and make enemies in the process, you can quickly become in debt, whilst losing provinces at the same time, meaning your game has gone from very comfortable, to quite uncomfortable.

I would also recommend if you are going to conquer Christian owned land i wouldn't get excommunicated early otherwise, crusaders like France and Spain wont need to be asked twice by the Pope to crusade against you..

Hope this helped https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[TonkaToys]

Thanks for the info, I wish I'd had it before I started my current campaign.
Playing as English, I immediately attempted to consolodate my control of the British Isles by capturing Wales, then Scotland then Ireland.
I made a treaty with the French (sorry to all English readers out there) and Spanish in order to secure my continental borders, and remained neutral with the HRE.
It took me ages to get to a position where I had enough income to no longer worry about the French and HRE, and to be able to expand.
Your info will certainly help in my next campaign, so I should be able to move faster.

[WorkNeglecter]

Navarre has no trade goods, and iron cannot be mined. No merchant can be built, and therefore a port brings no extra income. Navarre is a low-income province, good for strategic purposes and for weapons upgrades.

[Balin son of Fundin]

Np mate https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

I'll give another example using the Byzantines.

Early on you have to deal with alot of attacks mainly from the Turks and the Egyptians. In this campaign you can afford to lose a province or 2 that dont have the tradable resources, but while doing this it is a good idea to take provinces around the Black Sea which are rich in goods eg: Khazar or Kiev, which will strengthen your trade routes, and will give you economical footing in the world.

Early on you also have the Sicilians to deal with who will no doubt try to take the Naples. However if you can strike first and take Sicily which is rich in tradable goods, you will not only add alot of income, it will also cripple the Sicilians as they will have no income, as Malta has no resources or goods to be traded.

While playing a faction which is powerful like the Byzantines, early on it is really easy to make huge profits, but if you were to play as the Aragonese, it might be an idea, to bribe somewhere which is rich in either tradable goods or resources to help get the ecomony kick started. Bribing somewhere like Khazar or Sweden playing as a small faction like the Aragonese also gives the benefit of somewhere where your king etc. can be ransomed back to if Aragon (in this case) was attack by , England, France, Spain or the Alomahads (which isnt at all unlikely). Not only this, if you do manage to survive such attacks this will enable you to start 2 front against factions like HRE, France, Polish etc. which well is a very nice advantage to have seeing as they will have little place to retreat to.

As you can see decisions which may seem little at the time can indeed have a snowball effect and impact your game considerably.

[Balin son of Fundin]

Quote[/b] (WorkNeglecter @ July 15 2004,17:55)]Navarre has no trade goods, and iron cannot be mined. No merchant can be built, and therefore a port brings no extra income. Navarre is a low-income province, good for strategic purposes and for weapons upgrades.
https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif well i've been made to look like a fool https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Nah thanks mate, i always thought iron could be mined, but as far as i know, if you build a trading post you still get local trading income, or at leas thats what happens in my games.

[Tozama]

Good post and something I always look at when planning my early expansion.

Early in game expansion should never be random and IMO never just to make the map look neat https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif (taking Scotland early on as English seems to serve no important purpose other than to make British Isles all British since I find using it for general training by letting it revolt every year too unrealistic and mechanical for my taste).

My invasion target priorities early in the game are in order from most important to least:
1. Can I afford to be at war with the current controlling faction?
2. Is the province a key strategic location (does it represent a back door into my homelands area)?
3. Does the province have good income and tradable goods or other bonus resources?
4. If I take it do I have the manpower to defend it against the new borders it makes with other factions?

If the answer to any of these questions is no I tend to not attack unless I have a really good other reason to.
Other like some faction pissed me off by attacking me and I am on a revenge bloodletting expedition https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Number 2 I can ignore if the other 3 criteria are met.
Another reason is if I am playing a faction who's early survival forces a strategy of annihilation of another faction regardless of the provinces in the path.
Good example would be playing Egypt I always begin by annihilating the Turks right out of the gate and pay no attention to what provinces they are sitting in.

Typical examples of provinces that offer good cash flow and reasonable strategic location are:
Flanders - Big money maker and doorstep to and from British Isles. A no-brainer usually for English players.

Cordoba - Big trade moneymaker and half door to Morocco (yes they can land in Granada instead from Morocco but they cannot take another step if you have Cordoba well defended).
Egypt - Big money maker and choke point between Mid-East and North Africa.
Constantinople - Big money maker and choke point between Europe and Asia-minor.
Sicily - good moneymaker and always a place for naval showdowns to control the gate to trade with the far east Mediterranean. A shipyard here is a golden thing to have IMO.
Antioch - big money maker and 1 of two paths north-south between Asia-minor and Mid-east.

[Blodrast]

Quote[/b] (Balin son of Fundin @ July 15 2004,09:05)]
Quote[/b] (WorkNeglecter @ July 15 2004,17:55)]Navarre has no trade goods, and iron cannot be mined. No merchant can be built, and therefore a port brings no extra income. Navarre is a low-income province, good for strategic purposes and for weapons upgrades.
https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif well i've been made to look like a fool https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Nah thanks mate, i always thought iron could be mined, but as far as i know, if you build a trading post you still get local trading income, or at leas thats what happens in my games.
the local trading income is insignificant. Your ideas/suggestions are good, but Navarre may be an unfortunate example (for the point you're trying to make).
It's worth taking, however, for another reason: iron (which cannot be mined, but allows you weapon upgrades).
Since there are only 10 (IIRC) provinces with iron on the map, it's well worth taking, since the English don't start with any iron provinces. The Iberian provinces are somewhat handy, though.

