Printable View
Does anyone know what the trade bonuses are for the various stages of markets? Are they contingent upon the number of people in the city?
I always wonder whether it is worth upgrading them given that the description gives no indication as to the size of the increases.
I would like to know this as well. I guess it would depend on the types of trade goods available in the province, the number of neighbouring provinces with which you trade, the quality of the infrastructure, the population, whether you have access to a port or not, etc...
Building bigger markets will give extra trade bonuses on their own, its not dependant on population.
If you look in th export_descr_buildings.txt file you can see what the bonuses are for each level (there call something like trade_bonus 1), you can thank CA for showing these in the game as just "increases trade"
Put the market in the building queue, then check your settlement details. The semi transparent trade symbol in the category "income" shows you how much it will add.
or i am a total dumbass
Those do not reflect reality. Believe me. Just try it out yourself, by putting one in the queue, and then using the process_cq cheat to see the actual increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
Each market level has a rather small effect even on large trading hubs. I have not seen any type of market increase my city income by more than 300 mnai. Now, if that city has the largest possible trading port, and the other cities also have large markets and ports, it may be possible, but in any case, there are too many expenditures of both time and money involved to attain such result.
Speaking of trade bonuses, those unique buildings usually have laughable trade bonuses. I have destroyed many of them in my previous Romani campaign and found that they raise the city income by usually no more than 100 mnai. The Herculean Pillars (aka Gibraltar) is the only exception. It is indestructible, but Gader in all of my campaigns has an obscene income, which never reflects its infrastructure and corruption levels. I know it has a gold mine, but still, its income is very high, and it is probably caused by that strait, which gives it a double trade bonus, or so its description says.
Huh... well, excuse me while I destroy those useless Makedonian Royal Tombs. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Yeah, you can do that to pretty much all of those buildings that give the trade and/or morale bonuses. The morale bonuses are unlikely to be working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontline1944
If its 300 mnai per turn, thats 12,000 mnai every 10 years.
Not bad for one building.
That means a level three building could give 36,000 every 10 yrs. Nice.
Definitely sounds worth the expense.
Do the unique structures that raise happiness also not function? If not, I might as well get rid of that false god Zeus...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Using pure mathematics with no regard for logic is a road that leads to only failure, as witnessed thousands of times, most prominently in recent wars. First of all, a level three market is a must for all my settlements with ports.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urg
Second, 300 mnai is the absolute maximum. The most I have ever seen was a 210 mnai bonus, and that from Athenai, the most productive city in EB. There are so many sea trade routes with Athenai that a single market, which ups your trade income through a percentage, will have a great effect.
Thirdly, in the beginning of the campaign money is very tight. Rushing is the largest money maker. For rushing, you need money to build happiness buildings and troops. Even if you are not rushing, level two market is the most the majority of players can afford. By two-three decades you will bathe in money, vainly attempting to find use for it. Better spend the market money on other things in the beginning of the game.
It depends. If the description says that there is no happiness bonus, then no, they do not raise happiness. There is no generic "Wonder" bonus like in vanilla, and I believe that was only for the Temple of Zeus as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontline1944
I think you are right about the morale bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Aradan set me straight on the morale bonus, here is a good post to consider, posted by Ludens on what Aradan said. I have them hidden below.
In bold is the part related to the building bonus, even if it might work the nature of morale on the battlefield is skewed anyway with the command stars and FM moral and experience bonuses.
You are not a d*****s, but do not trust the number of icons:whip:,Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
you have to hover over with the mouse to read the actual numbers for each, and there is also that other screen you can click which I forgot the name of :wall: that shows the trade for the particular city.
Cheers:2thumbsup:
More money = more soldiers = more conquest.
I like traders/markets and other money making buildings.
If its 210 per turn per building/upgrade, thats still 8,400 every ten years for a basic trader/market. Very useful.
The point Amelius Paulus is trying to make is that initially, the best method of quickly making money involves rushing with plenty of troops, swiftly conquering several settlements, raise the happiness in those new settlements to acceptable levels (enough so that most of your troops can move on instead of having to assume the role of a garrison), and continue conquering. Obviously, your biggest asset with this strategy is your soldiers, and money is put to better use training new troops rather than building a market that makes a comparably small sum compared to conquering (consider this: 10 years = 40 turns, in which, as you say and as I assume to be correct, a market will make 8,400 mnai; in 40 turns, an experienced player can capture 3 to 5 settlements, adding thousands or tens of thousands to his population and new trade routes, etc., which will altogether bring in much more money than a market).Quote:
Originally Posted by Urg
However, what I compared here are two rather extreme strategies. I doubt that many people would elect to concentrate all of their resources on training troops and capturing settlements at the complete expense of their infrastructure, or the reverse, that many people would choose to pour all of their money into buildings and leave none for their military.
Personally, I do build markets and appreciate their function - not in increasing trade, but in increasing the population growth rate. More population = more income from taxes. My economic strategy for my Getai campaign relies mostly on this crucial and simple fact.
I agree with you Frontline.
Paulus made two points. Firstly, trade buildings (eg. markets) are not worth building. Secondly, unique buildings with trade bonuses are so worthless that they should be destroyed.
I thought it should be pointed out that the worth/value of trade bonuses is not short-term wealth, but rather long-term sustainable income.
As your empire grows and you have 4+ standing armies, you need the funds to support them, including both maintenance and recruitment costs. That doesn't mean trade buildings should be built in preference to all other buildings (that's not my view, and I never said it was), but they are certainly worth the effort.
You can get a more detailed breakdown of your trade income which tells what you get from sea trade, land trade etc. Its worth monitoring over several years, not just immediately after building a market in 271 when the trading world is small.
I find that early in the game infrastructure is poor generally so trade is worth a bit less, but as ports and markets open up (even the Eleutheroi seem to build them) my trade income soars. Trade agreements with everybody you aren't killing right now is a must.
It seems take ages for the effects of a newly built market to kick in. Port improvements seem to give an instant and dramatic boost as they give you an extra trade route straight up (so long as there is an available trade-agreed port), so the income can rise by 50% or 33% or whatever.
I also notice once I have a developed trade economy that war with my trading partners devastates income: this is a wonderful bit of game engineering which realistically makes war less desirable. Trade is absolutely vital for non-blitz long term play IMO.
As for the morale thing, maybe it is just a false impression but troops from places with wonder and temple morale bonuses definitely seem to have more staying power and I make them a priority for troop production.
Trade bonus works like a domino... Yesterday I try to destroy a market... and I found in that city, my income just reduced by 120, but in the neighbouring cities, their trade was also reduced too... (varies from 20 to 100)... so I think the market (and hence trade) effect will affect your trade between all your setlements, and any settlements you have a trade aggrement with...