[katank]

Rush French ASAP acoording to my blitz plan in guides and you'll still have time for navarre.

after Navarre, sack Aragon and go either into Iberia or lay into HRE.

scotland is great for highlanders who will destroy the peasant hordes that the Eggy have at the crusader states which you need for GA.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I think Navarre is worth taking as English. It is in a strategic position - I'd rather defend against the Spanish there than in Bordeau and if the Spanish take Navarre they can defend with much better troops, hobilars can easy deafeat the weak units holding it AND it gives you the chance to make Spanish Jinettes - my second favourite unit. I agree though, it doesn't give you much income. Flanders is a different matter.

[katank]

provinces are always worth taking.

seriously though, Navarre and Aragon as a pair is the best chokepoint in the Penisular.

Aragon Aquitaine, Aragon Castille, Aquitaine Toulouse, are all viable 2 province borders but Navarre Aragon is the best.

they are the most hilly and with your discounted archers, you can make the defensive battles massacres.

also, Navarre is medium income while Aragon is fairly rich and yields a cmmand star.

both are iron provinces which means buffed attack troops.

[RedKnight]

Good post, Balin... As England, I always get all of England a.s.a.p., Wales for lbows and Scotland specifically to have a worthless province - to make ships from, and build up trade quick. (I hate being conflicted in what I want to build from a region.) My handful of worthless early provinces like this crank out ships for decades and go on to make cannons and then uber boats (Finland's another, being good only for trade).

After the Isles (I do Ireland whenever I can get a round to it), Sweden is always a natural next, then Finland, what the hell. And move down through Denmark and stop at Saxony (if it's easy to get) unless and until it's time to greatly expand the borders. It's lovely how you can hold these 2-4 countries with one border.

Those are really good rules, Tozama In my own eyes, I'd bump up the importance of how a war would impact trade.

For me, Aragon and Spain are an all or none decision... Ultimately you only need to hold two provinces to have strong borders in the north (Aragon and Navarre are the strongest pair, but Toulouse and/or of course Aquitaine as England are also possible). The other border province can ultimately be swung all the way over to Sinai. Still, it can be a good holding pattern to regroup and beef up, to just attack the Aragonese first. I love how Valencia is a guaranteed bridge battle; I love attacking or defending across bridges. All told, Spain is a natural after the nordic lands. Katank, I really need to get around to reading your guide

When expanding further, get any great trade provinces of convenience, of course. (By this time, you should have ships all over.) A fair number of times I've seen Sicily go rebel; it's a lovely place to take.

Past that, one might move on several fronts. Russia is a mess at first, but ultimately highly defensible with only three border provinces. The middle east is messy too, but as a move out from Spain, ultimately adds only one more border province (if capturing all the way from Sinai, to Constantinople plus Georgia or Khazar). Italy is always somewhat fun to take.

My two cents. Conquer on https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[sunsmountain]

I concur with RedKnight, I always conquer Scandinavia first, Spain next. They're easy to defend, and make money and metal weapons.

I leave Scotland alone, Gallowglasses are better than Highland Clansmen anyway. Let them remain rebels, if they so choose.

Most glory goals are easy to reach, not like the Iberian-Spanish culture goal, 30+ buildings? Never got the points..

[katank]

the Iberian GAs are just insane.

@Redknight, my english blitz is actually one of the most detailed ones I have written.

try it.

BTW, as all of you have mentioned, the borders can be minimized easily in several places and so I usually end up conquering around the edges of the map and only later chew up the center as the HRE is rather messy in number of borders.

[gaijinalways]

Certainly taking provinces can be beneficial for either strengthening your borders (by reducing the number of provinces that you need heavy fortification in) or capturing good income producing areas such as Costantinople, Venice, Khazar, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Flanders, Egypt, etc. As mentioned earlier in a trading thread, any province with at least two or more goods to trade and a port is a good money maker once your trading network is up and running.

But even with good trading ports, if you have to declare war on one or more large trading neighbors, unless you can patch things up quickly later, the province gained may not bring any benefit as you'll be fighting wars to hold the ill gotten territory and not get the benefits of trade income as enemies won't trade with you. One additional word of caution, if you are a Catholic nation and like attacking Catholic held provinces, be ready to desist in time after a Pope warning (usually within 2 years) or to be excommunicated.

Another reason to take certain provinces is for special units such as jinnettes, Swiss pikemen, etc. It may be a unit only available in that province or a province with buildings that you would like to obtain to produce those units (in that case, bribery is preferred as going to battle always seems to bring a few buildings down).

I play GA expert games, so I am not usually into grabbing a lot of territory unless it is useful. Even rebel provinces I leave sometimes if they create a buffer between me and other provinces who are enemies or who I suspect will be enemies in the future.

A final note, poor provinces unless they have a resource that is useful (example iron in Navarre) may not be worth the trouble to take unless you are strong enough to hold it after taking it or are close to finishing the game. Places like Algeria and some other areas with poor soil and no trading aspects will perhaps cost more to maintain a garrison in then the income made within the province. One possible reason might be to have a province for building ships, a couple of the in the Med. suit this purpose.

[katank]

summed that up pretty well. Too bad most of my GA games end up with taking extreme number of factions.